tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post2012061459898135887..comments2024-03-28T15:23:18.071-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: Have You Voted For The New Church President Yet?Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger161125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-42719017422397553792018-03-31T14:27:15.016-07:002018-03-31T14:27:15.016-07:00Yes, what could have been was never accomplished. ...Yes, what could have been was never accomplished. We still look forward to such days. Collectively we look pass the mark as it is hidden in plainness.<br /><br />My previous note was simple to note that the 12 were referred to during the Kirtland era as "Prophet's, Seer's, and Revelator's". As you state, they had no business inside any organized stakes of Zion.<br /><br />Really we practice social proverication when it comes to the role of the 12 and church history.<br /><br />May you have a wonder filled Easter!Bro. Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242708935871014959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-34926691467638105122018-03-27T20:58:16.015-07:002018-03-27T20:58:16.015-07:00Bro. B,
You're not missing anything, and you&#...Bro. B,<br />You're not missing anything, and you're right that we deserve to be skeptical of what we read in the DHC, but if you read that statement closely, you'll see it doesn't mean what most of us have assumed it means. We tend to read statements like that through the lens of our upbringing, which teaches us that the Twelve have authority in the Church. But Joseph is not saying that. He's recognizing they have the gifts necessary to carry out their mission as special witnesses "to all the nations of the earth."<br /><br />By way of background: Joseph had already asked the church to recognize Sidney Rigdon as having the gifts of a prophet, seer, and revelator; which he did, concurrent to his office as co-president, as did Hyrum Smith. (Hyrum would later be appointed to the highest office in the church, higher than anyone in the First Presidency, upon the death of his father when HE became the patriarch.)<br /><br />Anyway, Joseph knew of the jealousy of the Twelve toward Rigdon. So in an effort to mollify them, he asked the congregation to recognize that the Twelve had authority in THEIR assigned tasks equal to the authority Sidney Rigdon had in his.<br /><br />We have been so conditioned about the authority the Twelve have exercised WITHIN the Church in our lifetimes, that it's easy to read into Joseph's statement something that clearly isn't there: that they had VERY WIDE latitude in exercising their charge to take the gospel to all the world. In this blog post and the one that precedes it, I was very harsh regarding the way the Twelve took on responsibilities within the church that the Lord had not given them. But make no mistake: the role of the Twelve traveling elders was of paramount importance to the Lord's plan. The job called for superhuman sacrifice, endurance, and dedication, and they absolutely were given gifts of the spirit and an endless amount of authority with which to accomplish the task the Lord had given them, which was to preach the gospel to ALL THE WORLD. They did not have their hands tied. They were given all the tools necessary to accomplish that task.<br /><br />You will recall that the High Council was strongly cautioned that they did not have authority outside the boundaries of the church where the Twelve were given free rein. But within their limited sphere they had ALL the authority, and the Twelve had none. Likewise OUTSIDE church headquarters the Twelve had all authority and the High Council had none.<br /><br />So the Twelve had the gifts of prophets, seers and revelators when they went out into the world, but those gifts were not operational in Kirtland or Nauvoo. Only out "in all the world." That gave them a wider reach than the High Council, but only when they were out in the mission field. It didn't give them authority to manage church affairs, only the affairs in the branches under their jurisdiction. <br /><br />By the way, it WAS their responsibility to build up and establish the Kingdom of God, which was NOT the church, but was intended as a civil organization that operated independent of the church. They dropped the ball on that one, preferring instead to be Grand Poobahs in the church, which, compared with what the Kingdom could have become, is really small potatoes. So they blew it. They could have been part of something much bigger than a small religious denomination.Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-7179850917238228372018-03-27T19:55:24.859-07:002018-03-27T19:55:24.859-07:00It seems like this "tradition" started m...It seems like this "tradition" started much earlier than McKay.<br /><br />At the dedication of the Kirtland temple Joseph notes:<br /><br />I then made a short address, and called upon the several quorums, and all the congregation of Saints, to acknowledge the Presidency as Prophets and Seers, and uphold them by their prayers. They all covenanted to do so, by rising.<br /><br />I then called upon the quorums and congregation of Saints to acknowledge the Twelve Apostles, who were present, as Prophets, Seers, Revelators, and special witnesses to all the nations of the earth, holding the keys of the kingdom, to unlock it, or cause it to be done, among them, and uphold them by their prayers, which they assented to by rising.<br /><br />(History of the Church 2:417)<br /><br />Granted we know how accurate church history is, so take it with a grain of salt.<br /><br />It does seem that since McKay the top brass have taken to self-referencing as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators".<br /><br />Am I missing something?<br />Bro. Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242708935871014959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-67923156566653544892018-03-27T14:37:36.777-07:002018-03-27T14:37:36.777-07:00Rock, thank you. That sentiment means more than y...Rock, thank you. That sentiment means more than you know. It is a hard thing to feel alone in a vision, and an immeasurable blessing to find a willing co-laborer in a divine mission. 1 Cor. 3:7-9.Bishop Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10508186575007099364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-66699556747202591712018-03-25T11:52:44.899-07:002018-03-25T11:52:44.899-07:00Im doing a quick poll: Please go to this tweet and...Im doing a quick poll: Please go to this tweet and vote about whether or not God has told you that Russell Nelson is a true prophet https://twitter.com/aLoafOfBrett/status/977969186881265664Brett Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12764256737112153774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-64270524951575119592018-03-23T16:04:05.446-07:002018-03-23T16:04:05.446-07:00Brother Mike,
That's a well written essay; I ...Brother Mike, <br />That's a well written essay; I hope you'll transfer it wholly onto your blog. It deserves a wider reading than here at the tail end of this comment section. (Maybe you did put it there and I happened to overlook it.)<br /><br />Anyone who has not yet discovered Mike's blog, "Spring of 1820" deserves to know it's well worth your time.Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-60926962981609806792018-03-23T16:01:29.148-07:002018-03-23T16:01:29.148-07:00I should add that the answer to your question abou...I should add that the answer to your question about when McKay began to be considered a prophet by the Saints is probably contained somewhere in Greg Prince's biography on Mckay. It happens to be on a shelf behind me as I write this, but I haven't read the whole thing cover to cover, and I see nothing in the index under "prophet." Perhaps someone more familiar with that book can steer me in the right direction.<br />Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-77517613914340343012018-03-23T15:59:11.611-07:002018-03-23T15:59:11.611-07:00Underdog2
I actually don't know how or why McK...Underdog2<br />I actually don't know how or why McKay began to be referred to as the prophet; I only recall reading somewhere that was where this modern tradition began. I doubt it was his idea. This is about the time missionary lessons really began to stress Joseph's First vision (the flannel board lessons) and the investigator was told "ever since that day we have had a prophet on the earth to teach us God's will." Church growth was exploding and it wouldn't take much for the apostles to begin lavishing praise on "our beloved prophet." That's the era when congregations would burst out singing "We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet" Whenever McKay entered a room.<br /><br />Quinn's coverage on the ordaining is found on pages 252-253 in "Origins of Power." His footnote cites three or four books and articles about Smith, but he states none give any explanation as to why he instituted the practice of ordaining presidents.<br /><br />At the bottom of pg 252 is where we find Lorenzo Snow deciding presidents should be at least set apart, as prior to that Brigham Young's assertion that an election by the people was all that was needed, not an appointment by God or a setting apart by the apostles:<br /><br />"On 10 October 1898 Lorenzo Snow requested George Q. Cannon to set him apart as church president. In support of this, second counselor Joseph F. Smith remarked that in previous organizations of the First Presidency 'we had failed to do something which he felt should have been done.' Apostle Francis M. Lyman said that setting apart the First Presidency established a 'rule never before having been observed since the counselors were set apart to Pres. Jos. Smith' "<br /><br />Brigham was right, of course, and his successors were wrong. Since the Lord had not appointed Brigham nor any of the others, an election by the people would have been sufficient to have any of them preside over the church. But Snow's desire to be "set apart" gave the office an air of legitimacy above and beyond what it was, so it was only a matter of time before that setting apart would evolve into an ordination, providing credibility to the Saints that the president was God's own anointed.Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-22803682656509340102018-03-22T08:28:36.802-07:002018-03-22T08:28:36.802-07:00Moses saw a glorious burning bush, revealed stone ...Moses saw a glorious burning bush, revealed stone tablets inscribed by the hand of God himself, worked inexplicable miracles for the salvation of his people—and spoke of these things plainly. Isaiah prophesied with great clarity details in the life of the promised Messiah—declaring this openly among commoners and kings. The poor and uneducated Joseph Smith, Jr. speedily dictated an immense, fully cohesive translation of an historical text from a dead language, relying only on volunteer scribes and a seer stone—he published this work to the world as new scripture. Today the Saints get butterflies over our occasional lawyer-approved PR statements, internal policy memoranda, grand openings of real estate developments, and self-promoting documentaries.<br /><br />Where's the prophetic fruit? “But we now live in a complicated, cynical time.” “The world is too wicked.” “The Saints aren’t ready.” “The media would ridicule us if high-visibility leadership professed miraculous gifts.” “That’s sign-seeking.” “We’re growing, isn't that fruit enough?” “It’s too sacred to talk about, anyway.” Really? Those sustained as prophets, seers, revelators, and translators to the Saints are not at liberty to fully exercise prophetic gifts among the Saints? Joseph was tarred and feathered for his unapologetic deployment of powerful gifts from God, and in the end took up his cross to follow Christ. That’s how true prophets roll, and have always rolled.<br /><br />But a title does not a prophet make, nor does a well-intentioned, even inspired, administrative pronouncement by a beloved leader constitute a "prophecy" without a declaration in the name of the Lord of some verifiable outcome. The meanings of old words still matter. Divine attribution matters. Correctly predicted outcomes matter. God’s prophets prophesy of forthcoming events by divine means which otherwise could not have been known to them. In God’s name they speak (and not figuratively).<br /><br />Does a man’s elected status in the Church grant his people license to conflate his every procedural recommendation as a "revelation" when convenient, and an opinion when inconvenient? If some heretofore undisclosed principle is made manifest in the name of the Lord by one claiming the gift of revelation, the truth of it must be ratified by the Holy Ghost in the hearts and minds of the Saints to be confirmed in the Church as a doctrine binding upon them through covenant. There is a precedent in all of this called, “The Doctrine and Covenants.” The Church Handbook of Instructions is not an acceptable substitution for bona-fide revelations from above and common consent acceptance below. Revelators reveal new truths, the unfolding doctrines of Heaven which build squarely upon the foundation of earlier (correct) revelations received by the Church, without contradiction.<br /><br />A man sustained as a seer, whether by six or six million, must be gifted to receive divine “visions that roll like an overflowing surge, before [his] mind” or be the benefactor of some Heavenly visitation. Joseph the Seer never warranted the honorable title until he first “saw” and spoke of what he saw. Nor does anyone else. Regardless of how vaguely such privileges are alluded to by those so sustained (or permitted to be believed among those who sustain them), a seer's faith must precede the miracle of divine sight, the miracle must bear fruit, and the fruit must be shared with those it is appointed to feed. Seers see visions of glory through the veil, receive angelic ministry, and encounter the face of God. They publish their visions and visitations for the edification of those who will receive and believe their report. <br /><br />God bestows spiritual gifts according to his own will and pleasure, and may readily choose the weak and humble servant with no hierarchical pedigree to reprove nations. Prophets prophesy, revelators reveal, seers see, translators translate, and signs follow them that believe.<br /><br />springof1820.blogspot.comBishop Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10508186575007099364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-77029728407600695332018-03-20T11:08:58.419-07:002018-03-20T11:08:58.419-07:00Rock,
In response to your 9:05 am Feb 26th commen...Rock,<br /><br />In response to your 9:05 am Feb 26th comment, I have a few questions if you don't mind.<br /><br />You quote Quinn's history, which says on April 12, 1951 apostle Joseph Fielding Smith set apart as president and ordained David O. McKay a prophet, seer, and revelator.<br /><br />Easter was on March 25th back in 1951, but the miraculous resurrection of dead keys occurred on April 12th!<br /><br />Is there a record of the words uttered during that ordination? I'm fascinated by this.<br /><br />Who boldly decided Joseph Fielding Smith should ordain David O. McKay, when such ordinations hadn't been done since Joseph Smith was alive?<br /><br />Since McKay was ordained as a prophet, seer, and revelator, did Church members begin to call him "prophet", or were presidents called "prophet" before McKay? Seems like I've read on your blog where this practice began with McKay.<br /><br />If that's the case, then it seems like the decision to ordain McKay was coupled with the new PR campaign to have him regarded as a prophet. Perhaps the idea to have him revered as a prophet and to have church members refer to him as prophet was the impetus to having Joseph Fielding Smith ordain him as such. The genesis of modern ordaining to office a prophet, seer, and revelator was, in other words: priestcraft.<br /><br />So my question becomes, whose idea was it to brand the president of the Church as a prophet, seer, and revelator? Interesting. At the very least Joseph Fielding Smith and David O. McKay would have been supporters of the idea. As you note Joseph Fielding Smith's father in 1916 was emphatic in his direction that the president of the Church (I assume he was referring to president of the Church) was NOT to be ordained, only set apart. Such a strong stance was probably rooted in the 1829 revelation in DC 5:6 which says God is the One who ordains.<br /><br />Priestcraft is men setting themselves up as a light. Alma told Nehor, I think it was, that enforcing priestcraft "by the sword" would lead to the destruction of the people. Setting oneself up as a light is to compete with God and violate the First of the 10 commandments. God forbids competition. So it seems that the introduction of serious priestcraft into the Church happened post 1916. <br /><br />The pen is more powerful than the sword, so the modern-day "sword" was the "pen" of the Church PR Dept. <br /><br />Interesting that Heber J. Grant made the Church a Corporation Sole in 1923, and that two years prior in 1921 a committee of apostles demoted the Lectures on Faith, which served to de-emphasize faith and remove key doctrines of our Church -- namely HOW TO BE SAVED. Both of these actions were major blows to the Restoration and in very close proximity to each other. Then fast forward about 30 years later to 1951 when priestcraft, you could say, was institutionalized! <br /><br />A regular man - David O. McKay, who didn't have any appreciation whatsoever for the BoM, was overnight made a "prophet, seer, and revelator". Despite treating lightly the BoM, he was made a light unto the Church, and his successors likewise imbued with stature unearned. <br /><br />In summary, I wanted to ask you what led to the re-establishment in 1951 of ordination to prophet, seer, and revelator, well after 100 years of history where that wasn't happening or thought appropriate? Were there no protestations from anybody? The apostles just did it? <br /><br />The coup d'etat of the apostles happened in Brigham's day, but this 1951 "trick" that created a prophet, seer, an revelator out of thin air turbo-charged the apostles' efforts to gain adherents. When did the Primary song "Follow the Prophet" come along I wonder? If they wanted a boost in credibility, ordaining one of their own to the level of Joseph was an ingenious move! <br /><br />What are your thoughts? Underdog2https://www.blogger.com/profile/11725899703711092900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-74469587789496043412018-03-19T10:53:28.389-07:002018-03-19T10:53:28.389-07:00Zebedee you are free to believe what you want.
T...Zebedee you are free to believe what you want. <br /><br />There's no clear evidence that Abraham married Ketura after Sarah died. Genesis has it in that order, but Genesis also has an angel saving Isaac from Abraham's knife where the New Testament and other writings have him Abraham killing Isaac and the Lord bringing him back to life.<br /><br />Ketura and Hagar are referred to as concubines. The definition of concubine is a lower status wife, usually as part of a polygamist union.<br /><br />If Hagar was not Abraham's wife, then Abraham fornicated with her. That would certainly have drawn a rebuke from the Lord, but it didn't.<br /><br />If what you say is true of Moses' Ethopian wife being merely a spoil of war, why did the Lord curse Miriam for speaking out against this marriage?<br /><br />There is no question that polygamy was allowed under the law of Moses. We have no record of the Lord ever condemning polygamy during his mortal ministry. All we have is a specific commandment against it for Lehi's family.Matthiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373707992098571574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-54138079403527901372018-03-18T20:08:01.502-07:002018-03-18T20:08:01.502-07:00I can't speak to Lewis Bidamon. I don't kn...I can't speak to Lewis Bidamon. I don't know much about him, but the marriage could have been more of a business relationship. At the time of the marriage, Bidamon was the father of two daughters and Emma was the mother of five surviving children. They did not have any children together. He appears to have been a successful businessman, and she owned some property in Nauvoo. Perhaps that kind of stability was what Emma needed. And maybe she didn't really care if he slept around as long as he didn't sleep with her and provided for her and her children. <br /><br />We don't know her story, so we can only give her the benefit of doubt that she told the truth, and that others merely repeated hearsay and gossip about her.<br /><br />I for one believe her as a prime eyewitness to the facts of her first husband.Zebedeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954987664796123149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-69055317996641771512018-03-18T19:55:16.618-07:002018-03-18T19:55:16.618-07:00In Gen 25 Abraham's concubines refer to the mo...In Gen 25 Abraham's concubines refer to the mothers of Abraham's other sons beside Issac, namely Hagar (which was Sarah's slave and property) and Ketura (whom he married AFTER Sarah died). If you want to include Hagar as Abraham's plural wife I guess you can, even though she wasn't his wife in any legal sense. But you can't include Ketura. So I stand by the fact that Abraham was not a polygamist.<br /><br />Moses was married to an Ethiopian princess after his conquest in that country. She was given to him by Pharaoh as the spoils of war. When Moses left Egypt he forfeited all his property including his Ethiopian wife (considered property anciently). We don't know what happened to her. She might have been executed in place of her husband. Moses later married Zipporah, a Midianite. (Midian was a son of Abraham from Ketura). There is no record of Moses having any other wives, therefore, according to the records we have, he was not polygamist. <br /><br />Was polygamy allowed in ancient Israel? Probably, but so was divorce. Both things however are frowned upon by the Lord.Zebedeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954987664796123149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-37561780066167330052018-03-17T19:18:10.703-07:002018-03-17T19:18:10.703-07:00Zebedee,
Here you go:
Genesis 25
5 ¶ And Abrah...Zebedee,<br /><br />Here you go: <br /><br />Genesis 25<br /><br />5 ¶ And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.<br /><br />6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.<br /><br />I don't feel like digging up the source for Emma's second husband Lewis Bidamon being a drunkard. He was an adulterer and a fornicator, too. He was previously divorced and ended up fathering a child with another woman while he was married to Emma. In his defense he did marry this woman after Emma died. <br /><br />I'm not trying to attack Lewis here. He appears to have been a honorable and honest man in many respects. Emma could of course marry whoever she wanted. It's just interesting that she chose an unbeliever who was in many ways a polar opposite to Joseph. I'm sure she could have married a righteous man, who had been baptized and ordained to the priesthood. <br /><br />For the record, I'm not dismissing her testimony. There are sources that state she acknowledged Joseph's polygamy during his lifetime and I believe twice afterwards. <br /><br />I don't know if she went crazy or not. I'd like to believe she went crazy to a certain extent rather than being a liar. The Lord will judge her, not me.<br />Matthiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373707992098571574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-4375130821367146282018-03-17T18:45:29.200-07:002018-03-17T18:45:29.200-07:00MC,
Could you point me to the scripture that says...MC,<br /><br />Could you point me to the scripture that says Abraham had concubines? I'd love to read that.<br /><br />I don't believe Emma went crazy. But you can believe that she did if you want to ignore or dismiss her testimony. According to the contemporary accounts of Emma by those who knew her first hand, she was a women of integrity and charity. Marrying another man in her widowhood was/is an acceptable practice, especially since she needed to support herself and her children. Plus she was no longer in her youth and her options may have been limited for her. I had not heard her second husband was a drunkard. I would be interested in seeing the source for that accusation as well. <br />Zebedeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954987664796123149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-35724562848502181242018-03-17T18:18:15.442-07:002018-03-17T18:18:15.442-07:00"Abraham and Moses were not polygamists. Jaco..."Abraham and Moses were not polygamists. Jacob, yes, but not by his choice."<br /><br />Well Zebedee I guess the scriptures have it wrong then. The bible says Abraham had concubines. What's a concubine? It's a plural wife of a lower standing. <br /><br />Jacob was deceived into marrying Leah so in a sense one could argue that he wasn't a willing participant. I'm not convinced that he couldn't tell Leah and Rachel apart on his wedding night, but I suppose it's possible. <br /><br />He was however a willing participant in taking Leah and Rachel's handmades as concubines. <br /><br />Moses polygamy is not definitive in the bible. Based on the bible he could have been a polygamist or he could have remarried after his first wife died. The law given from God to Moses for the people of Israel authorized polygamy so there wouldn't have been an issue with him having a second wife. <br /><br />As for Emma, I don't know exactly what her attitude was towards Joseph's plural marriage. The evidence suggests that she went back and forth about it. At times she accepted it and other times she was jealous and lashed out at Joseph and his other wives about it. <br /><br />I'm not convinced she pushed Eliza R. Snow down the stairs, causing her to miscarry. It could have happened. <br /><br />I'm sure the whole thing was very hard on Emma. I don't blame her for being jealous and going back and forth about it. <br /><br />As for her denial of Joseph's practice of polygamy after his death, there could be a number of reasons. One could be that she went a little crazy after Joseph died. She had been through an awful lot. This is my personal belief. The fact that she married an unbelieving drunkard right after Joseph died, leads me to believe that she was mentally unstable. Like I said, she had been through a lot. I don't condemn her for contradictory and sometimes irrational behavior. She was an imperfect human who was asked to endure a lot more than most for the glory of God. Matthiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373707992098571574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-12200822961114351162018-03-17T17:43:11.519-07:002018-03-17T17:43:11.519-07:00Rock,
With all due respect, you don't know ho...Rock,<br /><br />With all due respect, you don't know how much I have researched and studied the origins of plural marriage in the LDS church. <br /><br />You accuse me of being close minded, because I accept the traditional narrative of how plural marriage was introduced into the church. <br /><br />It's all good. You've become convinced that Joseph didn't practice and introduce plural marriage. You think that those who have reached a different conclusion haven't done their research or weren't opened minded enough. <br /><br />This is not true. I actually have studied the RLDS argument that Joseph didn't practice let alone introduce plural marriage extensively. <br /><br />I'm well aware that there is some evidence and inconsistencies that can be used to present a case that Joseph wasn't a polygamist but fought it instead. <br /><br />However, having weighed the evidence carefully I have concluded that Joseph did in fact practice and introduce plural marriage. <br /><br />In addition to the overwhelming evidence in favor of Joseph having practiced polygamy, the scriptures clearly show that in the past the Lord has authorized plural marriage for his chosen people. At the end of the day this is good enough for me. I guess it's not good enough for you. <br /><br />I say we move on. Both of us think the other is close minded and in denial. We're getting nowhere. Matthiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373707992098571574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-50340857341279948442018-03-13T21:43:33.177-07:002018-03-13T21:43:33.177-07:00Just one small nit-picky thing to point out: Abrah...Just one small nit-picky thing to point out: Abraham and Moses were not polygamists. Jacob, yes, but not by his choice. <br /><br />And another thing: Emma has been accused of being rather cruel to Joseph's "other" wives, including allegedly pushing Eliza R. Snow down the stairs causing her to lose Joseph's baby. Tsk. Tsk. <br /><br />Only trouble with those "stories" is Emma fiercely denied that Joseph had any other wives period. Including any so-called sealed ones. She defended Joseph's monogamous character until the day she died. <br /><br />So which is it: Was she was kept in the dark about her husband's hanky-panky, or was she a mean-spirited participant? She can't be both.<br /><br />Sensationalism not only sells newspapers, but fake history too.Zebedeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954987664796123149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-30746339016230436752018-03-13T17:23:10.922-07:002018-03-13T17:23:10.922-07:00MC,
You are, of course, entitled to hold whatever...MC, <br />You are, of course, entitled to hold whatever opinions you wish on the matter, but that was not what I called you out on. I remind you that my argument was not directed at your view that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I took issue with your statement that "the case for this was closed long ago."<br /><br />I think what you meant to say was "my own mind was made up about this long ago." <br /><br />The questions you pose to me above have been addressed and answered in depth by scholars who have invested more effort at getting to the truth of the matter than you have. The very fact that you ask them is evidence that you are unaware of the debate taking place outside your own orbit. Believe it or not, many seeming contradictions are vigorously discussed and debated by people who are not satisfied to merely accept those contradictions with a shrug and assume the history has somehow been "settled." <br /><br />Neither are they motivated by ideology. Ronald Kerran, author of "The Exoneration of Emma, Joseph, and Hyrum" is certainly not motivated by a desire to defend Joseph Smith, since he admits to not believing Smith was a prophet, nor in the validity of the Book of Mormon. Yet by weighing the evidence and examining documents often overlooked by those who DID have motive, he manages to show that there was indeed a "secret priesthood" (their words) operating in opposition to the legitimate one, and that these men, who alternately referred to themselves in their journals as the "secret priesthood" or "secret chamber" did indeed conspire to pin polygamy on Joseph Smith in order to validate their own secret works. After reading only that one book, it would be hard to come away with the conclusion that the case for Joseph's participation in plural marriage is in any way "closed" and not open to further examination.<br /><br />As long as the historical record continues to provide evidence that openly contradicts the conclusions you embrace, and as long as intelligent people continue to examine, debate, and challenge the conventional story, the history is far from settled. I stand by my allegation that it is folly on your part to imply that the many intelligent people who have troubled themselves to investigate the matter more than you have, are somehow more closed-minded and less informed than a person who has chosen to shut herself off from further inquiry. Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-11953079664806467432018-03-12T20:07:58.935-07:002018-03-12T20:07:58.935-07:00Well Rock I guess we're still at an impasse in...Well Rock I guess we're still at an impasse in regards to plural marriage and Joseph's involvement in it. <br /><br />Of course I knew you had likely read all of Hale's work. Yes is work is one sided and apologetic to the church. I don't buy into everything he says. I merely refer to his work, because it is very thorough and he provides a lot of primary sources that shed light on the issue. <br /><br />I've weighed the evidence over Joseph's involvement in plural marriage very carefully as you apparently have as well. At this point one of us is blind to the truth or in denial. <br /><br />I refuse to believe that there were dozens if not hundreds of liars and conspirators who all said more or less the same thing about Joseph Smith introducing and practicing plural marriage. If they were all from those who followed Brigham to Utah I MIGHT be able to believe that, but when many of these so called liars or conspirators had very different agendas I can't accept that. I also can't accept that women would lie about being married to Joseph Smith and having had sex with him. <br /><br />I guarantee you that if the polygamy thing was all made up by Brigham Young and the rest of the rogue apostles someone would have spilled the beans. <br /><br />Nevermind the fact the scriptures are clear that God has previously allowed polygamy. I guess this fact doesn't matter. Joseph could not have possibly practiced polygamy. This is unthinkable. He must be "innocent" of the wicked crimes of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. <br /><br />If somehow it was all a conspiracy to commit adultery, I guess they sure did one heck of a job pulling it off. They even got their bitter enemies to go along with it. Brigham Young must have been jumping for joy when William Law published the Nauvoo Expositor. He struck gold on that one.<br /><br />Matthiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373707992098571574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-89586222828660990182018-03-12T19:21:29.695-07:002018-03-12T19:21:29.695-07:00Eric,
I guess you think if you keep saying the ph...Eric,<br /><br />I guess you think if you keep saying the phrase "The Father and I are one" over and over again, maybe somehow it will magically turn into "the Father and I are a single being and I am only a portion of the Father's spirit broken off from the Father and dwelling in a mortal body. I also pray to myself and am at the right hand of myself. I also talked to myself as if I was two beings at the time of the creation and all three versions of myself were present at my baptism so everyone would think I was three separate beings, but I'm really not. I also said that my faithful followers can be one with me and the Father (both me) in the same way that I am one with the Father (myself). I also sent myself, and love myself, and only do what I have seen myself do." <br /><br />Yeah that's what Christ meant when he said that He and the Father are one. Right...<br /><br />What part of these words of Christ do you not understand or reject outright:<br /><br />21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.<br /><br />22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:<br /><br />23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.<br /><br />What part of this statement by Christ do you not understand or reject:<br /><br />10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;<br /><br />Apparently all you can see is "the Father and I are one." I guess Christ's other words don't mean anything.<br /><br />And you accuse me of wresting the scriptures. Wow.<br /><br />You still won't come clean about your connection to the great and marvelous work website. I guess since you won't deny it, your admitting that you are essentially peddling what you got from them and can't think for yourself.<br /><br />You obviously have put your trust in them, because you refuse to see that they are wrong and interpret the scriptures incorrectly. Nephi was right when he said that people who put their trust in the arm of flesh are cursed. <br /><br />You say that the truth is all that matters to you, but clearly this is not true. The doctrines of the great and marvelous work bloggers is what matters to you. Good luck with that.MChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617695434474157417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-62912062213009325472018-03-12T18:10:27.647-07:002018-03-12T18:10:27.647-07:00MC, (Continued)
You point out that Denver defende...MC, (Continued)<br /><br />You point out that Denver defended Joseph Smith's polygamy early on. Yes he did. And he also encouraged fealty to the Brethren early on. But further study convinced him he was in error on both counts. You seem to have brought up his name as though Denver Snuffer is magical and obtained all his knowledge all at once. The reality is that just like anyone else, things he once accepted as "a given," he later found, after much study, simply are not true.<br /><br />For anyone interested in challenging their own closely held beliefs, I would suggest, in addition to "The Exoneration of Emma, Joseph, and Hyrum" the following links:<br /><br />http://denversnuffer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Plural-Marriage.pdf<br /><br />http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm<br /><br />The latter books take a step-by-step approach in breaking down, examining, and refuting specific events and allegations based on the historical records available to us. Unless one decides to buy the books, read them, and come up with valid counter-arguments, he or she is only demonstrating how much they don't really know about a subject upon which they have chosen to adamantly propound.<br /><br />My unsolicited advice: Never state an absolute knowledge of anything you have not personally experienced or witnessed. There are too many unseen variables that can trip you up and make you look foolish.Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-88232127622753970722018-03-12T18:10:05.283-07:002018-03-12T18:10:05.283-07:00MC,
I had to chuckle a bit when I saw your declar...MC, <br />I had to chuckle a bit when I saw your declarative statement that "Joseph Smith introduced plural marriage and practiced it. The case for this was closed a long time ago" because until a few years ago I held that same unyielding position. It was partly because I discovered how wrong I was (the case has decidedly NOT been closed on this matter) that today I am very careful about stating absolutes. Historical truth is slippery; what we THINK we know can turn out to be demonstrably false. Demonstrably.<br /><br />I appreciate your supplying me with source material to support your view, but I presume you did so because you thought I might not have been aware of them. On the contrary, I've read everything available on both sides of this issue. In fact, my friend Brian Hale's three volume work on Joseph Smith's Polygamy likely did more to get me to question the narrative than anything else, because when you follow the footnotes, the fraudulent provenance of these stories is quite revealing. <br /><br />The problem with one-sided sources such as these is that on the surface they can appear quite convincing. But they do not tell the complete story. So much is left out regarding motivation and more. While it's true that for many decades the conventional narrative was all but the de facto reality, the so-called "evidence" that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy crumbles upon a more thorough examination of each individual case.<br /><br />I can point you in the direction where you can investigate further, and I can assure you that when the tools of forensic historians are used to investigate all facets of the conventional story, the kind of absolutism you expressed simply does not hold up.<br /><br />Hundreds, if not thousands, of people who once firmly held testimonies identical to yours of the prophet's participation in the practice are now openly questioning themselves. Even many fundamentalists living in plural marriages are now doubting the essential doctrine of "the principle" which, as you can imagine, makes for some awkward relationships. I personally know some independent fundamentalists, and have been close friends with several for decades. Some remain in their marriages out of devotion to each other and their families, while others have agreed to amicable divorces, all because their closer investigation into the historical record has convinced them that the principle not only was not introduced by God, but also not practiced by Joseph Smith.<br /><br />I wish you could read Ronald Kerran's forthcoming book, "The Exoneration of Emma, Joseph, and Hyrum." I have an advance copy, but the book will not be ready for purchase on Amazon for a few weeks yet. I hope you'll watch for it, because as certain as you are of your position today, that is how certain I am that you will question your views by the time you are halfway through it.<br /><br />Our history has been tampered with. Dates don't line up. Locations don't line up. Journals have been doctored, motivations have been hidden. And the proof all of it is readily available for discovery by honest seekers.<br /><br />Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-43804645835128199592018-03-12T17:55:05.983-07:002018-03-12T17:55:05.983-07:00I already addressed 3 Nephi 28:10, did you not see...I already addressed 3 Nephi 28:10, did you not see it? Christ says " <b>...the Father and I are one." </b>What don't you understand about that statement? <br /><br />"These clearly show that Christ defines he and the Father being one differently than being a single being." Really?? Only if you wrest scripture I guess. <br /><br />"According to Christ's own words we can be one with him and one with the Father in the same way that they are one with each other." Yes and your point here is what? We all can have a portion of God's spirit in us. That is the way the (3) Nephites can be AS Christ and Christ can be AS the Father.<br /><br />John 17, what's your issue here? You can't conceive of a way of the Son of God would be praying to the Father? I would say study all the verses in scriptures that talk about the nature of God, that would be a good starting place.Eric Kuntzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00701839435404901159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-56496493996651430542018-03-12T10:44:09.790-07:002018-03-12T10:44:09.790-07:00I'll tell you what, the great and marvelous wo...I'll tell you what, the great and marvelous work website is the work of the devil. It is so crafty and so cunning.<br /><br />The devil knows that the LDS church is in apostasy and that because of this an honest member who is searching for the truth will see that something is wrong. <br /><br />The devil also knows that the LDS church has for many years taught a whitewashed version of our history in an attempt to become a mainstream church. <br /><br />The devil also knows that he has a whole army of anti-Mormon atheists and well meaning evangelical Christians that are very good at destroying the faith of naive Mormons who aren't well versed in the scriptures and true church history.<br /><br />The devil also knows that there are Mormons out there who won't take the bait of the anti-Mormon atheists and Evangelical Christians, because they have a firm testimony in the BOM. <br /><br />The devil knows that converts to Mormonism and most active faithful members in general have prayed about the BOM and received the witness from God that it is true. Because of this many will not renounce their faith in God or the truths he restored through Joseph Smith, in spite of the poisonous tactics of the anti-Mormons. <br /><br />So how does he ensnare and deceive this group? The answer is the great and marvelous work website and other groups who profess a belief in the BOM and other aspects of Mormonism while destroying the faith in the real God and in the truth. <br /><br />There truly are many forbidden paths that a person can follow. The road to hell truly is broad, while the road to eternal life is narrow and few find it, let alone stay on it. Matthiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373707992098571574noreply@blogger.com