Tag Archives: Joseph Smith

Christmas Is For Cover Ups

Laura Seitz, Deseret News

More than one month ago, I reported on the vaccine injury of Richard Harward and I said that every day that goes by that the Church is not transparent is further evidence of their dishonesty and willingness to cover up the truth to protect themselves.

As of today, December 23, 2021, the Church-owned Deseret News, BYU, KSL, and the entire leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including, ironically heart surgeon and Church president Russell M. Nelson, are still complicit in a cover up that potentially affects the health and lives of millions of people just like Richard, who the Church and BYU coerced and apparently shamed into getting vaccinated.  Since Richard’s incident, the Church has doubled down on its position, calling vaccines a godsend from heaven to gather Israel on both sides of the veil, as it’s been reported by LDTruths.

The Deseret News decided to finally to publish something about Richard’s condition, which until December 14th, no Utah media outlet was reporting on.  They reported on knee injuries and other health updates of all of its players except for one.  Richard’s.  And now, they report that due to “a cardiovascular issue” Richard is stepping down from basketball.  Likely forever.  With NO mention of the vaccine whatsoever.   (Source)

The Citizen Free Press, an internationally respected conservative news outlet, is way ahead of any and all Utah news outlets in reporting the truth about this awful situation.

Vaccinated BYU Starting Center — I will miss the rest of season due to ‘heart damage’…

I was pleasantly surprised that CFP linked to my story as one of its sources.  But, that’s what real journalists do — they look under every rock and look at every possible source to try to get to the truth.

Where is the real journalism in Utah?  Where is the Free Press here?  Where is the Salt Lake Tribune?  KSL?  LDS Church News?  Deseret News?  The Daily Universe?  Where is heart surgeon Russell Nelson?  Where are the apologies?  Where is the newly appointed committee to investigate?  Where is the transparency?

Thousands of people have left and/or have lost faith in the church and its leaders because of the lack of transparency.  See Mountain Meadows, polygamy, electric shock therapy, child abuse, missionaries abused at the MTC, finances, and much more.  One would think that the Church would be trying harder, given the exodus of so many of its once faithful members, and given its current abysmal growth numbers that, for the first time in at least 40 years, it isn’t reporting to local news outlets and other officials.  (Another story for another day).

It would seem the Church is more interested in protecting its own interests than in telling the truth and protecting the injured and vulnerable.  I propose the Brethren give their combined Church salaries to this young man for the next 30 years along with millions of dollars in restitution (of their own funds) and it still won’t be enough.  Why not remove one of their own names from the many buildings at BYU and place his name on it in the meantime?  Do something.  Saying and doing nothing speaks volumes.

Elder Stevenson

I think it’s also important to shed light on other things the Church is now being strangely quiet about, namely LDS Apostle Gary Stevenson and his role in the company iFit.  The Salt Lake Tribune and other news outlets reported on this Apostle’s “special dispensation” granted to him by the Brethren which allowed him to, instead of go without purse or scrip, actually keep his purse, scrip, and 43 million shares as well as other income from his company iFit (aka Icon).

I have it from a credible source that iFit has struggled for decades with over $1+ billion in company debt.  Despite large annual revenues, its debt service costs have crippled the company and it’s been a problem it could not find anyone to help solve, for years and years.  During all those years, Gary and his business partner, insisted that no matter how much the company might lose in a given year, they would pay themselves millions a year each in salaries.  I assume this is why it was reported that “$53.2 million in loans to managers” would be forgiven as part of the IPO transaction.

I once met a woman who lived down the street from Stevenson for decades.  For 10+ years she worked for him at iFit.  She had 8 children and a deadbeat husband in prison.  She worked the graveyard shift on the assembly line in very poor working conditions, making $11 an hour.  The pay was so little that she was forced to also have a day job at Walmart.  This poor woman worked 80+ hours a week while trying to care for her children’s’ needs.  I’m told she explained her dilemma to her neighbor Gary, whose Logan home is reported to be more than 12,000 square feet, and asked him for a raise.  He told her he could not give her a raise because “it would set the wrong precedent.”

In line with this sad tale is the recent Herald Journal reporting that iFit just laid off an undisclosed number of employees right before the holidays:

Lindsey Lundholm worked as a software tester and was one of the employees terminated on Friday. She wrote about her experience on social media the following Monday — in a post that has garnered over 100 likes and more than 150 comments. “We were told so many times in meetings that the company was growing and doing so well and to refer our friends,” Lundholm said. “A few weeks later, Friday, I get asked to join a Zoom meeting. It was the testing supervisor and an HR representative. They proceeded to tell me that I was getting laid off, that I had until the end of the day.” Lundholm stated the representative and supervisor said they had to cut back on employees and that the department was hit hard. Soon after, she was locked out of company Wi-Fi and removed from a workplace chat app.  “I would guess at least half of my team was laid off that day,” Lundholm added.  “I just feel iFIT isn’t telling the truth,” he said. “They go off telling people how profitable their Black Friday was but then why are they experiencing so many layoffs? … It feels that iFit’s ethics are nonexistent.”  An employee in the home delivery department, who asked not to be identified, said she had no warning she would be let go. She said she was told during her termination that she would be put down for immediate rehire. “There is no such thing, as I found out later,” she said. “Then when I applied for unemployment, they put down that I was fired, which was not the case, and put misconduct and attendance as the reasoning.”  (Source)

It should be noted that IFit’s IPO is now on hold because it’s being sued by two different large corporations, Peleton and Hyperice, for alleged patent infringements, which could ruin its hopes for an IPO at all.

Last checked, Gary Stevenson has at least 3 very large homes, which I’ve been told are all over 10,000 square feet each.  Yet, his company lays off employees at Christmas time, carries a billion dollars in expensive debt, refuses to give a poor woman with 8 kids and no husband a raise and borrows millions in potentially phantom loans from the company for himself and partner.

It’s also concerning to many who have looked into this more than I have, whether Stevenson has used his position as presiding bishop and apostle to advance his personal business interests, which almost made him the first billionaire apostle.  Keep in mind that as presiding bishop, Stevenson was one of only 7 people on earth to know about and to oversee the Ensign Peak 100+ billion dollar fund.  Might there be conflicts of interest that arise while managing such funds and while being in need of funds for his own company?

One could also wonder if the Church has given special pricing for some of the ads we’ve seen from iFit (NordicTrack) in between General Conference sessions.  

I don’t mean to pick on Elder Stevenson nor do I wish him any ill will.  I’m sure he’s likely a very nice person.  But, when a person holds the sacred office of Apostle and maintains such public business interests, there needs to be public transparency and public scrutiny for there to be also integrity and public confidence.  Especially when he and his company decide to lay people off during Christmas and are being sued for stealing someone else’s patents.

It’s December 23rd

In contrast, Joseph Smith was petitioning for bankruptcy at the time of his death.  He could have been the first millionaire West of the Mississippi like Brigham Young, but instead Joseph gave any spare money he had to the poor and spent months in jail unjustly accused of things he didn’t do.  He was known as a poor businessman for giving away his store’s goods, giving away his horses, taking in other people’s children all while trying to care for his own family and was never paid a salary for his labors with the church.  Joseph was also falsely accused as he is today… by his own Church and lamented before his death that no one really knew him and that if his life was of no value to his friends it was of none to him.

Most sad of all for me today is that on this the 23rd day of December, the Church does not remember or honor this man’s birthday.  Not on their website.  Not on Church News or Deseret News.  It highlights Russell Nelson and #lighting the world and job training and CoVid and temples and missionary work in the DRC and interfaith concerts and temple square renovations and President Oaks in Rome…  But not a peep about today being the day Joseph Smith was born.

This was certainly not the case for Russell Nelson’s 95th and 96th and 97th birthdays…

Joseph died trying to expose darkness.  He fought against polygamy, called out impostors, stood against the mobs with boldness and went as a lamb to the slaughter in June of 1844… another day the Church no longer commemorates.  Joseph knew Christ and not only saw Him, but he lived and died by His words.  He was a true prophet and if he were here today, I think he would not be well received by today’s church.

All Wives Matter

I’ve recently been reading the autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. I know some of his descendants quite well. One, in particular, is a dear friend and is willing to go deep with me and to be “honest” about polygamy. He truly believes in the principle as one taught by Joseph Smith. He believes his grandfather was only doing as he was taught and commanded by Joseph.

Yet, as I have now read and analyzed the whole book, I have found NOTHING in Parley’s account that links the teaching of polygamy to Joseph Smith.

I was struck, I must say, by the many accounts Parley shares of healings and miracles and baptisms. He was truly a fierce and loyal force for good at the time of Joseph. He converted many! In fact, some could argue that he even neglected his first wife Thankful as he served mission after mission, leaving her home, unhealthy, childless, poor, and alone for years at a time.

But, no one could argue that there was any contemporary of Joseph who was more sincere and more faithful than he was. Parley was about Joseph’s age and was one of the original twelve apostles of the Church. He was killed on May 13, 1857 by Hector McLean, at the age of 50, for having taken McLean’s wife Eleanor from him. She was Pratt’s 11th wife.

I decided to read Pratt’s autobiography in part because I thought surely if anyone would be honest about polygamy and its origins, it would be him. If anyone would have first-hand information about Joseph teaching polygamy it would be him.

I was surprised that I did not get to the topic of polygamy until page 407. Although I should mention that there is a footnote on page 369. Footnote 20. This footnote references a paragraph from pages 361 and 362 where it says:

In Philadelphia I had the happiness of once more meeting with president Smith, and of spending several days with him and others, and with the Saints in that city and vicinity. During these interviews he taught me many great and glorious principles concerning God and the heavenly order of eternity. It was at this time that I received from him the first idea of eternal family organization, and the eternal union of the sexes in those inexpressibly endearing relationships which none but the highly intellectual, the refined and pure in heart, know how to prize, and which are at the very foundation of everything worthy to be called happiness. Til then I had learned to esteem kindred affections and sympathies as appertaining solely to this transitory state, as something from which the heart must be entirely weaned, in order to be fitted for its heavenly state. It was Joseph Smith who taught me how to prize the endearing relationships of father and mother, husband and wife; of brother and sister, son and daughter. It was from him that I learned that the wife of my bosom might be secured to me for time and all eternity; and that the refined sympathies and affections which endeared us to each other emanated from the fountain of divine eternal love. It was from him that I learned that we might cultivate these affections, and grow and increase in the same to all eternity; while the result of our endless union would be an offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, or the sands of the sea shore. It was from him that I learned the true dignity and destiny of a son of God, clothed with an eternal priesthood, as the patriarch and sovereign of his countless offspring. It was from him that I learned that the highest dignity of womanhood was, to stand as a queen and priestess to her husband, and to reign for ever and ever as the queen mother of her numerous and still increasing offspring. I had loved before, but I knew not why. But now I loved — with a pureness and intensity of elevated, exalted feeling, which would lift my soul from the transitory things of this grovelling sphere and expand it as the ocean. I felt that God was my heavenly Father indeed; that Jesus was my brother, and that the wife of my bosom was an immortal, eternal companion; a kind of ministering angel, given to me as a comfort, and a crown of glory for ever and ever. In short, I could now love with the spirit and with the understanding also. (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, page 361-362.)

Notice, not a mention of polygamy. And this is in 1839 and 1840. The footnote, however, which was added by either Parley P. Pratt Jr. many years later, or more likely by Scot and Maurine Proctor, the most recent LDS editors, tells a very different story. They conclude that in the above paragraph:

Parley is referring to marriage for time and all eternity and to what would be later referred to as “the principle,” or plural marriage. As in all things in the gospel, Parley was obedient to this teaching. Less than three years later, he married the first of his ten plural wives. (Page 369)

Did you read the preceding paragraph on page 361 and 362 as the teaching of polygamy from Joseph Smith? I did not.

I am amazed that someone so close to the original source of this foundational eternal teaching is in need of 20th-century assistance in making sure the attributions and definitions are correct.

And so we go to page 407, footnote 9:

…We learn of Parley’s first plural marriage at this period from the family record: “Elizabeth Brotherton, daughter of Thomas and Sarah Brotherton, born March 27, 1816 in Machester, England, sealed to Parley P. Pratt for time and all eternity, June (then overwritten with July) 24, 1843. Done at the house of Brigham Young in Nauvoo, by the hand of Patriarch Hyrum Smith… (Pratt, Family Record, my emphasis added).

Why would the Family Record have written over the date of Parley P. Pratt’s first plural wife? Especially given that Parley’s own record in his autobiography that this footnote is created from says nothing of any marriage with anyone. In fact, it simply says:

My time, from arrival until the last of the year, was spent in the ministry, and in building, travelling, etc. (Page 406).

And yet, the footnote added over one hundred years later seems to want to establish the precise date of Parley’s first plural marriage although he himself, an ardent believer and later preacher of the polygamy, does not think it important to mention when he actually begins to practice the Celestial Law in his own autobiographical account. In fact, he was so busy in the ministry and in building and in traveling that he literally did not even have 30 minutes to return a letter:

Although it may seem strange to you I have not seen 1/2 hour which it was in my power to devote to that purpose (returning a letter) till now on account of business, building, visiting and receiving company etc. (page 407, footnote 9).

And yet we’re to believe that during this time he HAD time to court a woman in addition to his wife and propose marriage to her.

Furthermore, why write over Parley’s original date of June 24, 1843? (Or whoever’s…) Well, it’s important to note that Joseph Smith did not receive the revelation on polygamy until July 12, 1843, according to the LDS Church. So, if Parley did in fact enter into plural marriage before that date (i.e. in June) then he would have done so before the actual revelation was even received, let alone taught by Joseph.

Another relevant question is why is it important that Hyrum performed the ceremony, rather than say Brigham Young, IF it was in July of 1843, when it was “approved”? That’s also an important and interesting detail. The appendix of Parley’s autobiography spells out why. According to this appendix (added by who we cannot be sure) the “Twelve” did not receive the Keys from Joseph until April of 1844. So Brigham would not have had the authority to seal and to bind or to perform this plural marriage.

So although it was conveniently at Brigham’s home, the attribution of who married them, needed to be Hyrum or Joseph. Both of whom were prophets and co-presidents of the Church.

As important as this event would be in Church History, I can find nothing in the actual Joseph Smith Papers or in the History of the Church regarding the plural marriage of this prominent apostle during Joseph’s lifetime. This, however, is conveniently added to the footnotes of the JSP during that timeframe:

Less than a month before this revelation was dictated, Hyrum Smith sealedParley P. Pratt to his wife, Mary Ann Frost Pratt, without authorization from JS. Upon finding out about this sealing, JS criticized Hyrum and reaffirmed his sole authority to perform or to grant authority to others to perform such sealings. Following the dictation of this revelation and with JS’s approval, Hyrum Smith sealed Pratt to his deceased first wife, Thankful Halsey Pratt; his second wife, Mary Ann; and a third wife, Elizabeth Brotherton. Since 1832, JS had dictated revelations that identified himself as the person holding the “keys of the Kingdom.” (Givens and Grow, Parley P. Pratt, 204–205; Mary Ann Frost Pratt, Life Sketch of Olive Frost, ca. May 1887, in “Miscellaneous,” Historical Record, May 1887, 6:234–235; Revelation, 15 Mar. 1832 [D&C 81:2].)  

How strange indeed that Hyrum would perform an eternal sealing without Joseph’s consent.

Like many of these footnotes, they don’t lead to any solid sources. Look at the last link above — it’s to a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1832. Yet, we’re in 1843 supposedly. No actual corroborating sources to verify JS’s anger, either… The Church and its apologists yet again, wish to stack the footnote narrative to fit their story.

I find it amazing that in one of the few autobiographies of one of the original LDS apostles, Parley Pratt does not help the LDS Church clear up the issue of whether Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy or not. Without footnotes in Parley’s record, Joseph cannot be tied to the teaching.

Taken

175 years ago Joseph and Hyrum were taken from our midst.  This day is always a solemn one for me.  I love those men who communed with Jehovah.  They left behind them their wives and young children.  They died willingly and offered themselves up as a sacrifice, I believe, for us.  I am always moved to tears by their mother Lucy’s account of what must have been the most painful moment of her life:

“After the corpses were washed and dressed in their burial clothes, we were allowed to see them. I had for a long time braced every nerve, roused every energy of my soul, and called upon God to strengthen me, but when I entered the room and saw my murdered sons extended both at once before my eyes and heard the sobs and groans of my family and the cries of ‘Father! Husband! Brothers!’ from the lips of their wives, children, brothers, and sisters, it was too much; I sank back, crying to the Lord in the agony of my soul, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken this family!’ A voice replied, ‘I have taken them to myself, that they might have rest.'”

Joseph only 38 and Hyrum 44 went as lambs to the slaughter.  I think it is accurate to say they died for the Church.  Joseph’s last words are haunting as he looked upon members and friends who had betrayed him:  Oh Lord my God…  Had he been able to finish his sentence it might have continued to say … Is there no help for the widow’s son?

The Masonic call of distress recognized undoubtedly by brother Masons he saw before him, perhaps a part of the mob, from whom he sought mercy.

The more I study, the more I’m becoming sympathetic to Emma’s version of the facts regarding the charges leveled against Joseph and Hyrum over polygamy.  I think they were innocent of those whoredoms that were conveniently blamed on Joseph after his death.

Emma was true to Joseph and said after his death:  “If there is no Joseph there is no church.”  Is it possible she was right?  Did losing Joseph and Hyrum equate to our collective condemnation being fulfilled?  D&C 84 makes it clear in 1831 that we as a church were placed under condemnation.  Section 124 states clearly that if we did not build the Nauvoo Temple in the space of time granted, we would be rejected as a Church.  Maybe Emma was right.  Maybe the fact we took the words and works of Joseph so lightly led to him being taken from us.

Emma, who we are told by the Lord was an elect lady, was not so revered by Brigham Young and his followers.

In the October session of General Conference 1866, Brigham Young made these comments:

…”To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness. Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth, and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she. He told here where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he ‘You got that poison from so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.’ When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. he spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him.”

I do not believe Brigham Young and find his account inconsistent with all that was ever recorded by Emma or Joseph or their family about their relationship.  I find his account as ridiculous as the one charging Emma with the attempted murder of Eliza Snow, who was said to be pregnant with Joseph’s child.  She allegedly miscarried and yet was teaching school the next day after being pushed down the steps by Emma.

It’s perhaps more interesting to contemplate why Brigham might feel so threatened by Emma as to slander her so openly.  Did he fear her?  Did he fear Joseph’s son coming to take his position in the church?  After all, Brigham had campaigned to be president with the promise that he would only be the church’s caretaker until Joseph III was old enough to take his rightful position as the Church’s leader.

I’ve said it before, I stand with Emma and the Smith family.  I will not speak ill of Joseph, for I know he is anointed.  I do not speak ill of Emma out of admiration and respect for all she suffered and did and I believe she was a woman of great valor.

I was curious today to get an email from LDSLiving promoting a book profiting on the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum.  It’s not a new book, in fact the entire story was a republication of an ad pushing this book two years ago.  The pitch has the flavor of something you might find on the cover of a popular magazine.  “6 Things You Didn’t Know About the Plot to Murder Joseph Smith.”

“For more great insights like these, check out Mark Goodmansen’s book Conspiracy at Carthage: The Plot to Murder Joseph Smith, available at Deseret Book stores or deseretbook.com. For more information, check out markgoodmansen.com.”

I decided to see what might be on the Church’s official website about the importance of today. I was actually quite stunned when I saw that there was nothing. Not even a mention of the Martyrdom of Mormonism’s founder on the 175th anniversary of their passing.  I find this truly sad.

I did notice an article about Presisent Nelson’s birthday celebration coming up in September however.

“Guest artists for President Russell M. Nelson’s 95th birthday celebration, scheduled for early September, have been announced. Latter-day Saint performing artists Jenny Oaks Baker & Family Four, GENTRI, The Bonner Family, Nathan Pacheco and Donny Osmond will join The Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra at Temple Square for the evening celebration on Friday, September 6, 2019.”

“The gala celebrating the influence of the Savior in the life of President Nelson and his lifelong service in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints begins at 8:00 p.m. mountain daylight time in the Conference Center in Salt Lake City. The performance will be broadcast live on ChurchofJesusChrist.org and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Facebook page and YouTube channel. Additional channels and broadcast and rebroadcast times are pending.”

Sad on so many levels.  And what a truly unfortunate oversight by the Church.

 

 

 

“Truth Claims”

Written by LDS author Brian Hales (anesthesiologist) who clearly wants Polygamy to be true.

More young people are leaving the Church.  I’m not sure anyone knows the exact number, but it’s safe to say that most people know someone under the age of 40 who has left in the last year.  There’s a common theme for those leaving—Concerns over the Church’s “truth claims.”  In large part, these concerns begin with or are made worse by what the Church teaches about Joseph Smith and polygamy.

The Church’s claims about their founding prophet are incompatible.  On one hand, “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.”

On the other hand, he was secretly practicing polygamy, which included having sex with other women, some as young as age 14, some of which were married to other men, ALL while simultaneously openly teaching that polygamy is an abomination and while excommunicating others for doing the same.

This flagrant contradiction makes it very hard for an honest and moral person to believe Joseph was worthy to do God’s work and to be His servant.

After all, the scriptures teach that adultery is wrong; that polygamy is wrong, that pedophilia is wrong; that orgies and whoredoms are wrong.  These are all things, ironically, the Church today teaches as wrong and unlawful.  Our youth today are taught to not even watch rated R movies or to wear immodest clothing, but somehow whoredoms were commanded by God for almost 100 years in the Church.  It’s a hard idea for most to reconcile.  (If you think whoredoms is too strong of a word, then I would cite you to Jacob chapter 2.)

No wonder, based on the Church’s claim that polygamy was started by Joseph Smith, so many conclude the Church simply cannot be true and that he cannot be a true prophet.

Consider how you might feel today about Warren Jeffs and his followers.  Many of us will conclude by their fruits that he is not a true prophet and that his people are deceived.  If we who are active LDS feel so biased against today’s polygamists, then how can we expect that some of our own will not come to the same conclusions about our polygamous history?  Do you feel inclined for example, to read Warren Jeff’s revelations he’s getting in prison?  Why not?  “Because his fruits are evil.  He’s a pedophile. He’s a womanizer.  So why even insult God by considering his teachings…”  Right?

Hence the Church’s great dilemma.  This is how many of our youth are now seeing this issue of the Church’s claim that Joseph started and practiced polygamy.  And why wouldn’t they?  After all, can good fruit come from a bad seed or from a completely immoral and unworthy man?

But was Joseph really practicing polygamy?

I know for some that sounds like a silly question because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and many other historians have been so “clear” on this subject.  Why would the Church say Joseph Smith did practice polygamy if he in fact didn’t?  Why be dishonest about something so unflattering?  These are good questions, but let’s start with the obvious:

If Joseph did not practice Polygamy as did Brigham his successor, then the LDS Church’s claim of being “true” and of having the Keys, is seriously undermined. 

It’s a curious idea—If the Church had evidence that showed Joseph never actually practiced polygamy and was always faithful to Emma and cleaved to none other, what would become of the Church?

I posed this question to a young man who left the Church recently who had just read the CES Letter.  His initial response was: “The Church and its leaders would be so relieved!”  I gave him an inquisitive look.  Being a very smart young man he corrected his response to: “The Church would be ruined.”  That’s exactly right sadly.  Why would it be ruined?  Because where a jury may not be able to convict Joseph of polygamy on evidence, it clearly can convict all the Church leaders after him up to 1945.  And if polygamy was wrongly practiced after Joseph’s death, then today’s LDS Church has a much harder argument proving it was worthy to procure or keep the all important Keys it claims to have from Joseph.

Let’s pause at 1945 for a moment.  As a missionary I was instructed to tell people that polygamy was outlawed in 1890 and Mormons stopped practicing it abruptly, then.  This is one of the Church’s “truth claims.”  But is it completely accurate?  I won’t turn you to the many troubling stories of what happened after the Manifesto in 1890, but anyone who has delved even a little will find that Mormons were winking and nodding for many years thereafter.  Members and leaders alike were going to Mexico to be married to plural wives.  One elderly prophet engaged in a plural marriage to a woman several decades younger than himself off the West coast, on a boat (international waters), many years after 1890.  And then there’s President Heber J. Grant, the last polygamist prophet of the Church who died in 1945.  He had been married to 3 women at the same time, but all of them died before he became the leader of the Church.  So technically, the last prophet of the Church who actually believed in and taught AND practiced polygamy died when my dad was 2 years old.

When a young missionary or young Mormon person is led to believe that polygamy came to a hard stop without resistance because it was made illegal in 1890 and because President Woodruff had a revelation, and because “we believe in honoring the laws of the land,” they are often confused when they find that technically a man who was prophet of the Church until 1945 was an avowed polygamist and that many so-called law abiding Church leaders before him were disobeying the laws of the land that they swore to honor.

The other truth claim aforementioned is that polygamy only ended because a prophet received a revelation or had a vision.  This truth claim is also troubling to many honest thinkers.  On one hand we have Brigham Young who prophesied that Polygamy was the only way for a man to enter the Celestial Kingdom and unequivocally stated that if the Church ever abandoned the practice, it would lose its Priesthood and be destroyed as a Church.  On the other hand, we have Wilford Woodruff receiving a “revelation” contradicting Brigham’s teachings and prophesies.  Which is it?  Again, an honest person recognizes the dilemma.  And then we add to the dilemma of prophets contradicting one another, the historical facts that strongly point to Mormons being forced by governmental pressure to abandon polygamy all the way down to the Manifesto being written by a non-LDS lawyer and the requirement that his words (the Manifesto) be added to the Doctrine and Covenants so that Church members would be more inclined to take it seriously.  Do you not find it strange that such an important revelation is only a footnote in the back of the D&C rather than its own section?  Same for blacks and the Priesthood?

So here’s the second question I posed to my young friend who just left the Church: “What if Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy and never had sex with anyone but Emma and was telling the truth about the abomination of polygamy?  Would that change how you feel about the other concerns you have?”  His response was predictable.  “That’s impossible.  History proves Joseph was a polygamist.  It’s not even a question.”  So I asked a follow up question.  “But, where does this most of this ‘unquestioned history’ come from?”  The answer of course is that it largely comes from the Church itself.  I continued, “Did you know that not only did Emma not believe Joseph was ever a polygamist and gave that testimony until her death, but neither did Joseph’s mother or Joseph’s children believe it?  In fact, none of the believers of the future RLDS Church seemed to believe that Joseph was a polygamist nor did they believe polygamy was a revelation from God.”

As members of this Church we are generally unaware of the great schisms that existed upon the death of Joseph and Hyrum.  Brighamites, Josephites, Strangites, Cochranites, Rigdonites, etc.  This hints at another truth claim regarding succession that we won’t go into completely now, but that is often troubling for those hearing it for the first time.  Many have no idea that Brigham Young was never ordained by the 12 (or anyone) for example, and was not unanimously sustained by them either.  Nor do many know that the Church was 3-1/2 years without a President.  Or that Brigham campaigned on the promise that he’d never be the prophet and would only act as the Church’s custodian until Joseph III was old enough to be the Church’s rightful leader.  Or that Brigham all but abolished the Relief Society during this time, because he saw Emma and her organization as a threat.  He actually blamed the Relief Society for the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, in part because she was advocating for monogamy and morality.  Or that Brigham’s first thought by his own words upon hearing that Joseph was gone was “We’ve lost the keys…”  The succession crisis was just that– a succession crisis– but the Church does not offer a lot of transparency on this topic thus causing some honest and often young minds to see the Church as dishonest about its history.

This crisis led to the formation of several new branches of Mormonism.  Emma, Lucy and much of the Joseph Smith family refused to follow Brigham.  Emma confronted Brigham on the topic of polygamy and reaffirmed that Joseph had told Brigham in her presence that it was not of God.  To say that Brigham and Emma did not like each other would be an understatement.  What divided them?  Polygamy among other things.

In fact, an argument could be made that Joseph lost his life because of the charges of polygamy being leveled against him and subsequently the Church split into fragments largely based on the differing beliefs surrounding polygamy.

And yet, as I mentioned earlier, Joseph cannot be convicted of polygamy.  Consider the following facts and ideas:

  1. There is zero DNA that links any child or descendant to Joseph Smith.
  2. This despite the teaching that the Lord commands polygamy (see Jacob 2 and case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) in order to raise up seed.
  3. There is nothing but hearsay evidence, often decades later from less credible, uncorroborated sources.  If you don’t think people won’t lie for what they think is for the greater good then I cite you to the recent Justice Kavanaugh hearings where at least one woman literally lied about events that never took place.  Perjury in order to advance a narrative and agenda.  Lawyers and a propaganda machine funded her and stood by her side because they needed her story to be true.  Why would it have been any different in Brigham’s day?  Their religion, their society, and their very way of life were dependent upon being able to pin polygamy to Joseph, the founder of their religion.
  4. There is no eye witness that caught Joseph in the act of being unfaithful.  No bath house, group massage, group-anything experience.  No hotel owner or inn keeper.  No setting in which Joseph is seen with a woman in a sexual or unfaithful situation.  Never seen walking down the streets of Nauvoo with some other woman inappropriately or in some back alley.  All this while male secretaries are following him and recording his history.
  5. Even Joseph’s own wife is positive Joseph was not a polygamist.  Why would she lie?  Especially if she wasn’t going to be a part of Brigham’s group?  In her mind she was going East and would likely never see Brigham and the LDS Church again.
  6. Why would Emma as the Church’s most prominent female leader, edit and publish the Voices of Innocence, a publication bashing polygamy, adultery, and fornication, and have that document sustained by 8,000 members of the Church in 1844—a document Joseph wrote?
  7. Why would Joseph be tried in Far West by the Stake for “the girl business” in 1838 only to be exonerated by that Council?  If he was guilty and there were witnesses, then why was he not convicted?
  8. Why was section 132, which is the Church’s only document from Joseph on polygamy, not published in the D&C until 1852, years after Joseph’s death?  Why is it not all in Joseph’s handwriting?  Why did the Church edit it?  Add to it?  Subtract from it?
  9. When in the history of the world has the Lord commanded an entire people to practice polygamy?  (See Brigham Young’s teachings)  Will Nephi not be exalted because he was not practicing polygamy?  Paul?  Peter?  Isaiah?  Others?
  10. If polygamy was intended to be the Church’s new law and was the only way into the Highest heavens, then why would Joseph receive section 49 that teaches a man must have only one wife?
  11. Why would Joseph point to the former D&C section 101 that teaches against fornication and polygamy when defending himself against John C. Bennet? For that matter why did Brigham Young remove section 101?
  12. Did the LDS Church have pure motives in the Temple Lot case when it provided affidavits against Joseph as a polygamist in order to try to prevent the RLDS Church from getting the Independence Temple Lot?
  13. Why doesn’t the Church release the William Clayton diaries?  Or other records that might shed light on the subject?  If the William Clayton diaries convict Joseph, that would only help the Church’s narrative.

Interestingly, Joseph’s own grandson Israel Smith says the following on the subject:

“Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about when something had to be done to justify … Utah Mormon polygamy.”

Is it possible that Joseph was in fact a victim of fraud and conspiracy?  Is it possible he was telling the truth the whole time?  Was there motive from the polygamist Cochranites and those they persuaded that spiritual wifery was of God, to push this system on Joseph and on the Church?  Are there holes in the testimonies of those who followed Brigham?  Can we really trust the witnesses of women who were supposedly once married to Joseph but then who subsequently became Brigham’s wives?  Would they not have an agenda to pin polygamy on Joseph?  For the “greater good” and to preserve their way of life?

If Joseph is exonerated of being a dishonest and immoral man, then the Church sadly has the most to lose.  If Brigham was an adulterer and polygamy was an abomination, and Joseph was doing neither, it’s hard to argue that Keys can be transferred upon such principles of unrighteousness.  But, if Joseph is exonerated, it’s also far more likely that people will not be so quick to throw away the Book of Mormon, the teachings of Joseph Smith, the D&C and Pearl of Great Price, and most importantly, the restoration itself.

Sadly, the LDS Church needs Joseph to be as guilty of polygamy as was Brigham and the Church needs to continue to push the teaching that polygamy came to Joseph as a revelation from God.  If they lose that argument, they may just lose the Church.  Yet, by holding onto it, they lose great people whose consciences no longer allow them to believe that an immoral man is one of God’s true messengers.

For those interested in reading more on this topic, I’d recommend strongly the following links, which provide far better research than what’s contained in this short blog post.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-im-abandoning-polygamy.html

http://denversnuffer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Plural-Marriage.pdf

http://downloads.miridiatech.com.s3.amazonaws.com/remnant/JosephSmithsMonogamy.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2z_BoaWNc-DZoZJcLNOceHWLpXuwGTdy5kTH02TNZVjOkd6r96aqG_bZc

https://theexonerationofemmajosephandhyrum.com/

http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

How Shall I Know?

If one takes the temple endowment seriously, discerning between true and false ministers and messengers is unequivocally paramount to our salvation.

To Adam’s credit he asked the three Angel strangers, “How shall I know that you are true messengers?”  Think of the audacity on Adam’s part to pose such a question that demonstrated he either A) did not perceive these messengers to be angelic beings from a different world and/or B) did not care.

Adam was firmly committed to KNOWING if these were the same messengers his Father promised to send, who would instruct him on how to re-enter into the presence of the Lord AND he simply would not be fooled.

The Messengers seemingly took no offense to Adam’s questioning, in fact, they commended him for his integrity and were all the more pleased to find in him such firm-mindedness.

Satan had apparently fooled everyone else, “Except for this man” who had discerned his false priests as only capable of sharing “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.”

With them Adam would have done as the scriptures teach — he would have listened to their words (the seed), with a soft heart (good soil), and would have pondered and prayed with real intent (water/sunlight) and then would have waited sufficiently to see if the seed that was planted was good.  If it was good it would grow and eventually, with time and continued care, produce fruit. If it was bad, there would be no plant and no fruit.

With fruit a person can then KNOW and like the people at the time of King Benjamin would have been able to proclaim:

Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually (i.e. the fruit, see also Galatians 5) (Mosiah 5:2, my emphasis added).

But, during Adam’s time, there were no authorized teachers before the three Messengers appeared.  There was no Holy Man named King Benjamin or Melchizedek or anyone else. Only Satan’s false priests and worldly philosophers.

The first of all the Holy Prophets was yet to fully awaken to his pre-mortal High Priest status (see Alma 13).

So, God, according to His plan, would make his Doctrines known unto Adam by the mouth of angels directly (Alma 13:26) and as he had been the Chief Angel in God’s presence, he would also would be the world’s first Holy Man a.k.a. the First Father.  Then, and only then, would Adam be able to share the Heavenly message with others by the Holy Ghost in such a way that the message would carry unto the hearts of the children of men (2 Nephi 33:1).

“Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ.”

Holy men (including women and even sometimes children) can also speak with the Tongue of Angels after having been sanctified by and filled with the Holy Ghost.

This is the pattern or template (notice the word Temple in template).  This is how we make our way back.  I think it’s especially interesting that as Nephi is describing this Doctrine of Christ he seems to become frustrated and declares that the Spirit “stops his utterance and he is left to mourn,” because his audience seems to not be getting the message. They’re hearing it, but perhaps NOT totally understanding it. Right before he “stops” he says something I think is key:

Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do (2 Nephi 32:6).

I take this to mean that the whole purpose of the Doctrine of Christ is to bring mankind into the presence of Christ in this life.

See Ether 13:3:

And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

And so like Adam, once we decide rightly on the ministers, eventually messengers will come. This is where D&C 129:4 will be important:

When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

And hence how Adam KNEW they were True Messengers.  They gave unto Adam the sign and token (handshake) that only they could give as resurrected beings who had authority. (Think about that one for a while).

For most of us, discerning between true and false ministers, is our current dilemma.  Angels will only come to those firm-minded in every form of Godliness (Moroni 7:30) and it would seem to be that NOT proving to the Lord that we are capable of accurately detecting true ministers from false, will preclude us from receiving further instructions from Heavenly messengers. This seems to be the pattern.  And it also appears that Gentiles are especially prone to not being able to discern between truth and error and are not known for our great faith.

In fact the only reason we have the Book of Mormon is because of the faith of some of its authors who had compassion on us, who they saw the Lord would use to bring their record to their future posterity.  Otherwise we Gentiles may not even have been given the Restoration.

Ether 12:22–28 says:

 22 And it is by faith that my fathers have obtained the promise that these things should come unto their brethren through the Gentiles; therefore the Lord hath commanded me, yea, even Jesus Christ.

 23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;

 24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

 25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

 26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

 27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

 28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.

It seems apparent that even those who prayed for us to receive latter day scripture had very little confidence that we would believe it and overcome our great Gentile tendencies.

It’s interesting to note that this was believed to be the last thing Hyrum read before he and Joseph were killed at Carthage.  The top corner of the pages of Ether 12, folded over.  Was this Hyrum’s fear as his life concluded?  That we the Gentiles (The Church) would mock, all while believing we are more righteous than everyone else?  D&C 84 reminds us that we are in fact under condemnation precisely for doing as Moroni and Nephi and other prophets feared we would.

I don’t know about you, but I find all this to be very humbling.  If Adam (Micheal, the Archangel) asked “How shall I know?” and labored to discern, then surely I, a lowly Gentile prone to mocking and being critical, have an uphill battle.  And the scriptures testify to me that I am prone to skepticism, doubt and unbelief. How am I to find hope in Christ? How am I to trade my weakness for strength? Did Joseph have my skepticism in mind when he said: “I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never heard of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” (TPJS p. 374.)

I also worry about the warning from Joseph that “The moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power.” (TPJS p. 181.)

How do I know that my revolting or my disbelief in some idea or to some preacher is not because I am in the devil’s power?

In looking more closely at why the Gentiles would mock it would be because of a true prophet’s weakness in writing.  What does this imply?

Is it possible that a true prophet can deliver a message in such a weak fashion that the natural tendency would be to not believe even though the message is true?

As one interesting example, look at the message from John the Baptist to Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith as recorded in Joseph Smith History.

In this particular case, both Joseph and Oliver were worthy recipients of a message from an Angel.  But, their messages are both worded very differently when they each go to record them.  One could argue that because their messages vary even slightly from one another, that neither is reliable.

Look at the two different passages:

Oliver’s Account:

Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!

Joseph’s Account:

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

I’m guessing that when Oliver read Joseph’s version, he very well may have felt inferior to Joseph.  Perhaps frustrated by his weakness in writing in a way that properly conveyed what he saw and heard.  But at the same time, I assume Oliver read every word of what Joseph recorded and agreed it was “accurate.”

In that heavenly realm it seems as though things are conveyed by thoughts rather than by words and so it’s more likely that they each “heard” the message differently and recorded what was conveyed to them in their own “weak words” with BOTH messages being “true” in every way.  Joseph, being perhaps the more fine-tuned instrument, appeared more able to describe the account.

Many of us give the benefit of the doubt to our late prophets. We assume that two different testimonies from Matthew and Luke’s accounts or from Isaiah and John the Beloved, do not negate the truthfulness of the message.  We trust that Oliver and Joseph were both reliable in their differing accounts from John the Baptist.  The same goes for Joseph and Sidney when experiencing the heavens being opened in section 76 who may each have had different words BUT who each had the same experience.

Maybe what’s important is that we learn how to discern whether someone is delivering a message from Heaven or not by some other method than simply mocking what is written.  Maybe the message, and its effect upon the hearer, are more important than the typos or other weaknesses.

If Joseph Smith were to be judged on typos alone, there would have been no believers in his day.  The original Book of Mormon had plenty of typos as scholars such as Mark Twain pointed out. Remember Symonds Ryder, or was it Simons Rider? Because misspelling his name shattered his confidence in Joseph.  How many are like him today?

As history has shown, God does send messengers and they are rarely recognized and embraced by their contemporaries.  If we believe in Alma 13, they are foreordained to come down to this fallen world.  They condescend from an exalted state.  They come with great advantages (D&C 130).  God speaks to them as He has throughout history.  He provides them with messages to be shared.  It then becomes the responsibility of those they preach to, to figure out if these witnesses are from God or not.

Non-Mormons, for example, are often quick to find the faults of the Book of Mormon.  Or at least what they perceive to be mistakes and contradictions with other scripture.  For this reason they “mock” when they receive it.  We plead with them to do as Moroni suggested but often to no avail.  Why would I “ask with sincerity” or “plant a seed into a softened heart” when I know this is all BS?  That it’s from the devil?  Would that not be an insult to God?  An unnecessary temptation?  I already know it can’t be true, because the Bible says no one can add to it!

Do we do the same today?

I also suppose that some members in Joseph’s day found his “re-translation” of the Bible to be silly.  Surely that was the last straw for some of his critics.  “I mean he’s just changing words willy nilly!  Who does he think he is?  This is the proof I needed. Now I know he’s fallen or a fraud.”

Or how about the Book of Moses?  He pulled that one out of thin air?  Or the Book of Abraham, which very few appreciate in our day even among the LDS faithful.  Joseph surely would have been mocked online in our day.

Hugh Nibley showed that the entire Church more or less ignored the Book of Mormon’s existence until the 50s when he became the Church’s premiere apologist.  This was especially true at the time the Spalding Letters were placed in the Library of Congress and accepted by many scholars as fact.  Many Mormons were ashamed to admit they believed in the Book of Mormon during this timeframe.  They felt it had been exposed by the world’s leading scholars as a fraud and some hoped it would simply go away.

Do we think we are so much better or smarter than those who have lived at the time of Joseph?  Would you have stood by Joseph’s side when his critics shouted their loudest arguments against him?  And when he replied with hand written letters that showed he could scarcely spell his own name?  Would you have stood by John the Baptist or even recognized him in the first place?  When the crowds mocked his attire and made fun of his diet?  John the Baptist was like a homeless man, who as Chris Farley would say, “lived in a van down by the river.” Would you have noticed him?

Joseph lamented:

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.

My hope is that we will each turn to the Lord with a willing heart — one that is soft (usually broken), open to a new message, sincere — and with real intent — applying, nourishing, planting a seed we may be unsure of — with perhaps only the desire to believe — with only a thought it just might be true — if it should be that we receive these things.

I believe that then and only then will we be able to discover if some minister be of God or not.  If not from God the seed will lead to nothing.  If true the seed will become a plant, and then a tree, and will then bear fruit and will lead to further messengers that we will also need to pass by (discern) who will stand as sentinels.

This in my view is how we partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life — It must be from our own Tree that has grown in our hearts. This is how we partake of HIS LOVE and enter into His presence.

But if we don’t properly plant the seed AND if our hearts are hard and the message just happens to be true:

…the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word;

On the other hand:

…he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12:10,11)

I have planted the seed and have witnessed tremendous fruits thusfar that I cannot and will not deny, lest God damn me for unbelief.

May we remember that:

To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.321)

AND that:

The devil has great power to deceive; he will so transform things as to make one gape at those who are doing the will of God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.227)

May God bless us all. This will likely be my last post for some time.

A Temple

There’s been a lot of discussion of late regarding a new temple fund that both members and non-members are donating to.  Before the LDS Church established tithing as the mechanism to pay for temples, “temple funds” were very common.

In the early days of the Church and according to Malachi, tithing was for the purpose of bringing “meat into the storehouse” so as to care for the poor.  Whereas a temple fund was for the purpose of building “a” temple.  Once that temple was completed (i.e. Kirtland), the temple fund was no longer needed.

Of course today, the Church has decided to bring the temples to the people.  This is a subject for a different day, but suffice it to say that this idea does not seem to reconcile with scripture nor with anything Joseph Smith taught.  There is no prophecy I know of that says temples will dot the earth, from Joseph, Jesus, or in the Holy Scriptures.  The prophecy as I understand it, is to build temples in two places, New and Old Jerusalem.

Understandably there are many who are worried that some random group starting a temple fund seems premature at best and inappropriate (and/or crazy) at worst.  After all, “we don’t have the authority to build a temple or to create Zion, that’s the Church’s stewardship”… right?

I can certainly relate to those who have concerns about this project.

On one hand, it’s amazing to think that at some point if we’re lucky enough in our lifetime, a new temple will be built in the New Jerusalem on this the American continent.  And a city will be built up to the Most High God called Zion.  Like many of you, I’ve yearned for this day and have prayed many times that me and many others would be so lucky to live to see it.

On the other hand, what if this is all a hoax and people are being led astray?

Like many of you, for most of my life I’ve assumed the Church would build both temples in New and Old Jerusalem and would establish Zion.

I used to ask Hugh Nibley (whose ward I belonged to for a brief period) questions about this very topic.  I had just read his book Approaching Zion.  “What event will cause the Church to move its headquarters to Independence?”  I would ask.  “Does the Heber C. Kimball prophecy of ‘not even an old yellow dog being left to wag its tail’ need to be fulfilled first?”  “Will an earthquake hit Salt Lake City, thus cleansing the inner vessel, and cause the Church to go back to Missouri?”

Brother Nibley was always cordial about my questions but would usually quickly act as though he had other things to do.

My questions and ideas are very different today however.

I do not seek to offend anyone reading this, but I don’t see the Church as currently being capable of building Zion.  Nor do I see Zion being in Independence, Missouri.  And sadly, I don’t believe that a prophet, like an Isaiah, or a John the Baptist, or Joseph Smith can rise up in leadership in the Church today.

And so how will it work?  How will it all happen?  How will Zion come to pass and how will a city and temple be built?  To be completely honest, I’m not sure.  What will the forerunner of the Messiah’s second coming look like?  What will he say and do?  How many will believe that messenger or those servants that are sent?

I’m generally a skeptic.  Like many of you, I’ve been disappointed by men many times before.  But if a group of people seek to raise funds to build what they believe will be the Temple of the New Jerusalem, why should I want to stop them?  Or want to see them fail?

I’d rather be foolishly trying to support Zion than to accidentally fight against it.

Let’s say for example that the people involved in this project raise $5M and end up running off with the money.  Or build some strange building that looks like a compound in Waco, Texas.  For me, that would be a great way to see if the Lord is truly in this effort or not.  I’m assuming the Church has wasted our money in the past.  Why would this be any worse?  If this is from God, we will know soon enough (Acts 5:38).

Some of you may be especially sensitive to the concept of church waste since just this last week we discovered that the Church leaders are paid very healthy salaries.  At least $120,000 each, putting our “lay ministers” in the top 10% income bracket in the U.S.  Add amazing health insurance and life insurance and pensions and social security benefits and reimbursed travel and food and education for their families and book royalties to this package and these “lay ministers” cost us tithe-payers (directly or indirectly – it’s all the same source of money) more than $5 million a year that’s for sure.  The saddest part about this is that most of us have been led to believe or have been told that our church leaders are not paid anything.  See Thomas Monson website as one example.

So for me, giving to this effort seems to be a no-brainer, especially given that it can be done anonymously.  I’d certainly consider giving money to a homeless person to build a house.  Or to any sincere group of people trying to raise money to build a synagogue or a church building or Masonic Lodge or a food pantry.  No one here is being asked to sacrifice their china, sell their home or their cars.  No one is being asked to make a sacrifice that hurts or to even donate at all.

So why not?  Why not give to this effort and see what happens?  What would be the worst thing that could come from it?

I love the quote from Joseph Smith who said “It is better to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition.”  I’d rather give in this case than not, just in case this is the Lord’s project.

In fact, it would be a great strategy for the Church to fund this project.  It would be the quickest way to see if this movement is from God or not.  The Church donates money to other organizations all the time — to Catholic Charities, the Red Cross, to rodeos, businesses, posh theaters, and to the BSA etc., all of whom by the way, have motives not always aligned with our own, or with the church’s vision of building Zion.

So why not give?  What do we have to lose?

If 100,000 people all give $100 to this effort, they’d raise $10,000,000, which I’d think would be enough to buy some land and build a temple.  Would you pay $100 to find out if this effort will lead to Zion?  I would.

And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.  1 Nephi 13:37

Do We Still Believe Anything Joseph Taught?

75 Replies

Joseph_Ask

The Second Comforter

The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted.

When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses.

Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses: [Quoted.]

Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions–Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.

Calling and Election

Now, there is some grand secret here, and keys to unlock the subject. Notwithstanding the apostle exhorts them to add to their faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, etc., yet he exhorts them to make their calling and election sure. And though they had heard an audible voice from heaven bearing testimony that Jesus was the Son of God [Mt 17:5], yet he says we have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light shining in a dark place. Now, wherein could they have a more sure word of prophecy than to hear the voice of God saying, This is my beloved Son?

Now for the secret and grand key. Though they might hear the voice of God and know that Jesus was the Son of God, this would be no evidence that their calling and election was made sure, that they were sealed in the heavens and had the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God. Then, having this promised sealed unto them, it was an anchor to the soul, sure and steadfast. Though the thunders might roll and lightnings flash, and earthquakes bellow, and war gather thick around, yet this hope and knowledge would support the soul in every hour of trial, trouble and tribulation. Then knowledge through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the grand key that unlocks the glories and mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.

Salvation through Knowledge

It is not wisdom that we should have all knowledge at once presented before us; but that we should have a little at a time; then we can comprehend it. President Smith then read the 2nd Epistle of Peter, 1st chapter, 16th to last verses, and dwelt upon the 19th verse with some remarks.

Add to you faith knowledge, etc. The principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation. This principle can be comprehended by the faithful and diligent; and every one that does not obtain knowledge sufficient to be saved will be condemned. The principle of salvation is given us through the knowledge of Jesus Christ.  (TPJS)

Why are we so quick to assume that we are saved or will be saved merely because we have joined the Church, participated in ordinances, and are enduring to the end through home teaching, church service and temple work?

Why does the Church now openly condemn those who prefer Joseph’s admonitions over today’s Church leaders’?

Why would the Lord allow all the prophets of scripture including Joseph Smith to openly testify they have seen Angels and the Lord, only to then instruct all of Joseph’s successors to never testify of the same?

Is it possible today’s Church leaders have never entertained Angels or been in the Lord’s presence?  If they have not, what would this change?  If they have not, why would they lead people to believe they are special witnesses?  And have a “sure knowledge”?  Why would we still call them Prophets, Seers, and Revelators?

Is it possible that Joseph’s words below apply to our Church today?:

Compare this principle once with Christendom (the LDS Church)? at the present day, and where are they, with all their boasted religion, piety and sacredness while at the same time they are crying out against prophets, apostles, angels, revelations, prophesying and visions, etc. Why, they are just ripening for the damnation of hell. They will be damned, for they reject the most glorious principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and treat with disdain and trample under foot the key that unlocks the heavens and puts in our possession the glories of the celestial world. Yes, I say, such will be damned, with all their professed godliness. Then I would exhort you to go on and continue to call upon God until you make your calling and election sure for yourselves, by obtaining this more sure word of prophecy, and wait patiently for the promise until you obtain it. (TPJS)

Are we “crying out against prophets, apostles, angels, revelations, prophesying and visions, etc.”?  Is that what today’s leaders are doing when they warn us that making calling and election a focal point is a “tactic of the adversary?”  (Dallin Oaks)  Are they crying against Joseph Smith and his revelations?

Why do we assume that God is not just IF only a few are saved?

And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work (3 Nephi 27:33).

Is it because we assume that God cannot damn most of His children and still be just, merciful, and loving?  Do we ignore the scriptures at our own peril?  Do we not understand eternity and eternal progression?

One of my dear friend’s keeps reminding me, “Joseph taught a fundamentally different gospel than the one we teach today.”  I think he’s right.

Behold Thy Mother

6 Replies

Jesus-dies-on-cross-prose

One of the most touching scenes I can imagine is that of Mary, Jesus’ mother, standing at her son’s feet, beholding His death as Jesus instructs John to care for her.  “Don’t just take care of her, care for her as I would,” I imagine him implying as He said the sacred words to his disciple, “Behold Thy Mother.”

I think we may fall short in our reverence for that Woman in the Mormon faith.  On this Mother’s Day, I praise and thank God for Jesus’ faithful Mother Mary.  I can’t imagine what she endured.

I am especially touched by this artistic rendition that shows those few disciples who stood by Him while he suffered the Cross.  The other Mary, who many of us believe was more than just a disciple, appears to be at her Master’s feet.  Completely devastated and yet completely there.  There is no fear in her love for Him.

John is also fearless for whatever reason.   While others fled and hid and were afraid, John, Jesus’ “beloved,” stood faithfully by and watched.  Oh what a privilege to even try to contemplate this kind of love, that “casteth out all fear” (Moroni 8:16).

And yet I imagine also that the pain, the irony and the contradictions were felt most acutely by them on that day.   After all, Joseph taught that Jesus experienced more irony and contradictions than any man.  I assume that any sincere follower of Christ, especially those who watched on the day of Crucifixion, also taste of such ironies and contradictions relative to their devotion.

This love between Mother and Son and between Husband and Wife and between Savior and Disciple is what inspires me this Mother’s Day morning.  Thank You Lord for showing us “How it is done.”  (Enos 1:7)

Joseph also demonstrated John-like love.  He too was fearless.  Parley said of Joseph:

‘It was Joseph Smith who taught me how to prize the endearing relationships of father and mother, husband and wife; of brother and sister, son and daughter.

‘It was from him that I learned that the wife of my bosom might be secured to me for time and all eternity; and that the refined sympathies and affections which endeared us to each other emanated from the fountain of divine eternal love. It was from him that I learned that we might cultivate these affections, and grow and increase in the same to all eternity. . . .

‘It was from him that I learned the true dignity and destiny of a son of God, clothed with an eternal priesthood, as the patriarch and sovereign of his [family]. It was from him that I learned that the highest dignity of womanhood was, to stand as a queen and priestess to her husband. . . .’ (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1968, pp. 297–98.)

I thank God for Joseph on this Mother’s Day as well.  Where would we be without his connection to heaven?

I don’t think we hear enough good spoken of Emma or Lucy in the church today.  I’m not trying to be critical.  It’s simply an honest observation.  It’s curious that these amazing women, who were clearly disciples of our Savior, who stood by Joseph and Hyrum, chose to not follow Brigham Young to Utah, or to come later for that matter.  I hope I would have honored Joseph by trying to care for them, even if it meant staying behind.

Joseph-Smith007

Can you imagine the scene in the parlor where Joseph and Hyrum were displayed, lifeless, to be viewed one last time in mortality?  Lucy recorded in her own words as she came down the steps and saw her grandchildren clinging to her own sons’ necks:

“I was left desolate in my distress. I had reared six sons to manhood, and of them all, only one remained … as I entered the room and saw my murdered sons … it was too much; I sank back, crying to the Lord in the agony of my soul, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken this family!’ A voice replied, ‘I have taken them to myself, that they might have rest.’

“As I looked upon their peaceful, smiling countenances, I seemed almost to hear them say, ‘Mother, weep not for us, we have overcome the world by love; we carried to them the gospel, that their souls might be saved; they slew us for our testimony, and thus placed us beyond their power; their ascendancy is for a moment, ours is an eternal triumph’” (“History of Joseph Smith by His Mother,” my emphasis added).

Lucy, you amazing Mother, I bow my knee on your behalf this day and ask our Lord to bless you and Emma and your entire family, both living and dead.  Thank for your sacrifices for us often ungrateful members of the church!

I of course also think of my own mother this day.  She brought me into the world and has made many sacrifices for me and my siblings and others.  Her lot has not always been easy.  I have caused her great stress over the years.  And I am grateful to her for doing all show knows how to do on our behalf.  I don’t think my mother reads this blog, but in case she does, Mom, thank you.

My most heartfelt thoughts I leave of my wife.  She is my soul mate and my best friend.  I have watched her sacrifice her life for me and our children in ways that go beyond a calling or title.  She, like the Marys of old, stands by us in the darkest of hours.  Selfless.  Never complaining.  Always there.  I praise the God of Heaven and Earth for you on this day my love.  I cannot thank you or Him enough.  It is my greatest desire to be redeemed so that we may have some shred of hope of being together as a family after this life.  Thanks for standing by me and for not giving up on us.

One final thought on this Mother’s day from a true and faithful prophet of God on the sacred topic of families.  Joseph taught:

“The doctrine or sealing power of Elijah is as follows:—If you have power to seal on earth and in heaven, then we should be wise. The first thing you do, go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself, and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory, and go ahead, and not go back, but use a little wisdom, and seal all you can, and when you get to heaven tell your Father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven, according to his promise. I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal, and those that follow me and my counsel.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS Section 6, p. 340, my emphasis added)

It is my testimony that the greatest way to honor our mothers and our families is to seek to receive sealing power.  Receiving sealing power must be “individual.”  It requires more than just a temple marriage and “faithful” church service.  We cannot rely upon a church to magically cast a spell upon our families and expect nothing more will be required except to “endure to the end.”  Receiving true sealing power requires our very hearts and souls.  We must be stretched as was Abraham.

Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice & offering, & that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.  It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they in like manner offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him.  (Lectures on Faith)

May we honor Motherhood this day by working in all diligence to preserve our families and loved ones in the eternities.  God help us in this effort before it is everlastingly too late.

 

 

 

 

Defending Joseph

26 Replies

joseph grove

Joseph Smith was told as a young man by an angel of God that his “name should be had for good and evil, among all nations, kindreds, and tongues; or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people” (History of the Church).

Unfortunately much of the evil spoken of Joseph arises from within the church and comes back to the topic of polygamy.

I have a few friends who are otherwise active and “faithful” members who go as far as to say they “dislike” Joseph Smith and/or that “he was a pervert.”  “Sex was his weakness or downfall” they say.  One such friend serves in a stake presidency.  You will never hear him speak of Joseph over the pulpit.  I think this is a tragedy.

Now, I know not everyone feels this way about Joseph in the church.  I certainly don’t feel that way.  But, like most Mormons I’ve had to rely upon the church and its approved Deseret Book list of authors to answer my questions on this issue to inform my opinions.  I know some personally have who left the church after reading Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling.  A Deseret Book approved author.  I think the church has done a very poor job in resolving most people’s concerns regarding Joseph and polygamy, despite its best efforts.

In reading some of the church’s recent teachings, it seems apparent why many are still left with very unsettled feelings over this very strange period in our history.  Here’s a sampling of the church’s handling of the subject:

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30). Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes.  It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in other ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population.  Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints. Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,”covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition, willing to endure ostracism for their principles.

And so as an LDS person growing up in a convert family outside of Utah, these were the best arguments we could imagine or muster, always informed by our study of the church’s teachings and in the end always justifying the practice of polygamy all while defending pioneer ancestors I could not claim as my own.  I admit, it was always awkward and usually humiliating.

“Well, why don’t you practice polygamy today?” I was invariably asked.  “Because it’s illegal now and because the Lord revoked the commandment a long time ago.  Oh and back then Utah was not a state”  I might respond.  “But, it was illegal then too wasn’t it?  Isn’t that why the U.S. Government was challenging your church?”  “Well, yeah, but…..”  Always, always awkward.  And at the end of the day, Joseph came out as the perverted scoundrel that started the whole mess.  That impression is too often left in our minds also, as much as we try to ignore the feelings, those seeds are planted if we trust the church’s narrative.

I have family members who, to do this day, while active in the church, despise polygamy and are not comforted by the church’s teachings or essays.

In fact, a young active latter-day saint recently posted his feelings on his blog about his concerns over polygamy and his understanding of D&C section 132.  He concluded polygamy was a false principle and is now facing church discipline with his wife as a consequence.

I find this very disappointing since the church came out just recently and said LDS people will not be disciplined for supporting same sex marriage online.  But apparently if you support traditional marriage online, you will face discipline.  Am I missing something?  Now, I understand there may be other factors related to additional doctrinal disagreements held by the Van Allens.  But, why not simply let people believe as they choose and continue to patiently teach them?

Allens

Kirk and Lindsay Van Allen – Facing Church Discipline for Rejecting Polygamy (D&C 132)

Such is the incredible confusion and comedy of errors over this and many other topics, further exposing the church’s inability to lead in matters of doctrine.

This last week, however, I came across the best and most logical defense of Joseph Smith regarding “polygamy” that I’ve ever read.  Ironically this defense is made by a man who the church recently excommunicated.

I highly recommend this 48 page essay to anyone and everyone.  Far too many people have erred too long on this subject.  Joseph’s name has been spoken evil of in far too many wards and stakes throughout the church.  The church itself has left Joseph hanging, by promoting its view of the truth.  It has not properly defended this man (with the truth) to whom we owe the restoration of the gospel.  The very man whom our Lord has anointed as choice seer, as true prophet, and as the legitimate key holder of this last dispensation.

Joseph Smith wrote the following from Liberty Jail after receiving letters from his loved ones.  His words endear me to him and inspire me to want to be one of his friends.

“We need not say to you that the floodgates of our hearts were lifted and our eyes were a fountain of tears, but those who have not been enclosed in the walls of prison without cause or provocation, can have but little idea how sweet the voice of a friend is; one token of friendship from any source whatever awakens and calls into action every sympathetic feeling . . . until finally all enmity, malice and hatred, and past differences, misunderstandings and mismanagements are slain victorious at the feet of hope; and when the heart is sufficiently contrite, then the voice of inspiration steals along and whispers, ‘My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.'”  (History of the Church, 3:293; the last portion of this paragraph was later canonized in D&C 121:7–8.)

Far too many of us have been inspired to lock Joseph in the cells of uncertainty (at best) in our minds and hearts because of false teachings allowed by those who ought to be more informed on these issues.

Joseph also wrote:

I have no enemies but for the truth’s sake. I have no desire but to do all men good. I feel to pray for all men. We don’t ask any people to throw away any good they have got; we only ask them to come and get more. What if all the world should embrace this gospel? They would see eye to eye, and the blessings of God would be poured out upon the people, which is the desire of my whole soul.  (History of the Church, 5:259.)

I love our prophet Joseph.  I stand to sustain him and invite any who doubt his mission or who believe him to be a fallen prophet to especially read this essay from Denver Snuffer.  A man the church should thank for his brilliant defense of a prophet we should all give the benefit of any doubt.  A prophet who gave his life for the church, even when the Lord had commanded him to escape.

“If my life is of no value to my friends,” he said, “it is of none to me.”  God I love that man.  His words should both inspire and haunt us at the same time.

martyrdom