Did Joseph Smith teach Adam-God?

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think that your interpretation is reasonable. This is definitely the mainstream interpretation.

A couple of counterpoints:

1) Joseph Smith didn’t say that Adam received the keys of the universe from Jesus Christ. According to Adam-God, Adam would have received these keys from his Father and Grandfather. 

There’s also the the statement by Joseph Smith from the King Follett discourse about God the Father giving his kingdom to his son, Jesus Christ, and then taking a higher kingdom. 

It doesn’t make any sense to me that if Adam isn’t God the Father that he would have the keys of the universe in the first place. Over this world only, sure, but over the entire universe, no. Nor does it make any sense that he would deliver these keys up to Christ? Why would Adam be losing authority in the great council at Adam-ondi-Ahman?

Joseph Smith also states that Adam cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present his kingdom to the Father. Which clearly suggests that Adam is gaining authority, not losing it. 

2) The endowment doesn’t ever identify Elohim as God the Father or Jehovah as Jesus Christ. It only identifies Michael as Adam. I understand why you (and pretty much every endowed member) assume this, but it’s never actually stated. 

3) There are several statements by Joseph Smith that appear to have Adam higher in authority than Christ, too. So which do we go with? 

4) The issue with Noah/Gabriel is more complicated. On the surface it does appear to be problematic for Adam-God. But if we dig a little bit deeper, we find that this isn’t necessarily problematic. 

For one thing Joseph’s understanding was undoubtedly incomplete in 1839. He would have learned more over the next 5 years. 

The scriptures and statements by Joseph Smith on the identity and mission of Gabriel are a bit puzzling. For example, in D&C 27, Joseph Smith identifies Gabriel as Elias who will restore all things. 

6 And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days;
7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;

But then in D&C 77 he identifies Elias who will restore all things as John the Revelator. 

Then there’s also this statement by Joseph Smith about Adam and Gabriel:

"These men held keys, first on earth, & then in Heaven."

What do you think this means? You already acknowledged that Adam held keys prior to coming to this earth. So what does it mean that these men held keys FIRST on earth and then in heaven?

Wouldn’t this require them to have held keys on a previous earth first? 

 

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Very interesting. So this begs a few questions:

1) Why did Joseph Smith have someone else read this, instead of delivering it himself? 

2) Would Joseph Smith have made any edits to the text later? Editing the wording of revelations later was a common practice of his. He did it all the all the time. 

 

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

As far as I’m aware, you are correct that Joseph Smith uses the title archangel exclusively for Adam/Michael. 

In my mind the title means something like, "head of the angels” “or "head angel." Which could easily be referring to God the Father or alternatively an angel he placed in charge of the others.

What is an angel?

D&C 129

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

Obviously God the Father would be an angel or personage with a resurrected body of flesh and bones, like Jesus following his resurrection. 

 

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Check this out:

Exodus 3

2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

JST Exodus 3

2 And again, the presence of the LORD appeared unto him, in a flame of fire in the midst of a bush; and he looked; and behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not consumed.

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Abraham 1

15 And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands;
16 And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father’s house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of;

 

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I get your logic, I just don’t think it makes any sense for Adam to be the Holy Ghost in the Godhead. I think it makes far more sense for him to be the Father. 

I get the logic here as well.

But according to the King Follett discourse, God the Father is an exalted man who would have lived on an earth governed by his Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Father’s only begotten son. 

This same pattern has been in place for countless worlds throughout the eternities. 

I'm going to do my best to respond to all of this, but sorry if I miss something important. If I do, please let me know!

First of all, in full disclosure, I'm an exmormon at this point. I still have a deep love for Mormon history, especially the doctrinal developments and spiritual events. FWIW, this makes me less biased than some since I'm not advocating for my personal belief or faith. I don't believe either side of the argument. I'm completely open to JS having taught Adam-God as understood by Brigham Young, and in fact, that poem by William Law is definitely eye opening! He seems to understand Adam as an already exalted being, which is awesome. I think that may fit into JS's Nauvoo theology without going full Brigham-style Adam-God. More on that later.

Back to our recent conversation now --  Let's first talk about the 1839 sermon on Priesthood, where JS teaches about Adam's priesthood and the gathering where Christ appears etc. I'm going to try and keep things brief, so I won't do a bunch of quotes. If anyone wants to read the full thing, here is the link again: http://boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1839/8Aug39(1).html. While this sermon does lay the groundwork for Adam-God, it clearly has Christ as superior to Adam throughout.

• Sermon starts out by defining the order of priesthood authority from Adam on down. Adam is first and Noah is second. Then later in the same sermon JS says Christ is the great high priest, Adam next. The straight forward interpretation of this is that Christ is higher than Adam. Grug, you argued for a possible reverse meaning of that statement, but then you run into the problem of having two competing second in commands: Christ and Noah. This conflict within the sermon only happens if you take the less obvious meaning of JS statement. In context, the striaght forward interpretation is the only one that works. Adam next means Christ is at the top, Adam is second, and Gabriel is third.
• This same sermon has Christ recieving Adam's stewardship, the keys of the universe. Grug, you mentioned the King Follett sermon, saying that the Father gives his kingdom to Christ, but that is actually incorrect. Here is the most pertinent quote I could find from the Follett sermon: "I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory, so that Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before;" This is the exact opposite. Christ gives his kindgom to the Father, and it's notably not what JS is describing in the 1839 sermon either.
• Also, JS set's up this meeting by describing similar gathering in previous dispensations where the prophet of the time tried to bring a gathering of Saint's into the Lord's presence but failed. JS taught that where they failed, Adam would succeed. This frames the whole meeting as a kind of salvation for the saints, rather than Adam ascending higher in exalation. The statement saying that Adam retains his place at head of the human family doesn't exactly sound like he ascended in glory either.
• Grug, you mentioned that it doesn't make any sense that Adam would hold the keys of the universe as anyone from God the Father. I have to admit that it is a surprisingly strong doctrine! I think it's not out of the question that a subservient to Christ would need these keys though. If Christ visits multiple worlds in JS' theology, then it's feasible that Adam runs the ministering of these many worlds as part of his subservient stewardship. I'm not sure that Adam is supposed to be the Holy Ghost in JS's theology, but it would make sense that the Holy Ghost would need to operate on multiple worlds meaning the keys of the universe need to be operating on a level underneath Christ. It also make sense that keys are all being returned in that final meeting. They all go back to Adam and then finally Christ, and as JS says in the sermon, Adam retains his standing as head of the human family but no longer holding those important universe keys. It actually all works really well together in the traditional interpretation.
• As far as Gabriel being Elias and the whole matrix of Elias identities, I haven't looked into it. Even if Noah/Gabriel's identity is more complex in JS' theology, you haven't made a case that he should be placed above JS or equal with him.
• You also mentioned the wierd phrase, they held keys first on earth and then in heaven. That phrase also sticks out to me as odd, especiallys since JS explains earlier that Adam was given the keys in the creation. Those two parts of the sermon are in direct conflict with each other. I like your question about them living on an earth before. I don't know if this phrase is supposed to suggest that because that's a crap ton of inference from a single mysterious phrase, but there are plenty of other indications that JS believed in some version of multiple mortal probations. The record we have of this sermon comes from listeners' notes, so we may not have an accurate representation of what he said or there may have been more explanation that would have helped us understand what he was saying here.

A year later, in JS' dictated 1840 sermon he reemphasizes the same idea that Adam answers to Christ. Like we've discussed that sermon was dictated by revelation. I don't know why he didn't give it himself (was he not there?), but the fact that it is dictated and revelatory makes it stronger in my opinion. Most importantly, it show JS' intent/understanding in 1840, and confirms the standard interpretation of the 1839 sermon. The fact that this was changed later on doesn't matter for 1839-40, and that we can't trace the change to JS (most likely it's someone else making the change after JS died), makes the change even less relevant for what JS taught.

Moving forward to the endowment, it's a great point that the endowment never states that Elohim is God the Father or that Jesus Christ is Jehovah. Here are some of the things I'm thinking about:

• What was the Nauvoo endowment like vs. our modern version? I'd have to go dig through those journals to see what could be learned, and someone absolutely should. I'd guess that there was never a clarification of Elohim or Jehovah's identity in the endowment though. If there had been, it seems unlikely that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt could have participated in it and come away with such different interpretations of their identities.
• I think Joseph Smith generally equates Jehovah with Jesus Christ. 
  • One example of JS equating the two comes in 1843 when he taught: "Christ fulfiled all righteousness in becoming obedient to the the Law which himself had given to Moses on the mount and thereby magnified it and made it honorable instead of destroying it" link: http://boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1843/29Jan43.html.
  • A very strong example is D&C 110:3-4, "His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father."
• The endowment shows Adam's and our own journey back to presence of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ. That is its straightforward and explicitly stated interpretation. 

 On archangel, I'll concede that the title archangel does not rule out godhood. In fact, Adam is arguably part of council of gods even in a traditional interpretation of JS' theology. I'll just say that the title archangel strongly suggests something besides God the Father.

On the King Follett Sermon and pattern of the Gods, I think your interpretation isn't complete. JS believed that God the Father was a Jesus Christ for his Heavenly Father.

• The King Follett sermon says Christ did what he saw the Father do
• JS made an even more explicit statement back in 1841: "Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & and father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost both having redeemed a world became the eternal God of that world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly ghost would do the same in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial Glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many" link: http://boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1841/30Jan41.html
  • So God the Father redeemed a world, just like Jesus did.
  • Apparently, the Holy Ghost is up next, and eventually so will everyone who inherits the Celestial kingdom...

That brings us back to multiple mortal probations, which is somehow a part of what JS was teaching.

• At the very least he believed that the celestial inheritors would eventually become Christs. Does that mean they would also pass through a Holy Ghost-like role? Maybe? Who knows. 
• The endowment has Peter, James, and John giving physical signs to Adam. Given JS' contemporary teaching that only Satan would try to decieve by offering his spirit hand, there is a strong inference that Peter, James, and John are physical beings.
  • This interpretation of the endowment aligns with ordinances done in 1846 after JS' death. ""Brigham Young laid hands on Heber C. Kimball and "Ordained him to the Godhead, and that he would act as the Savior to a world or worlds." This was part of a long prayer. Promised wives, seed without number, be full partaker with Abraham, Isaac., and Jacob. The Godhead was a different blessing from Godhood. (Some received only Godhood.) Heber C. Kimball then did the same to Brigham Young, i.e., ordained him to The Godhead. They in turn did it by proxy for Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Other saints (W.W. Phelps) were blessed to act in Trinities (or Presidencies of worlds)." link: http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/MF0081.doc
  • Notice the Godheads and trinities/presidencies? My guess is those trinities or presidencies are modeled after Peter, James, and John in the endowment.
• Heber C Kimball preached a reincarnation-like version multiple mortal probations in Nauvoo and apparently JS backed him.
• Finally, we've got D&C 132 talking about eternal lives and deaths.
  • The verses on deaths parallel Heber's teaching that will experience multiple probations on this earth until we've lived a probation that qualifies us to move onto Godhoos.
  • The D&C 132 verses are a version of the iconic verses from John, and they also recieve a parallel treatment in the King Follett sermon. JS quotes them before launching into his explanation that Christ did what the Father did, and that saints will ascend the same ladder of exalation to exalation until they reach where Christ is now. 
• This brings us back to that poem by Law that talks about Gods bringing one of their wives to each earth, and to me, that shows that Law understood Adam as an exalted being with wives. That is another awesome evidence for JS teaching multiple mortal probations. Does that work without Adam being God the Father? Sure, in JS' theology Adam could be a celestial being working his way up the ladder of exalations, eventually becoming a Christ and then a God the Father. That's another, and more straightforward, interpretation of all of this evidence. 

 

 

 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Allthough.. i do have some doubts about him and that he really had several polygamy's relationships. I mean..how can we know this for sure after 200 years. Where is the evidence that he really did that? A lot of people didn't liked him at that time. They could easily have spread lies about Smith to make him look bad. 

I guess this discussion about Joseph Smith teaching Adam-God is kind of similar to Joseph Smith practicing polygamy.  It is well known that Brigham Young had multiple wives.  I don't think anyone disputes that.  All the apostles at that time had multiple wives and many members.  But did Joseph Smith practice it?  The contemporary evidence is not very strong.  He denied it multiple times in public.  But we also have people like William Law (a member of the First Presidency) who published a newspaper that says Joseph taught and practiced it.  And we have Joseph's letter to Nancy Rigdon and Helen Mar Kimball.  And the letter from Oliver Cowdery about Fanny Alger.  And a few cryptic notes in contemporary journals.

But the evidence after Joseph died is really strong.  Several of his wives testified, under oath, that they were his wives.  We have a "front husband" (Joseph C. Kingsbury) who sent a bill to the church.  They weren't trying to make Joseph look bad.  If they all were lying (which I find difficult to accept), then they did it to strengthen the claim of Brigham Young over Joseph Smith III.  Joseph Smith III (Joseph Smith's son) was the leader of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and he did not like the idea of his father practicing polygamy.  One of the main differences (at that time) between the two churches was polygamy.  Brigham Young and the church in Utah were vocal for polygamy and said Joseph practiced it.  Joseph Smith III and the reorganized church in Iowa were vocal against polygamy and said Joseph didn't practice it.

I find https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/ a decent resource for Joseph's polygamy.

[Benjamin Seeker]

One more thought. Grug, you said:

Quote

1. "[Adam] through whom Christ has been revealed from henceforth."

   Isn't our Heavenly Father the one to reveal Christ? Does this mean that Adam is the one who revealed Christ from heaven to John the Baptist at the Savior's baptism and to Joseph Smith at the first vision?

Who is the other person who reveals, aka testifies of, Christ? Interestingly, this quote is also evidence for Adam acting in a role similar to the Holy Ghost.

[Dario_M]

40 minutes ago, webbles said:

I guess this discussion about Joseph Smith teaching Adam-God is kind of similar to Joseph Smith practicing polygamy.  It is well known that Brigham Young had multiple wives.  I don't think anyone disputes that.  All the apostles at that time had multiple wives and many members.  But did Joseph Smith practice it?  The contemporary evidence is not very strong.  He denied it multiple times in public.  But we also have people like William Law (a member of the First Presidency) who published a newspaper that says Joseph taught and practiced it.  And we have Joseph's letter to Nancy Rigdon and Helen Mar Kimball.  And the letter from Oliver Cowdery about Fanny Alger.  And a few cryptic notes in contemporary journals.

 

Interesting. Nice to know all of this. Well...we can only speculate about how it all went at that time. More then that we can't do. We don't have a glas sphere 🔮 where we can exactly see what have really happend at that time and what Jeseph Smith really did. 

40 minutes ago, webbles said:

But the evidence after Joseph died is really strong.  Several of his wives testified, under oath, that they were his wives. 

They can easily have lied.

But on the other hand.. if several females testified and told the judge (and had proof) that Smith has married with them all then that is prity strong evidence indeed. 

40 minutes ago, webbles said:

We have a "front husband" (Joseph C. Kingsbury) who sent a bill to the church.  They weren't trying to make Joseph look bad.  If they all were lying (which I find difficult to accept),

Yeah but you never know how far people can go to make somebody look really bad.

If a group of people just hate's you enough to wanna destroy you then you better be sure that they will do all they can in their power to try to make you look like the bad person as much as they posibly can.

40 minutes ago, webbles said:

then they did it to strengthen the claim of Brigham Young over Joseph Smith III.  Joseph Smith III (Joseph Smith's son) was the leader of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and he did not like the idea of his father practicing polygamy.  One of the main differences (at that time) between the two churches was polygamy.  Brigham Young and the church in Utah were vocal for polygamy and said Joseph practiced it.  Joseph Smith III and the reorganized church in Iowa were vocal against polygamy and said Joseph didn't practice it.

I find https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/ a decent resource for Joseph's polygamy.

It's so strange because this church seems to be so strict against polygamy these days. You only may marry one partner in the temple and that will be your partner for life. Even an devorce is not done in the eyes of the church. So how that polygamy stuff has come into the picture is a bit a mysterie for me. 🤪

Edited March 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[MustardSeed]

Dario you should know that it’s widely accepted as truth that JS had many wives.  
I personally don’t believe it was a directive from God.  But most do, I think. I’m the weirdo.  But many women are offended by the practice. IME. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Even an devorce is not done in the eyes of the church.

Divorce is allowed and there can also be a cancellation of a temple sealing if there is a remarriage.

[Dario_M]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Divorce is allowed and there can also be a cancellation of a temple sealing if there is a remarriage.

Offcourse. But you have still those people that judge you, you know. Like you have those people everywhere on any other church or place btw. 

But i knew that it whas allowed within the church to get an dicorce. Allthough the church encourage for koppels to stay togheter no matter what and try to make it work. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

33 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Dario you should know that it’s widely accepted as truth that JS had many wives.  

Yes i knew it. But i whas never sure or i believed it or not. 

I mean...for me i don't care or he really had 1 wife or 100 wife. What do i care about that. It whas his life. 

I am gay and i had the S word with plenty of man. Maybe even more then 100. I've lost count. 

So who am i to judge about Mr Smith right. 

God bless. ✝️

33 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I personally don’t believe it was a directive from God.  But most do, I think. I’m the weirdo.  But many women are offended by the practice. IME. 

🤣

Edited March 13, 2023 by Dario_M

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Yeah but you never know how far people can go to make somebody look really bad.

If a group of people just hate's you enough to wanna destroy you then you better be sure that they will do all they can in their power to try to make you look like the bad person as much as they posibly can.

The people who brought the most evidence after Joseph's death were not wanting to make him look bad.  They were firm believers of him and accepted him as a prophet.  If they lied, it wasn't to destroy Joseph.  It would have been to show that Brigham Young was the true successor to Joseph Smith.  Because if Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, then Joseph Smith III would be an imposter as he was denying the "true teachings" of Joseph Smith.

[Benjamin Seeker]

19 minutes ago, webbles said:

The people who brought the most evidence after Joseph's death were not wanting to make him look bad.  They were firm believers of him and accepted him as a prophet.  If they lied, it wasn't to destroy Joseph.  It would have been to show that Brigham Young was the true successor to Joseph Smith.  Because if Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, then Joseph Smith III would be an imposter as he was denying the "true teachings" of Joseph Smith.

William Clayton’s journal is a great piece of contemporary evidence that shows JS’s polygamy. If you haven’t read that, the Nauvoo portion is really interesting and full of details.

[Dario_M]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

The people who brought the most evidence after Joseph's death were not wanting to make him look bad.  They were firm believers of him and accepted him as a prophet.  If they lied, it wasn't to destroy Joseph.  It would have been to show that Brigham Young was the true successor to Joseph Smith.  Because if Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, then Joseph Smith III would be an imposter as he was denying the "true teachings" of Joseph Smith.

Hmmmm that doesnt make much sense webbles. Can you try and explain that again for me? 

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Hmmmm that doesnt make much sense webbles. Can you try and explain that again for me? 

I'll try.  One thing to be aware of is that there are 3 "Joseph Smiths" in the following explanation.  1) Joseph Smith Jr.  He's the one who had the First Vision, translated the Book of Mormon, etc.  2) Joseph Smith III.  He is the son of Joseph Smith Jr.  He was 11 when his father was murdered.  3) Joseph F. Smith.  He is the son of Hyrum Smith.  That makes him the nephew of Joseph Smith Jr and the cousin of Joseph Smith III.  He was 6 when his father and uncle were murdered.

After Joseph Smith died, there was a succession crisis in the church.  No one knew who should take his place.  Brigham Young won the majority of the church and took them to Utah where they grew.  At that time, Joseph Smith III was a young boy.  When he became of age, many members who didn't follow Brigham Young (for many different reasons) united behind Joseph Smith III and formed the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (renamed to Community of Christ in 2001).  The two groups called each other "Brighamites" (those who followed Brigham Young) and "Josephites" (those who followed Joseph Smith III).  The Josephites and Brighamites sent missionaries to both groups to convert them.  Both groups believed in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, etc.  One of the main differences was polygamy.  The Brighamites were polygamists while the Josephites weren't.  Joseph Smith III heard from his mother (Emma Smith) that his father (Joseph Smith) never practiced polygamy and that it was a vile institution.

The Josephites sent missionaries to Utah to convert them.  They had decent success since there were Brighamites that were not happy with polygamy (side note, I have an ancestor who was converted by the Josephite missionaries and crossed the plains back to Iowa).  This bothered the leaders of the Brighamites.  Joseph F. Smith decided he needed to prove that Joseph Smith really did practice polygamy.  He knew several of the women who said they were Joseph Smith's wives and interviewed them.  He then asked them for more names and interviewed these other women.  He used these interviews to refute the allegation that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy.  He (Joseph F. Smith) believed that polygamy was an institution revealed from God through Joseph Smith.

The Brighamites were very vocal that Joseph Smith restored polygamy and that he practiced it.  They did this because they believed that polygamy was from God.  So, if those women were lying about their relationship with Joseph Smith, they did it to strengthen the succession claim of Brigham Young.  They needed to show that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and that he restored it.  Joseph Smith III would then be a false prophet since he was denying a revelation that his father received.

The testimonies under oath occurred around the time frame but for a completely different reason.  There two groups of members (the Josephites and another, much smaller group, the Hedrickites) who were in a legal battle over who owned the temple lot in Jackson County.  The Hedrickites currently had possession of the temple lot but the Josephites claimed that they were the rightful successors to Joseph Smith and so they own the legal title.  Both groups were anti-polygamists.  But the Hedrickites wanted to prove that the Josephites were not the rightful successors.  They enlisted the Brighamites to prove that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.  Several women testified under oath that they were wives of Joseph Smith.  Also several men testified under oath that they either were married to a second wife by Joseph Smith or that they were witnesses to polygamous marriages that Joseph Smith performed.

Did that help?  The history of polygamy is a little complex.  But during the mid 1800s, the church was extremely pro-polygamy.  So calling someone polygamist was not a bad thing.  It was very much a good thing.  Almost all of my ancestors were polygamists.

[Dario_M]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'll try.  One thing to be aware of is that there are 3 "Joseph Smiths" in the following explanation.  1) Joseph Smith Jr.  He's the one who had the First Vision, translated the Book of Mormon, etc.  2) Joseph Smith III.  He is the son of Joseph Smith Jr.  He was 11 when his father was murdered.  3) Joseph F. Smith.  He is the son of Hyrum Smith.  That makes him the nephew of Joseph Smith Jr and the cousin of Joseph Smith III.  He was 6 when his father and uncle were murdered.

 

Horible that those monsters have killed them all. That is so said. 

So like i said...i doubt it that Joseph Smith really had polygamy's relationships with several wives. To me it sounds a bit like gossiping. And Smith had a lot of enemies after all.

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

After Joseph Smith died, there was a succession crisis in the church.  No one knew who should take his place.  Brigham Young won the majority of the church and took them to Utah where they grew.  At that time, Joseph Smith III was a young boy.  When he became of age, many members who didn't follow Brigham Young (for many different reasons) united behind Joseph Smith III and formed the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (renamed to Community of Christ in 2001).  The two groups called each other "Brighamites" (those who followed Brigham Young) and "Josephites" (those who followed Joseph Smith III).  The Josephites and Brighamites sent missionaries to both groups to convert them.  Both groups believed in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, etc.  One of the main differences was polygamy.  The Brighamites were polygamists while the Josephites weren't.  Joseph Smith III heard from his mother (Emma Smith) that his father (Joseph Smith) never practiced polygamy and that it was a vile institution.

The Josephites sent missionaries to Utah to convert them.  They had decent success since there were Brighamites that were not happy with polygamy (side note, I have an ancestor who was converted by the Josephite missionaries and crossed the plains back to Iowa).  This bothered the leaders of the Brighamites.  Joseph F. Smith decided he needed to prove that Joseph Smith really did practice polygamy.  He knew several of the women who said they were Joseph Smith's wives and interviewed them.  He then asked them for more names and interviewed these other women.  He used these interviews to refute the allegation that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy.  He (Joseph F. Smith) believed that polygamy was an institution revealed from God through Joseph Smith.

So...long storie short. Smith admitted that he had relationships with several females?

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

The Brighamites were very vocal that Joseph Smith restored polygamy and that he practiced it.  They did this because they believed that polygamy was from God.  So, if those women were lying about their relationship with Joseph Smith, they did it to strengthen the succession claim of Brigham Young.  They needed to show that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and that he restored it.  Joseph Smith III would then be a false prophet since he was denying a revelation that his father received.

The testimonies under oath occurred around the time frame but for a completely different reason.  There two groups of members (the Josephites and another, much smaller group, the Hedrickites) who were in a legal battle over who owned the temple lot in Jackson County.  The Hedrickites currently had possession of the temple lot but the Josephites claimed that they were the rightful successors to Joseph Smith and so they own the legal title.  Both groups were anti-polygamists.  But the Hedrickites wanted to prove that the Josephites were not the rightful successors.  They enlisted the Brighamites to prove that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.  Several women testified under oath that they were wives of Joseph Smith.  Also several men testified under oath that they either were married to a second wife by Joseph Smith or that they were witnesses to polygamous marriages that Joseph Smith performed.

Did that help?  The history of polygamy is a little complex.  But during the mid 1800s, the church was extremely pro-polygamy.  So calling someone polygamist was not a bad thing.  It was very much a good thing.  Almost all of my ancestors were polygamists.

Really? That suprise me. If the church whas so free in that then why have the church changed so much. And if they allready allowed this then... why can gay people not marry...in the temple?? That's basicelly the same. Same as polygamy i find. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Dario_M

[MustardSeed]

6 hours ago, Dario_M said:

That's basicelly the same. Same as polygamy i find. 

Polygamy is worse, to me.  
The intent was to build the kingdom- to have children and raise them in the church and grow the church.  I think- 

Edited March 13, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Dario_M]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Worse, to me.  
The intent was to build the kingdom- to have children and raise them in the church and grow the church.  I think- 

Being gay and marry in the temple with another man (if that whas allowed in church wich is offcourse not) is worse then those people who are have polygamy relationships??? 

[CA Steve]

52 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

So like i said...i doubt it that Joseph Smith really had polygamy's relationships with several wives. To me it sounds a bit like gossiping. And Smith had a lot of enemies after all.

Dario,

We know Joseph Smith dictated the portions of D&C 132 which outlined how polygamy was to be practiced. Why is it a bad thing if he practiced it? I am not trying to attack you here, just trying to understand your reasoning behind doubting Joseph Smith's involvement.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

So like i said...i doubt it that Joseph Smith really had polygamy's relationships with several wives. To me it sounds a bit like gossiping. And Smith had a lot of enemies after all.

He absolutely had plural wives.  Not gossip - historical records.

Quote

Really? That suprise me. If the church whas so free in that then why have the church changed so much. And if they allready allowed this then... why can gay people not marry...in the temple?? That's basicelly the same. Same as polygamy i find. 

Not the same because gay marriage runs contrary to God's work.  It literally blocks God's plan for his creation.

 

[Dario_M]

25 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Dario,

We know Joseph Smith dictated the portions of D&C 132 which outlined how polygamy was to be practiced. Why is it a bad thing if he practiced it? I am not trying to attack you here, just trying to understand your reasoning behind doubting Joseph Smith's involvement.

I am also not saying that Polygamy is a bad thing.

But Smith has been accused of more then only practising polygamy. And i have the suspicion that those are false. Like i said he had a lot of enemies. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Dario_M

[JLHPROF]

57 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Being gay and marry in the temple with another man (if that whas allowed in church wich is offcourse not) is worse then those people who are have polygamy relationships??? 

Yes

[Dario_M]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He absolutely had plural wives.  Not gossip - historical records.

Okay then. 

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not the same because gay marriage runs contrary to God's work.  It literally blocks God's plan for his creation.

 

I am not agree with you. You don't know what God's plan exactly is. And what that plane includes. 

If i would marry a man in the temple it would harm nobody. The only thing that would happen is that it would make ME happy. I can follow the law of chastity again. Me and my partner are doing what god want us to do. And i would be sealed with my husband....forEVER. 

Unfortunatly right now the church is excluding my group of people. 

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes

No it isn't. 🎭

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Being gay and marry in the temple with another man (if that whas allowed in church wich is offcourse not) is worse then those people who are have polygamy relationships??? 

No

[Dario_M]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

No

@JLHPROF whas just saying to me that it whas worse then people who have polygamy marriages. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

I just notice now that we are going offtopic. 

[MustardSeed]

I corrected my post.  I think polygamy is abhorrent.  I don’t find homosexuality to be abhorrent.  @JLHPROFshould go back and dislike to avoid any confusion.