Up for mo'pologizing: 1835 edition of D&C 101:4

[Guest]

And yet his later "revelation" was not doctrine. Why did it take him eight years to deliver the superceding revelation?

Because he was giving revelation on God's timetable and not his and the Saints weren't worthy of what they had, let alone more.

You've stopped addressing questions directly.

The facts:

1. Joseph Smith started taking plural wives in 1833 (Fanny).
2. In 1835 monogamous marriage was made the official doctrine of the church with the origininal statement on marriage.
3. In 1841 Joseph stepped up his polygamous practices by taking more wives.
4. He continued a steady pace throughout 1843.
5. In the spring of 1843 (May, I think) he delivered a "revelation" justifying his polygamous actions.
6. Polygamous marriages continued contrary to official church doctrine until the D&C was changed in 1875.
7. In response to accusations of polygamous practices, Joseph lied to the general church membership, the public, and law enforcement officials until his death. At times he even used the official statement on marriage in the D&C as a defense.
8. Not once did he seek to set the record straight about his practices or God's true will.

Here are some other facts for you that can be backed up with church records and court records (not hearsay and rumors).

1. Joseph Smith excommunicated members for practicing polygamy.
2. Joseph Smith filed a lawsuit against Chauncey Higbee (lawyer) for defimation of charactor, he was spreading rumors that Smith was a polygamist.
3. Here's another FACT ;) http://deseretnews.com/article/content/ ... 18,00.html through DNA Smith is slowely being vendicated. I guarantee they will not find any polygamist children from him.

Unfortunately no matter what evidence is given on Joseph Smiths behalf the lie has become truth, and it is recorded history because the Utah Church has done a good job with their propaganda. The funny thing is now they want to disown their friends the FLDS. It's a little difficult to distance one self of something that was promoted so heavily by the leaders in the past.

[_The Nehor]

And yet his later "revelation" was not doctrine. Why did it take him eight years to deliver the superceding revelation?

Because he was giving revelation on God's timetable and not his and the Saints weren't worthy of what they had, let alone more.

You've stopped addressing questions directly.

The facts:

1. Joseph Smith started taking plural wives in 1833 (Fanny).
2. In 1835 monogamous marriage was made the official doctrine of the church with the origininal statement on marriage.
3. In 1841 Joseph stepped up his polygamous practices by taking more wives.
4. He continued a steady pace throughout 1843.
5. In the spring of 1843 (May, I think) he delivered a "revelation" justifying his polygamous actions to his wife and those closest to him who were aware of his secret actions.
6. Polygamous marriages continued contrary to official church doctrine until the D&C was changed in 1875.
7. In response to accusations of polygamous practices, Joseph lied to the general church membership, the public, and law enforcement officials until his death. At times he even used the official statement on marriage in the D&C as a defense.
8. Not once did he seek to set the record straight about his practices or God's true will.

Number one is a speculation based on an angry letter by Oliver. So I think stating it as a fact is probably dangerous (unless you've had revelation on the matter).

In regards to six, we have official Church doctrine? News to me. I would have thought if we do that the open teachings of Brigham Young and others might count too.

In regards to seven, CFR.

In regards to eight, he didn't get much of a chance. A lawless mob shot him.

[_The Nehor]

I'm under obligation to believe only what the Spirit verifies to me. Every obligation in the Church is directly to God. I have no vows, oaths, or covenants owed to anyone in the Church. I like it this way. When I act on revelation I receive I act alone with only God being the final judge.

It is a nice way for believers (of any religion) to do as they wish, pick and chose what they will or will not obey, and not follow the commandments, rules, or teachings of their religion.

The "God said" excuse is a good one. :-(

If a non-believer commits a crime they are condemend.

If a believer commits the same crime but says God told them to do it, somehow that is supposed to negate the horror of the crime.

Funny.

Just blame God and all is well. OK.

~dancer~

So you're complaining that the Church isn't controlling enough? Fair enough, but I disagree.

More like Joseph Smith had no control. No self control.

That accusation is not worthy of being dignified by an answer. It shows rank ignorance of the life of Joseph Smith.

[_Mad Viking]

I'm under obligation to believe only what the Spirit verifies to me. Every obligation in the Church is directly to God. I have no vows, oaths, or covenants owed to anyone in the Church. I like it this way. When I act on revelation I receive I act alone with only God being the final judge.

It is a nice way for believers (of any religion) to do as they wish, pick and chose what they will or will not obey, and not follow the commandments, rules, or teachings of their religion.

The "God said" excuse is a good one. :-(

If a non-believer commits a crime they are condemend.

If a believer commits the same crime but says God told them to do it, somehow that is supposed to negate the horror of the crime.

Funny.

Just blame God and all is well. OK.

~dancer~

So you're complaining that the Church isn't controlling enough? Fair enough, but I disagree.

More like Joseph Smith had no control. No self control.

That accusation is not worthy of being dignified by an answer. It shows rank ignorance of the life of Joseph Smith.

As if you have been giving answers all along.

[_The Nehor]

As if you have been giving answers all along.

Well, virtually everything you've said doesn't deserve an answer. That particular instance I just wanted to point out as exceptional.

[_Mad Viking]

Number one is a speculation based on an angry letter by Oliver. So I think stating it as a fact is probably dangerous (unless you've had revelation on the matter).

In a letter dated January 21, 1838. Oliver Cowdery wrote to his brother Warren stating that Smith had inappropriately spent time alone with Alger, referring to it as a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair."

In 1903, Benjamin F. Johnson, a patriarch in the Church in Utah, wrote a letter to George S. Gibbs. Johnson alleges that "without doubt in my mind, Fannie Alger was, at Kirtland, the Prophet's first plural wife."

Chauncey Webb recounts Emma’s later discovery of the relationship: “Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house”.

Ann Eliza again recalls: “...it was felt that [Emma] certainly must have had some very good reason for her action. By degrees it became whispered about that Joseph’s love for his adopted daughter was by no means a paternal affection, and his wife, discovering the fact, at once took measures to place the girl beyond his reach...Since Emma refused decidedly to allow her to remain in her house...my mother offered to take her until she could be sent to her relatives...”

In regards to six, we have official Church doctrine? News to me. I would have thought if we do that the open teachings of Brigham Young and others might count too.

“…doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.”
http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... n-doctrine

In regards to seven, CFR.

CFR?

In regards to eight, he didn't get much of a chance. A lawless mob shot him.

Nine years isn't long enough to clear up the church's position on marriage.

[_Mad Viking]

As if you have been giving answers all along.

Well, virtually everything you've said doesn't deserve an answer. That particular instance I just wanted to point out as exceptional.

Nice try. The timeline and manner in which polygamy was instituted into the LDS church is nothing short of dishonest. You have done nothing but dodge the valid questions posed to you with regard to this matter.

[_The Nehor]

In regards to six, we have official Church doctrine? News to me. I would have thought if we do that the open teachings of Brigham Young and others might count too.

“…doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.”
http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... n-doctrine

Yes, but that defines doctrine. I note no 'official' there. A doctrine is just a teaching, nothing more, nothing less. Brigham Young told us to test his doctrines with prayer and that more doctrine would follow if we obey what we have. Seems simple enough.

Still, for some reason apostates expect to understand greater light and knowledge when they don't get the first principles. This tends to lead to delusional thinking.....this board for example.

In regards to Fanny we have one old man guessing from what he saw, a bitter and spoiled woman/apostate, and another apostate testify to it. I do not hold this as proof. Sorry.

[_The Nehor]

Nice try. The timeline and manner in which polygamy was instituted into the LDS church is nothing short of dishonest. You have done nothing but dodge the valid questions posed to you with regard to this matter.

Dishonest to who? The people trying to kill us? Boo-hoo. The disinterested who could care less? They don't care. The general membership not living the Gospel well enough to receive this light? That was their own fault.

[_TygerFang]

Nice try. The timeline and manner in which polygamy was instituted into the LDS church is nothing short of dishonest. You have done nothing but dodge the valid questions posed to you with regard to this matter.

Dishonest to who? The people trying to kill us? Boo-hoo. The disinterested who could care less? They don't care. The general membership not living the Gospel well enough to receive this light? That was their own fault.

So only Mormons who already believe in it deserve an answer. How does that make any logical sense?