Spencer W. Kimball was a false prophet.

[Alma]

I'm not putting myself in their office. Let me tell you what I define apostasy to be:

1. Change of ordinances (Isa. 24:5; Mal 3:7; 1 Ne. 13:26; D&C 1:15).
2. Not all commandments are kept and covenants are broken (Alma 31:9; Deut 29:24, 25; D&C 84:41).
3. There is no longer revelation or spiritual gifts (by their fruits ye shall know them) (Amos 8:11-12; Mormon 9:20; D&C 11:25; 2 Tim 3:1, 5; Prov 29:18).
4. Lack of knowledge (ignorant or disinterested) (Judges 3:7; Isa 1:3-4; 6:9; Hosea 4:6; Alma 12:11).
5. Iniquity among members (either excused or tolerated) (Isa 50:1; 59:2; D&C 10:20-21).
6. Seeking of praise from the world and becoming worldly (i.e. 13 million members) (2 Kgs 17:7-8; Ezek 11:12; D&C 40:2).
7. Persecution of true believers (Acts 7:52; 1 Ne 8:27-28).
8. Great inequality of wealth among apostates (Ezek 16:49; 2 Ne 28:13; Hela 4:11-12; Morm 8:37; Ps 10:2; Prov 14:20; 21:13; 2 Ne 9:30; Alma 5:55; D&C 56:16; Titus 1:6).

That's quite a laundry list, but it largely ignores what the word means. It means the renunciation of a religious faith or the abandonment of a previous loyalty. Much of what you have listed above belongs to the category of "sin" rather than apostasy.

"I spoke to the people, showing them that to get salvation we must not only do some things, but EVERYTHING which God has commanded. Men may preach and practice everything except those things which God commands us to do, and will be DAMNED AT LAST....

"Everything that God has commanded" is absolutely correct. But, when you become a law unto yourself and presume to live laws that have not been commanded you will ultimately lie down in sorrow and regret. I mentioned before that circumcision isn't commanded today. However, Abraham was commanded to circumcise everyone in his household. He was commanded to sacrifice his son and offer burnt offerings. You will go to hell just as surely for sacrificing one of your children as for taking an unauthorized wife.

The problem that apostates and their cohorts have, is they're unwilling to be guided by prophets rather than by their own arm of flesh. You are convinced that polygamy is essential. You have no prophet who has with authority issued that command--on the contrary we have several prophets who have forbidden such practices today. You think you're justified in rejecting their counsel because you're convinced by your own understanding that polygamy is one of God's commands.

When Joseph taught the principle to Nancy Rigdon, she wanted something in writing defending it. He wrote a letter in which he explained:

Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret." (TPJS p. 256)

To Gain Salvation the Laws of God Must Be Obeyed

If you can show me how I don't have to follow ALL of the laws of God in the teachings of Joseph Smith, then I will join the Mormon Church of Salt Lake City.

I wouldn't suggest you join the LDS Church based upon losing a challenge. It would be far better for you to conclude that you will humbly go to God and find out who has the keys rather than be willing to join any group based upon that person's ability to convince you of a particular concept.

Why not instead conclude to find someone who has authority to act in the name of God and be willing to accept his instruction on what laws you are required to obey?

"There are many duties and callings spoken of in the scriptures, and there are many not written; those for instance which are handed out to you by your president as circumstances require; those imposed by the president of the Church of God, or by the president of any portion of it, are duties as necessary to be observed as though they were written in the Bible. But these requirements, duties, callings etc. change with the circumstances that surround the people of God." (BY 8 Oct. 1854)

The only way you can know what is required is by following the living prophet--rather than your interpretations of dead ones.

"The first principle of our cause and our work is to understand that there is a prophet in the Church, and that he is at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ on earth." (BY DHC 5:521)

This talks of obedience to the prophet. However, when a current prophet contradicts one less than 100 years in between, serious questions must be raised just as you are raising them for me.

Such is the paradigm of apostasy--on the lookout to make sure the prophet doesn't contradict himself or a predecessor. God said, "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; ... Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Thomas B. Marsh and Ezra Thayre, and give a new commandment unto my servant Thomas, ..." Less than a hundred years? How about less than one year?

If a church can teach one doctrine of salvation that is required, recount it again and again and then discount by way of prophets, is there any priesthood in that church?

Certainly. Who are you to say when or how priesthood disappears?

Prophets teach truth. When the truth is no longer taught, then apostasy has occurred.

And who determines truth? The people who leave the Church? I refer you back to Joseph's letter to Nancy Rigdon:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed."

If the LDS Church is run by legal successors of Joseph Smith, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God.

Your claim doesn't make sense. It might if there were only two options--an "either-or" but there are other possibilities that you have not yet considered. Kind of like when the Jews rejected Jesus because they knew he was from Nazareth--and the scriptures taught the Messiah would be from Bethlehem. They made their decision regarding salvation in self imposed ignorance.

Similarly, you have not considered the possibility that Thomas S. Monson is Joseph Smith's successor and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that you have made your decision in ignorance or through faulty reasoning.

A prophet of God does not lie or teach falsehoods to its people. A prophet is consistent. And part of being a prophet is revealing necessary truth at the right time. If plural marriage is required for salvation in the eternal worlds but taught by church leadership that it should not be lived because it is not the right time, then Joseph Smith is a false prophet as well as that successor.

God actually told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham had the option to obey or to disobey. Do you think that Abraham's salvation might have been dependent upon how he responded to God's command? If he disobeyed and said, "That's crazy, I'm not going to do it, because God is love and He wouldn't ask something like that of me," what would have been Abraham's position before God?

What if Lehi had said to God, "I know you commanded me not to live polygamy, but you commanded Abraham to live it so I'm going to disregard your prohibition?" Consider what Orson Pratt taught concerning the matter:

"In this case, the Lord through his servant Lehi gave a command that they should have but one wife. The Lord had a perfect right to vary His commandments in this respect according to circumstances as he did in others as recorded in the Bible. There we find that the domestic relations were governed according to the mind and will of God, and were varied according to circumstances, as he thought proper." (JD 13:192)

Ah, but now the FLDS come along and say that if God changes the circumstances, they know that's not proper and they won't believe that either Joseph or Lehi were prophets.

If I suddenly said that I was a prophet and began teaching things contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price, would you lay down everything just because I said I was ordained by God?

No, I wouldn't believe you because you might claim to have been ordained. But that hasn't been the premise of my argument. It's been your argument. I don't accept the teachings of anyone as revelations or commandments unless they came in at the gate and were ordained and sustained as specified in the revelations (D&C 43:5-7)

You've implied that LDS leaders teach things contrary to the scriptures; that was the premise of this whole thread. But upon investigation we find that Spencer W. Kimball was absolutely consistent with the scriptures and it was the philosophy of fundamentalism that contradicted the scriptures. That situation will be repeated again and again whenever you pick a topic of disagreement with LDS Church leaders. They will always align with scripture.

Prophets need to have a foundation and the foundation of the LDS Church should be Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, and the current Priesthood head. If the priesthood head discounts Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, then the foundation is lost. If Joseph Smith discounts Jesus Christ and the current priesthood the foundation is lost. If Jesus Christ discounts Joseph Smith and the priesthood, the foundation is lost.

While I don't necessarily agree with your premise, I do concur with the spirit of it. The prophets of this dispensation have been disciples of the Lord and have been true to the teachings of Joseph Smith--not as interpreted by apostates, but as understood by those he appointed to succeed him.

The LDS Church has rejected the everlasting covenant of marriage. Therefore,

Perhaps you should demonstrate that we have rejected the everlasting covenant of marriage. I was sealed in the temple by one who had the authority to do so. My father was likewise sealed in the temple and his father was before him. His father was sealed in the Endowment House. Which of us has rejected the everlasting covenant of marriage?

If Joseph Smith is correct, the LDS Church is wrong.
If Joseph Smith is wrong, the LDS Church is wrong.

Is that based upon your faulty conclusion that we have rejected something?

There is no foundation and I want a church with foundation; not people I have placed in an authority of power simply because I agree with them. It is because they teach on the foundation of Jesus Christ and of Joseph Smith.

Let me give you a key to understand something. Joseph taught that there were keys of authority and keys of knowledge. Occasionally, he would give them a key such as the one about spirits not shaking hands with mortals. This key was repeated several times in Nauvoo and referred to by many of Joseph's contemporaries. This is what he said:

"I will give you a key by which you may never be deceived, if you will observe these facts: Where the true church is, there will always be a majority of the Saints, and the records and history of the Church also." (Edward Stevenson, The Historical Record, September 11, 1888)

That testimony also came from Lyman Littlefield:

Once in Nauvoo I heard the Prophet declare to the people how they might always know where to find the true Church. He gave it as a guide for them ever afterwards, and said the day would come when they would need it. He said: "Factions and parties will arise out of this Church, and apostates will lead away many. But in the midst of all this, keep with the majority, for the true leaders of God's people will always be able to have a majority, and the records of the Church will be with them. Keep with the majority, for where the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together." [Lyman O. Littlefield, Millennial Star, 45:389]

And Orson Hyde:

"...It reminds me of the words of Joseph the Prophet, when he said, 'Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray; and as long as you keep with the majority you are sure to enter the celestial kingdom.'" [Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 13:367, May 5, 1870]

In the mouth of two or more witnesses....

Alma

 

[sthatting]

Joseph said, "A man must be called of God by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer the ordinances thereof. Where did you get your authority to preach the gospel?

You misunderstood me. I was simply stating that we preach to our own. It would be foolish to cast out a portion of the covenant (i.e. plural marriage) and pretend that the message is still fully in tact. That's like saying Christianity is wrong, but it's right. What's to stop me from joining a regular Christian church in light of all of this?

Although, you make a good point on the authority issue.

Can't you see how far astray such a concept is? The gospel is the message of Jesus Christ: his birth, life, death and resurrection. Everything else is merely an appendage to that message. Plural marriage is inconsequential to that but dependent upon it.

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." (Joseph Smith TPJS p. 121)

The LDS Church no longer practices plural marriage. I believe one must have more than one wife by the authority of God if they are to preside over the priesthood.

"Thus saith the Lord to the Twelve, and to the Priesthood and people of my Church:... You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to My law: For it is not meet that men who will not abide My law shall preside over my Priesthood;" -Revelation to President John Taylor, Oct. 13, 1882 ("My law" refers to plural marriage)

"This situation was settled in an early day case where Heber J. Grant, as President of the Tooele Stake, attempted to correct Brother Samuel Woolley. Brother Grant was not living the law, while Brother Woolley was. The latter refused to receive instructions from Brother Grant, claiming immunity because the President was not living as high a law as he was. Brother Grant took the quetion up with his file leaders, President John Taylor and counselors. They instructed him that Brother Woolley was right, since he (Brother Grant) was not living or abiding in the law, he was not qualified to direct Brother Woolley who was faithfully abiding in that law. Thus, at the present time, few of the general authorities, stake presidents, or bishops are qualified to Preside over the Priesthood of God." -Joseph W. Musser Journal, p. 68-9

"Heber was told by Joseph that if he did not do this [take another wife] he would lose his Apostleship." -Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 336 (1888 ed.)

"Can any man or set of men officiate in dispensing the laws and administering the ordinances of the Kingdom of God or of the kingdoms and governments of the world legally, without first obeying those laws and submitting to those ordinances themselves?...do not forget that no man has authority to officiate ordinances heavenly or earthly governments only so far as he has obeyed them himself." -Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1854

"In 1884 Taylor reported another revelation which urged monogamists to resign ecclesiastical offices in the Church." -Abraham H. Cannon Journal, 6 Apr 1884

It is clear that if the LDS Church holds the keys to some ordinances, but does not with plural marriage, they cannot practice it and I believe, will never be able to practice it. There is only one on the earth at a time that holds those keys (and as you pointed out, they will never be taken, so there must be someone somewhere on the Earth that DOES hold those keys).

 

[sthatting]

Fundamentalists have gone so far away from the principles and ordinances of the gospel that they can now conclude that one ordinance is the gospel. They're like the Pharisees of old who thought that salvation came from keeping the law. It does not and it cannot come because of any law. Read Romans and Galatians and king Benjamin's discourse and you'll learn that the work of salvation and exaltation is in Jesus Christ. There is no other way nor means except in Him and His atoning sacrifice.

Salvation and exaltation were two different things to me. My father taught me that salvation is by grace, but that exaltation was by works. However, once we receive the laws by which we receive exaltation and then reject them, we were surely doomed to hell.

So, it doesn't have anything to do with salvation--just building up the priesthood? Perhaps you could explain just what "building up the priesthood" means?

No. It has everything to do with salvation. I was taught that I was born among the "priesthood" men because my Heavenly Father knew that I could embrace and practice this law. And again I quote,

"I spoke to the people, showing them that to get salvation we must not only do some things, but EVERYTHING which God has commanded. Men may preach and practice everything except those things which God commands us to do, and will be DAMNED AT LAST. We may tithe mint and rue, and all manner of herbs, and still not obey the commandments of God. The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what He tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it." TPJS p. 332, To Gain Salvation the Laws of God Must Be Obeyed

I said before that I didn't think you quite understood what it meant to have the keys turned against you. It seems that is still the case. Priesthood is lost in two possible ways: a) iniquity or b) excommunication. Having "keys turned" against someone doesn't mean "losing authority." It means that one who has the keys, keeps someone else from benefiting from gospel ordinances.

No. I understand now. (Thank you! ) I just find that since plural marriage has not been practiced by the LDS Church for so long, those that held those keys are now dead and gone. Now if the LDS Church were to ever declare that plural marriage would begin again (as I was told by a counselor to an LDS bishop might re-occur), then the LDS Church would not have those keys. And I would want to enter into ALL of which God commands (including plural marriage), lest I be damned.

There is no instance of God removing the keys from some one except by excommunication. They just don't wake up some day and not have the priesthood. The Lord covered every possible eventuality in section 43 of the Doctrine and Covenants. People were worried about what would happen if Joseph apostatized. The Lord explained that no one would take his position until he died--as long as he kept the commandments. But, if he didn't keep the commandments, he would still have the authority to designate his successor. It had to come through the channel God had appointed.

How did the original church set up by Jesus Christ apostatize? Who excommunicated the pope? Who would hold that authority?

You're almost right. It doesn't apply to the LDS Church because they haven't rejected anything given to them by the man holding the keys. As I have said before, the solution to all these problems you're confronting is finding out who has the keys. It's only one man on the earth at a time and when Joseph died, Brigham Young held them. They have continued through other prophets until Thomas S. Monson holds them today. It's as plain as can be.

As much as I have admired Monson in his presenting style, I do not find that he truly holds ALL of the keys necessary for every person to enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

Interestingly, I attended Church services in Colorado City back in 1989. Several of the council members spoke and assured the people that following the prophet was the only safe course--that whatever he told them they could be sure was correct because he was God's appointed servant. I wanted to stand and ask them if they had ever considered that with regard to Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, or Heber J. Grant? I was astonished at the implications they were blind to.

I understand. I've been doing some bit of questioning about the One Man Doctrine, myself.

I'm almost certain that we've met though. I would've been just a baby in 1989, but my family would have been there. You may have known my father or met him, at least.

Speaking of my father, I got an answer about Lorin Woolley being ordained at the age of 13. Jerimiah was ordained before birth and Samuel at around 12 or 14. My father said that Uncle Lorin was ordained during a Patriarchal Blessing or something like that. Since it was second hand, it may have been misunderstood. Joseph Musser had a habit of doing things like that...

"This is precisely the position of those who leave this Church: they go into the dark, they are not able to judge, conceive or comprehend things as they are. They are like the drunken man—he thinks that everybody is the worse for liquor but himself, and he is the only sober man in the neighborhood. The apostates think that everybody is wrong but themselves." (Brigham Young JD 16:65)

...

 

[sthatting]

That's quite a laundry list, but it largely ignores what the word means. It means the renunciation of a religious faith or the abandonment of a previous loyalty. Much of what you have listed above belongs to the category of "sin" rather than apostasy.

If you explain to me how apostasy occurred in the early true Christian church set up by Christ then mayhaps I might concur with you on this point.

"Everything that God has commanded"is absolutely correct. But, when you become a law unto yourself and presume to live laws that have not been commanded you will ultimately lie down in sorrow and regret. I mentioned before that circumcision isn't commanded today. However, Abraham was commanded to circumcise everyone in his household. He was commanded to sacrifice his son and offer burnt offerings. You will go to hell just as surely for sacrificing one of your children as for taking an unauthorized wife.

As I stated, the law of Moses was fulfilled (Alma 34:13). The New and Everlasting Covenant has not been fulfilled. It will not BE fulfilled until Christ's second coming.

"We won't quit practicing Plural Marriage until Christ shall come." -John Henry Smith Journal, see also Heber J. Grant Journal, 17 May 1888

The problem that apostates and their cohorts have, is they're unwilling to be guided by prophets rather than by their own arm of flesh. You are convinced that polygamy is essential. You have no prophet who has with authority issued that command--on the contrary we have several prophets who have forbidden such practices today. You think you're justified in rejecting their counsel because you're convinced by your own understanding that polygamy is one of God's commands.

They do not reside in the righteous law of marriage. Therefore, I reject their counsel just as Samuel Woolley rejected Heber J. Grant's counsel when he was a stake president.

When Joseph taught the principle to Nancy Rigdon, she wanted something in writing defending it. He wrote a letter in which he explained:

Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret." (TPJS p. 256)

Joseph assumes that the practice would continue forever or until Christ's coming.

"I send you the "olive leaf" which we have plucked from the Tree of Paradise, the Lord's message of peace to us; for though our brethren in Zion indulge in feelings towards us, which are not according to the requirements of the new covenant, yet, we have the satisfaction of knowing that the Lord approves of us, and has accepted us, and established His name in Kirtland for the salvation of the nations; for the Lord will have a place whence His word will go forth in these last days, in purity; for if Zion will not purify herself, so as to be approved of in all things, in His sight, He will seek Another People; for His work will go on until Israel is gathered, and they who will not hear His voice, must expect to feel His wrath. Let me say unto you, seek to purify yourselves, and also the inhabitants of Zion, lest the Lord's anger be kindled to fierceness." -TPJS p. 18

I wouldn't suggest you join the LDS Church based upon losing a challenge. It would be far better for you to conclude that you will humbly go to God and find out who has the keys rather than be willing to join any group based upon that person's ability to convince you of a particular concept.

Why not instead conclude to find someone who has authority to act in the name of God and be willing to accept his instruction on what laws you are required to obey?

I understand. However, praying about who is the holder of the keys would not be wise right now as I am impartial still. I am praying for clarity first.

"There are many duties and callings spoken of in the scriptures, and there are many not written; those for instance which are handed out to you by your president as circumstances require; those imposed by the president of the Church of God, or by the president of any portion of it, are duties as necessary to be observed as though they were written in the Bible. But these requirements, duties, callings etc. change with the circumstances that surround the people of God." (BY 8 Oct. 1854)

The only way you can know what is required is by following the living prophet--rather than your interpretations of dead ones.

What about 1 Corinthians 14:32?

"And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."

And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets." -Mosiah 18:19

"The gospel in its simplicity, is to be found in the revelations, the teachings of the prophet and the early leaders of the Church. We shall make no mistake if we follow them." -Immorality & Eternal Life, p. 156

"The first principle of our cause and our work is to understand that there is a prophet in the Church, and that he is at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ on earth." (BY DHC 5:521)

See Jeremiah 35.

Such is the paradigm of apostasy--on the lookout to make sure the prophet doesn't contradict himself or a predecessor. God said, "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; ... Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Thomas B. Marsh and Ezra Thayre, and give a new commandment unto my servant Thomas, ..." Less than a hundred years? How about less than one year?

What is this commandment referring to? One of salvation? Exaltation? Nuh uh.

Might I repeat...

"And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." -1 Cor. 14:32

And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets." -Mosiah 18:19

Certainly. Who are you to say when or how priesthood disappears?

I have proclaimed 8 ways to know false teachings and apostasy. Would you mind proclaiming your idea of apostasy?

And who determines truth? The people who leave the Church? I refer you back to Joseph's letter to Nancy Rigdon:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed."

I believe the Holy Spirit confirms truth and he has certainly done that for the holy principle of plural marriage. It took me many years to completely accept it as a law of God.

Your claim doesn't make sense. It might if there were only two options--an "either-or" but there are other possibilities that you have not yet considered. Kind of like when the Jews rejected Jesus because they knew he was from Nazareth--and the scriptures taught the Messiah would be from Bethlehem. They made their decision regarding salvation in self imposed ignorance.

Similarly, you have not considered the possibility that Thomas S. Monson is Joseph Smith's successor and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that you have made your decision in ignorance or through faulty reasoning.

Where are Thomas S. Monson's wives?

"The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to stop." -Wilford Woodruff Journal, 10 Oct 1882

"Bishop John Sharp's superiors proffered that "any Priesthood holder who failed to sustain the law of God - polygamy - forfeited his right to rule in the midst of His people." -James B. Allen, Essays on Public Ethics, p. 48

This is just a couple. I have plenty more.

God actually told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham had the option to obey or to disobey. Do you think that Abraham's salvation might have been dependent upon how he responded to God's command? If he disobeyed and said, "That's crazy, I'm not going to do it, because God is love and He wouldn't ask something like that of me," what would have been Abraham's position before God?

What if Lehi had said to God, "I know you commanded me not to live polygamy, but you commanded Abraham to live it so I'm going to disregard your prohibition?" Consider what Orson Pratt taught concerning the matter:

"In this case, the Lord through his servant Lehi gave a command that they should have but one wife. The Lord had a perfect right to vary His commandments in this respect according to circumstances as he did in others as recorded in the Bible. There we find that the domestic relations were governed according to the mind and will of God, and were varied according to circumstances, as he thought proper." (JD 13:192)

Ah, but now the FLDS come along and say that if God changes the circumstances, they know that's not proper and they won't believe that either Joseph or Lehi were prophets.

Wasn't Lehi a polygamist? I'm pretty sure he was. He married Ishmael's widow and some others because when Sariah is old and near death, Lehi had Jacob and Joseph (see 1 Nephi 18).

No, I wouldn't believe you because you might claim to have been ordained. But that hasn't been the premise of my argument. It's been your argument. I don't accept the teachings of anyone as revelations or commandments unless they came in at the gate and were ordained and sustained as specified in the revelations (D&C 43:5-7)

You've implied that LDS leaders teach things contrary to the scriptures; that was the premise of this whole thread. But upon investigation we find that Spencer W. Kimball was absolutely consistent with the scriptures and it was the philosophy of fundamentalism that contradicted the scriptures. That situation will be repeated again and again whenever you pick a topic of disagreement with LDS Church leaders. They will always align with scripture.

He was consistent on the doctrine of Adam-God. We haven't worked out the plural marriage part yet.

Perhaps you should demonstrate that we have rejected the everlasting covenant of marriage. I was sealed in the temple by one who had the authority to do so. My father was likewise sealed in the temple and his father was before him. His father was sealed in the Endowment House. Which of us has rejected the everlasting covenant of marriage?

The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage is no longer practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Is that based upon your faulty conclusion that we have rejected something?

It is based on the ordinances of salvation placed before us by Joseph Smith through revelation by God. We must enter into it "lest we be damned."

Let me give you a key to understand something. Joseph taught that there were keys of authority and keys of knowledge. Occasionally, he would give them a key such as the one about spirits not shaking hands with mortals. This key was repeated several times in Nauvoo and referred to by many of Joseph's contemporaries. This is what he said:

"I will give you a key by which you may never be deceived, if you will observe these facts: Where the true church is, there will always be a majority of the Saints, and the records and history of the Church also." (Edward Stevenson, The Historical Record, September 11, 1888)

That testimony also came from Lyman Littlefield:

Once in Nauvoo I heard the Prophet declare to the people how they might always know where to find the true Church. He gave it as a guide for them ever afterwards, and said the day would come when they would need it. He said: "Factions and parties will arise out of this Church, and apostates will lead away many. But in the midst of all this, keep with the majority, for the true leaders of God's people will always be able to have a majority, and the records of the Church will be with them. Keep with the majority, for where the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together." [Lyman O. Littlefield, Millennial Star, 45:389]

When was this said?

Who's Edward Stevenson? Was he an apostle? When did he serve?

And Orson Hyde:

"...It reminds me of the words of Joseph the Prophet, when he said, 'Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray; and as long as you keep with the majority you are sure to enter the celestial kingdom.'" [Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 13:367, May 5, 1870]

In the mouth of two or more witnesses....

What about:

"There will be a people raised up, if we will not be that people - there will yet be a people raised up whose lives will embody in perfection the revelations contained in this book, who will live as the doctrines here taught require, as the laws here revealed show unto us, and they will be raised up too, in this generation, and such a people will have to be raised up before Zion can be fully redeemed, and before the work of God can be fully established in the earth." -George Q. Cannon, JoD 20:143

 

[MormonFriend]

Originally Posted by Northwest

Thank you. And just for the record, Spencer Kimball was a true prophet.​

Yes he was.
​

I was blessed and privileged to receive a hug and a kiss from that kind man. I have no doubts, as I felt his sacred calling in his embrace. It only confirmed that which I already knew by faith.

 

[sthatting]

I was blessed and privileged to receive a hug and a kiss from that kind man. I have no doubts, as I felt his sacred calling in his embrace. It only confirmed that which I already knew by faith.

Did you know that his uncle was John W. Woolley, the founder of the Mormon Fundamentalist movement, practically?

John W. Woolley served under Joseph Smith himself, in the first Mormon battalion in Nauvoo, Illinois.

 

[Alma]

You misunderstood me. I was simply stating that we preach to our own. It would be foolish to cast out a portion of the covenant (i.e. plural marriage) and pretend that the message is still fully in tact. That's like saying Christianity is wrong, but it's right. What's to stop me from joining a regular Christian church in light of all of this?

Nothing at all should stop you from joining a regular Christian church--or becoming a Muslim or a Hindu. You are free to choose whatever you want to become; but not free to choose the consequences of your choice. But as section 132 points out, unless covenants are entered into through the authority of the priesthood, they have no validity beyond death.

Although, you make a good point on the authority issue.

It's always the crux of the issue.

The LDS Church no longer practices plural marriage. I believe one must have more than one wife by the authority of God if they are to preside over the priesthood.

I understand that's what you believe. I don't believe your position has any foundation in scripture; and it isn't consistent with the history of those whom you recognize held the keys of the priesthood.

You claim that a man must be a polygamist for exaltation and I have shown you that section 132 teaches otherwise. (verse 19)--yet you haven't commented on that.

My position is that only those who are commanded to live polygamy are required to do so--and anyone who attempts to live it without having been commanded commits iniquity. For evidence of those beliefs I have cited Joseph F. Smith who clearly that that polygamy is acceptable only when commanded by God--and when not commanded it is not acceptable to God. (JFS JD 20:26).

You cited a portion of John Taylor's revelation of October 13th 1882--commonly cited by most fundamentalists. If you will carefully read the whole revelation and not merely the part you cited, you'll see there is an important distinction between the calling of Heber J. Grant and that of Seymour Young. Interestingly, they were both monogamists when this revelation was given. The Lord says, "Let my servants George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant be appointed to fill the vacancies in the Twelve." That's a command; and it isn't qualified by the necessity of Heber J. Grant taking a plural wife. A few sentences later, permission is given to appoint Seymour Young provided he abides the law. "You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law." Do you see the difference? Taylor is given permission to appoint Young and commanded to appoint Grant.

This demonstrates what I have said and what the Church has taught since the days of Joseph Smith: Only those commanded to enter in to the principle are under the obligation of taking wives. If that is not the case, you need to explain why Heber J. Grant was called to preside as a monogamous member of the 12 over members of the 70 who were polygamists.

This situation was settled in an early day case where Heber J. Grant, as President of the Tooele Stake, attempted to correct Brother Samuel Woolley. Brother Grant was not living the law, while Brother Woolley was. The latter refused to receive instructions from Brother Grant, claiming immunity because the President was not living as high a law as he was. Brother Grant took the question up with his file leaders, President John Taylor and counselors. They instructed him that Brother Woolley was right, since he (Brother Grant) was not living or abiding in the law, he was not qualified to direct Brother Woolley who was faithfully abiding in that law.

Once again, you have been the victim of dishonest propaganda of fundamentalism. The only source for this claim comes from Joseph Musser. Fortunately, there's enough historical evidence to demonstrate that the story is bogus.

Samuel Woolley didn't live in Tooele county until he was called to go to a community of Samoan and Tongan immigrants called "Iosepa" in 1890. By that time, Grant had been an apostle for 8 years and was no longer the stake president. Before that time, Woolley lived in Salt Lake City. He never lived in Heber J. Grant's stake and consequently would not have ever been in the position described by Musser. Addtionally, the idea that a man would refuse to receive counsel from his file leader by claiming greater authority is so petty that it defames the good name of Samuel Woolley.

You provide an excellent quote--but it doesn't support your position. You cite Brigham Young:

Can any man or set of men officiate in dispensing the laws and administering the ordinances of the Kingdom of God or of the kingdoms and governments of the world legally, without first obeying those laws and submitting to those ordinances themselves?...do not forget that no man has authority to officiate ordinances heavenly or earthly governments only so far as he has obeyed them himself." -Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1854

Are you aware that many fundamentalists trace their own plural marriages back to Anthony W. Ivins--who performed many such marriages between 1897 and 1904? He had the authority to perform sealings in Mexico and George Q. Cannon and John W. Taylor and others sent people to him to be sealed to plural wives. Ivins never had a plural wife--he had only been sealed to one wife yet these early Church leaders recognized that he had the authority to perform plural marriages. That demonstrates that the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is the same covenant as that entered into plurally. Otherwise Ivins could not have had the authority to perform those marriages as a monogamist.

It is clear that if the LDS Church holds the keys to some ordinances, but does not with plural marriage, they cannot practice it and I believe, will never be able to practice it. There is only one on the earth at a time that holds those keys (and as you pointed out, they will never be taken, so there must be someone somewhere on the Earth that DOES hold those keys).

You really should read the 107th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. The duty of the President of the High Priesthood is to preside over the Church and from him comes the administration of ordinances. (see verses 65-67) No one can perform any valid priesthood ordinance without that man's authorization. If the Church holds some of the keys, they have to have been conferred by the man who controls all the keys. George Q. Cannon warned the saints about your stated position that someone outside the Church might hold the keys of the priesthood:

"But I wish to say that those who look for some increased manifestation of power to come in some form outside of that which we recognize as the governing authority of the Church, are in danger of being deluded and of being led astray. Such persons, if there be any, and I am inclined to believe there are, are in just the condition that the adversary would like people to be in, that he may have influence with them." (JD 23:358)

I'm constantly astonished at the ability of fundamentalists to state conclusions that have been condemned by apostles and prophets they claim to recognize.

I hope to have time to respond to your other messages tomorrow.

Alma

 

[sthatting]

Alma,

Perhaps you can also explain why the LDS Church even practiced Celestial Plural Marriage for the time that it did only to give it up less than 100 years later.

 

[4godslove]

isn't this talk of polygamy kind of moot?

the only person on the earth that holds the keys of that practice is the president of the cojcolds. since, at least to my knowledge at this time, he holds that it is not allowed, doesn't that make those who hold to that practice outside that which is sanctioned by the Lord?

 

[david01]

isn't this talk of polygamy kind of moot?

the only person on the earth that holds the keys of that practice is the president of the cojcolds. since, at least to my knowledge at this time, he holds that it is not allowed, doesn't that make those who hold to that practice outside that which is sanctioned by the Lord?

Not at all. Many of us here most certainly do not have the slightest evidence the president of the cojcolds holds "the keys" other than that he claims to have them and the members of his church make the same assertion. When actual evidence of these keys can be produced then those of us on the outside might consider this to be a moot question.

 

[sthatting]

Not at all. Many of us here most certainly do not have the slightest evidence the president of the cojcolds holds "the keys" other than that he claims to have them and the members of his church make the same assertion. When actual evidence of these keys can be produced then those of us on the outside might consider this to be a moot question.

Please don't let this deteriorate into every other thread on this forum. I DON'T want this thread closed for any reason at this time.

I've been learning a lot from what Alma is saying that I have never heard before. I was raised being taught that plural marriage was the one and only way to reach the Celestial Kingdom and I think that it needs to be addressed... which it is. Thanks Alma!

 

[david01]

I apologize for butting into your conversation. I trust that you will be able to continue it without further intrusions.

 

[Alma]

If you explain to me how apostasy occurred in the early true Christian church set up by Christ then mayhaps I might concur with you on this point.

It occurred as it is chronicled in the Book of Mormon. The disciples were selected by Christ and given power by Him to direct the Church and administer the ordinances. Over the process of time, people dissented from the Church until the time came that the people rejected the authorized ministers of Christ and so He took the disciples away from the earth. “…the disciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to remain with the people;” (Mormon 8:10). The problem with apostasy, is those who fall prey to it always think that the leaders have gone astray when it’s invariably the people who reject God’s appointed leaders. In both the Book of Mormon and the New Testament, it wasn’t the apostles and prophets who fell into error; it was the people who rejected the apostles and prophets so that God withdrew them from the earth.

Notice that Paul claimed that everyone in Asia had rejected him: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;” (2 Tim. 1:15). Surely, they all thought they were maintaining the true religion and that Paul was “out of order.”

As I stated, the law of Moses was fulfilled (Alma 34:13). The New and Everlasting Covenant has not been fulfilled. It will not BE fulfilled until Christ's second coming. "We won't quit practicing Plural Marriage until Christ shall come." -John Henry Smith Journal, see also Heber J. Grant Journal, 17 May 1888

You seem to be under the impression still that the “New and Everlasting Covenant” is plural marriage. That has never been taught by those holding the keys. Eternal marriage is a new and everlasting covenant, but THE new and everlasting covenant is the gospel:

“All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church.” (Brigham Young JD 12:230)

Of course the “New and Everlasting Covenant” won’t be fulfilled (or done away) even after Christ returns.

They do not reside in the righteous law of marriage. Therefore, I reject their counsel just as Samuel Woolley rejected Heber J. Grant's counsel when he was a stake president.

Hopefully you’ve now realized that the story you’ve heard never happened.

Joseph assumes that the practice would continue forever or until Christ's coming.

I wonder how you can claim to know what Joseph “assumes” particularly when you quote from the “olive leaf to W.W. Phelps.” There’s no connection to that and plural marriage. It was given 10 years before Joseph even taught plural marriage to others. Not only that, it was addressed to a man who was later excommunicated for taking unauthorized plural wives!

I understand. However, praying about who is the holder of the keys would not be wise right now as I am impartial still. I am praying for clarity first.

The reluctance to go to God for answers is never a good sign. Are you worried you might get an answer?

What about 1 Corinthians 14:32?

I don’t see where this passage helps your case. Paul said the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets—cautioning members who prophesy. You really think that those who direct the kingdom need such a caution?

“And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets." -Mosiah 18:19
"The gospel in its simplicity, is to be found in the revelations, the teachings of the prophet and the early leaders of the Church. We shall make no mistake if we follow them." -Immorality & Eternal Life, p. 156

Once again, that is an excellent caution to members who have been shown to be susceptible to teaching and embracing false doctrine; but it hardly applies to the apostles who are set in the Church to keep us from being carried about with “every wind of doctrine.” Notice above that Mosiah told them to teach what he had taught them.

The quote about the gospel in its simplicity is from J. Reuben Clark, a member of the First Presidency under David O. McKay—who wholeheartedly condemned the attitudes of apostates insisting that they held the keys of the priesthood.

See Jeremiah 35.

I’m familiar with the object lesson that Jeremiah gave to the Jews regarding a group of non-Israelites who rejected his offer of wine because of earlier prohibitions pronounced by their progenitor. But notice that the word of the Lord to the Jews was condemnation because the Jews refused to receive instruction from the living prophet. “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the LORD.

Where in the scriptures are men ever justified in rejecting living prophets? (Even when they’re sure their interpretations are better than the apostles.)

What is this commandment referring to? One of salvation? Exaltation? Nuh uh.

Why can’t you see your own inconsistency? Earlier you claim that “we must not only do some things, but EVERYTHING which God has commanded.” But now you’re willing to split hairs and say that obedience is relative to salvation and exaltation. That’s smorgasbord obedience where you take what you want and leave the rest.

I have proclaimed 8 ways to know false teachings and apostasy. Would you mind proclaiming your idea of apostasy?

I’m comfortable with the dictionary definition: “the renunciation or abandonment of a religious faith.” Those who are expelled from the Church for misbehavior or leave the Church to follow others than the ones appointed by God are apostates.

I noted that your list was indicative of sin rather than apostasy, but I think that apostates often display the behavior you listed. I’ll address some of those items next.

Alma

 

[sthatting]

You seem to be under the impression still that the “New and Everlasting Covenant” is plural marriage. That has never been taught by those holding the keys. Eternal marriage is a new and everlasting covenant, but THE new and everlasting covenant is the gospel:

“All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church.” (Brigham Young JD 12:230)

Of course the “New and Everlasting Covenant” won’t be fulfilled (or done away) even after Christ returns.

Since this is the biggest issue, I thought I would address plural marriage specifically and cover the rest later.

"Some quietly listen to those who speak against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny 'Mormonism,' and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose the doctrine, and the whole of them will be damned." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 203

Joseph F. Smith also said:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false." -JoD 20:28-29

From what I'm understanding, you're saying that you only have to believe in order to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. You admit that it is a saving ordinance, though... correct?

If you do (and it wasn't some social practice as the LDS Church has claimed in the past), then you might want to re-examine some things.

For example,

"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with preceding dispensations." -Joseph Smith, TPJS p. 168

That means,... ordinances don't change. In addition,

"I spoke to the people, showing them that to get salvation we must not only do some things, but EVERYTHING which God has commanded." -Joseph Smith, TPJS p. 332

Now... let's look at what D&C 132 has to say again...

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines." -D&C 132:1

At the very beginning he's talking about plural marriage. So when you try to use verse 19 and ignore the rest of the text (like verse 63), then you are taking the scripture out of context and it's entirity. Joseph F. Smith explains that which you have not addressed yet.

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. ... I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false." -Joseph F. Smith

According to the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Apostasy is:

1. One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party, to which he before adhered; esp., one who has forsaken his religion for another; a pervert; a renegade.

2. (R. C. Ch.) One who, after having received sacred orders, renounces his clerical profession.

Is plural marriage a faith, principle, or party? Did the LDS Church previously adhere to them? Is it a sacred order and was it renounced?

Even with Gordon B. Hinckley's position, he condemened plural marriage stating it was not even doctrinal. He has renounced polygamy.

Synonyms [for repudiate]: deny, disacknowledge, disavow, disclaim, disown, reject, renounce

Condemn is also defined as "To feel or express strong disapproval of." (source: http://thesaurus.reference.com and http://dictionary.reference.com )

Maybe this helps you to better understand where I am coming from on this issue. How can saving ordinances change when Joseph Smith said that they don't and we had to enter into ALL of the laws revealed including polygamy.

I await your response.

 

[Alma]

continued...

I believe the Holy Spirit confirms truth and he has certainly done that for the holy principle of plural marriage. It took me many years to completely accept it as a law of God.

I would be surprised if you didn’t receive a confirmation of its truth. It is a true principle, but it’s also carefully regulated by God’s prophets. As Joseph F. Smith noted, “It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, …”

Where are Thomas S. Monson's wives?
"The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to stop." -Wilford Woodruff Journal, 10 Oct 1882
"Bishop John Sharp's superiors proffered that "any Priesthood holder who failed to sustain the law of God - polygamy - forfeited his right to rule in the midst of His people." -James B. Allen, Essays on Public Ethics, p. 48
This is just a couple. I have plenty more.

All of those comments were made during a time that the law was commanded. When the law is revoked, then the requirement to live it not only ceases but living it is a great sin. You can’t very well expect Thomas S. Monson to violate the law of God and still preside of the Kingdom of God.

Wasn't Lehi a polygamist? I'm pretty sure he was. He married Ishmael's widow and some others because when Sariah is old and near death, Lehi had Jacob and Joseph (see 1 Nephi 18).

No, Lehi wasn’t a polygamist. You apparently didn’t read my previous comments very closely. When Jacob reminded the people that they weren’t allowed plural wives, he pointed out that these commandments had been given to Lehi and they were under great condemnation for violating that prohibition:

“And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.”(Jacob 2:34)

Jacob points out that the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites because they were monogamists and had remembered the commandment given to Lehi:

“Behold, the Lamanites …are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father--that they should have save it were one wife,” (Jacob 3:5)

He (Spencer W. Kimball) was consistent on the doctrine of Adam-God. We haven't worked out the plural marriage part yet.

That is really the easiest part. It all boils down to priesthood authority and who has the power to perform sealings. We’ve already established that the president of the Church always controls the keys of sealing power. Everyone outside the Church who claims to have the right to perform sealings had to have received that authority from the one man holding the keys or those they seal are committing adultery under the guise of plural marriage. Lorin Woolley’s story is false on the surface and that pretty much wipes out any claims of fundamentalists. As I noted earlier, Joseph told Hyrum he’d go to hell if he performed unauthorized sealings. Will the Woolleys, Mussers, Broadbents or Jeffs fare any better? Not unless, as Joseph Smith put it: “Respecting the vision you speak of we do not consider ourselves bound to receive any revelation from any one man or woman without his being legally constituted and ordained to that authority, and giving sufficient proof of it.” (TPJS p. 20)

The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage is no longer practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I pointed out that I, my father, his father, grandfather and great-grandfather were all sealed by someone who had authority in the temple of God. That’s what Brigham Young taught constituted the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. You may continue to assert the contrary but upon what basis can you made such an assertion?

It is based on the ordinances of salvation placed before us by Joseph Smith through revelation by God. We must enter into it "lest we be damned."

Would care to provide some support for your statement? I suggest that there’s no difference between Warren Jeffs’ “sealings” and Ervil LeBaron’s “sealings;” Since they have been done by pretended authority, they don’t count as ordinances. Section 132 explains clearly that even if a man makes a covenant for time and eternity, if it isn’t done by correct authority it is invalid. Invalid ordinances aren’t ordinances of salvation—and in fact are the cause of damnation for those who perform them with pretended authority. So, how can you expect to enter into an ordinance without priesthood authority?

When was this said?
Who's Edward Stevenson? Was he an apostle? When did he serve?

First written and published in 1888. He was one of the presidents of the Seventy, a Church Historian and with the permission of Brigham Young, the man who brought Martin Harris to Utah and re-baptized him. He was also a polygamist and personally acquainted with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor.

What about:
"There will be a people raised up, if we will not be that people - there will yet be a people raised up whose lives will embody in perfection the revelations contained in this book, who will live as the doctrines here taught require, as the laws here revealed show unto us, and they will be raised up too, in this generation, and such a people will have to be raised up before Zion can be fully redeemed, and before the work of God can be fully established in the earth." -George Q. Cannon, JoD 20:143

What about it? Does that authorize anyone to disregard the teachings of the apostles and prophets God called into His church and start performing ordinances on their own? Go read the entire talk and you’ll be surprised at what it does not say.

“I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which is after the order of the Son of God. It is in the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood, but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust. (TPJS 375-376)

Ask yourself if Lorin Woolley and other fundamentalists built on Joseph’s foundation? If so, they are perfect examples of what Joseph Smith warned the saints against.



Still hoping to address your list of apostasy.

Alma

 

[Alma]

Since this is the biggest issue, I thought I would address plural marriage specifically and cover the rest later.

I’ve had lots of discussions of this type with many fundamentalists. Invariably, they fail to perceive (perhaps out of choice) that we aren’t opposed to polygamy—we’re opposed to their adultery under the guise of polygamy. You’re just like Protestant critics of Mormonism who think that we reject the Bible because we reject their interpretations of the Bible. We don’t reject the Bible and we don’t reject plural marriage.

My best friend’s wife died shortly after childbirth. Subsequently he remarried and was sealed to his second wife in the temple. The fact that his first wife is no longer living doesn’t change the everlasting covenant he made with those two women. He, I, his bishop, the temple sealer, and every other Latter-day Saint I know believes that he has two wives for time and eternity. None of us disbelieve it or find the least fault with the principle.

Don’t assume victimhood from the mistaken premise that we reject plurality of wives because we don’t believe your plural “marriages” are valid. And don’t try to tell me that “LDS Church has claimed” that plural marriage was merely a “social practice.” I know that is false.

None of the statements you quote supporting plural marriage are problematic because they were given at a time when plural marriage was commanded. You quoted Joseph F. Smith’s discourse from volume 20 but you have consistently ignored the part where he qualifies plural marriage to times when it is commanded by God.

There’s no question that Mormons speak against the practices of FLDS people because they are rooted in iniquity—not in commandment. We have the same position regarding plural marriage as that articulated by the Prophet Joseph Smith:

Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.

Note that Joseph had “constantly” said those things. They are the same things I have reiterated to you. Can you not see that our opposition is to adultery rather than to polygamy? If only one man has the keys of that power, you should be just as opposed to the polygamy of the LeBarons, “Second Warders,” Harmstons, Kingstons, and the UAB Church as we are against your abominable practices; but that is not the case—and it has never been the case.

The reason they don’t recognize the exclusive nature of priesthood keys is because all fundamentalists are on the same sandy foundation, living in glass houses. Should they throw any rocks, the rocks are likely to come right back.

Fundamentalists have concluded that polygamy is the gospel and consequently anyone who practices it is approved and part of “the priesthood.” But you and others have by necessity jettisoned the doctrine of priesthood authority all the while knowing that your practice contradicts the teachings of all the prophets of this dispensation.

From what I'm understanding, you're saying that you only have to believe in order to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. You admit that it is a saving ordinance, though... correct?

No on both counts. Jesus is the “author of eternal salvation” only to obedient believers (Hebrews 5:9). So, belief in any principle isn’t sufficient. In the council in heaven, the plan was to see if they “will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” Lehi’s and Thomas S. Monson’s, and my obedience to God’s prohibition is just as important as Abraham’s and Joseph Smith’s submission to plurality of wives. “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is.” (TPJS p. 256).

For example, "Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with preceding dispensations." -Joseph Smith, TPJS p. 168

That means,... ordinances don't change.

That isn’t a necessary or valid conclusion from Joseph’s statement. This dispensation does not include the ordinances of burned offerings or circumcision. Preceding dispensations didn’t all include plural marriage. As I have pointed out before—even though you’ve ignored it—Lehi was forbidden to practice polygamy, as were his children and grandchildren. John Taylor taught that Lehi had the same religion that we have. “It is the religion that Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, and the apostles had . . . and that Lehi, Nephi, Alma, Moroni, Mormon, and a host of others had.” (Gospel Kingdom page 1.) Since Lehi’s dispensation didn’t include polygamy ours doesn’t have to either.

Now... let's look at what D&C 132 has to say again...

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines." -D&C 132:1

At the very beginning he's talking about plural marriage. So when you try to use verse 19 and ignore the rest of the text (like verse 63), then you are taking the scripture out of context and it's entirety.

You don’t believe me when I say it, so you probably won’t believe Franklin D. Richards—a polygamist and an apostle—who, under John Taylor’s administration, published a book in 1882 with exactly the same interpretation as I gave you.

He wrote “A Compendium of the Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” usually referred to as “A Compendium.” The first edition in 1857 included references supporting plurality of wives. In 1882, it was expanded to include this comment:

“The above quotations evidence, that only those who comply with the law will continue in the marriage relations after death; consequently only those who comply with the law can expect a continuation of posterity in the world to come, and the consequent glory and power pertaining to that condition. The law of the Lord is very plain on this subject. Who can question his right to dictate the marriages of his sons and daughters, that they and their generations may be fitted for his presence? In verse 29 the Lord begins to answer the question in the first verse: "Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment."

You see that part in bold above? The part where he says the Lord “begins to answer the question” in verse 29? I’m in good company when I agree with Franklin D. Richards.

Is plural marriage a faith, principle, or party? Did the LDS Church previously adhere to them? Is it a sacred order and was it renounced?

We still adhere to the principles involved. Have you ever heard of someone not being allowed to be sealed a second time when his first wife has died?

Even with Gordon B. Hinckley's position, he condemned plural marriage stating it was not even doctrinal. He has renounced polygamy.

That’s ridiculous. He said it is not doctrinal because those who enter in to it have not done so with priesthood authority or by commandment as specified in the Doctrine and Covenants. Ordinations to the Melchizedek Priesthood by the FLDS aren’t doctrinal either. By my asserting that your ordinations aren’t doctrinal, I’m not renouncing priesthood ordinations, I’m disavowing your right to perform them with any real priesthood authority.

Maybe this helps you to better understand where I am coming from on this issue. How can saving ordinances change when Joseph Smith said that they don't and we had to enter into ALL of the laws revealed including polygamy.

The saving ordinances haven’t changed. Joseph never said “all the laws” include polygamy. He did say, “Whatever God requires is right.” If God requires it through His prophet, He will have the prophet instruct the people accordingly.

But he surely won’t recognize ordinances performed by excommunicated people who merely think they need to perform them. That isn’t how God’s Kingdom has ever or will ever function.

What you need to understand is that the whole matter is summed up in two words: priesthood authority. Fundamentalists like to refer to themselves as “the priesthood” but they have no legitimate claim to priesthood. Plural marriage without the keys is adultery. “Will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?” The answer is “No.”

No matter how strongly you’re convinced about the need to live polygamy, that conviction doesn’t bring with it keys of authority. No matter what any body said in the past, their comments don’t convey authority. Priesthood authority is conveyed by (1) calling, (2) the voice of the people and (3) ordination.


There isn't a fundamentalist anywhere who qualifies as legally or authoritatively ordained to priesthood. That's the insurmountable problem you face.


Alma

 

[4godslove]

duplicate

 

[4godslove]

Not at all. Many of us here most certainly do not have the slightest evidence the president of the cojcolds holds "the keys" other than that he claims to have them and the members of his church make the same assertion. When actual evidence of these keys can be produced then those of us on the outside might consider this to be a moot question.

no problem. let's meet up at the judgement. i want to see then if you have enough evidence.

 

[sthatting]

Alma,

Why would God rescind his plan for the blacks and the sons of Cain? Why would he allow them into His temples when He plainly stated through the prophets and presidents of the Church that until EVERY Jew and Gentile enter into the New Covenant bought by the prophet Joseph Smith that THEN the blacks would be able to hold the priesthood. This was plainly taught by Brigham Young that this would not occur until the second advent of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you are well aware of the talk that President LeRoy Johnson gave on this and I believe him to be a true prophet, regardless of what priesthood he had or held. He spoke truth. This leads me to my next post which shall be a response to yours.

Sthatting

 

[sthatting]

I’ve had lots of discussions of this type with many fundamentalists. Invariably, they fail to perceive (perhaps out of choice) that we aren’t opposed to polygamy—we’re opposed to their adultery under the guise of polygamy. You’re just like Protestant critics of Mormonism who think that we reject the Bible because we reject their interpretations of the Bible. We don’t reject the Bible and we don’t reject plural marriage.

No. I see what you mean. I understand you do not reject the principle completely, but partially still... which I believe is worse. It would be better to be cold or hot than to be lukewarm. Would you not agree?

My best friend’s wife died shortly after childbirth. Subsequently he remarried and was sealed to his second wife in the temple. The fact that his first wife is no longer living doesn’t change the everlasting covenant he made with those two women. He, I, his bishop, the temple sealer, and every other Latter-day Saint I know believes that he has two wives for time and eternity. None of us disbelieve it or find the least fault with the principle.

This defeats the entire purpose of the principle of Celestial and Plural Marriage. It was for self-control and procreation; not only for exaltation.

Don’t assume victimhood from the mistaken premise that we reject plurality of wives because we don’t believe your plural “marriages” are valid. And don’t try to tell me that “LDS Church has claimed” that plural marriage was merely a “social practice.” I know that is false.

Throughout my last two years of high school, I heard this time and time again when it was asked of LDS members. I had to bite my lip for fear of being found out of my Fundamentalism and exposing the real reason. I'm glad you can see that McConkie's statement on this is false.

None of the statements you quote supporting plural marriage are problematic because they were given at a time when plural marriage was commanded. You quoted Joseph F. Smith’s discourse from volume 20 but you have consistently ignored the part where he qualifies plural marriage to times when it is commanded by God.

If you refer to the authority portion, I understand. I've been questioning that a lot lately and have sought guidance of my father, the prophet, and others in my community. I have prayed earnestly to know the true holder of the keys.

What I have come to the conclusion of is that it is not Thomas S. Monson, nor is it Warren S. Jeffs. When I began to pray on Rulon Jeffs and LeRoy Johnson... the feeling changed. It felt right. This would align to what my father taught me as a child... that is... that John Y. Barlow told a few chosen of another ordination that occurred similar to Joseph's. I won't go into details because I believe it to be too sacred and close to my heart. There is no need to debate this and I'm sure you and others on this forum understand that.

There’s no question that Mormons speak against the practices of FLDS people because they are rooted in iniquity—not in commandment. We have the same position regarding plural marriage as that articulated by the Prophet Joseph Smith:

Note that Joseph had “constantly” said those things. They are the same things I have reiterated to you. Can you not see that our opposition is to adultery rather than to polygamy?

I see what your reasoning is now. I'm sorry I didn't see it sooner.

If only one man has the keys of that power, you should be just as opposed to the polygamy of the LeBarons, “Second Warders,” Harmstons, Kingstons, and the UAB Church as we are against your abominable practices; but that is not the case—and it has never been the case.

The Kingstons, Harmstons, AUB, and most LeBarons (especially spin-offs of Ervil's church) are wrong. If the FLDS don't hold any authority, then those groups don't hold ANY authority. You can see it by their fruits (ie. the spirit of murder) and the way they managed their membership.

Fundamentalists have concluded that polygamy is the gospel and consequently anyone who practices it is approved and part of “the priesthood.” But you and others have by necessity jettisoned the doctrine of priesthood authority all the while knowing that your practice contradicts the teachings of all the prophets of this dispensation.

I have never stated this. They must enter into the principle by the prophet of God, whoever that is if it ain't Warren.

No on both counts. Jesus is the “author of eternal salvation” only to obedient believers (Hebrews 5:9). So, belief in any principle isn’t sufficient. In the council in heaven, the plan was to see if they “will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” Lehi’s and Thomas S. Monson’s, and my obedience to God’s prohibition is just as important as Abraham’s and Joseph Smith’s submission to plurality of wives. “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is.” (TPJS p. 256).

I agree with the last part of this. I know the principle is certainly not very popular with the world. That is why they have come with their great armies to try and make war against us.

That isn’t a necessary or valid conclusion from Joseph’s statement. This dispensation does not include the ordinances of burned offerings or circumcision. Preceding dispensations didn’t all include plural marriage. As I have pointed out before—even though you’ve ignored it—Lehi was forbidden to practice polygamy, as were his children and grandchildren. John Taylor taught that Lehi had the same religion that we have. “It is the religion that Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, and the apostles had . . . and that Lehi, Nephi, Alma, Moroni, Mormon, and a host of others had.” (Gospel Kingdom page 1.) Since Lehi’s dispensation didn’t include polygamy ours doesn’t have to either.

Yet you fail to see that Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Lot (maybe), Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus all had plural wives.

It may have been forbidden at the time of Lehi because there was no authority to perform the marriages and did not hold the keys and fullness of the gospel.

You don’t believe me when I say it, so you probably won’t believe Franklin D. Richards—a polygamist and an apostle—who, under John Taylor’s administration, published a book in 1882 with exactly the same interpretation as I gave you.

He wrote “A Compendium of the Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” usually referred to as “A Compendium.” The first edition in 1857 included references supporting plurality of wives. In 1882, it was expanded to include this comment:

“The above quotations evidence, that only those who comply with the law will continue in the marriage relations after death; consequently only those who comply with the law can expect a continuation of posterity in the world to come, and the consequent glory and power pertaining to that condition. The law of the Lord is very plain on this subject. Who can question his right to dictate the marriages of his sons and daughters, that they and their generations may be fitted for his presence? In verse 29 the Lord begins to answer the question in the first verse: "Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment."

You see that part in bold above? The part where he says the Lord “begins to answer the question” in verse 29? I’m in good company when I agree with Franklin D. Richards.

This is nothing new. Marriage is by inspiration. I think I could make the claim that this is practiced moreso in my church than in the LDS. I'm not aware of the Law of Placing occurring within your church as it did before.

We still adhere to the principles involved. Have you ever heard of someone not being allowed to be sealed a second time when his first wife has died?

No. But as I stated above, the purpose of plural marriage is not just to become exalted.

That’s ridiculous. He said it is not doctrinal because those who enter in to it have not done so with priesthood authority or by commandment as specified in the Doctrine and Covenants. Ordinations to the Melchizedek Priesthood by the FLDS aren’t doctrinal either. By my asserting that your ordinations aren’t doctrinal, I’m not renouncing priesthood ordinations, I’m disavowing your right to perform them with any real priesthood authority.

Fair enough, but I wish Gordon Hinckley would have explained this. All we have are just his statements and he says he condemns polygamy... not the people who practice it. Unless you can show me where on the interview with Larry King that he stated otherwise. Or perhaps a Press Release?

The saving ordinances haven’t changed. Joseph never said “all the laws” include polygamy. He did say, “Whatever God requires is right.” If God requires it through His prophet, He will have the prophet instruct the people accordingly.

But he surely won’t recognize ordinances performed by excommunicated people who merely think they need to perform them. That isn’t how God’s Kingdom has ever or will ever function.

What you need to understand is that the whole matter is summed up in two words: priesthood authority. Fundamentalists like to refer to themselves as “the priesthood” but they have no legitimate claim to priesthood. Plural marriage without the keys is adultery. “Will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?” The answer is “No.”

No matter how strongly you’re convinced about the need to live polygamy, that conviction doesn’t bring with it keys of authority. No matter what any body said in the past, their comments don’t convey authority. Priesthood authority is conveyed by (1) calling, (2) the voice of the people and (3) ordination.

I understand what you mean here, but I think that the same could be said for Joseph Smith. It is obvious to me that John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley held no priesthood authority to perform plural marriages.

There isn't a fundamentalist anywhere who qualifies as legally or authoritatively ordained to priesthood. That's the insurmountable problem you face.

That may be true, but now I have more knowledge on the subject than I ever did before. Keep it coming.

In the face of opposition lies faith.