I'm reviewing Dan McClellan's Book "The Bible Says So" Tonight on my BYP LIVE Show

[Everybody Wang Chung]

MG,

Try Google. Don't be a lazy learner.

There are at least 9 different accounts, including accounts by Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, and Wilford Woodruff. This is not in dispute.

Let me know if you have trouble and I'll step in, yet once again and help you out.

[MG 2.0]

MG,

Try Google. Don't be a lazy learner.

There are at least 9 different accounts, including accounts by Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, and Wilford Woodruff. This is not in dispute.

Let me know if you have trouble and I'll step in, yet once again and help you out.

You left out Heber C. Kimball. He was first. The angel purportedly appeared in 1843. It wasn't until 1846 in Winter Quarters that Heber C. made some comments in regards to the angel. He really didn't get serious, however, until he arrives in SL. Then in 1850 we hear more. Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C. Both of them, by the way were under a good deal of stress when making these assertions. Heber C. was not always known to tell the truth. He was known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts.

So, again, will you answer my questions? This isn't the first time I been down this road. Probably not the last.

Looking forward to your complete answers to each one of my questions. No weasel words, OK?

Ref,
MG

[Marcus]

MG wants to suggest that LDS doctrine has progressed “line upon line, precept upon precept” in the same way that a wall is built. That’s not by removing bricks, but by adding bricks. Harrell highlights the fact that the Church has simply removed bricks since the start of the Church, but has not added any. I’d be interested to hear of any Harrell quote that meets the criteria of him (Harrell) providing an example where an original Church doctrine has been added upon, rather than been taken away from. It’s clear that MG isn’t going to put any effort into doing that, maybe you will?

It should be noted that MG has yet to provide a quote from Harrell. It should also be noted he has point blank refused to follow Rivendale’s advice and listen to what Harrell (a reference MG brought into the thread) actually says. MG prefers to keep his head in the sand, you will not hear him admit that Harrell says the opposite to that which MG wants to believe. It’s fascinating psychological behaviour.

I had not thought MG, meant rigid addition Of bricks only. That would be simpler than including adjustments and alterations. It appeared to me he was happy to include alterations. It would be helpful if MG explained his thought more fully instead of resting on a vague generalization...

It would be, but based on his participation, it won't happen. The gymnast introduced Harrell, and he's done nothing but backpedal once it was exposed how incorrect he was to do so.

in my opinion, if he paid more attention to actual conversation instead of just casually trolling, it would improve the exchanges considerably. Will he do that? No.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

MG,

Here are just a few of the many, many accounts. I feel for you man. You've been in the church all of your life and it appears you are just learning about this troubling history. My advice, just put it on the shelf with all of your other issues.

Apologies for the formating. It's hard to cut and paste from the Hale's Appendix. Go to Appendix A of the Hale's article for a more detailed analysis of the dates and accounts of the angel with the sword commanding Joseph with the threat of destruction if he didn't fulfill the practice of polygamy https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-con ... -Sword.pdf

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner recalled that the sword-threat was not symbolic: “Joseph told me that he was afraid when the angel appeared to him and told him to take other wives. He hesitated, and the angel appeared to him the third time with a drawn sword in his hand and threatened his life if he did not fulfill the commandment

Heber C. Kimball
A grand and glorious principle had been revealed, and for years had slumbered in the breast of God’s Prophet, awaiting the time when, with safety to himself and the Church, it might be confided to the sacred keeping of a chosen few. That time had now come. An angel with a flaming sword descended from the courts of glory and, confronting the Prophet, commanded him in the name of the Lord to establish the principle.

Joseph F. Smith
“Joseph Smith was commanded to take wives, he hesitated and postponed it, seeing the consequences and the trouble that it would bring and he shrank from the responsibility, but he prayed to the Lord for it to pass as Jesus did, but Jesus had to drink it to the dregs so it was with Joseph Smith, the Lord had revealed it to him, and said now is the time for it to be practiced—but it was not until he had been told he must practice it or be destroyed that he made the attempt.

The Accounts of the Angel with a Drawn Sword
Witness Quotation Reference

Joseph Lee Robinson
“The Lord instead of releasing [Joseph Smith] from that burden, he sent an holy angel with a drawn sword unto him, saying unto him, Joseph, unless you go to and immediately teach that principle (namely polygamy or plural marriage) and put the same in practice, that he, Joseph, should be slain for thus saith the Lord, that the time has now come that I will raise up seed unto me as I spoke by my servant Jacob as is recorded in the Book of Mormon, therefore, I command my people.”

Lorenzo Snow
“He [Joseph Smith] said that the Lord had revealed [the doctrine of the plurality of wives] unto him and commanded him to have women sealed
to him as wives, that he foresaw thetrouble that would follow and sought to turn away from the commandment, that an angel from heaven appeared
before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment.”

Joseph F. Smith, Affidavit, August 18,
1869; Joseph F. Smith
Affidavit Books, 2:19,
“[Joseph Smith] explained to me the principles of plural marriage distinctly and clearly, and told me that the Lord had revealed the principle and had commanded him to enter into that practice. And that he had received a revelation to that effect. He said that he had demurred to doing so as he foresaw the trouble that would ensue, but that an angel of the Lord had appeared before him with a drawn sword commanding him to do so and he could not go backward.”

Lorenzo Snow, Testimony, Temple Lot
“Pres[iden]t Lorenzo Snow stated that he was in England with Bro[ther] [Parley] Pratt when reports came from Nauvoo to the effect that the doctrine of plural marriage was bring taught. Upon his return to Nauvoo in the spring of 1843 he had a long talk with the Prophet Joseph Smith, who fully
explained to him the doctrine of plural marriage, and stated that an angel with a drawn sword had visited him and commanded him to
go into this principle, and President Smith told Bro[ther] Snow to enter into plural marriage.”

Heber J. Grant, Diary,
“[Joseph Smith declared] that an angel appeared unto him with a drawn sword, threatening to slay him if he did not proceed to fulfill the law that had been given to him."

Benjamin F. Johnson,
Affidavit,
“Hyrum said to me, ‘Now, Brother Benjamin, you know that Brother Joseph would not sanction this if it was not from the Lord. The Lord revealed this to Brother Joseph long ago, and he put it off until the Angel of the Lord came to him with a drawn sword and told him that he would be slain if he did not go forth and fulfill the law."

Benjamin F. Johnson,
“Brother Hyram [Smith] at once took me in hand, apparently in fear I was not fully Converted and this was the manner of his talk to me—‘Now Benjamin, you must not be afraid of this new doctrine for it is all Right. You Know Brother Hyram don't get carried away by worldly things, and he faught this principle untill the Lord Showed him it was true. I know that Joseph was Commanded to take more wives and he waited untill an Angel
with a drawn Sword Stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that Command he would Slay him.’”

Eliza R. Snow
“It was a perfect law. said she had her own prejuse about it said she did not know much about it when she was married to Joseph Smith said she did not know if ever she would be owned as a wife spoke of the Angel standing with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not comply with the requirement of heaven that his priesthood should be taken from him”

“Joseph told [my brother] Lorenzo Snow that he had ‘hesitated and deferred from time to time, until an angel of God stood by him with a drawn sword and told him that, unless he moved forward and established plural marriage, his Priesthood would betaken from him and he should be destroyed!"

Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record
of Lorenzo Snow (Salt
Lake City, UT: Deseret News Company,
1884), 69–70.
1887
“[Joseph Smith] received the revelation in 1837, but he was himself afraid to promulgate it until the angel came and stood beside him with flaming sword and bade him do the command of God. Not until then did Joseph enter into polygamy, or get any of his disciples to take plural wives.”

Orson Pratt
“I had a pleasant conversation… of the trials of the Prophet Joseph in first introducing the doctrine of Celestial marriage in Nauvoo and quoted the
statement of the late apostle and church Historian [Orson Pratt d. 1881], that the angel of the Lord appeared unto the Prophet Joseph with a drawn sword and declared that if He, Joseph did not go to and teach and practice the Holy com

Zina D. Young told of Bro. Joseph’s remark in relation to the revelation on celestial marriage. How an angel came to hi with a drawn sword, and
said if he did not obey this law he would lose his priesthood; and in the keeping of it he, Joseph, did not know but it would cost him his life.”
“The Prophet’s Birthday,” Deseret News,
January 12, 1881, 2.

“[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, ‘Tell Zina I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told
me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth, I would lose my position and my life.’”

Helen Mar Kimball
“This angel, he [Joseph ] states, stood over him with a drawn sword prepared to inflict the penalty of death if he should be disobedient.”

Helen Mar Whitney,
“This fact [plural marriage] the Lord revealed to His prophet, Joseph Smith, as early as the year 1831. And yet, had it not been for the fear of
His displeasure, Joseph would have shrunk from the undertaking and would have continued silent, as he did for years, until an angel of the Lord threatened to slay him if he did not reveal and practice it."

“Spoke of the Angel of the Lord meeting Joseph with a drawn sword and of his going to slay him for his being neglectful in the discharges of his duties and of Joseph having to plead on his knees before the Angel for his Life.”

Diary of Charles Lowell
Walker, 2 vols. (Logan,
UT: Utah State University Press
“The Prophet Joseph had said to him [Erastus Snow] also ‘I have not been obedient enough to this holy law and the Lord was angry with me and an
angel met me with a drawn sword but I pled with the Lord to forgive me and he did so and I made the sacrifice required of my hand and by the help of the Lord I will obey his Holy Law.’”

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner
“In 1834 he was commanded to take me for a wife. I was a thousand miles from him. He got afraid. The angel came to him [Joseph Smith] three times, the last time with a drawn sword and threatened his life.”

Mary Elizabeth Rollins
Lightner, Statement,
February 8, 1902, Vesta
Crawford Papers
“Joseph told me that he was afraid when the angel appeared to him and told him to take other wives. He hesitated, and the angel appeared to him the third time with a drawn sword in his hand and threatened his life if he did not fulfill it

“An angel came to [Joseph Smith] and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the Book of Mormon it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except the Lord speak. . . Said he . . . ‘The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me.’”

“God Commanded him to take as a plural wife, \in 1834/ he was very much frightened about [it] until the Angel appeared to him three times. It was in the early part of Feb, 1842 before \that/ he was compelled to reveal it to me personally, by the Angel threatening him.” [Sword not mentioned.]

[I Have Questions]

I would understand MG to be thinking of doctrine development to include clarifications and minor corrections. I probably can accept the quoted list of changes as mostly falling into that category. I do not believe there has been any change in the doctrine of becoming divine. The priesthood ban is still ugly. You probably will find believer variety on Genesis literalism now as in the past.

I can see thinking that since Brigham Young there really has not been doctrinal development.

The quote on page three of this thread contains the following:

Whether the inspiration for Smith’s theology was divine or mundane, in this contribution I argue that Joseph Smith’s body of esoteric teachings simply could not have been constructed piecemeal from the sorts of sources Harrell proposes. Instead, he must have somehow gained relatively direct access to the early Jewish Christian esoteric tradition. We can be relatively certain of this because the book of Moses is composed in the form of a typical early Jewish and Jewish Christian esoteric text called an “ascent apocalypse.”5 I will argue that the evidence for this is so compelling that the focus of historians working on early LDS doctrinal history should shift more fully to whether and how Smith could have gotten his hands on early Jewish Christian esoteric traditions.

The link to this quote and the rest of Barry Bickmore's essay was given upthread.

As I said, Harrell saw the aftermath. He didn't see what was going on underneath the surface. I think many times this is the case for many of us, including those that dabble in history. This is where a bit of faith comes in.

Regards,
MG

huckleberry, this is MG once again giving a quote by a third party, instead of providing an actual quote from Harrell, and using the third party’s opinion to try and show that Harrell is saying what MG wants him to be saying. It’s sleight of hand.

[MG 2.0]

MG,

Try Google. Don't be a lazy learner.

There are at least 9 different accounts, including accounts by Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, and Wilford Woodruff. This is not in dispute.

Let me know if you have trouble and I'll step in, yet once again and help you out.

You left out Heber C. Kimball. He was first. The angel purportedly appeared in 1843. It wasn't until 1846 in Winter Quarters that Heber C. made some comments in regards to the angel. He really didn't get serious, however, until he arrives in SL. Then in 1850 we hear more. Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C. Both of them, by the way were under a good deal of stress when making these assertions. Heber C. was not always known to tell the truth. He was known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts.

So, again, will you answer my questions? This isn't the first time I been down this road. Probably not the last.

Looking forward to your complete answers to each one of my questions. No weasel words, OK?

Regards,
MG

Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff and all of the other 'witnesses' gave their testimony decades after Nauvoo polygamy. Heber's testimony was given in 1888 within a biography written by Orson F. Whitney, Kimball's grandson. There was no contemporary witness/affidavit at the time of Joseph Smith, including himself.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The quote on page three of this thread contains the following:

The link to this quote and the rest of Barry Bickmore's essay was given upthread.

As I said, Harrell saw the aftermath. He didn't see what was going on underneath the surface. I think many times this is the case for many of us, including those that dabble in history. This is where a bit of faith comes in.

Regards,
MG

huckleberry, this is MG once again giving a quote by a third party, instead of providing an actual quote from Harrell, and using the third party’s opinion to try and show that Harrell is saying what MG wants him to be saying. It’s sleight of hand.

I know what Harrell said. I read the book.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

You left out Heber C. Kimball. He was first. The angel purportedly appeared in 1843. It wasn't until 1846 in Winter Quarters that Heber C. made some comments in regards to the angel. He really didn't get serious, however, until he arrives in SL. Then in 1850 we hear more. Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C. Both of them, by the way were under a good deal of stress when making these assertions. Heber C. was not always known to tell the truth. He was known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts.

So, again, will you answer my questions? This isn't the first time I been down this road. Probably not the last.

Looking forward to your complete answers to each one of my questions. No weasel words, OK?

Regards,
MG

Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff and all of the other 'witnesses' gave their testimony decades after Nauvoo polygamy. Heber's testimony was given in 1888 within a biography writtrn by Orson F. Whitney, Kimball's grandson. There was no contemporary witness/affidavit at the time of Joseph Smith, including himself.

Regards,
MG

I’m in agreement with MG on this one - there’s no contemporary evidence that an angel forced Joseph into the shenanigans with Fanny in the barn behind his wife’s back. It seems to have been Joseph acting on his own impulses. MG makes a great point that accounts given years after the event should not be given credibility. Which of course means the accounts of the First Vision should also not be given credibility. In fact, none of the New Testament should be seen as credible. I also agree with MG’s assertion that Apostles will lie when it suits them.

It has been quite a surprise to see MG 2.0 making these admissions. Let’s hope he understood the implications of what he was saying.

[malkie]

MG,

Try Google. Don't be a lazy learner.

There are at least 9 different accounts, including accounts by Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, and Wilford Woodruff. This is not in dispute.

Let me know if you have trouble and I'll step in, yet once again and help you out.

You left out Heber C. Kimball. He was first. The angel purportedly appeared in 1843. It wasn't until 1846 in Winter Quarters that Heber C. made some comments in regards to the angel. He really didn't get serious, however, until he arrives in SL. Then in 1850 we hear more. Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C. Both of them, by the way were under a good deal of stress when making these assertions. Heber C. was not always known to tell the truth. He was known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts.

So, again, will you answer my questions? This isn't the first time I been down this road. Probably not the last.

Looking forward to your complete answers to each one of my questions. No weasel words, OK?

Ref,
MG

So a senior leader of the church, and later first counselor to Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, was " under a good deal of stress when making these assertions." He was also "not always known to tell the truth." He was "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."

In other words, Heber was unreliable, maybe an outright liar, perhaps especially when under stress. Good to know!

It also looks as if you're implying that, because "Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C.", Wilford may have been simply supporting Heber's lie - that is, he had no prior knowledge of the story about the sword. Is that what you meant to imply?

Was/is this also true of other leaders of the church? Or were Heber and possibly Wilford the only ones so afflicted? For example, have any of the present-day GAs been "not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?

[MG 2.0]

You left out Heber C. Kimball. He was first. The angel purportedly appeared in 1843. It wasn't until 1846 in Winter Quarters that Heber C. made some comments in regards to the angel. He really didn't get serious, however, until he arrives in SL. Then in 1850 we hear more. Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C. Both of them, by the way were under a good deal of stress when making these assertions. Heber C. was not always known to tell the truth. He was known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts.

So, again, will you answer my questions? This isn't the first time I been down this road. Probably not the last.

Looking forward to your complete answers to each one of my questions. No weasel words, OK?

Ref,
MG

So a senior leader of the church, and later first counselor to Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, was " under a good deal of stress when making these assertions." He was also "not always known to tell the truth." He was "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."

In other words, Heber was unreliable, maybe an outright liar, perhaps especially when under stress. Good to know!

It also looks as if you're implying that, because "Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C.", Wilford may have been simply supporting Heber's lie - that is, he had no prior knowledge of the story about the sword. Is that what you meant to imply?

Was/is this also true of other leaders of the church? Or were Heber and possibly Wilford the only ones so afflicted? For example, have any of the present-day GAs been "not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?

I can't say that I know the details and nitty gritty on this. I wasn't involved obviously. What I do know, however, is that we are prone, as human beings, to relying on and respecting authority in our 'tribes'. Some playing into that tendency more than others. Especially when in direct line or responsibility to the authority. People even 'fall in line' with a sense of integrity and personal 'truth' as they do so.

I think there are studies and examples out there which show this human behavior to be rather common. At the end of the day we are each responsible for determining what we know/believe to be the closest approximation to the truth.

Regards,
MG