Denver Snuffer on Plural Marriage


plural-marriage-diagramI invested a couple of hours this morning listening to the recording of Denver’s recent talk on plural marriage. These are my first-impression notes at the end of the day after pondering and praying about what I heard. I wasn’t there and I don’t have a transcript, which I am certain someone will have available within a few days. The recording is available in various formats.

Denver referred to a white-board illustration throughout the talk, a copy of which he provided on his website, and which I have included here. You may recognize the illustration of the Diagram of the Kingdom of God on the right. Various authors who have written about the subject have included it when attempting to explain Joseph’s view on the subject. Denver added the lineage.

I think the main point I would like to make is found in the upper left of the white board. We have next to nothing from Joseph on the subject of plural marriage. What we have is limited to section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which I accept as scripture, including the quote about there being only one person on the earth at a time who holds the sealing power and priesthood keys.

Plural Wives of Joseph Smith

joseph-smiths-polygamy-brian-halesAs I listened to the first eighty-five minutes I kept thinking to myself, “Why is Denver reviewing such basic stuff?” He went over the history of what we know about Joseph’s participation in the law of Celestial Marriage. Denver reviewed several legal case records – listed on the left side of the board – as well as writings from various sources, including Brian Hales’ three-volume set.

If you have no background in the history of Joseph’s participation in plural marriage, then the first eighty-five minutes will be extremely helpful. A member of one of the reading groups I belong to split the two-hour talk into twelve ten-minute segments. I have linked to them at the bottom of this page. If you have studied this subject extensively, start on track eight or nine.

I have written a few posts on the subject over the years, even though I don’t really find it all that fascinating. I think I last wrote about it in 2009 in a post entitled The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. At the time I was astonished at the response of many of my readers who said they had never heard that Joseph participated in plural marriage. It still amazes me to hear that today.

The Family of God on the Earth

diagram-of-kingdom-of-godThe good stuff starts in track nine on the law of adoption. The LDS Church doesn’t talk much about that any more. In fact, I don’t think it’s included in any official curriculum. Come to think of it, I don’t think plural marriage is included in any Sunday curriculum, including the History of the Church taught in the Gospel Doctrine class. I found one quote in the D&C teacher’s manual:

“In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood.” (Page 182)

I think the theme of the last thirty minutes of the talk can be summarized as the Lord’s plan to restore the family of God. Denver went over the Kingdom of God diagram on the right of the white board, noting again there is only one on the earth at a time who has the sealing power and the right of the Fathers – to ask and get answers from heaven for the family of God on the earth.

The True Purpose of Temple Work

Much of what he reviewed will sound familiar to members of the LDS Church, but I suspect many of the thousands who are being baptized these days are coming from the fundamentalist organizations. He discussed the importance of being sealed to the Fathers and defined that for his listeners. A key to understanding this doctrine is knowing who the Fathers are in God’s kingdom.

saltlaketemple1.jpgHe touched upon a fundamental difference in the true purpose of temple work – to be sealed to the Fathers. I can’t emphasize enough how important this concept is to our personal salvation. The work of finding our own ancestors is important but not nearly as important as being sealed to the Fathers. There must be a welding link from us to the Fathers, not just our own ancestors.

The way temple work is being done in the LDS Church is upside down. It is the opposite of the way the Lord intended. Enough time has passed – four generations – from the death of Joseph. The Lord intends to continue the restoration process of preparing the family of God. Denver read from his revelation book about why so few were resurrected at the time of Christ’s resurrection.

A Witness Has Come

josephsmith.jpgHe pointed out there will be relatively few resurrected at Christ’s return. You need to listen to the recording to understand why. He explained the importance of a witness to the restoration process beginning again and said, “A witness has come. I am him.” Without Joseph Smith you have no church. Listen carefully to the last two tracks, the last twenty minutes of the talk to understand.

I don’t want to share too much in this post. As I wrote at the beginning, these are first impression notes. I will be listening to the talk several times over the next few weeks. I look forward to the transcript. This is extremely important doctrine for us to understand. It is not being taught in the LDS Church today but was understood and taught by Joseph. Sadly, the restoration was cut short.

Denver testified Joseph was a virtuous man. He was not a wicked man. He condemned adultery and lust. He extoled the virtues of sexual purity. What Brigham did with Polygamy was not what Joseph taught or intended. The Lord wants to gather us as chicks under the wing. We must not go charging into the pass to be destroyed by the beast. Let us patiently wait upon the Lord for more.

 Part One  Part Five  Part Nine
 Part Two  Part Six  Part Ten
 Part Three  Part Seven  Part Eleven
 Part Four  Part Eight  Part Twelve

Update 4-2-15 – Denver has published a paper based on this talk. You can get it from his website or mine. It’s a large (10MB) PDF so give it a few minutes to load.

114 Responses

  1. A comment and a question…

    Celestial Marriage will not just be composed of plural marriages. Even though that phrase was and is sometimes applied to plural marriage, “celestial” simply means heavenly. There will undoubtedly be monogamous and polygamous marriages in the Celestial Kingdom.

    And what do you mean by this?

    “What Brigham did with Polygamy was not what Joseph taught or intended.”

    Please talk about what you think Brigham Young did wrongly or differently in leading the Saints on the topic of plural marriage.

    Like

    • Read Passing the Heavenly Gift. Or pick up the Complete discourses of Brigham Young and just read the many things Brigham SAID on the subject. You can see from what he said, let alone did, that his practice went far beyond anything we have from Joseph.

      Like

  2. Steve, please tell me how it goes for one wife among 50? How does that look for her? Is she at the bottom of the list, or the middle? Does she labor for her keep as one of BY’s wive’s wrote she had to do? Was it good for her, that she saw him one week of the year? How about the other wives? Was it like that for each of them, or were some more favored?

    And what about as the wives aged? So handy that there were young things around the house and that poor old wife could skip the pesky job of getting her husband’s slippers for him. Dang it, she could now just sit in the rocker and waste away…all alone. The Golden Years. Can’t be beat. Sounds pretty celestial, right?

    Really? A man can keep 50 women, and attend to their material and emotional needs in this, the telestial kingdom, with straight time.

    Sounds a lot like abandonment, and like a mother raising her children on her own, minus the right to have food stamps.

    Sorry to say, but it sounds a lot like lust to me. Maybe 3. But not 50.

    Like

  3. So this talk was not Denver reintroducing plural marriage as something he thinks we should be practicing? (Thereby proving himself a fraud, per his earlier statements.) That’s a relief. I haven’t had time to listen yet, but since there was no synopsis anywhere, I had to wonder…

    I am really surprised by your guess that many thousands of fundamentalists are being baptized. Where is that coming from?

    Like

    • Okay, I started listening, and Denver mentioned the baptisms right at the beginning, that’s probably where you got it. Can anyone corroborate that this is really happening? Where did your “thousands” comment come from?

      Like

      • I think it’s important to listen to the whole talk to understand all of your questions. It has everything to do with what plural marriage was (linking the eternal of family of God together, to the fathers) and less (or nothing) to do with men marrying multiple women.

        Like

  4. I haven’t have time to listen to the talk (and as a non-snufferite not that much interest either), but I’m surprised to hear him preaching about “only one man on earth having the sealing power.” I thought snufferism was all about not having hierarchy or strong mans. I thought it was all about connecting to Christ directly (although it has always been a bit unclear for me, since there is still the notion of priesthood, and priesthood line of authority and the 7 women sustaining will define a structure of some sort). Is Denver prepairing to have clearer hierachy in the movement? Some saw already the call for the central recorder as a step to that direction.

    Like

    • Before you come to conclusions, don’t you believe you ought to know what Denver has actually said or written on any particular subject? Do you not believe this to be a fair approach to apply to anyone? Would you like anyone to form a judgment on your meaning or intentions based on a very cursory understanding of what you have said or written or done?

      Like

  5. Denver is calling a lot of women and men liars to suggest joseph didn’t have sexual relations with those women. Not the answer I have gotten.

    Like

    • But it is definitely the answer that will please the masses:)

      Like

    • I think you misapprehend what he is saying (unless you mistakenly used a double negative). DS is saying we should be very careful about attributing lust and adultery to Joseph and that Joseph was in fact building the Kingdom by attempting to seal people (men and women) to himself. Joseph fathered no children with anyone except Emma. It was never in his heart to introduce polygamy as a practice to the Church. Brigham is where it all went wrong

      Like

      • Further still, I believe we were left with this to see our hearts. We Parade as fools assessing and judging others and bring condemnation on ourselves, in our blind state condemning Joseph others and essentially God, all the while missing the point. Dave Park.

        Like

    • With all respect, your “answer” if correct, is from the Spirit and independent of the historical record.

      He never said unequivocally that Joseph didn’t have sexual relations. He said there is no proof of it, and especially there is not proof of him having sex with married women. We have hearsay and major contradictions in the record. It seems Denver is attempting at least to draw a line in the sand and eschew speculation: especially about Joseph’s character. He also is drawing a line to end a practice that was NEVER sanctioned by God beyond Joseph.

      He did say unequivocally that Joseph was a “virtuous” man.

      Denver is very circumspect in not expounding on the subject–just as Joseph was. Denver seems (yes I’m speculating) to know much more than he is saying. It seems there is very good reason this revelation was NOT for public consumption during Joseph’s life. It also seems that Denver is striving help sanctify a people before they can receive higher things. The record seems clear to me that plural marriage generally, as practiced by the early saints, Brigham and Orson being prime examples, and as practiced today, was and is not done in “all holiness”.

      I just had a conversation with a man who, believing Joseph had sex with all these women, some 35 or so including a teenager, said “I’m just glad to know that God works with imperfect people”. The ramifications of this view are 1. that Joseph was indeed flawed in the practice as this man understands it: basically believing Joseph to be and adulterer. And yet, though an adulterer, God would still work with Joseph. Many LDS who know something of plural marriage come to this position. 2. If God can work with an adulterer, he can work with me and my flaws. Thus they feel justified and comfortable in their current state with no desire to repent.

      This subject is of such a serious nature, it seems to me, that only those who receive “the law” DIRECTLY from God himself, by His own mouth, will be given to understand it (which I believe NONE understand it but those to whom it is REVEALED) and perhaps practice it. That excluded Brigham, Orson, John Taylor, and Wilford–including my ancestors, Edwin D. Woolley and Erastus Snow. NONE of these men ever testified they had received these things from GOD HIMSELF, but through “delegated” keys.

      Like

    • A good point.

      But isn’t it at least possible that the term “sealed” was misappropriated by Young, Apostles and co.?

      It’s entirely possible these women who at one time were sealed then spent years and years with the word “sealed” being synonymous with “married”, so they were indeed not lying when they said they remember being married to Joseph.

      The reason I could see this happen is I’ve seen terms and ideas be misappropriated in my own life to the point where years later I believed something drastically different from what I originally understood.

      Like

    • Just one other point. At this point we can at least say that any of the women who said they bore Joseph’s child were either lying or mistaken.

      Like

  6. I cannot keep quiet. All this talk about plurality of wives makes me crazy. I have a very close friend who comes through the line of Brigham Young and Zina (the woman that Joseph approached and said if she didn’t marry him the angel would destroy him. She was married at the time.) In her diaries it is recorded that she consummated the marriage with Joseph. Now there will be some of you say that “consummation” can mean different things. Oh give me a break! If DS is correct in his teaching that Joseph was only bringing about the sealing to the patriarchal fathers, I still don’t understand any of it. For DS has been incredible in his teachings regarding repentance and encouraging us to receive the Second Comforter and not to let ANYONE come between us and the Savior. I don’t believe in being sealed to a line of authority for that puts another man or lots of men between my sealing with Jesus. For you see, we are all his bride and he is the Bridegroom … we are to be sealed to him directly individually. The new and everlasting covenant is Jesus. I had a friend recently send me an article regarding this very thing … we have misunderstood the new and everlasting covenant … It is the sealing power that seals us, the Bride, to the Bridegroom because of he ratified the old and new covenants with his blood. I’ll provide all kinds of scriptures below. Denver’s understanding that we are sealed to a spouse or to the patriarchal fathers is flawed and is not supported by the O.T. or N.T. The following is an excerpt from the article that opened my eyes. Thank goodness there are still people who love the bible and do not just look to the BOM or the D&C.

    A sign of the Old Covenant for the sons of Israel was circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14, Leviticus 12:3). Abraham circumcised Isaac when he was eight days old (Genesis 21:4). Jesus was circumcised when He was eight days old (Luke 2:21) – the first time He shed blood. In Christ Jesus, we have new life. In His sacrifice, “we are the fragrance of Christ to God …” (2 Corinthians 2:14-15). We have crossed over from death to life. How interesting that, when the flood subsided, Noah sacrificed to God and God “smelled the soothing aroma …” (Genesis 8:21) and was satisfied. “Soothing aroma” in Hebrew is “re’ach ha’nicho’ach”.

    Jeremiah 31:31-33 says Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord, But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their ears; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (The new covenant is also the eternal covenant – Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant. He is the New and Everlasting Covenant – Isaiah 55:3 – Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Ezekiel 16:60 – Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish to you an everlasting covenant. Jeremiah 32:40 – And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Ezekiel 37:26 – Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

    Both the old and new covenant were ratified by His blood. Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

    Hebrews 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

    Hebrews 8:7-8 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

    Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in blood.

    1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

    Hebrews 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

    Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

    Romans 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

    2 Corinthians 3:6 Who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

    Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

    He is also the eternal covenant – Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,

    We have all been distracted from the real purpose of temples, which is for worshipping Mother/Father and Jesus. The original temples were all about worship of the Creator, not about being sealed to husbands and wives and plural marriage. How many of us go to the temple and just worship and praise and our Creators? We are so distracted with the signs and tokens and such that we miss the point. Don’t you think Satan knows the tokens and handshakes? Do you think he will be able to pass by the angels because he knows and understands the secret handshakes and tokens?

    There is a reason why church historians and CSE Directors leave the church when they begin studying history … it is because they cannot reconcile Joseph and plural marriage. If Denver truly has studied all the diaries and books written regarding Joseph, from both sides of the aisle, I don’t see how he can say that Joseph did not commit a sin. I do believe Joseph repented and I do believe he was a prophet. But anyone who worships Joseph, or Denver or leadership is practicing idolatry. And to think that besides the Savior, no one has done more for the salvation of men than Joseph is heresy. What about Adam and Eve, what about Noah saving mankind? What about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? We have got to stop worshipping the arm of flesh and stop following man.

    If you can get to a place of neutrality … not caring or necessarily wanting to hear that Joseph or Denver is a prophet or not … but just wanting truth and getting rid of all your desires and be in a place of quiet you will be astonished at what the spirit can teach you. But our own desires influence greatly the answers we receive. Only when we want truth and truth alone can we be given truth.

    Like

    • You seem to misunderstand Denver’s and Joseph’s teachings regarding sealing.

      Like

    • Good points, and very close counterfeit in your reasoning “hannah”. You slip up in a couple of things which prove to me that these are your own ideas and not from the same source as DS, which is The Source.

      Like

  7. This was a letter written in Joseph’s own hand writing. You can look up the original document if you would like. Even though he obviously destroyed evidence, lucky for us they didn’t follow the instruction to burn this one. This was after Joseph had recently been sealed to Sarah Ann Whitney, and it was written to newel, his wife, and Sarah. Please let’s be a little sensible and tell me what is Joseph getting at here? Why so worried if Emma would come?

    LINE TEXT
    1 Nauvoo, August 18th 1842
    2 Dear, and Beloved, Brother and
    3 Sister, Whitney, and & c.–
    4 I take this opportunity to communicate,
    5 Some of my feelings, privetely at
    6 this time, which I want you three
    7 Eternaly to keep in your own
    8 bosams; for my feelings are so
    9 Strong for you Since what has
    10 pased lately between us, that the
    11 time of my abscence from you
    12 Seems so long, and dreary, that
    13 it Seems, as if I could not live
    if you
    14 long in this way; and ^ Three would
    15 come and See me in this my lonely
    16 retreat, it would afford me great
    17 relief, of mind, if those with whom
    18 I am alied, do love me, now is the
    19 time to afford me succour; in the
    20 days of exile, for you know I
    21 foretold you of these things. I am
    22 now at Carlos Graingers, Just back
    23 of Brother Hyrums farm, it is only one
    24 mile from town, the nights are
    25 very pleasant, indeed, all three of
    can
    26 you come^ and See me in the
    27 fore part of the night, let Brother
    28 Whitney come a little a head, and
    29 nock at the south East corner of
    the
    30 the house att ^ window; it is next to
    31 the cornfield; I have a room inti-
    32 -rely by myself, the whole matter
    33 can be attended to with most perfect
    know
    34 Safty, I ^ it is the will of God that you
    me
    35 should comfort ^ now in this time
    36 of affliction, or not at all, now is the

    [Back Side of Joseph Smith Letter]

    LETTER BY JOSEPH SMITH TO NEWEL K. WHITNEY, HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER
    PAGE TWO
    LINE TEXT
    1 time or never, but I hav no kneed of saying
    2 any such thing, to you, for I know the
    3 goodness of your hearts, and that you
    4 will do the will of the Lord, when it is
    5 made known to you; the only thing
    6 to be careful of, is to find out when
    7 Emma comes then you cannot be
    8 Safe, but when She is not here, there
    9 is the most perfect Safty: only be
    10 careful to escape observation, as
    11 much as possible, I know it is a
    12 heroick undertaking; but so much
    13 the greater friendship, and the more
    will
    14 Joy, when I see you I ^ tell you all
    15 my plans, I cannot write them on
    16 paper, burn this letter as soon as you
    17 read it; keep all locked up in
    18 your breasts, my life depends up-
    19 -on it. one thing I want to see you
    to
    20 for is ^ git the fulness of my blessing
    21 Sealed upon our heads, &c. you
    22 will pardon me for my ernest-
    this subject
    23 -ness on ^ when you consider how
    24 lonesome I must be, your good
    make
    25 feelings know how to ^ every allow
    26 -ance for me, I close my letter.
    27 I think Emma wont come tonight
    28 if she dont dont fail to come to
    29 night, I subscribe myself your
    and
    30 most obedient, ^ affectionate,
    31 Companion, and friend.
    32 Joseph Smith

    I can bring forth countless testimonies by people that have been quoted on this very website. Was Benjamin Johnson a liar? Isn’t he where we get this idea that joseph smith taught about the lost tribes being on a planet and the planet returning and all that? Was he a liar because he clearly stated joseph smith consummated marriages besides the one with Emma…

    Like

    • This is not PROOF. Very interesting, but not proof.

      Like

    • @Minorityofone This is an excellent essay about the letter you quoted:

      http://www.defendingjoseph.com/search?updated-max=2012-06-26T10:56:00-05:00&max-results=1&start=3&by-date=false

      In my opinion, the writer of the article mentioned above does an adequate job of dismissing the letter as being what you and others have suggested it means.

      Like

  8. I guess I am a little baffled. So Denver seems to be claiming that section 132 is from God, (which he has to if he wants to keep the claim that only one man can hold the keys…) but polygamy was not to be taught to the church as brigham young taught it? First of all, just read section 132! All this talk of virgins and nonsense and for Emma to repent or be destroyed and accept all these women!
    If you have not read the nauvoo expositor it is a must read. In fact here…
    You tell me if these people were vicious liars or they were just disgusted with what was going on. This is straight from fair Mormon.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

    Like

    • Minority, can you testify that the Lord himself has, in plain humility, revealed this law to you so that you understand it?

      I don’t understand the fervor over defending something we don’t fully understand. Do you fully understand it? Or do you think you understand it, based on your reading, study, prayer, pondering and insight from the Spirit?

      Like

  9. BeStill&Know

    If sealing was so important then why did Jesus not teach it, nor his disciples? Why is there no mention that any of them were sealed to the patriarchal fathers? I’ve been having a conversation with a friend and they asked me that question and I don’t have a good answer. Can anyone give me a good reason besides quoting Denver and D&C? We are commanded to read Isaiah per 3 Nephi 23:1 and yet none of the prophets of the OT nor does Jesus ever mention it. Could it be that we misunderstand Malachi 4 regarding Elijah coming to turn the hearts of the children to the fathers …. could that not be an actual visitation by Elijah … for he has the commission and the mission and he is also translated so I would think he is continuing his mission by appearing to us and when he does then we have so much love and honor and respect for the Fathers, but there is no mention in Malachi of sealing. There is a lack of evidence in the BOM and bible that we are to be sealed to the patriarchal fathers. I believe that Jesus is the New and Everlasting Covenant … period … He is everything … As a side note, have you all noticed a shift in Denver’s teachings? It used to be about the Second Comforter and Jesus and now Joseph and the restoration seems to be paramount. I’m rather confused … I thought Jesus was our God, not Joseph, not the restoration, not any church.

    Minority of One I look forward to associating with you in Zion.

    Like

    • There is a GREAT deal that we don’t have from Jesus own mouth, or the prophets, in the BofM or Bible. There are a host of biblical and Book of Mormon references to covenants, promises, sealed up, Holy Spirit of Promise, calling and election, Comforters, spirit of prophecy, etc, that can be wrested in a number of different ways to suit ones particular view or desire to believe.

      Do you accept the Book of Mormon as being authoritative? If you do, do you accept Joseph as an authorized messenger? Do you believe the Bible to be wholly reliable as pure, authoritative scripture from cover to cover, in its current form? Do you accept the JST? Do you accept the Pearl of Great Price? Do you accept the D&C (at least the portions we can verify came from Joseph–unaltered). Do you accept the Lectures on Faith? Do you consider for further insight, the letters and teachings (albeit from note takers recordings) we have from Joseph? In the above, the teachings on sealing are extensive.

      If you don’t I respect that, and concede that without accepting Joseph as a true messenger authorized by God with pure knowledge to convey to a generation, there can be much to dispute.

      I, however, accept Joseph to be an authorized messenger and consider the words of the LORD in the D&C regarding covenants and sealing to be authoritative.

      As a side note, sealing to the Holy Fathers (which would also include the Holy Mothers, in my view) does NOT substitute for being sealed DIRECTLY to Christ, who becomes our FATHER. They do not stand between us and Christ. Christ does not stand between us and His Father–he introduces us to the Father, and after that we are joint heirs. Yet Christ is also our Father. Joseph is also our father. Abraham is also our father, as is Enoch and Adam. Yet, they do not stand between you and Christ. This is about a family, with one covenant, given by Christ himself to each member, who become individually sons and daughters of God.

      I don’t understand the angst over the topic.

      Like

  10. Be still

    Yes I do have understanding on the matter. God never revealed section 132, but joseph smith did. That is my witness from the Holy Ghost on the matter. I know William marks testimony is true which I will paste below with some other interesting things.

    Stake President William Marks: In July 1853, Stake President Marks wrote that he met with the prophet shortly before his martyrdom. Smith said: “We are a ruined people…this doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife System, …taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived…it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down, and its practice stopped in the Church.” Marks said Smith ordered him to go to the high council: “I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine; and I want you to try them by the laws of the Church, and cut them off, if they will not repent, and cease the practice of this doctrine … I will go into the stand and preach against it with all my might, and in this way, we may rid the Church of this damnable heresy.” But Smith was killed shortly after; When Marks related what Smith had said, his testimony “was pronounced false by the Twelve and disbelieved.”
    (Quinn p. 147-8, http://signaturebooks.com/2010/10/excerpt-mormon-polygamy/)
    Hyrum Smith (June 10, 1844) tells Nauvoo City Council that the “1843 revelation pertains to ancient polygamy, not to modern times…” (Quinn p. 645)
    Smith (June 20, 1844) writes an emergency letter to the “apostles to return to Nauvoo immediately and probably on this occasion, instructs them to destroy their endowment undergarments.” (Quinn, p. 146)
    Heber C. Kimball (June 20, 1844) said Smith “sent word to the apostles on the east coast to destroy their garments they had received in the endowment since 1842.” (Quinn page 147) “Smith removed his own endowment ‘robe’ or garment before he went to Carthage Jail and told those with him to do likewise” (Quinn, p. 146).
    William Clayton’s diary (June 23, 1844) shows “just before the prophet returned to Emma [that night], he told his secretary to burn the Council of Fifty’s minutes—directing his attention to destroying the written evidence of polygamy.” (Quinn p. 147)
    Emma Smith’s 1847 account to William E. McLellin: While she and Joseph were alone in their Mansion House bedroom on June 23, 1844, it was Joseph Smith and not she who burned the original manuscript of the 1843 polygamy revelation…Smith “told her that the doctrine and practice of Polygamy was going to ruin the Church” and then he burned the revelation…
    (Quinn, p. 147).
    Joseph F. Smith stated, “When Willard Richards was solicited [by Smith] to remove his garments, he declined” (Quinn page 146). During his NDE, Steve Davis witnessed Willard Richards pull out a gun hidden under his coat and murder Hyrum Smith—He was one of the assassins
    (Quinn, p. 146).
    Brigham Young told a Mormon general conference that “Joseph was worn out with it, but as to his denying any such thing I never knew that he denied the doctrine of polygamy.” Young stated: “Some have said that he did, but I do not believe he ever did.” Young could not deny all these testimonies that Smith’s last days were spent repenting of polygamy. “The testimony of Emma Smith and Marks was easy to discount because of their long opposition to polygamy. Nevertheless there was similar evidence from such polygamy advocates as William Clayton, Stephen Markham, Heber C. Kimball, and Joseph F. Smith’s ‘many’ faithful informants in Utah. This is the context in which Brigham Young claimed the prophet did not have ’one particle of light in him’ ”during his final days because he was denouncing the immoral practice of polygamy that Joseph claimed would destroy the Lord’s restored Church (Quinn, p. 146-48).

    David whitmer told the truth when he said the voice of God told him to separate himself from the saints. The church (which never should have been institutionalized) started falling apart after the affair between joseph and fanny alger. The saints turned a blind eye despite oliver cowdery catching them in the act and testifying of it, and the fact that Emma kicked fanny out of there house right after it happened. You know how denver claims everyone lost their priesthood when he got wrongfully ex-communicated by the highest councils? Well that happened to oliver cowdery almost 200 years ago.

    Like

    • I guess I’m trying to understand your position. So that I can be clear on you and your faith–to better understand can you clarify for me (this is not intended in any way as interrogation, but only to seek understanding, to see if there is the ability to see eye-to-eye; I would very much appreciate your willingness to share where you stand):

      1. Do you believe Joseph to have been a true messenger, one authorized by God’s voice, in His presence with a revelation and covenant for his, Joseph’s, generation?
      2. If so, do you believe he remained authorized by God, or do you believe he, as it were, fell from grace, and lost authority?
      2a. I suppose I should ask as a corollary, do you accept the premise I am laying out; i.e. that one can be authorized by God as a true messenger, to dispense the Gospel and offer an authoritative covenant to a generation?
      3. If you do believe he fell from grace and lost authority, what, if any of the revelations do you accept? Book of Mormon? JST? Lectures on Faith? D&C (which portions), PoGP?

      I can’t quite tell where you stand from these, and other comments on other posts and topics. Clarification would help any further discussion and would be greatly appreciated.

      Like

    • You seem to be quite certain of your understanding. You didn’t answer the question whether the Lord directly revealed this to you. Have you stood in His presence and received knowledge on the subject, or do you maintain your certainty (you appear to be certain on the subject–forgive me if I have misunderstood) by virtue of the “Holy Ghost”–the still small voice. I maintain no such certainty on the subject in any direction. The references you have given don’t provide “proof” in my eyes. They raise more questions than provide answers.

      I am content to leave the whole matter as an open question. Though I have a long line of polygamists in my genealogy, I have no dog in this fight. And, sadly it is, in so many circles, a fight indeed. My only concern is the truth, and on this matter, relying on this that and the other historical references, utterances of hearsay, “testimonies”, etc. to establish that we “know” the “truth” of the matter without having DIRECT REVELATION from God to reveal this mystery to us individually, I believe to be foolhardy.

      Like

  11. Tim,

    Here is the dichotomy or two issues as “I” see it.

    1) The book, “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy” is a book all should read to understand what Joseph actually espoused and what was and still is hearsay. it corroborates DS somewhat.
    2) Joseph Smith was “like unto Moses” in every degree, thus an intercessory offering and atonement statute follows; thus taking upon him the sins of the people to have prevented total sweeping the earth of said saints, just like the Israelites, He gave his life for it..

    You have a prophet who was righteous throughout his ministry or a prophet who took upon himself the sins of the people through an intercessory offering and sinned. His name will be had for good and bad among all nations.

    Regardless of Joseph, any sealing of people is always unto God not each other after ratification of the Holy Ghost. The concept in everyone’s mind regarding sealing is taught by the precepts of men. There can be found little truth left in the words of men. That is all the saints know and thereby follow. Darkness and ignorance is the soup de jour.

    I believe that the words of DS in this lecture are informative and open up scriptures to a new level. Instead of making the conversation about Joseph Smith, we should focus on what he intended to do. The other is moot. A man cannot bring to pass anything based on works alone, whether they be founded or unfounded. It is what God intends. Whether we understand the wholeness of what God intends or has done does not change the fact that His purposes shall come to pass. We really must not cling onto any man in what he says. We must hear the words. There is no truth in any man’s words unless confirmed by the Holy Ghost. Just because there are words written or spoken does not display truth. Truth is only given by light and incorporates our entire being..

    I am grateful that you put these things out there to point us to the direction of truth and after the Holy Ghost writes upon us, we then can say we have truth and light. How exciting the times are that bring to pass these amazing things! Man, I love this work!

    Like

    • Well said!

      Like

  12. Dear Lynne,

    What if what you call a “counterfeit” was revealed to me by the Master? I realize you don’t know me . I understand that all these things I have said are hard to take … but discernment is essential to separating truth and err, light and dark, good and evil. God is Mercy and Justice …

    It is interesting that 132:40 “I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things” is in direct opposition to D&C 77 ” 14 Q. What are we to understand by the little book which was eaten by John, as mentioned in the 10th chapter of Revelation? A. We are to understand that it was a mission, and an ordinance, for him to gather the tribes of Israel; behold, this is Elias, who, as it is written, must come and restore all things.”

    So is God a God of confusion or a God of order? So which is it, Joseph restoring all things, or the Elias that comes right before the Second Coming?

    It is a good thing to be merciful towards another and to forgive, but we have to use discernment in all things. We have to question all things and ask God because we all receive revelation but we sometimes misinterpret what God is telling us.

    The sealing to the Patriarchs that Joseph instituted I do not believe is of God. If you pay attention to patterns in scripture, because patterns testify that what is being revealed, etc. is from God. There is no pattern in any scripture Joseph was wanting to restore “the ancient” church and yet he messed up in restoring a whole lot of most important things from the bible … like the holy days … crucial for us to understand every aspect of Jesus’ mission. Something of such import not being restored in a supposed restoration? How does that happen? Everyone ought to read the following which opened my eyes wide in order for me to begin questioning.

    http://mormonstories.org/dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/
    Do women have a choice? “received” and “giving”? Are women given as prizes to the most obedient males? Granted, I believe God works with our cultural practices, but polygamy was no longer considered a cultural norm at the time of Joseph Smith. If anything was a revelation from God it was the suffrage movement of the 20th century that turned women from property into people. If there is anything that is evidence of a restoration, it is the final realization of women’s rights. A truer restoration is that of a women’s God given equality and independent mind and personhood, which existed long before Abraham and King David. We needed a restoration of the importance of women.

    It seems curious that very little from Old Testament times was “restored” in this “restoration of all things”. Why wasn’t blood sacrifice restored? Why wasn’t the old dietary laws of no pork or shellfish restored? Why weren’t Levite males the sole possessors of the priesthood like in the times of old? Luckily, Joseph wasn’t commanded to circumcise himself, like they were of old. None of that was restored, yet the primitive practice of polygamy made a triumphant return.

    I believe Joseph received incredible knowledge and revelations from the heavens. But I also believe the adversary can deceive us even at high levels of progression. Could I be deceived? Absolutely.

    Like

    • Do you believe Joseph to be a false prophet, or a fallen prophet?

      Like

  13. Be still

    Good questions.

    The book or Mormon is the closest to pure truth out of all of those books. The doctrine and covenants is mostly true up to about 1835 or so but still is adulterated and changed. The book of Abraham was a fabrication and not a literal translation as joseph claimed it to be (which is very obvious if you will research it) and the lectures on faith were people’s understanding of the gospel and it has some great truth. No book is to be taken as the voice of God, as to the reasons Sfort outlined.
    Joseph was sent to bring forth the Book of Mormon, and the aaronic priesthood was restored through him. All was preparatory for the great dispensation that would be opened at a later time, of which time we are approaching. All if this can be obtained by anyone and we don’t have to rely on others words to know it.

    Like

    • Thank you for the clarification. I understand you better. I respect your viewpoint. I would still like to know if you can testify to knowledge beyond the voice of the Spirit…but you seem hesitant to declare that, and if it be the case. I respect that.

      What any of this comes down to, in my view, is a choice to believe, and what do we accept/believe as true sources. We cannot “know” the truth and nothing but the truth, from the historical record. I don’t believe we can have a “perfect knowledge” only by the whisperings of the Spirit, without having the “mysteries of godliness” and the “knowledge of God” open to us. Until we come to the “perfect day”, to a fulness of understanding, it is my belief that we all see through a glass darkly. I believe, allowing for certainty on any position, belief, “knowledge” is a treacherous rope to walk along. The scriptures could easily replace the words heard-hearted and stiff-necked with certainty: or so I think. When one declared “knowledge” to another, by the Spirit, or by an angel, or by God himself, I take that declaration seriously. That is why I ask you about the source of your knowledge.

      I have observed in all my years in Mormondom, there is a cultural tendency to use “testimony” and knowledge by the Spirit as a cudgel to “gently” influence, push, shove or bludgeon. We all know the proverbial tales of RMs using their “witness” by the “Spirit” to coerce a sweet young daughter of God in nuptial bliss. It is my view that we Mormons generally, use the “authority” of the Spirit quite flippantly, instead of trying to solely to persuade by meekness, kindness, gentleness and pure knowledge. Hence the reason I ask the source of your understanding.

      I don’t claim to know anything, or rather I claim to know very little. I do, however, choose to believe and experiment as Alma suggests. I do believe Joseph to have been an authorized messenger, and that he did not fall from grace. Far from perfect, I believe him to be a virtuous man and that it is not wise for me to take a collection of not so easily discerned statements and historical events to inform my view. I have sought for years to know, studied, searched, prayed, fasted, pondered, sacrificed, and continue to do so. But I have yet to be able to say that I know. So I reserve judgment until the end of the path, when I reach the tree.

      One more question, if I may:

      Is it safe to assume that you do not believe Denver to be an authorized messenger? Do you believe him to be a false prophet? Again, I ask, not for the sake of contention or interrogation, but only for clarity. Like Tim, I choose to believe that his, after much effort in study, prayer and fasting. But that is only my belief and I do not impose that on anyone else.

      Thanks for your willingness to clarify.

      Like

      • I have a hard time with the phrase “authorized messenger” because this gets mormons in trouble. Denver’s authority begins when he speaks truth, it ends when he speaks falsehood. The Spirit has told me that Denver is a prophet. I have been told many other people are prophets as well. To agree with your assessment of what knowledge is and with that in mind I stand by what I have said.
        If people want to be lead by a Moses with trust in an outward voice, they will receive the same reward as the Israelites of that time. If people all seek to become as Moses and settle for nothing less, they will achieve Zion. There is not one thing we can trust without pure revelation on that subject.

        Like

        • I agree whole-heartedly. I accept your viewpoint. I choose not to use “what I have been told” to make my points. I think my main contention with you, which I make humbly and gently, is that you seem disposed to use your “knowledge” to reinforce your position.

          I view the difference between you and me, and and what I call an “authorized” messenger is, in the fullest sense, Jesus Himself, in plain humility telling a person, face to face, to go out and declare a message, and then they go out and declare what He told them to say, acknowledging He told them to do so. That is what all the prophets in scripture did. That is what Joseph did. That is what Denver is doing. Others in Mormondom have done it before, and were proven liars, hypocrites and murderers. This is one of many critiques, as you know, against the modern LDS leadership–not declaring a direct revelation.

          You seem to hold a different definition for prophet than I do. Would I be correct in that or mistaken?

          Like

    • MinofOne,

      We must remember concerning the Book of Mormon and it’s content. Of the 3,000 + changes made to it, some serious concepts were changed concerning the attributes of God, i.e., Jesus being the eternal father of heaven and earth. Orson pratt changed that to “son of the very eternal father of heaven and earth. Darkness reigns. We will get things back. It is coming, but not all at once.

      Like

  14. Unlike Minority I do not believe the BOM to be the most correct book … or the most important, but I do believe it. The bible is the book of scriptures that has patterns and the teachings of Jesus through his apostles. Do I believe Joseph was a fallen prophet? I believe because he was mortal he got things wrong, just like David and Solomon and Moses and on and on. No prophet is perfect or infallible … they all make mistakes. When we come to a realization that Joseph was not perfect, then we stop this worship of him and stop looking to him or DS for our relationship with heaven. They are both incredible servants, but they both make mistakes and both allow their own perceptions and belief to be taught. That is why it is absolutely necessary to only want truth for all of us can deceive others without intending to. I agree with Minority in that Joseph was influenced by his friends … aren’t we all? Do I fault Joseph? No … he is a test for us to see if we will believe everything that comes out of the mouth of a servant instead of realizing the servants speak sometimes as prophets, and a lot of times they are giving their opinions or beliefs, but it doesn’t necessarily mean their words, written or verbal, are the words of God. That is our assignment in this world is to be able to discern with love and glean truth and allow the err to fall away as deadwood. I don’t know if I myself am succeeding in that, but I am trying.

    Like

    • I meant most correct book of those she listed of which joseph had a hand in bringing forth. There are plenty of books that are 100 percent true.

      Like

    • I appreciate your clarification.

      I agree, that worship of any man is idolatry and will damn anyone who does so. I don’t detect any worship of him, here at least.

      To admit that Joseph, or Denver, or Moses is/was imperfect is absolutely necessary. However, to reach a conclusion about certain conduct, without a full, and clear account of the facts, I believe to be problematic.

      Being influenced by friends, being susceptible to error in judgment, being too trusting, being to jovial, being perhaps too eager to get things done, being deceptive at times, are all VERY different from being a rank hypocrite, liar, and adulterer. Can you name for me the prophets throughout scripture, who remained so (unlike David and Solomon) after having been hypocrites, liars or committing adultery? Moses was not allowed into the promised land for a misuse of his power over the elements, yet he was a sanctified, saved man.

      Do you believe Joseph to have been an adulterer? If so, do you believe him to be a hypocrite–after all he condemned adultery throughout his ministry? If so, how could he be an incredible servant?

      There is a reason why faith begins by human testimony. It is the pattern God has established for faith to begin and grow. Joseph testified from age 1820 to 1844. I think that testimony is very important to consider very carefully. We have more testimony from Joseph than from any other dead prophet before him. His testimony is either true or false.

      Likewise, I believe Denver’s testimony is also very important to consider as carefully. His witness of the Lord is more extensive than the record we have from Joseph. His testimony is either true or false.

      Otherwise, we can enter the territory of new age relativism and begin extolling Blavatsky, the Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East, the Nemenhah Papers, The Essene Gospels, Chris Nemelka and the “Sealed Portion”, just to name a few (I’ve gotten a lot of insight from many of these by the way). Perhaps we should glean from all, and just pick and choose what seems to fit our paradigm.

      I choose to heed the prophets and experiment upon the word. I worship God only.

      Like

  15. Nobody will be left standing when the smoke clears who does not have a personal first-hand testimony direct from God that Joseph is all that we hoped he was, and more. My testimony of Joseph Smith is rock solid. That said, I worship God only.

    This issue of who and what Joseph Smith is/was will not be “solved” in blog comments, no matter how well cited and clearly articulated by either side. It is the fulcrum on which the fate of the old ship Christianity teeters: Joseph’s name truly will be known for good or evil upon this earth before we are all done here. I throw in with Joseph.

    There can be no mediation and compromise on this issue because it really boils down to whether Joseph Smith was/is a liar, and it’s a binary vote – only two options, yes or no.

    Just as soon as I see people start bashing and HATING Joseph Smith then blurry things come into sharp focus. I see that ancient pattern more clearly, and realize we’re dealing with the teeth gnashers who just can’t ever leave him alone.

    I wish I could say it as nicely as you, BeStill&Know – your forbearance in this matter is nearly superhuman.

    Like

    • Lynne,
      Don’t change why moroni prophesied because it is important.
      “… and that my 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. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History, Joseph Smith—History 1)

      If you interpret it any other way then that all people some day will speak is name for good AND evil you are changing Moroni’s words. It is not good OR evil.

      Like

    • It’s really more toward that: “contention is of the devil” thing. This whole back and forth is quite wearisome. I really appreciate clarity. And too many seem to be purposefully unclear. Minorityofone has been that way for some time, at least that is my observation. I don’t mean to be confrontational, I just seek clarity, and honesty.

      If people don’t believe Joseph to be honest, say so. If they believe him to a fallen prophet, say so. If they believe him to be on par with other great philosophers, say so. But all this hedging about, using “mormon” phraseology, and “knowledge” revealed by the “spirit” to give credence to one’s arguments, is confusing to say the least.

      If you’re going to enter the fray over this very important issue, declare yourself! State your intention, your understanding without guile or obfuscation. That’s my feeling.

      It is my belief that you can’t take Jesus as merely a great philosopher, or a man who taught some really great stuff. You either accept what he declared (and attempt to understand what he ACTUALLY declared–not what the various sects and preachers say he declared) or you don’t. The mushy, wishy-washy, luke-warm truth everywhere, pick-what-you-like-from-the-buffet-table, relativistic sort get spewed out of the divine mouth. Or at least, that is what HE said. Is He the SON of GOD? Is He GOD? Is He the only way to the FATHER? Is He the FATHER? He said so. I believe Him. If one doesn’t, and they state so clearly, I respect that person.

      Likewise, I don’t think you can have the cake from Joseph’s table and eat it too. He said he stood IN THE PRESENCE of the Holy One of Israel. He taught what he was commanded to teach, or so he said. He taught and declared to the the truth what it means to be saved–to KNOW God, for ourselves–and taught what the Lord requires, and testified over and over to the truth of what he taught. Either Joseph was a Ghandi-like, Buddha-type-of-chap who had some pretty damn good notions, and some really strange contradictions, and some pretty questionable behavior (a view which I totally understand) or he stood in God’s presence and was authorized by Him. It is as you say, binary. Otherwise, you don’t understand what Joseph was saying. That’s my view.

      The same goes for Denver.

      It all has to be accepted or rejected on faith. Or unbelief. No amount of historical referencing or “I know because the Spirit told me so” testifying can resolve the issue personally. That work is done in the deep trenches in the holy wrestle with God Almighty.

      Like

      • Siddhartha was enlightened and translated just as Enoch was. Jesus was all He claimed to be and is the Light, the Truth, and the Way. Joseph smith was not as great of a prophet as Siddhartha (Buddha as you called him)
        People think that if they get a witness of the first vision, or that joseph smith was a prophet, or that Denver is, that this is some type of blanket revelation that they can be trusted in all that they have taught or all that they teach. Wouldn’t that be nice? Seriously it would make things so much easier than actually having to learn things line upon line, one thing at a time. You are the only person that can be the prophet you seek.

        Like

    • “There can be no mediation and compromise on this issue because it really boils down to whether Joseph Smith was/is a liar, and it’s a binary vote – only two options, yes or no.”

      Does it really come down to that?

      Wasn’t D&C 132 canonized over ten years after Joseph’s death?

      I know that when they were fighting with the reorganized Church over the Temple lot, testimony to the effect that Joseph practiced polygamy was produced, and some of the women he was sealed to even signed affidavits stating they had sex with him (or were fully married to him, or some such words to that effect), but some believe they were lying, and that Joseph actually fought polygamy.

      I’m listening to the Snuffer tapes now, but I have a hard time believing that D&C 132:38-39 is inspired when I read Jacob 2:23-24.

      The question I’m pondering is how God could say “David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife,” if He already said “David and aSolomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord”?

      Has Mr. Snuffer said anything that might shed some light on this apparent contradiction?

      Does anyone see any way of seeing it as anything less than a contradiction?

      The closest thing I’ve read to an explanation was on FairMormon, but if I remember correctly what they said was that any wives David had that weren’t given him by The Lord were an abomination, and that still seems to contradict “David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife.”

      Am I missing something?

      Like

      • Section 132 and Jacob 2 (the verses you cited) cannot both be true. You hit it right on the head. Just like other verses which I mentioned in some of my writing from the Doctrine and Covenants, and verses that are in the Bible and Book of Mormon cannot all be true. There are contradictions. If you believe all of Doctrine and Covenants, then you by default do not believe all that is in the Book of Mormon. If you believe all of the Book of Mormon, you by default do not believe all of the Doctrine and Covenants. There is absolutely no getting around it.

        Like

        • “Section 132 and Jacob 2 (the verses you cited) cannot both be true.”

          I knew you’d say that Nate, but I’d be very interested in anything anyone else has to say on this.

          Can anyone answer Nate?

          Is there any way D&C 132:38-39 and Jacob 2:24 can both be true?

          Like

  16. Was David who slew Goliath either a liar or he wasn’t? Was he either a prophet or he wasn’t? Was he either always good or always bad? Either a fraud or the real deal? Let’s just see that for the logical absurdity that it is. There is no law that says you have to accept all of Joseph Smith and what he taught or none of it. To say so is literally denying what God said multiple times about the possibility that he could fall. Multiple sections even in the current doctrine and covenants say that. So if you have always thought that was an impossibility you have had to intentionally ignore what you argue to be scripture.

    Like

  17. You and I simply disagree on the implications of someone having been in the presence of God and having been authorized to deliver a message. No David was not perfect, and fell for adultery and murder.

    No Moses was not perfect, and suffered some loss for using his authority outside the Lord’s command. But he remained authorized to administer valid ordinances

    No Joseph was not perfect, but if he was adulterous, than I don’t believe he would have remained authorized to administer valid ordinances.

    I guess I should ask, do you believe in the need for “legal administrator” as Joseph put, in order to have valid ordinances? Baptism at least?

    I understand more where you are coming from and that helps for future reference.

    Like

  18. Btw correct me if I am wrong but didn’t denver say in his lecture that it was all just his opinion? Look how much stir just throwing around opinions causes.

    Like

    • Once again you didn’t answer my question. Do you believe in ordinances, and of so, the need to have a legal administrator?

      You know, perhaps I’m mistaken (I’m very open to correction here), but from a while of observing you in various settings, aside some quite insightful writing, you seem at times interested in drive-by style jib-jab, on occasion glib, commentary and point scoring, and even gnosis-exhibitionism than you do in dialogue and seeking understanding. I’d like to be wrong in that observation.

      And if you truly believe (your glibness leaves your true intentions quite obscured) the aggregate of what Denver has put forward to be his opinion, and not a clear, unequivocal declaration of what he claims to know by revelation, then you are not familiar in the least with what he had said. I find it hard to believe you are ignorant.

      Why do you trifle? God does not.

      Like

      • I am saying in the lecture Tim posted about, did Denver not say in the new lecture on polygamy that it was only his opinion? Sorry I wasn’t clear on that.

        Like

        • No he did not. He was declarative. He may have expressed his opinion on a specific matter, but after listening to the talk 3 times, it’s clear to me that he is unequivocal in his support for Joseph and his understanding (though he doesn’t explain all he “knows”) on the subject of plurality of wives, covenants, priesthood, and sealing.

          Like

  19. Be still,

    Thank you for the civil discussion. Thank you for bringing up legal administrators. I think you just hit the major issue and point of so much contention spot on. NO!!! I do not believe we need a legal administrator other than God. If someone reaches out to God and seeks God, God will make them a legal administrator. He will allow them to baptize themselves if necessary like Alma the Elder. He will cause them to be baptized by an angel or the Holy Ghost if there is no mortal worthy, or available to do it. Many prophets had no legal administrator on the earth to look to, yet they didn’t look for anyone but God and that is how they came to know God.
    If there must needs be an angel who will come to do an ordinance, because no mortal is available, then God will send one. It is that simple. We don’t need to wait for anyone else to get power, we need to go get it ourselves. I don’t believe the doctrine that only one man can hold the keys, which is another section 132 enigma. The book of mormon shows Nephi and Lehi getting the sealing power and keys that we haven’t seen in our day and this was before Peter got the keys the LDS church love to talk about. Lehi and Nephi sure didn’t seem to be following Jeremiah or looking to him to perform sacrifices on the altars they built, so that goes to show there is something out of whack with the LDS belief of keys. I am trying to reason and show evidence instead of just bearing testimony here…. So anyway I think that this is the big difference between how some people view things. I have been re-baptized, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Denver Snuffer, and I never sent a name in to some recorder, and I know that the baptism was performed by the power of God. Yet I felt the spirit reading about Tim’s baptism, it is the same spirit I have experienced when I have learned of things in Judaism and Buddhism and many other things.
    The work is so much bigger than Denver Snuffer and company, and if Denver is trying to hint that he is the only one holding the keys to do this or that it simply is not true. So I understand that people who believe in the one strongman holding keys, and being a type of benevolent dictator who is the only one God can give new truth through, will always have a problem with what I am saying. That is the key right there. Is the strongman model the way God wants it, or is it something else? This obviously will be a very divisive doctrine. It all hinges on the truthfulness of section 132, which I will never ever ever accept because of what I have experienced.

    Like

    • Minority,

      Appreciate your willingness to dialogue. It seems we share some common ground and then there are some areas of divergence. To be clear, I do NOT share the traditional cultural Mormon belief in authority, keys, succession, etc. I try to understand and harmonize, however poorly, the scriptures and the teachings of Joseph. I take seriously his testimony and believe him—and I work from there. If one does not accept his testimony, I honor that. I’d like to address your last post in a series of posts. Respond if you wish.

      First, let me say I believe there is much more to priesthood (for men and women, and even children), sealing, ordinances, the power of godliness, etc than we are at present able to comprehend (unless of course, God has given anyone to actually comprehend it). I don’t pretend to comprehend it. I’m seeking to. I take seriously when some says they do have knowledge from God. I don’t outright accept it, I seek to know for myself, and I try the word….Okay:

      “I do not believe we need a legal administrator other than God.”

      – I believe you are correct. It would seem, that any individual, in THIS (btw, I abhor the use of all caps, but since I don’t know how to italicize or bold then that’s all I got!) life doesn’t necessarily NEED a mortal to administer certain things, else how do you explain Joseph Smith? His priesthood, according to JST Gen 14 and D&C 84 must have come directly from God’s own voice at the moment of the 1st vision. As he said, “all the holy prophets were ordained by God himself”.

      “If someone reaches out to God and seeks God, God will make them a legal administrator.”

      – This is my belief also. Since you seem to accept that there is a place for “legal administrators” and if God indeed does make some to be “legal administrators”, then to what end? Is it necessary to obey the voice of God through them when the speak by the power of the Spirit the words of Christ? To be repent? To be baptized? To gather? To tithe? Etc. Or do you not believe a man, or woman, can speak the words of Christ to other people that are binding on the hearer?
      cont’d…

      Like

      • cont’d:

        “He will allow them to baptize themselves if necessary like Alma the Elder.”

        – I don’t know that we can use Alma’s experience as conclusive proof that one can baptize himself and have it be the equivalent of the baptism of our Lord. Alma had previously been baptized, and we don’t know if he subsequently was baptized anew. All we know is that he went down with Helam. This could be a rebaptism in the manner of Christ, or it could be a type of mikveh or simply a spontaneous, Spirit filled act of contrition and praise. The record doesn’t comment on it further than to say he did it.

        “He will cause them to be baptized by an angel or the Holy Ghost if there is no mortal worthy, or available to do it. Many prophets had no legal administrator on the earth to look to, yet they didn’t look for anyone but God and that is how they came to know God. If there must needs be an angel who will come to do an ordinance, because no mortal is available, then God will send one. It is that simple.”

        – You seem to be conceding that if there is a mortal with authority available, then that has importance. Is this your meaning?
        – Generally, I agree with you here. I’m not certain of exactly what the role of mortal administrators is confined to, or what situations always require it, but if we accept any of the scriptures to be true, then there must be some definitive role. Noah was ordained by God, but first received and earthly ordination by Methuselah. Moses was ordained by God but first was ordained by Jethro—who was a Midianite (outside the house of Israel. Incidentally, Jethro’s line came down from Esaias who was ordained by God, independent of his contemporary, and dispensation “father” Abraham.) Joseph first received priesthood (if we can accept D&C 84 and JST Gen 14) at the moment of the 1st vision, but later was ordained by John the Baptist. People came to be baptized of John and Alma. Etc.

        Like

    • cont’d:

      “We don’t need to wait for anyone else to get power, we need to go get it ourselves.”

      – Agreed. Although, how would we have first gotten power without the idea in our minds that some power exists. The Lectures on Faith (don’t know if you accept those a truth, I do) make it plain that it is necessarily human testimony that does this…”Faith comes by hearing the word.” It is necessary for every person to hear, or read the testimony of an actual witness of the reality and person of God. I believe this to be true. So to some degree, we, at some level, are all dependent on messengers to begin to exercise faith—angels minister according to our faith, and faith can’t begin until we get the idea that there is a God, that He has a certain character, perfections and attributes, and that we can approach Him. This necessitates that some be called to preach for others to hear. It would stand to reason that there is an order to this for God to not be the author of confusion. Would you agree?

      Like

    • cont’d:

      “I don’t believe the doctrine that only one man can hold the keys, which is another section 132 enigma. The book of mormon shows Nephi and Lehi getting the sealing power and keys that we haven’t seen in our day and this was before Peter got the keys the LDS church love to talk about. Lehi and Nephi sure didn’t seem to be following Jeremiah or looking to him to perform sacrifices on the altars they built, so that goes to show there is something out of whack with the LDS belief of keys.”

      – I choose to reserve judgment on the whole question. I don’t believe we have a full explanation anywhere on keys, sealing, etc. Again, I don’t believe in the modern LDS paradigm of “keys”, which I believe to be very different from what Joseph taught. I believe Brigham and Orson’s ideas of keys were different from Joseph’s. I don’t think that there is only one type of sealing power, but that it is scripturally plausible that there are varying degrees of sealing power or authority, just as there are varying degrees of priesthood. I’m not at all certain to what specifically section 132 is actually referring to. Is it just to seal in plural marriage? Is it to seal in all marriages? Is it to seal anything and everything by the word of the servant and have control over the elements, as Elijah and Nephi? Is it to seal when speaking by the Holy Spirit? Is it to seal by administering other ordinances? Is it all of the above? There are plenty of scriptural contradictions to consider. Denver brings up a number of them in “Beloved Enos”. Would you concede that there are open questions, or has God revealed all of this in plainness to you?

      Like

    • cont’d:

      “I have been re-baptized, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Denver Snuffer, and I never sent a name in to some recorder, and I know that the baptism was performed by the power of God. Yet I felt the spirit reading about Tim’s baptism, it is the same spirit I have experienced when I have learned of things in Judaism and Buddhism and many other things.”

      – I too have been re-baptized (I am active LDS, but not by the Church). Mine was post hearing Denver’s invitation, and I did it as a sign of faith, and the manifestations I received were undeniable—I could not have produced those by any means I know of. Yet, I have desired to be re-baptized for years, long before I ever heard Denver’s name. I just didn’t find the right time or circumstance. My brother (active LDS) and I have discussed this same point. He has been re-baptized a number of times and has felt that the ordinance was approved of God. He has rejected the idea that he needs to be re-baptized simply because Denver said so. I don’t blame him, or you for feeling that way. I do however, believe that when true messenger comes from the presence of God and delivers the message God gave him to deliver, then that messenger words are Christ’s words, and we’d better heed them. Nephi baptized like crazy before Christ’s appearance, and those baptisms were I believe valid. And yet, when Christ was with the Nephites, he called upon Nephi and the Apostles to be baptized again. Then he had THEM go about and baptize the multitude. Likewise after Christ was gone, they continued to invite, with Christ’s authority, all to come to the waters of baptism.
      – My question for you…would you say that those hearing Alma’s admonition to come to be baptized, of him, didn’t need to do that at that time as an act of faith? Or John the Baptist’s baptism? What about when Christ asked the Nephites to be baptized again? What about Moses’ invitation for the people to prepare to meet God, which they rejected. What of these invitations in the name of the Lord to act and do something? What of the commandments issued by mortals for other mortals to follow?
      – Finally, did you re-baptize yourself? If not, why not?

      Like

    • “The work is so much bigger than Denver Snuffer and company, and if Denver is trying to hint that he is the only one holding the keys to do this or that it simply is not true. “

      – I agree. I believe Denver would be the first to agree with you that the work is so much bigger than him. He has in nowhere that I can find made any insinuation that he holds all the keys. If he did, I would seek the Spirit for confirmation of that, and not reject it out of hand, which you seem disposed to do.
      – My brother has told me of a recent encounter with a Canadian man (not a member of the LDS church) he met who testified to him that he has seen the Lord and has been given a ministry by the Lord Himself. My brother is inclined to believe the man. I’m inclined to believe on my brother’s words. Certainly open to the possibility. The Lord said he would call “servants”. Yet, it would stand to reason that there should be unity in the message. Would you agree?

      Like

    • cont’d:

      “So I understand that people who believe in the one strongman holding keys, and being a type of benevolent dictator who is the only one God can give new truth through, will always have a problem with what I am saying. That is the key right there. Is the strongman model the way God wants it, or is it something else?”

      – I do not believe in this either. I agree that we should all seek to know the Lord and that the day will come that all will know Him. Yet, there is a place for “servants”, “teachers”, “ministers”, “prophets”, “apostles” etc. The questions is, would true ministers of the Gospel (I’m not speaking of good, honorable men and women with goodness to share and teach, but true messengers who come from the presence of God) come with different messages, with different ministrations: i.e. a Buddhist monk, and catholic priest, and a Wayne Dyer, a Ghandi, a C.S. Lewis, a Mother Theresa, etc. (who can ALL be very valuable to mankind—and to me), or would there be unity and order: one faith, one baptism, one depiction of the walk to the tree of life?

      “It all hinges on the truthfulness of section 132, which I will never ever ever accept because of what I have experienced.”

      – I am not so intransigent. My motto: I don’t give a flying duck crap if I’m a flying duck in the life to come. Just tell me the truth, and I’m on board.

      …okay, so that was a very long exercise. Don’t blame you if you don’t respond to any or all. 🙂

      Like

      • I think the work continues as it always had. There seems to be some reticence in the children of men to walk by the Spirit. Thus they degrade themselves for hearing the Lord through a representative. That will continue until we roll up our sleeves and take issue with our own eternal welfare.

        Like

  20. Tim

    You said

    “What we have is limited to section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which I accept as scripture, including the quote about there being only one person on the earth at a time who holds the sealing power and priesthood keys.”

    Please re-read Section 124 and then explain to me, whether it was Joseph or Hyrum that was the exclusive holder of the sealing power and keys once Hyrum was called to work in “concert” with Joseph.

    ” And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right;..

    That whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
    And from this time forth I appoint unto him that he may be a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph;
    That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph

    I give unto you Hyrum Smith… to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of promise, whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption, that ye may not fall notwithstanding the hour of temptation that may come upon you.”

    BTW, if you had to choose between section 124 and 132 a being the true revelation which would it be and why?

    Like

  21. Still listening to the tapes of Mr. Snuffer’s lecture, and trying to undrstand what he’s saying about adoption and the importance of being sealed to the fathers, but having trouble not seeing some conflict with Galatians.

    What does this mean?

    For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:27-29, Joseph Smith Translation.)

    Like

  22. cont’d:

    “He will allow them to baptize themselves if necessary like Alma the Elder.”

    – I don’t know that we can use Alma’s experience as conclusive proof that one can baptize himself and have it be the equivalent of the baptism of our Lord. Alma had previously been baptized, and we don’t know if he subsequently was baptized anew. All we know is that he went down with Helam. This could be a rebaptism in the manner of Christ, or it could be a type of mikveh or simply a spontaneous, Spirit filled act of contrition and praise. The record doesn’t comment on it further than to say he did it.

    “He will cause them to be baptized by an angel or the Holy Ghost if there is no mortal worthy, or available to do it. Many prophets had no legal administrator on the earth to look to, yet they didn’t look for anyone but God and that is how they came to know God. If there must needs be an angel who will come to do an ordinance, because no mortal is available, then God will send one. It is that simple.”

    – You seem to be conceding that if there is a mortal with authority available, then that has importance. Is this your meaning?
    – Generally, I agree with you here. I’m not certain of exactly what the role of mortal administrators is confined to, or what situations always require it, but if we accept any of the scriptures to be true, then there must be some definitive role. Noah was ordained by God, but first received and earthly ordination by Methuselah. Moses was ordained by God but first was ordained by Jethro—who was a Midianite (outside the house of Israel. Incidentally, Jethro’s line came down from Esaias who was ordained by God, independent of his contemporary, and dispensation “father” Abraham.) Joseph first received priesthood (if we can accept D&C 84 and JST Gen 14) at the moment of the 1st vision, but later was ordained by John the Baptist. People came to be baptized of John and Alma. Etc.

    Like

    • sorry, posted in the wrong place

      Like

  23. Be Still…

    Great questions. Of course I will not claim to know everything about keys, sealing etc, but I have received this direct communication “keys are inherent in the priesthood.” I have also been given revelation that spiritual keys have to do with key words, and powers that are revealed to us as we ascend spiritually. I don’t remember anything I have received having to deal with any other mortal giving them to me, and I don’t think God will break the pattern now. Yes I agree God sends people to teach. I have a testimony from God that Mother Theresa saw Jesus Christ, and was sent on the mission she performed just as she claimed. This does not mean I trust all of Mother Theresa’s teachings. I have had experiences with higher Beings and the thing about these experiences is there is still only so much communicated. Some people after such experiences feel they all a sudden have got it all figured out “after all they saw Jesus, or God, so there belief system must all be true” they think. I know for myself this is not true, and it is a false assumption. With these experiences also there are tests to see if we allow pride to creep in and think we know more than we do, and have some imaginary authority over other mortals.
    So what I am getting at is just because someone has seen God, and even been sent to fulfill a mission, we must never accept one word, one teaching, one commandment they teach unless confirmed by the Spirit. I have felt the Spirit reading from some of Denver’s articles on his blog, and reading some of his quotes, I was absolutely filled with the Spirit reading the parable of the pass, but there are things that I have been told (at least for me) are not correct.
    Here is an example of people who may be jumping in to the pass to quickly. If Denver says, “you need to be re-baptized,” and someone either receives a confirmation that that is true, or prays later and is told by the Spirit that they need to be re-baptized, what does this mean?
    Most well-meaning individuals will think it means they need to get re-baptized by one of the people approved by Denver’s communities, and send there name in to a recorder. This makes sense to them, but in reality the Spirit only told them that they need to be re-baptized. So the same goes for so many things. People think if they received the burning of the Holy Ghost for 20 seconds during a lecture, that must mean the whole thing was true.
    So as far as messengers go, even an angel, I will always revert to the principle Nephi taught to hearken not unto the precepts of men, save their precepts are taught by the Holy Ghost. I don’t care if you know that person has been tutored by God Himself, if he is a man, you don’t trust anything from them unless God tells you it is true. So I applaude Paul for correcting Peter when he was wrong and not giving a damn what Peter or the other apostles said. Paul was made an apostle by Jesus Christ Himself, and would have sinned to think himself one whit behind the other men on the earth, or that he would need to bow to any scepter besides God’s.

    Like

  24. I am saying even if there is a mortal available, God could raise up someone in Africa, or Mississipi, by His voice and by His heavenly messengers alone, completely indepedent of someone like Denver Snuffer. I do not believe anyone in Denver Snuffer’s group, including Denver himself has authority to lay their hands on someone and give them the Holy Ghost right then and there. I do not believe the signs (like healing, raising the dead etc) of the believers are following any group of people right now, so there is something lacking. It is very obvious all ordinances were not restored through Joseph Smith, even by his own admission believe it or not, and they plainly have not all been restored to Denver, so there is not a fulness right now held by anyone. Once all of the ordinances are restored, then there will be a gathering.

    Like

    • 40) The priest is not the priesthood. Nay, and the high priest is not the priesthood. It is that specific word of God that comes to the individual by and through the Holy Ghost that conveys the commission to the heart and soul of a man or a woman.
      41) And behold, when this commission is come into the soul of a person, they come to the priest or the high priest, or to the Peli of a family, and they request a blessing of them to confirm by token and by the laying on of hands of that which has been received of the Lord. And the priest, the high priest or the Peli shall give whatever words of prophecy or counsel to which the Holy Ghost may give utterance, and this becomes a witness and an assistance to the individual in fulfilling that commission whereby the Lord has called them.
      42) And if the high priest does call upon a person from out of the names provided by the people to be a priest or teacher unto them, they may not take up the calling until they have sought the confirmation of the Holy Ghost that they have received the commission of the Lord in it. And if they receive not this confirmation, they do not accept the call, but they do ask the high priest to go again unto the Lord in prayer to affirm the matter.
      43) Behold, the priesthood of God is a serious matter to the Nemenhah and we do not trifle with it. It is not given to any person without the clear and certain commission of the Lord. And this commission comes to a person by and through the power of the Holy Ghost.

      I still believe these words. It comes to the soul with irrevocable power.

      Like

    • Minority,

      There is much that you say that I agree with. I appreciate your willingness to clarify what you believe and what you’ve been given to “know”, without glibness. It helps in understanding you a bit better. God bless.

      Like

  25. you know….all scriptures are imperfect, none are perfect. They are all given to man and man corrupts everything. With that said if you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, you accept these same imperfect scriptures, if you accept these same imperfect scriptures, you accept Jesus Christ which means you accept The Father in Heaven. If you accept Jesus Christ, you accept The Truth of all things. If you accept The Truth of all things, you do not need to circle jerk with this argument known as polygamy because you can go to the Source of all Truth and Light, Jesus Christ. But by participating in this circle jerk of arguments and logic and back biting and contentious spirits, you grieve the spirit, and will utterly fail to find the truth of the matter. there is so much conflicting information on polygamy and if I had to guess it is solely to see whether we will sit here and participate in this contentious spirit of Satan to find the answer or whether we will calm our souls, Be Still and Know that Jesus Christ is God, and humble ourselves and ASK HIM if we so badly want to know.

    I’m not going to sit here and read through this argument, as I know where it is going and my time is better spent, but I will say, cease this senseless argument for it is written, a contentious spirit is of Satan. You want the truth? Seek the God of Truth, even Jesus Christ.

    Like

    • Further still, I believe we were left with this to see our hearts. We Parade as fools assessing and judging others and bring condemnation on ourselves, in our blind state condemning Joseph others and essentially God, all the while missing the point. Dave Park.

      Like

  26. Before the question gets burried, I still like to know if any of you know how to reconcile D&C 132:38-39 with Jacob 2:24?

    How could God say “David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife,” if He already said “David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord”?

    Do any of you understand how both can be true?

    Has Mr. Snuffer said anything that might shed some light on this?

    The closest thing I’ve read to an explanation was on FairMormon, but if I remember correctly what they said was that any wives David had that weren’t given him by The Lord were an abomination, and that still seems to contradict “David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife.”

    I’m not attacking Joseph here, I’m questioning D&C 132 (which I believe was canonized over a decade after Joseph’s death.

    I know that when they were fighting with the reorganized Church over the Temple lot, The LDS Church produced testimony to the effect that Joseph practiced polygamy, and some of the women he was sealed to even signed affidavits stating they had sex with him (or were fully married to him, or some such words to that effect), but some believe the evidence (including the testimony of the women) was fabricated, and that Joseph actually fought polygamy.

    I thank Tim for posting the links to the Snuffer lecture, I’m listening to the tapes.

    If Mr. Snuffer is saying that Joseph wasn’t actually married to anyone but Emma (in the sense of actually having marrital relations with any of the other women he was sealed to) that might answer this question.

    But what I think he’s saying about the importance of being sealed to the fathers seems to contradict HGalatians 3:27-29.

    For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Joseph Smith Translation.)

    And that leaves me with another question.

    If anyone has anything to say on either of these issues I would be very interested.

    Thank you.

    Like

    • Mike, I’ll take an attempt to throw out a couple ideas. This whole Sec 132 Polygamy subject is a hornet’s nest. Harmonization of all scripture contradictions is not possible; for example, the four Gospels have numerous contradictions. There’s just no way to reconcile them. Agnostics use this as best evidence to reject the Gospel and Jesus out of hand. As to the contradiction you note, there is no way to reconcile these scriptures on the face of things. But, note that Jacob 2:30, seems clearly to give sanction to plural marriage under one condition, ie, when the Lord commands it: “For if I will…raise seed up unto me, I will command my people.” Sec 132 clarifies that the practice was justified to the extent that the Lord’s servant Nathan sanctioned the practice (since he had lawful sealing power to do so). David, clearly went beyond the bounds set and committed adultery, and then set up the death of Uriah, for which he fell from his exaltation. Likewise, I think it is possible that early on David was justified, in taking additional wives (those given to him by the Lord through Nathan), but that this practice got out of hand by David (& Solomon in particular) taking additional wives, but not sealed to him by Nathan. I believe the OT even indicates that Solomon imported foreign wives (outside Israel) to add to his cohort, which would both be outside the conditions set, and also a GROSS violation of the OT law, which strictly prohibited marriage to those outside the covenant. Notice, that Abraham had multiple wives, and yet he is not mentioned in Jacob 2. So, you can’t conclude from Jacob that plural marriage is never allowed for anyone at any time. So, at least a plausible explanation is that the practice was sanctioned, at first, by the Lord, but that David & Solomon blew it out into something it was never intended to be, by their continuing to pile on additional wives, without permission. Anyways, be at peace, I know it’s a troubling area.

      Like

      • “I think it is possible that early on David was justified, in taking additional wives (those given to him by the Lord through Nathan), but that this practice got out of hand by David (& Solomon in particular) taking additional wives, but not sealed to him by Nathan. I believe the OT even indicates that Solomon imported foreign wives (outside Israel) to add to his cohort, which would both be outside the conditions set, and also a GROSS violation of the OT law, which strictly prohibited marriage to those outside the covenant.”

        Thank you.

        Like

  27. Unless you come to an understanding the God can revoke his blessings because of sin, then everyone can stay in their state of “Joseph being infallible” and keep seeing through rose colored glasses. Joseph’s patriarchal blessing said his work was for his generation – it states it plainly. (Therefore anyone thinking he is coming back as a resurrected celestial being to lead people to the New Jerusalem will be very disappointed indeed). The blessing also stated that Joseph was promised that he would overcome his enemies and that he and his children would inherit Zion. That did not happen. Thou shalt escape the edge of the sword, and put to flight the armies of the wicked. That did not happen. Same is true with Oliver’s Blessing on Joseph – “He shall remain to a good old age, even till his head is like the pure wool.” That did not happen.

    David and Solomon because of their sins, did not receive the fullness of their blessings … so I think Joseph is in the same situation … I believe JS invalidated his blessings because of the sins of polygamy that he committed. Blessings are revoked when disobedience happens … they are conditioned upon righteousness and obedience.

    You are all getting hung up on just Jacob and D&C 132 being irreconcilable where in reality there are more scriptures in D&C that demonstrate only to take one wife …

    D&C 42:22 says Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.

    D&C 49:15-17 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be bone flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation. And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

    Moses 3:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be done flesh.

    All throughout the NT it is always one wife one husband … so what do we do with the OT pattern of polygamy? NOW YOU ARE GOING TO HATE THIS … but the first mention of polygamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” But Lamech was also a murderer … So the first instance of polygamy is tied to murder … HMMMM.

    Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham for she wanted “seed”, Jacob was tricked. But most of the prophets, priests and kings of the OT did not have plural wives … So though the Lord has allowed it at certain times, it is not the ideal … but then we are not here to discuss polygamy , but the sealings to the Patriarchs. However, I want to address concubines first.

    The obvious reason for taking on more than one wife had to do with the fact that if a wife did not produce children, then the husband would sometimes take on another wife … Not always. But another reason that the Lord may allowed polygamy in ancient times is that because of patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. The significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation. Many times concubines meant not marital relations, but that a King was taking care of women of lower status – who could not care for themselves.

    Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

    Joseph wanted to restore SOME of the ancient ways … not all, and definitely not the most important ones … he picked and chose polygamy for only reasons he will have to answer to. Some historians and church members rely upon a thing called “Kingdom Building” … to validate Joseph’s involvement in polygamy. They believe God the Father has hundred, maybe thousands of wives in order to create and populate universes … It is a bizarre teaching. I have been present when DS taught that if Joseph had become President of the US, polygamy would have gone forth, and the whole United States would be Mormons … Does that make Denver a liar, or does that just mean he didn’t have a full understanding at the time he taught this? Has he changed his mind since teaching this? Do we throw everything out that Denver has taught, or do we realize that sometimes servants speak as mortals and not as mouthpieces from God?

    I still have not received a witness of Joseph sealing people to the Fathers being from God.. I believe it is a good attempt by Denver to throw the cloak of charity over Joseph … Joseph was not allowed to live out his life to fulfill the promises given to him because I believe God revoked those promises. DS is very vocal that you cannot receive priesthood or keys, holy ghost, etc from any man – that it has to come from God or angels. So how is this logic different from a man sealing others to the Patriarchs? Isn’t that the same thing? Isn’t a man getting in between God and the individual – AGAIN? There are so many great things DS has done, but there are also many contradictions he makes and so it leaves me confused.

    I believe the Pearl of Great Price is the work of God, it is one of my favorite books of scripture, I believe the Book of Mormon, and I believe much of the D&C … I believe Joseph had an incredible gift from God and received marvelous revelations. But I do not believe Joseph to be infallible or to be next to Jesus in importance. He is known for good and evil … but aren’t we all at times.

    Like

    • Very great comment.

      I would like to add something I know. First off Abraham would have never had to sacrifice Isaac if he would not have sinned in polygamy. Him and Sarai didn’t trust God could fulfill His promise of giving them a son because Sarah got “too old to have kids” so they tried to fulfill it themselves through hagaar. Then Sarah laughed at their stupidity when she found she would conceive after all and they didn’t have to try and steady the ark themselves. Then Abraham had to prove that He trusted God to fulfill his word through Isaac even if he had to raise him from the dead. Like Paul says in the New Testament, hagaar represents bondage. That was a sin just like Sarah said it was in the bible.
      Second off, the bible talks of Solomon having more WISDOM than anyone. This is very closely linked to him having all those women. In the New Testament we learn women are “the glory” of the man.
      Joseph smith knew this and that women act as conduits of glory and power to men. The problem is that you will never ever get past one of the lower realms of glory with more than one wife. It ALWAYS leads to being thrown back into this mortality cycle. When Eve was figuratively made from Adams rib. This represented a separation of soulmates.
      Until we reunite and become one flesh again with our soul mate, and only our soul mate, we will never get past this stage of progression. Polygamy can serve a fleeting purpose, but it also is bondage and damns you because you have not learned to love your own soul (your spouse) as yourself. There is only one soulmate. God the Father has one Wife. Jesus Christ has one Wife. That is it. Period. Yes there are links established between higher and lower beings but this is not marriage. The word sealing has been passed around flippantly and the meaning is totally lost to the wind.

      Like

      • In this we agree, moo.

        Like

    • Hannah,

      I love your overall knowledge concerning restoration activities. May I suggest another concept for discussion. Joseph was prophesied as “like unto Moses”. If we take that for all its worth, we need to study the life of Moses. In Leviticus, the Lord was going to destroy the Israelites because of their not listening and obeying the Lord. The Israelites were taught all the rites and ordinances of the sin, peace and atonement offerings. Mose pleaded with the Lord to not destroy.them. He performed an intercessory offering for them and took the sins of the people and transferred ti him. He acted out the sins of the people.

      If Joseph was truly like unto Moses, then he took upon him the sins of the people and acted them out as well. This is part of the atonement statute. There was also a scapegoat as well, but another time perhaps. Instead of praising or maligning Joseph, we should look at what his purpose was (which none of us fully understand), and then be grateful the Lord gave us the Book of Mormon and a restoring for a time the Melchizedek Priesthood to envision possibilities. If Joseph may be Uriel, then the possibilities of the eternal spirit of Joseph could bode well among the plans for this earth. We must look to possibilities and not look for absolutes which most would not understand anyway.

      It is said, we must work to understand our bodies(physical, mental, psychic, noetical), the earth we live on, our inmost self, then The creator, in that order. Sometimes we leap to understand who God is before we understand our selves. Thank you for your contributions to history.

      Like

  28. Minority … thank you for enlightening me on Abraham and Sarah and Isaac … oh my goodness that makes so much sense … and so did all the rest of your post … Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

    Like

  29. Thanks Sfort. Denver teaches that Uriel is not Joseph, but John the Revelator. He taught that in his Orem lecture – Michael is Adam (over the air); Gabriel is Noah (over the water); Raphael is Enoch (over the fire) and Uriel or John who is over the earth which makes complete sense since John is a translated being and will restore all things and gather all Israel as stated by Joseph in D&C. I understand that because everyone honors Joseph they want to assign him a great position beside God, but I don’t believe Joseph passed the test regarding polygamy. If everyone can believe DS’ lectures regarding the Nauvoo temple being destroyed because it was not built in a certain time period, why do people have a hard time believing the Lord allowed Joseph to die because of the sins he committed? But the most important argument against your line of thinking is that it was Jesus who ended the blood sacrifices of animals (and are not men at times referred to as animals in scripture)? So according to scripture I do not believe Joseph offered himself as ransom for the people. I believe he died because of his own sins, and not because of the sins of the people. There is only one person who offered himself as a sacrifice for his people – Jesus – He is the only one who provides salvation and to liken Joseph to Jesus in that respect is rather offensive. The other prophets made sacrifices (via animals- not themselves) for sin and guilt offerings. There are not many who are brave enough to read the accounts and diaries of those whom were supporters of Joseph and then because of Polygamy left the church. There are so many that we cannot ignore them all. So many good LDS believe all these dissenters fabricated or embellished their stories, yet Minority has given us many hard things to ponder.

    There will be animal sacrifice performed again as stated in scripture .. it will be at the Temple in Jerusalem just prior to the Savior’s coming …

    Like

    • Hannah,

      That is where what Denver says is not always kosher. It has been said that Phanuel was Joseph as wee. It has also been said by a few who take the evolutionary history of the earth as the most important thing to them, that John the Revelator will be the Davidic servant and the son of Jesus. The early apostles said Raphael was Mose. It since has been changed to Enoch.

      We can’t always take what one says as verbatim. Noah is over the water, Michael is over the land, Raphael or Enoch is part of the underworld and Uriel coordinates them all. This is from an enlightened one and you see, things just aren’t clear. I think it is exciting to learn new things about the earth and its ultimate design. I will still try to understand myself and the God fragment inside of me before I will venture to try and understand the will of the Lord, and thus when I know His will (which in the mortal state is arduous at best when we are cursed as enemies), I will ultimately know Him.

      Thank you for all you have said on this thread.

      Like

  30. 17 And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone. (Old Testament, Numbers, Numbers 11)

    24 ¶And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.
    25 And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. (Old Testament, Numbers, Numbers 11)

    There are other accounts of this happening. So if one person has a great aura of light and a high frequency of spirit, and they willingly give a portion to others, is that not a type of Intercessory offering or atonement? Moses willingly have light that he was given from above, to others to help raise and strengthen their spirits. That is what the atonement is all about. This also works the opposite way though and we must be careful. The dark beings also pass around low frequencies and strive for an at-one-ment of darkness. If you are linked to a dark being they feed off of your light, and it is casting your pearls before swine. The leaven that was to leaven the whole loaf started long before Jesus came to the earth, it was just confined to less people so that the growth could be nurtured and there would be enough light to go around. Harvests were smaller. We are approaching the largest harvest, of the most people that has ever happened on the earth, but then the light will be spread again, so that it can grow in those who aren’t ready now, and then hopefully after they have gone through multiple lifetimes they have accepted the light, and will be ready next time. The only reason we are going to have so much destruction is because the earth itself is ready to receive it’s next phase in it’s progression, so it will be moved to a higher sphere. Those who are not ready to come with will simply remain in the cycle here on a similar planet, and the atonement will continue. It is one eternal round and the atonement will continue. There have been many Intercessory offerings but Jesus spread the Christ spirit and was the greatest of offerings.
    So the question with Joseph, when he was sealing himself, or linking his spirit with others, is if it is him that raises them, or actually if we need to repent ourselves to help him.

    Like

  31. I know the more I share the crazier it sounds but Denver taught some deep and true principles about us being sealed to our ancestors. Their frequency and spirit that we share with them will literally pull us down and the best thing we can do for all of them is break that separation, make a link with God, and then once we have been redeemed, we can return to them to help. Joseph was not translated, and therefore him sharing his spirit with all of these people, just like Denver teaches, was not like the other offerings and links, because Joseph was not sanctified to the point of receiving the title of Christ, and therefore his frequency or spirit could not save anybody. Does this even make sense I hope?
    “Lay hands suddenly upon no man, and be not partakers of other men’s sins.”

    Do not link your spirit (sealing) with people who have not received the fulness of the stature of Christ, or you are linking to something less than Christ.
    This is why Christ sanctified the apostles, gave them the sacrament, and THEN and only then did they impart to others. For nearly the last two thousand years, we haven’t had people worthy to be called Fathers or Mothers who have received the title of Christ, and so we have been simply passing darkness around and no one has been redeemed. It seems maybe Denver is learning this, or parts of it, or maybe even knows it but I don’t know why he isn’t saying it plainly if he does.

    Like

  32. Minority, could you explain who the others were that were offerings? I’m not sure what you mean. Christ gave the ultimate offering for sin and redemption. I understand sacrificing one’s life for others .. is that what you mean? Or do you believe there are other “saviors” who have atoned for sin and redeemed others before Jesus? I’m not referring to other worlds or planets, but this last eternal round on this earth. Do you believe that this earth has been used for different saviors, i.e. and if so, then why was this earth not redeemed after such an atonement? I’m confused as to your referral to other “offerings”.

    Like

    • Sin is just departing from light. Literally it is choosing darkness instead of light, and the only reason it hurts you is because you lose yourself, or the light of God. A person who has lost light needs a being with more light to share that light with them. This is called grace. You can give someone grace if you have a higher grade of light and then give that to them. This means you give them a part of yourself. At our core, all we are truly is light, or the lack thereof, and there are infinite degrees of light.
      So I showed plainly how God helped Moses take some of the light of Moses (which was God’s light) and give it to others. This is literally how the atonement works. Many many people have acted as Saviors on mount Zion this way. Jesus came with more light, and the highest degree of light of anyone that has come to this planet. Then He imparted of it to each of us. This is what the atonement is all about. If you receive the title of Christ, and have been given a lot of the light of Christ, and then you impart of it to others, you are taking part in the Infinite and Eternal sacrifice. So all of us hope to take up our cross and follow.

      Like

  33. Thank you Minority. We are all beings of light and so I think I understand this … correct me if I am wrong … As we impart (or love and serve) we receive more light from the Source of Light (Jesus), and He receives it from Mother and Father, and they receive it from a higher source, and as we impart we are then added upon. So every time we sin or teach things that are not of truth, we lose some of that light and if we don’t repent or turn back to Jesus, then we spiral into darkness, yet darkness cannot exist with light, so the dark ones take light from those whom have light? Is that against agency or is there some other law that exists that allows darkness to take our light without our knowing it? Is giving out light away (different than imparting it) connected to giving our power away when we look to another for our experiences, answers, etc?

    Like

    • Great questions!

      There is a huge difference! When we commit idolatry and give our allegiance to a human being, which is the same as when Jesus taught us to call no man our master, we actually give them part of our light. They act as vampires spiritually and feed off of others light. Even devils need light to exist, otherwise they would dissipate, but instead of receiving light in God’s way, they feed off of the light of others. We have to knowingly give it to them.
      Usually this is done on a smaller scale when men trust in men, and therefore lose a little light in the process. The thing is though that people who are stuck in idolatry usually are not dealing with having to war against the adversary or darkness. The devil leaves then alone and they think that because the devil leaves them alone, and they feel contentment and a worldly peace, that they must be on the right path.
      Other more drastic cases though are when we allow these beings of darkness to feast off of our light when we fear them. Like moses in the pearl of great price account who feared, and the devil gained power from it. If you have ever been attacked you know that even great spiritual beings can fear, and the adversary pounces on them like a vampire and sucks the light away. This is all for our learning to come to a point of perfect love where we do not fear even the worst attack. Even fear is a type of idolatry because it is showing them we believe their power is something to rival God’s power. Why would we fear them if we truly knew God’s power and protection? I have failed plenty of times in this though. These are a couple of quick examples but the true order from God is exactly like you described and without conclusion. The spiritual trickle down effect is the way of God. We have faith in those with more light, and they have faith in those above them, and we trust that as we impart that we will be imparted to from above. grace for grace. Hope that makes sense.

      Like

  34. Gotta say this is a great discussion. I hope it’s not totally dead the way Tim’s blog works (when there is a new post/thread, all the old posts/threads tend to die).

    First, I want to say that I agree with Minorityofone, in almost every aspect of the substance of his comments. And here is the Key: to use Moroni’s vernacular, as translated by Joseph Smith, “He will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost, and by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” Period. And second, we should not be putting our faith/trust in any man, whether it be Joseph Smith, Denver Snuffer, or anyone else – only in Jesus Christ – only in what is manifest to be true by the power of the Holy Ghost. I also agree with him on the Atonement and grace.

    I observe too many folks jumping from prophet-following/idolizing LDS Church presidents like TSM, to doing the same thing with DS. DS seems to give too much credence to JS “the last real prophet”, etc. I find it remarkable how much intimation DS has done as to his special status. Now I’m interpreting here, but I have a pretty good “spidey sense” (gift of discernment) for things like this (of course, I don’t expect any of you to accept that), and Denver’s message is peppered with testimony about his own importance in this great work. He’s implied (in my opinion) that he is “the servant” in both Jacob 5 and 3 Nephi 21. He has also implied that he “wrested the keys” from the current LDS Church. He’s stated, as quoted in this very post by Tim, that “He (DS) explained the importance of a witness to the restoration process beginning again and said, ‘A witness has come. I am him.’” He has repeatedly testified that he has been in the presence of the Lord, both the Son and the Father, in various writings. But he also said the Lord Himself spent more face-time with him than even Joseph Smith. I feel he also implied that he held the keys of the sealing power (using LDS terminology) – that he is the “one” holding them now. I’ll stop there. One scripture comes to mind, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true (John 5:31).” Perhaps the Lord is testing people to see if they will jump from one authority/keys paradigm to another. I agree with MoO that many are taking every word, lock-stock-and-barrel, that falls from DS’s lips as the Lord’s own Truth, with very little actual validation by the power of the Holy Ghost. And they keep quoting his status as a “true messenger” or an “authorized servant”, etc., as the justification. It creeps me out a little bit to read comments like this: “Denver is very circumspect in not expounding on the subject–just as Joseph was. Denver seems (yes I’m speculating) to know much more than he is saying. It seems there is very good reason this revelation was NOT for public consumption during Joseph’s life.” I’ve read so many like it on various blogs and forums. Denver must know more than he is saying (because he is like Moses or JS, or has “stood in the divine council”). Sounds like a pedestal to me. How many of you really KNOW that he is such and that his message is 100% reliable and to be followed verbatim? One might ask oneself, do I know the truth of this by the power of the Holy Ghost? Do I know what the power of the Holy Ghost is? I read DS’s recent explanation of it (a blog post within the past couple of months) and found it to be deficient in that he did not describe anything powerfully recognizable. My experience is that it is tangibly, unmistakably powerful. Many here claim that DS is a prophet, seer, and revelator (based on his own claims). What has he prophesied and it has come to pass (I’m still waiting to see if his prophecies come to pass – e.g. the LDS church will basically accept/embrace gay marriage). Yes he claims to have seen visions (but have they been verified to you by the power of the Holy Ghost?). Yes he has apparently revealed new things (but, again, are they all true?). I see many contradictions and even falsehoods and opinions mixed in his teachings. He does not do a very good job of distinguishing his opinions from his authoritative declarations. And I don’t see him correcting wrong opinions from the past. This is a bit disconcerting.

    But perhaps there is some purpose to this pattern of discipleship/followership (of mortal messengers, etc.). The Lord does enlighten and send messengers and those who are young and weak, who are not ready for meat from the Lord’s table, are blessed by receiving milk from a servant. But all of us, at some point or another, are meant to grow up and receive directly from the Father, as a son or daughter.

    Back to D&C 132. I agree with MoO, also revealed to me by the power of the Holy Ghost to be interpolated by men and not of God. Yet DS keeps defending it and propping it up as a several-part direct revelation to JS, despite its very dubious history and very posthumous publication (1852, out of BY’s drawer?).

    Did Joseph Smith commit adultery? Did he fall? Was his life taken to atone for his own sins? Were David and Oliver and others right and JS wrong? You cannot know for yourself by simply studying the history – there are too many testimonies on both sides of the questions. You have to get revelation on these things if you really want to know for yourself.

    I invite all here to approach the Lord individually and ask one question: is or was polygamy (plural marriage) of You, was this ever part of Your program, do You have more than one Wife? I tried to phrase this in a way that gave the Lord plenty of room to explain to me. The answer I got was NO. Other answers I’ve received have shown me not to idolize JS. How can this jive with DS’s message, which puts JS on a pedestal?

    It’s all very interesting. I pray the Lord will lead us all to His truth, light, and love, and bless you all in your journeys. Love and peace and goodwill to all of you.

    Like

    • Jesef Said: “Other answers I’ve received have shown me not to idolize JS. How can this jive with DS’s message, which puts JS on a pedestal?”

      Does it seem that it’s becoming more and more obvious the reason for Denver’s putting Joseph on a pedestal? Could it be so that he can say, “and I am that successor”, “the new dispensational head that you must be sealed to”, “the one and only one key holder”, “I will carry you to heaven as my backload”, etc. etc. In other words, is he building a very high pedestal that he intends to occupy soon himself? Has anyone heard that he took on the voice and very visage of Joseph at the Mesa lecture?

      Like

      • Ha ha we haven’t heard that one yet I hope! That one always cracks me up. It shows how far out of touch the saints were at that time. It wasn’t “the Holy Ghost told me Brigham was to be the successor.” It was “brigham became possessed with the spirit of joseph, and like a reptilian, he shape shifted before us and started talking with a different voice!”
        Ha ha I am just being funny but it shows the lack of revelatory ability held by any of the people who followed brigham young.

        Like

  35. Jesef thank you for this very timely response. I felt the spirit as I read it … I hope that others will stop and ponder upon what you have said and take it to the Lord. As you have probably noticed, I cannot follow DS. The reasons are not incorporate some of your answers, but because of a vision given to me. I’m not sure if DS is following the command of God to be this instrument to separate once again those who will follow a man, but I know that I can no longer be associated with DS and his teachings.

    Like

    • Hannah, can you share more? Many may benefit.

      Like

  36. Jesef,

    I also felt the Spirit from your comment thank you. You asked questions that are SO important. Where things get tricky is people think that if they feel the Spirit from some things Denver has said (I have) that they can just swallow his whole message with all the teachings like a pill. I do not want any rotten garbage mixed in with my food, and the ONLY way to learn is to take one piece of food at a time and find out if it is pure truth by the Holy Ghost.
    We ought to first as a group of brothers and sisters see if we can pinpoint exactly what the Spirit is and whether we are all following the same Spirit. I have to think we are all sincere and want the truth, but if we can’t agree on how to get it, we will never be united.

    Like

  37. well Im glad this has veered from the polygamny talk as that wasnt ever going to get anywhere. that said Jusef hits some nails on the head.

    I too have noticed DS prophet worshiping looming, and i think it’s wrong. this does not mean DS is a liar and this does not mean his claims are false, but it does mean there is nothing about the man and his writings that say I AM A PROPHET. people have latched onto the idea because he has seen Christ face to face, he must by default be a prophet. he must by default be a prophet like moses. I have always and still do think of him a great historian perhaps even God’s historian with his ability to sort through the muddy history of the LDS church.

    but nothing about the man tells me he is going to lead any movement, and this DS group that is forming, i think is going to find out the hard way that DS is not going to lead them and they best not expect that.

    I think the message of DS has been two fold and people are missing it terribly.

    1. seek to know Christ, KNOW YOUR GOD PEOPLE
    2. learn the history of the LDS church as we have in our current records.

    and with those two points nothing about that says prophet seer and revelator.

    yes there are some curious things about him such as his remark that The Lord has used his excommunication to withdraw from the church. but people need to understand he is human, read your scriptures God gets mad at JS, and even wants to kill Moses at one point.

    look Christ could come to me, DS, and 56456 other people, and each of us be given different jobs by Christ and not one of those jobs could be “go and be a prophet like moses” and i don’t think people grasp that.

    “How many of you really KNOW that he is such and that his message is 100% reliable and to be followed verbatim? One might ask oneself, do I know the truth of this by the power of the Holy Ghost? Do I know what the power of the Holy Ghost is?”

    this is a fantastic question. how many people know what the Holy Ghost is and how He works? look im going to be blunt, and i speak from much personal experience and you can call me a liar till the cows come home, i frankly don’t care. but I have had the gift of visions since i was a little child, i have spent 25 years learning about that gift and gaining experience and watching them come true. i have spent lots of time figuring visions from my own imagination vs God vs Satan. this requires experience and time. if your first grand revelation is “DS is a prophet”….let’s hold the phone and stop right there. go and get experience with revelation. make sure of yourself. learn how The Holy Ghost operates. you will need time to experience The Holy Ghost. Look unless i missed where he claimed he is the prophet to lead us to zion then so be it. but otherwise i have read him say countless times, stop following him, dont be called snufferites, and so on. and it is with these words by him and my own experience with The Holy Ghost that I feel confident in believing that he is who he says he is and nothing more than that.

    and that means i do not think of him as said prophet. servant of The Lord? yes, actual prophet that will lead? no

    so when he says go and be re baptized, this is not a prophet speaking, this is man that has studied the scriptures and knows re baptism is a thing that was once practiced and we’ve lost it and if we want to uncondemn ourselves we should probably practice the scriptures and gospel correctly.

    “How can this jive with DS’s message, which puts JS on a pedestal?”

    see i don’t think he does, i merely think he saying, give heed to his words because JS did so much, but i think his readers are taking the easy way out….oh lets go worship JS and DS and ignore the whole SEEK CHRIST FACE TO FACE thing that DS has pounded home into oblivion at this point

    “Did Joseph Smith commit adultery? Did he fall? Was his life taken to atone for his own sins? Were David and Oliver and others right and JS wrong? You cannot know for yourself by simply studying the history – there are too many testimonies on both sides of the questions. You have to get revelation on these things if you really want to know for yourself.”

    agree completely, that said i’ve never cared enough to ask. perhaps i should. same with whether DS is a false prophet or not. perhaps i should ask, i’ve only gotten at moments what im certain was God telling me he is doing Gods work. that said I’ve never outright asked the question.

    “I also felt the Spirit from your comment thank you. You asked questions that are SO important. Where things get tricky is people think that if they feel the Spirit from some things Denver has said (I have) that they can just swallow his whole message with all the teachings like a pill. ”

    bingo

    but the problem really is the total lack of spirtual gifts these days, no one knows how to use them, they treat them as bizarre or odd. few have experience with them.

    you know im simply going to share what i got in an answer to a totally unrelated set of questions in a prayer as God briefly mentions Snuffer.

    “For I am alpha and Omega, I am the beginning and the end, I was there with The Father always and always shall be, and all who have believed such as Denver Snuffer whom does do my will, but even then bear in mind the scripture which doth say “even they do err because of the teachings and precepts of men”. This is intentional, For humans have mistakes. This is part of the learning process so do not be afraid.”

    “they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.”

    that is the actual scripture i was being quoted, why did i get it wrong? did i mishear? did i err? in any event it is ironic that talking about that i didnt get the exact quote, and i think we ought to bear that fact in mind when speaking of ANY of God’s servants.

    Like

  38. Adam, I appreciate your comment and perspective.

    I don’t know or understand the meaning of all these things, to be sure. To me there are now many obviously flat contradictions and complexities involved. For one example: DS’s teachings and claims about JS, polygamy, and D&C 132. And I have to admit, he plays with words so much it is almost impossible to nail down his meaning on anything. He taught that JS was a “virtuous” man, but doesn’t come outright and say that JS did or did not commit adultery, or that if he did that he wasn’t somehow “exempt.” DS teaches that D&C 132 was a legitimate multi-part revelation from the Lord to JS. He has also taught that people need to beware how they treat JS (and himself, DS) or they will be cursed (this seems like an odd teaching which sets them apart as special and privileged, as do many of DS’s other intimations). Several of these teachings contradict what has been manifest to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. While it could be more complex than this, I think it’s reasonable to find out the truth about D&C 132, whether it is a genuine revelation from the Lord or not (something else) – this doesn’t mean everything in it is hogwash vs pure truth, but it may not be what it claims to be (this is a key). DS teaches it is authentic and there is such a thing as divinely approved polygamy. The answer I got was that polygamy was not of God and that JS committed adultery. Even the history surrounding D&C 132 doesn’t mix well with Denver’s paradigm – published 8 years after JS & HS were killed. Also, the history surrounding their deaths, all of it points to polygamy as the cause. Was polygamy of God? It’s a fair question, that only the Lord can really answer for us, so far removed from those circumstance, for sure (in fact, even if we had lived at that time, we would not have escaped the need for sure revelation on the matter).

    So most things are not “all or nothing”, “all true or all false” – BUT, when certain claims are made, they should be testable and the power of God is that litmus test. He said He is willing to manifest the truth by His power. Denver’s claims are that his message, 10-part talk, came from the Lord, including renewing the commandment to be rebaptized. I don’t think it is fair to re-interpret that claim as you did: “so when he says go and be re baptized, this is not a prophet speaking, this is man that has studied the scriptures and knows re baptism is a thing that was once practiced and we’ve lost it and if we want to uncondemn ourselves we should probably practice the scriptures and gospel correctly.” Now you might be right overall about rebaptism – which may or may not actually be required by the Lord – but that is not what DS taught or is teaching or claiming. He is teaching that those who don’t obey this commandment are likely to be burned at the coming of Elijah and the other fiery ones (seraphim) and the Lord Himself to Zion. It could be more nuanced than that, but that’s a pretty good summary. So DS is claiming more than you’re giving him credit. He’s claimed quite a lot actually, much of it has not been very clear or outright though. I was there at his 10th lecture and several times it felt very much like he was making references to himself (like with Jacob 5 and 3 Nephi 21 and being the servant, as in “the life of my servant shall be in my hand”). So I think it’s hard to take DS half-way, with some of his claims that he’s put out there. And how could he be confused with such a sure knowledge he is claiming? For me, I’ve put most of him and his teachings on the shelf for now. He has only prophesied a few things and they have not been fulfilled yet. But I have tested some of his teachings and found them to be false, by the power of the Holy Ghost, like his perspective on JS, polygamy, and D&C 132, for starters.

    Did Joseph Smith committed adultery with Fanny Alger? It’s a yes or no question. JS committing adultery and falling as a prophet does not square with DS’s paradigm or teachings and claims regarding JS. Many people are taking DS’s word almost carte blanche without testing his teachings and claims line upon line. They are doing this because he claims so many experiences and hints at gnosis that they believe he has a perfect knowledge and cannot be mistaken when it comes to teaching and revelation.

    Like

  39. Jesef,

    That was very succinct and open. Here is the deal. Before I learned that Joseph Smith taught, or did anything serious that was not approved by God, I felt so sure that I knew that Joseph Smith was gold and that I could trust all of his teachings.
    The reason was because I knew the Book of Mormon was true, and I had felt the spirit countless times reading the doctrine and covenants and pearl of great price, and his teachings. It never even crossed my mind to question whether or not he committed adultery, or if some of his teachings were false etc. I mean there was absolutely NO WAY that it could be true.
    Luckily for me I saw the discrepancy in section 132 and Jacob 2 and I decided to pray about it, I fully expected that I would get the answer that polygamy was divinely approved of The Lord in “this dispensation.” I prayed and The Lord told me very plainly that polygamy was never commanded by Him to Joseph Smith.
    I knew all of the anti-Mormon stuff and had always fought against anything negative against Joseph. I knew the whole fanny alger story inside and out and defended Joseph for years. After I learned that polygamy was wrong it wasn’t long before I decided to pray about fanny alger. I asked God simply “Did Joseph Smith commit adultery with Fanny Alger?” The answer came with great power, “Yes!”
    I mean this was just the beginning of a great spiritual journey of surprised and I have learned for myself to trust no teaching from anyone, even if God has told me they were/are a prophet. I can promise anyone who loves Joseph like I did that if you pray about this the devil will attack you, you will have cognitive dissonance, but if you push through it and get an answer by the Holy Ghost you will be blessed.
    If someone prays about these particular things in the same way and gets a different answer by the burning of the Holy Ghost, please let me know. I know that many think I must be deceived in this thing, but not one person I know that has sincerely prayed about this has gotten a different answer. A few have given up because of the discomfort associated with it and the attacks from the adversary, but that is it. Satan does not want you praying about this stuff.

    Like

  40. I have to go on record that I also asked the Lord the same question, “Did Joseph Smith commit adultery with Fanny Alger?” And I got a definite YES by the power of the Holy Ghost. Was that disappointing? Yes. Does it invalidate everything Joseph Smith ever taught or did? Of course not. But we have to be willing to jump out of the All-Or-Nothing paradigm if we want to learn the truth. It’s not all simple fairy tales. Did it decrease my trust in him? Yes, and for good. We should not be trusting or putting our faith in men, nor depending on them. We should be testing their claims and teachings and rejecting what is false. And that most certainly includes JS, DS, or any other witness or claimant.

    Now I also happen to know by the same power that the Book of Mormon is true. What does “true” mean exactly? Well, I don’t think it means all of its teachings or prophets are 100% true and infallible. I’m pretty sure it means that it is what it claims itself to be, an ancient record translated by the power of God which testifies of Jesus Christ, His Atonement, and His doctrine, etc. Do my two receptions of revelation here contradict one another, that Joseph eventually sinned or even fell (i.e. lost divine approval) but that he actually translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God? Certainly not necessarily. I don’t believe they do or have to. Perhaps Joseph was doing pretty much what the Lord wanted him to up until a certain point, such as the Fanny relationship. I don’t know all the details yet really. But I have gained a personal witness that the Lord is willing to reveal all things to a sincere, intent, honest, and faithful seeker of truth. Boy that really burst my Joseph-Smith-the-Chosen-Prophet-and-Seer-of-the-Lord bubble though. It also put a very different spin on guys like Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, who opposed polygamy and adultery and were ousted. Lots of history actually makes sense now without all the contortions and gymnastics to try and make it fit. I still don’t have all the pieces, context, or meaning, but the picture looks more discernible. Take the Holy Spirit as your guide and you will not be deceived.

    Am I wrong? Many will think so without even seeking a certain revelation on the subject one way or the other. Paradigms are powerful things. I’m okay with that.

    Like

  41. “how they treat JS (and himself, DS) or they will be cursed (this seems like an odd teaching which sets them apart as special and privileged, as do many of DS’s other intimations”

    I will say this, suppose JS and DS are prophets but they are human and screwing up, and The Lord knows this. the problem then is we have prophets but they are screwing up but The Lord is still going to take these broken men and use them, so The Lord kind of has to stand by them. He can’t despite the flaws of the person just up and abandon His messangers. So there very much would be a “take caution or else” approach to any of God’s messangers regardless of their screw ups.

    “So most things are not “all or nothing”, “all true or all false””

    agreed completely, take the scriptures. yes they point to Christ, but they have errors. it makes for a difficult journey and it makes it quite hard to figure everything out. at times it really is easier just to take it all.

    “but that is not what DS taught or is teaching or claiming. He is teaching that those who don’t obey this commandment are likely to be burned at the coming of Elijah and the other fiery ones (seraphim) and the Lord Himself to Zion”

    I dont recall if i mentioned in my last comment, but i havent actually heard his famous go and get rebaptised speech. i chose to do it because its something in my studies and prayers of the church and its history and the scriptures that i felt was something we should be practicing. so my decision wasnt ever because i heard DS demand it and so I have no idea how he actually said it. that said, as of this time my views on him are as I previously stated. I just havent gotten through all 10 lectures, they are difficult to get through and are very heavy in material. and there is no denying, its some very deep doctrine stuff.

    “He’s claimed quite a lot actually, much of it has not been very clear or outright though”

    well unlike many, i havent read all his books nor his blog posts either. so i couldnt say what this hes claimed quite a lot actually is. yes he claims a lot of things, but not sure what specifically we are getting at here.

    “He has only prophesied a few things and they have not been fulfilled yet.”

    see this is important, if he is going to be this prophet-leader some are making him out to be, he is going to have to step up the prophecy game. this is why i don’t think he is that leader. he has been a very poor leader overall considering the fact that he could quite easily get people to take a bullet for him.

    “Boy that really burst my Joseph-Smith-the-Chosen-Prophet-and-Seer-of-the-Lord bubble though. It also put a very different spin on guys like Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, who opposed polygamy and adultery and were ousted. ”

    you know, it is an interesting thing if you study what our scriptures say about some of these great prophets. moses kills a man and hides it, moses even runs from God because God wants to kill him because Moses refuses to circumcise. Peter of course cannot walk on water and even denies Christ 3 times yet is the rock of Christ’s church. Paul kills who knows how many saints before becoming saint paul and lets not forget Moroni basically slaughters anyone who opposes freedom yet is later described as “if all men were like Moroni the very gates of hell would shake and SAtan would have no power anymore” or something like that. so what does this tell us exactly? well I think its entirely possible JS could have committed adultrey and even received fake revelation on the matter, and still actually been God’s chosen messanger.

    I Really could on about prophets and their seemingly bizarre non perfect behavior.

    i think we really take the human out of prophet and expect these men just because they have found God’s favor, to somehow be beyond reproach and beyond all sin when our records clearly state otherwise.

    “Take the Holy Spirit as your guide and you will not be deceived.”

    see i think we have illustrated beyond a doubt, you can be like Moses and take The Holy Spirit as your guide and STILL BE DECEIVED.

    how is this so? what does this mean for us? why does God even allow this? all tough questions. all I can say is since I have had visions since I was a little child, God merely keeps giving them to me bcause despite my chronic endless list of screw ups, i make a sincere effort to follow Him. and I think at the end of the day that is what He is looking for, souls that make an honest to God 110% sincere effort. don’t take this to mean that you can say “Well Lord I tried”….no you better do more than try. you better put your entire soul into it. again take Moses, despite his aforementioned crimes and screw ups, he puts his whole soul into it. despite JS may have committed adultrey…JS Gave it a 110% undeniable effort to do God’s will. despite that screw up, look at all that he accomplished?

    i think it because I make an honest effort most of the time, that I can still receive visions and other gifts. and I think that is how JS could committ Adultry but not be damned.

    see I have put a lot of effort in the past few years to learn the scriptures, DS has obviously put in way way more effort, it is because of this that i think we will be ok. contrast that to your average mormon church goer who has no idea that you are supposed to kneel to the earth when you take and bless the sacrament, that kind of person is likely screwed and their cries of “GOD I REALLY TRIED” will go unheard as they are truly taking lightly the things of God and the reason for the churches condemnation.

    it is also clear you have put in a fair amount of effort as well. have we done enough? is one of us tricking the other? who knows. all worth considering. it all comes down to an old thought experiment. is everything we’ve ever done been a lie, and we merely have a memory of it and we’ve only actually been awake for 10 minutes? maybe, but if you go through life thinking like that youll go nuts. you need to just be able to accept some things.

    Like

    • Adam I hope you will consider this.

      The “authority” of a prophet is the Truth. Once a man says anything that is not true, it is impossible to have authority on that subject.
      God cannot possibly mingle with falsehood. He cannot stand by it, although I agree He is merciful and willing to accept anyone who will repent and turn to Him.
      I love Denver Snuffer, I have no doubt the hand of God is in the movement. I do not believe Denver is a fallen individual. What God would have us do is accept Truth, which is the only authority, and accept it wherever it can be found.
      Denver has lead people to greater Truth. Insomuch as he has done so he has acted as an instrument of God. Those who have accepted anything as Truth that Denver Snuffer has taught, that has not been confirmed to them by the Spirit, have done themselves a disservice and the beliefs that they have accepted without a witness from God are new shackles. Every falsehood is bondage. Every Truth is freedom. The Truth is what shall set us free.
      I have heard so many refuse to pray about things because of fear. “I don’t want to go down that road.” Or “It doesn’t pertain to me.” Well I want the Truth. Fear is of the devil. I am not afraid of ANYTHING that God could tell me, because ultimately it is Truth that prevails and is justified of itself in the end.
      When a preacher teaches one principle (even that which is in what people call scripture) that is not true, they lose authority instantly, and need to repent in that thing. Denver has on more than one occasion said we do not need revelation on things that are already in the scriptures. Well, then he can never have authority in the scriptures he hasn’t learned the truth of by revelation. It is simple. DO NOT TEACH ANYTHING that you haven’t received by revelation.

      Like

  42. Did Joseph Smith teach and practice polygamy privately yet deny it and lie about it to Emma and publicly? Did Joseph do harm to Emma? Did he obtain her permission for taking other wives? Is there any truth to the threats attributed to the Lord which were apparently used to coerce Emma or the other women involved to accept polygamy?

    Did Joseph Smith go like an innocent lamb to the slaughter when he went to Carthage or did he go out guns blazing? (And can this be considered a kingly or righteous sacrifice?)

    If any of these abhorrent things are really true (actually happened), is there any standard by which these actions can be considered righteous, virtuous, enlightened, or Godlike/Christlike?

    Is it possible that the scriptures and lives of many of these men we call prophets contain more negative examples than we have possibly considered? Do we use their often bad behavior/examples recorded in scripture or history as justification for false principles, i.e. principles which do not exemplify the power of godliness/God?

    Like

  43. “I don’t want to go down that road.” Or “It doesn’t pertain to me.” ”

    i think you also forgot “That’s just one of those things we’ll never know”

    but i agree, such thinking is quite idiotic.

    “Denver has on more than one occasion said we do not need revelation on things that are already in the scriptures. ”

    honestly i have no idea, i havent heard him say that or at least dont recall it

    ” DO NOT TEACH ANYTHING that you haven’t received by revelation.”

    the scriptures are revelation so cant we teach from that?

    “The “authority” of a prophet is the Truth. Once a man says anything that is not true, it is impossible to have authority on that subject. God cannot possibly mingle with falsehood. He cannot stand by it, although I agree He is merciful and willing to accept anyone who will repent and turn to Him.”

    so what is God to do then? His messangers are going to screw up. He cannot just abandon them considering God gave us said flaws. Hence I think if there is a prophet, despite what flaws he may have, we would be wise to heed his words, and no i don’t mean blindly follow the man, just stating God sort of has to stand by His flawed messanger. if they have no promise that God won’t stand by them in the fire as they deliever to the best of their abilities God’s message, then God wouldnt be getting any messangers.

    “Denver has lead people to greater Truth. Insomuch as he has done so he has acted as an instrument of God. Those who have accepted anything as Truth that Denver Snuffer has taught, that has not been confirmed to them by the Spirit, have done themselves a disservice and the beliefs that they have accepted without a witness from God are new shackles. Every falsehood is bondage. Every Truth is freedom. The Truth is what shall set us free.”

    agree completely.

    Jusef you ask good questions, but at the end of the day, getting stuck down that rabbit hole of questions is taxing, its mentally tiring. i just can’t do it all day long. hence somethings i just accept for the sake of my sanity. is this the best answer? no. but because i stopped poking at the rabbit hole known as polygmany, its why i know about rebaptism, sacrament and even have probably the most extensive knowledge of the creation and noahs flood of anyone your likely to meet. at the end of the day i spent those mental resources on other areas and still do so. should i turn back to JS and polygamny? maybe, probably. just never gotten an urge to do so. maybe it was always fear that i didnt, i dont know. either way time is limited, and one might argue our posting is a waste of time, either way, one can’t learn everything.

    either way, the general mind set of tough questions, is healthy, and too many people fail to do that and hence we take lightly Gods things and are condemned and even still we get false traditions as a result.

    or maybe we need folks that pick their dog in the fight to be polygmany and others study Isiah and others like me the creation and noahs flood. and we collectively tell the correct tale by specializing. its possible.

    Like

  44. The conversation does seem a bit circular. It is an important topic though. If people can receive revelation on this tough subject, it really can open their minds to new ideas.
    Right now if something contradicts a teaching found in the doctrine and covenants or by joseph smith most people are immediately opposed to it and their hearts and minds are closed. This is a problem and will hinder us from entering Zion.
    The problem with what you are saying about scriptures being revelation is this. What scriptures are you talking about? The Quran? The Torah? Gnostic texts? Apocrypha?
    Just as there are falsehoods in the above, what if the doctrine and covenants and other “scriptures” have falsehoods? People use these “scriptures” to lay down the law when in all reality they have never even received a witness from God that the scripture they are quoting is true.
    People say it is using a cudgel when you claim something by revelation, but throwing verses around that never were even given by God is using falsehood as a cudgel. Hypocrisy is rampant.
    If you are trying to piece together a puzzle, and you are putting it together with pieces that don’t even belong to the puzzle, you will never have the complete picture.
    The same holds true with the gospel. If we are seeking a Fulness, and using falsehoods to get there, it will never ever work. We have to throw every falsehood away and only keep the Truth to achieve what we all seek.

    Like

  45. Very good discussion and I’m learning a lot. From the close associates of Denver whom I know, there have been no miraclulous fulfillment of blessings. The cursing that Denver pronounced was not of God as it put fear in others that they better follow Denver. It wasn’t fruit that was desirable to taste. He was enticing with fear. I hesitate in sharing my vision, and will only share a portion. I was taken to a mountain by one of the prophets of the bible. He allowed me to see the people who clamor to follow Denver and at one point they became leaderless and confused and could no longer progress because of their dependence upon denvers interpretations. The message was to stop putting Denver’s teachings between me and my relationship with Jesus ….

    I no longer believe Denver was ever a prophet for reasons I have stated earlier. A servant at times, yes. But not The Servant.

    I am truly grateful for the invigorating discussion.

    Like

    • Thanks for sharing. I am grateful for you.

      Like

  46. It looks like Denver is now contradicting himself and Tim.

    “Priesthood has never been confined to one individual.”

    Like

  47. Denver has published a paper based on his talk on plural marriage. You can get it from his website at http://denversnuffer.com/2015/04/plural-marriage-document/ or from mine at http://3tcm.net/denver-snuffer-plural-marriage.pdf. It’s a large PDF file (10MB) so give it a few minutes to open.

    Like

  48. And a response from Brian Hales (Joseph Smith’s Polygamy):

    http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/response-to-denver-snuffer/

    Like

  49. Tim,

    There appears that nobody is looking at Joseph’s denial of polygamy, and his boasting that he did more than Christ, & boasting in his own strength , in the Journal History of the Church, May 26, 1844,
    ( four months before he was killed ) …..
    ….. and what God clearly says is signs for a fallen prophet, D&C 3: 4
    ( boasting in own strength, seeking plans to leave Nauvoo, to seek a place to practice polygamy, … )
    .
    “restoration of all things as spoken by the prophets”, ….. Alma 11 & 40,
    clearly state that this is the reunion of the spirit & body, at the resurrection, …
    ….nothing to do with polygamy, that was forbidden in Deut 17: 17, Jacob 2,
    & the Doctrine & Covenants.
    one cannot read the words added to the end of D&C 132, about David doing nothing wrong, save case of Uriah, …. and Jacob 2 saying his many wives “were an
    abomination”.
    one can only accept one, …..or the other “-)

    D&C is it Section 107, states. the High Priesthood appoint the First Presidency to receive revelations, that it has to accept or not, … and it can excommunicate a First President,
    .. and the Church thus rules by common consent, ….
    …..there is no lying to the High Priesthood, as Joseph does here,
    this is not the way the High Priesthood we are told works.
    “-)

    Uchtdorf’s “human beings that make mistakes” seems to start with Joseph,
    ….. not just the Brigham & Taylor, and their carnal natures. “-)

    Like

  50. Fred,
    Joseph denied he practiced polygamy, because he he didn’t. Evidence to the fact is pretty sketchy: DNA evidence shows he only fathered children with Emma, testimony of “witnesses” decades after the fact, legal documents at the time assert he did not. Here is a lesson you need to learn in life; “just because someone says something is true, it does not mean it is”. People lie.
    To start with see:
    http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-im-abandoning-polygamy.html

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700150651/DNA-solves-a-Joseph-Smith-mystery.html?pg=all
    http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-mormon-history-is-not-what-they-say.html

    Like

    • Lena Hansen

      Just because Joseph didn’t father children outside of Emma, does not mean he did not practice polygamy. There are all kinds of stories re: abortion and precaution so that women would not become pregnant. Sadly, abortion has always been part of American History. There is strong evidence that John Bennett performed many abortions.

      But then again why should anyone listen to me? I find it interesting that so many are unwilling to just pray about whether Joseph committed adultery or practiced polygamy. Once you pray and get the answer then there is no turning back.

      The whole preservation of the restoration is a very subtle way of keeping everyone distracted from what is coming — judgment. DS used to talk all the time about repentance … and now it is preservation of a restoration that was not at all complete. There are so many good folk in both the Church and the Denver camp, but how many are seeing that Christ’s church is much bigger than LDS? Everything, absolutely everything has to fall in order for Jesus to bring his own government to the earth and the Church of the Firstborn.

      I hope that others will take interest and begin posting again to this thread … there is only one who will have the authority to restore all things and it is not DS and it never was Joseph …

      Like

  51. Please read this from the nauvoo expositor. This of course was what lead to the destruction of said printing press, and was linked to the death of Joseph. I do not believe the authors of this article said anything false. They certainly knew about section 132, which suggests Joseph Smith was instrumental in the creation of section 132, which is the supposed commandment from the Lord to practice polygamy.
    Section 132 clearly proclaims that sex is involved in the polygamy that was supposedly commanded to Joseph. The section mentions abrahams polygamy (which obviously involved sex with hagaar) in verse 63 it talks about marrying virgins, and then says that if “after she (a virgin) is espoused, shall BE WITH ANOTHER MAN, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed….” Let’s all be clear, this means if the virgin that Joseph (or another commanded, but supposedly the Lord was speaking to Joseph here) married in a polygamous relationship, should have sex with any other man but Joseph after the time of their espousal, it would be adultery. This is absolutely talking about having sex, and only Joseph could have sex with the new wife. This so called commandment was not kept either! In the cases of polyandry the woman had sex with Joseph and the other husband.
    Now look in the very next words of verse 63 in section 132, “for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment,…..”
    So we see the sole purpose of this supposed commandment to Joseph Smith was to have sex with the women he married, so they could multiply and replenish the earth! Please actually read section 132. It basically commands Emma to accept Joseph’s other wives, to allow Joseph to have sex with them to multiply and replenish, and not only just to allow it, but a good wife will go find other women for Joseph (or anyone else commanded in this) to marry and have sex with to multiply and replenish. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could miss this. Now if you believe Joseph did not author section 132, that is another argument. But if you claim, as Denver Snuffer does, that section 132 is scripture, and you claim that sex was not involved with the polygamy Joseph was supposedly commanded by God to practice, then you are refuting the very scripture that you believe to be true.
    Again, if you believe section 132 was not around during the time of Joseph, then how is it that in the nauvoo expositor they summarize much of the content very clearly? Why did William Marks, who according to section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, had as much right to be a “successor” as Brigham Young, testify that Joseph Smith told him that he had been deceived in polygamy, and polygamy would bring about the destruction of the church? If you believe section 132, and yet say Joseph’s polygamy did not involve sex, then you are saying Joseph did not follow would God commanded him in section 132. Could it be that Denver wants to keep parts of section 132, and deny other parts? Remember section 132 is the only place in LDS canon that mentions only one man on earth being able to hold all of the keys and the sealing power. Which funny enough is not consistent with section 124 either. If you have not read the following from the nauvoo expositor you may be missing out. I believe this was inspired of God…

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

    Like

  52. Minority this is very enlightening. One thing I find rather preposterous is the concept the Joseph as prophet orient and king was actually the only person of this dispensation authorized to practice polygamy because of some ridiculous assertion of something called kingdom building. He had to build his kingdom by having many children etc etc Your exposure of the apparent discrepancies is incredible yet many will not take it seriously. Thank you minority for ponting out the obvious. I would encourage everyone to employ their intellect and ponder upon what up have related. Maybe people will begin to have their eyes and ears open to truth.

    Like

  53. Woods. I meant to say prophet, priest and king

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: