The LDS temples

[Big Bob Bull]

Joseph Smith was a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ; he was certainly NOT a pervert.

Not only a pervert but a child molester too and hid it all behind lies that he himself made up and blinded others to believe and the same goes for B.Y.

 

[MormonFriend]

Why is it that the lds posters are so critical of others to show factual support, but then deny the facts when they are brought forward?

Probably because this scenario has been going on for years, and the "facts" turn out to be much less than what they were presented to be. It becomes routine to deny them.

There is absolutely no way The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray Joseph Smith to be.

I have no desire to engage in this type of conversation. Call it denial if you wish.

 

[twhite982]

Hey Baker,

Twhite,

You shold get a copy of the 1835 D&C and read it. It's preface, signed by Smith (and Cowdery by the way) says exactly what it is and contains "the principles for regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations".

You're assuming AGAIN that everything contained within the 1835 D&C is revelation. IT IS NOT.

Here is my source: http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1835DnC2.htm#pg001

The venerable president, Thomas Gates, then bore record of the truth of the book, and with his five silver-headed assistants, and the whole congregation, accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. The several authorities, and the general assembly, by a unanimous vote, accepted of the labors of the committee.

President W. W. Phelps then read an article on Marriage, which was accepted and adopted, and ordered to be printed in said book, by a unanimous vote.

President O. Cowdery then read an article on "Governments and laws in general," which was accepted and adopted, and ordered to be printed in said book, by a unanimous vote.

Notice the last two statements, which is given after ALL unanimiously accepted the revelations as inspired from God, NEXT they then vote on the two articles, which are CLEARLY NOT part of the preceding revelations.

Just the facts...

You tried to make this point the last time and last time I showed you where you were wrong, please notice the difference. The articles were NOT "sworn in" as revelation

Why is it that the lds posters are so critical of others to show factual support, but then deny the facts when they are brought forward?

I'm critical of your assumtions, but you have showed NO facts.

Would you please provide source documents showing that Smith did not approve of this revelation's inclusion in the 1835 D&C's?

My point is that the articles along with the lectures on faith were not revelations. I do admit that Joseph allowed them to stand "as-is" upon his return from Michigan, but the ONLY person to recieve revelation for the church is the prophet, not Oliver Cowdrey of which he was the author of the article on marriage.

Absolutely. Here is the complete copy of the Oct. 1st 1842 Times and Season Church newspaper. You will see that beginning at the end of page 939, Smith, as editor and publisher of the paper, ratifies his position with regards to the church's rule on marriage by citing the Doctrine and Covenants again:

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n23.htm

Of particular interest is that he had the leading men and relief society women in the church sign this statement. The first of womens signatures is his wife's Emma as RS President. This is important since, as your church website documents, that Smith was already commiting adultery prior to the printing of this article. Emma is on record of NOT knowing of any other rule on marriage at that time. IE. Smith is violating his own revelation 132 by not asking of his first wife prior to taking on another! This fact is further corroberated when she rejects the 132 revelation presented to her by Hiram Smith in 1843 (found in your HOC)

Basically the link is the article on marriage posted again.

See my comments above. While this was NOT revelation it was practice for the church as a whole. True a select few were practicing polygamy at the time Joseph included.

I will look into statements of Emma accepting and then rejecting polygamy.
I have heard it before and I'm sure it wouldn't be stated if it didn't exist, but I'll look into it for myself

Futhermore, and what is really intersting, Smith is publically emphatic about denying this whole "plural marriage" issue that is raised to specifically show that what John Bennet was promoting, had nothing to do with the lds church. Ironic isn't it?

Are you familiar with what John C. Bennet was doing? i.e. the "spiritual wifery system"

To apply some mormon logic here, can you prove that he didn't have sexual relations? But either way it is beyond the point. There is no scriptural logic nor reason for him to marry women who were already married other than his personal satisfaction and ego. If I am wrong here, please demonstrate how I am.

The point is your facts are NOT facts. I can't prove he didn't and you can't prove he did. I call that a stalemate.

The logic is something that you don't care to consider.

WRONG! Your church website shows them only as marriages. There is no mention or explanation of the concept of "sealing". Avoid the spin and stay with the facts!

Irrelevant since you and I know it doesn't matter if it was a sealing for eternity or time and eternity. What is annotated is that its a marriage.

That is true and precisely why this D&C 132 is so obviously of Smith and not of GOD. If the exception to god's disdain of polygamy (Jacob 2;24) is to raise SEED up to him (god), why are there no children from anyone other than Emma in all of Smith's marriages? If 'raising seed" does not mean having additional children, why is it used as the lds excuse for allowing polygamy? IE. what did polygamy do for god that could not have been accomplished through monogamy?

The idea of a marriage / sealing in LDS theology goes beyond this life and is linked to family.

This is the concept you aren't grasping.

Many of the sealings were ONLY for eternity and were meant to join the two families (Joseph and others) together.


Tom

 

[Der Alte]

Probably because this scenario has been going on for years, and the "facts" turn out to be much less than what they were presented to be. It becomes routine to deny them.

There is absolutely no way The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray Joseph Smith to be.

I have no desire to engage in this type of conversation. Call it denial if you wish.

And then we have,

There is absolutely no way The World Tract and Bible Society (JW) could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray Charles T. Russell to be.

There is absolutely no way The World Wide Church of God could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray Herbert W. Armstrong to be.

There is absolutely no way The Christadelphians could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray John Thomas to be.

There is absolutely no way The Message Church could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray William Branham to be.

Etc., etc., etc.​

​

 

[baker]

Probably because this scenario has been going on for years, and the "facts" turn out to be much less than what they were presented to be. It becomes routine to deny them.

Mf,

Facts merely exist. We can't change them. If routinely denying them work for you, then go with it.

There is absolutely no way The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray Joseph Smith to be.

Smith established his own caliber, I have only cited the facts about his actions. It seems as if it is you who chooses to describe it as "low caliber" as I did not say this. If I have said anything that is not factual, point it out to me and I will gladly correct myself.

I have no desire to engage in this type of conversation. Call it denial if you wish.

Then why did you respond at all?

 

[Tawhano]

Helaman said:
Why? He was married to 33 women. Why is that astonishing? David, of the Old Testament, had seven wives and several concubines. And who knows how many wives Solomon had! The pattern was established by God before, and He reinstated it through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 1:15)
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:24)
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

God reinstated something that was an abomination to him?

 

[baker]

Notice the last two statements, which is given after ALL unanimiously accepted the revelations as inspired from God, NEXT they then vote on the two articles, which are CLEARLY NOT part of the preceding revelations.

Just the facts...

You tried to make this point the last time and last time I showed you where you were wrong, please notice the difference. The articles were NOT "sworn in" as revelation

Twhite, all you have done is show everyone that the article on marriage was voted upon as, so I'm told, all revelations must be before accepted. Again, please read the preface to the 1835 D&C's again. Third paragraph:

"The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones."

Now, a few "basic" questions should be asked: 1) Was this not the only principle on marriage that the church had? (hint: yes). 2) Was it not instituted for the regulation of the church? (hint: yes again) 3) Where did Smith, Cowdery, Rigdon and Willaims attest to that these "items or principles for the regulation of the church" came from? (hint: revelations)

What is so difficult about reading the facts? You may want to deny them, but they exist!

I'm critical of your assumtions, but you have showed NO facts.

Twhite, living in denial again. I have shown ONLY FACTS! Care to show me what is not factual?

My point is that the articles along with the lectures on faith were not revelations.

My pont is that your statement does not align with the facts.

I do admit that Joseph allowed them to stand "as-is" upon his return from Michigan,

I would tend to think that he would let it stand as he already indicated it came from revelation!

but the ONLY person to recieve revelation for the church is the prophet, not Oliver Cowdrey of which he was the author of the article on marriage.

How does "merely reading something" make one the author of it. If that is the case, I should be a billionaire on royalties by now!

You have provided nothing to demonstrate that Cowdery was the author. All you have demostrated is that he was proficient in reading!

See my comments above. While this was NOT revelation it was practice for the church as a whole. True a select few were practicing polygamy at the time Joseph included.

First off, I've already demonstrated that Smith said this was revelation. Second, and more importantly, if anyone was practicing polygamy it was not only against the law, but against the only regulation on marriage the church had which came from revelation.

Third, and of real reason here, did god give your church any other revelations that were meant for only a select few as a test drive? Come on Twhite, this argument makes no sense. This is what you've been told to pacify the conflicts of reason.

I will look into statements of Emma accepting and then rejecting polygamy. I have heard it before and I'm sure it wouldn't be stated if it didn't exist, but I'll look into it for myself

Ok. I'll wait to see what you find. You may want to explore the Church of Christ website as they have history on Emma's feelings about this as this is where she and Smith's sons continued.

Are you familiar with what John C. Bennet was doing? i.e. the "spiritual wifery system"

Now where would he get a crazy idea like that?

The point is your facts are NOT facts. I can't prove he didn't and you can't prove he did. I call that a stalemate.

The logic is something that you don't care to consider.

See above.

Irrelevant since you and I know it doesn't matter if it was a sealing for eternity or time and eternity. What is annotated is that its a marriage.

Please sick with the facts, does it state marriage or sealings. Emotions aside, how do you conclude that it was not a marriage?

The idea of a marriage / sealing in LDS theology goes beyond this life and is linked to family.

This is the concept you aren't grasping.

Many of the sealings were ONLY for eternity and were meant to join the two families (Joseph and others) together.

Twhite, lets think through this. What could Smith have possibly been providing these women that they could not have had through a normal marriage. If their own lds husbands could not provide them what the prophet could, when did this change in your church and why? What evidence or support do you have for any of this? I'd really like to explore this claim.

 

[skylark1]

Irrelevant since you and I know it doesn't matter if it was a sealing for eternity or time and eternity. What is annotated is that its a marriage.

The idea of a marriage / sealing in LDS theology goes beyond this life and is linked to family.

This is the concept you aren't grasping.

Many of the sealings were ONLY for eternity and were meant to join the two families (Joseph and others) together.

I was under the impression that marriages and sealings were two separate things. I am aware that LDS can marry outside of an LDS temple and after a year wait be sealed at the temple. I guess that I am confused because of statements that LDS have made in the past. Is a sealing considered a marriage, or not?

 

[Helaman]

Not only a pervert but a child molester too and hid it all behind lies that he himself made up and blinded others to believe and the same goes for B.Y.

What are you talking about? Sources please.

 

[Helaman]

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 1:15)
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:24)
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

God reinstated something that was an abomination to him?

The abomination was that said individuals took more wives that the Lord allowed. Joseph Smith took exactly as many wives as he was commanded.

 

[Tawhano]

Helaman said:
The abomination was that said individuals took more wives that the Lord allowed. Joseph Smith took exactly as many wives as he was commanded.

Rubbish. Is this from LDS leadership revelation or your own excuse?

 

[Helaman]

Rubbish. Is this from LDS leadership revelation or your own excuse?

It's from the Bible... read it.

 

[baker]

It's from the Bible... read it.

Another reference-less statement by Helammon. And the count continues!

 

[skylark1]

It's from the Bible... read it.

Helaman,

Could you please provide a reference from the Bible that shows that God commanded David and Solomon to take more than one wife? I have read the Bible, and I have not found such a reference. If it is there please enlighten us.

Thanks.

 

[Helaman]

Helaman,

Could you please provide a reference from the Bible that shows that God commanded David and Solomon to take more than one wife? I have read the Bible, and I have not found such a reference. If it is there please enlighten us.

Thanks.

"1_Kings 11:3-4: Solomon multiplied wives (up to 1,000!) which was prohibited and prophesied that a king would do in Deuteronomy 17:17. But that passage in 1_Kings 11:3-4 says his father David's heart was "perfect". Indeed, as the previous verse of Deuteronomy 17:16 also prohibits a king from multiplying horses, no one would read that to think that it suggests that a king was somehow not able to have/add more than one horse! As such, there is a clear difference between multiplying and merely adding. And this can be seen as the difference between Solomon and his father David. Where Solomon had multiplied (i.e., stored-up, hoarded), David had only added his 18+ wives. (In Genesis 25:1, "Then AGAIN Abraham took a wife... Keturah". The word,"AGAIN", there translates to add --or "augment"-- in the Hebrew. And, indeed, Abraham was adding his third wife Keturah to himself.) So, Solomon's sin was multiplying wives (which turned his heart away from God) while his father David had simply added wives. Hence, adding more than one wife is biblically acceptable (just as David did), whereas multiplying wives (just as Solomon did) is what was prohibited in Deuteronomy 17:14,17." (www.biblicalpolygamy.com)

 

[skylark1]

"1_Kings 11:3-4: Solomon multiplied wives (up to 1,000!) which was prohibited and prophesied that a king would do in Deuteronomy 17:17. But that passage in 1_Kings 11:3-4 says his father David's heart was "perfect". Indeed, as the previous verse of Deuteronomy 17:16 also prohibits a king from multiplying horses, no one would read that to think that it suggests that a king was somehow not able to have/add more than one horse! As such, there is a clear difference between multiplying and merely adding. And this can be seen as the difference between Solomon and his father David. Where Solomon had multiplied (i.e., stored-up, hoarded), David had only added his 18+ wives. (In Genesis 25:1, "Then AGAIN Abraham took a wife... Keturah". The word,"AGAIN", there translates to add --or "augment"-- in the Hebrew. And, indeed, Abraham was adding his third wife Keturah to himself.) So, Solomon's sin was multiplying wives (which turned his heart away from God) while his father David had simply added wives. Hence, adding more than one wife is biblically acceptable (just as David did), whereas multiplying wives (just as Solomon did) is what was prohibited in Deuteronomy 17:14,17." (www.biblicalpolygamy.com)

Helaman,

I appreciate the effort, but your post did not address my question. You claimed that God instructed David and Solomon to take more than one wife. Could you please provide a specific verse that sustantiates this?

Thanks.

 

[rnmomof7]

And then we have,

There is absolutely no way The World Tract and Bible Society (JW) could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray Charles T. Russell to be.

There is absolutely no way The World Wide Church of God could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray Herbert W. Armstrong to be.

There is absolutely no way The Christadelphians could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray John Thomas to be.

There is absolutely no way The Message Church could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray William Branham to be.

Etc., etc., etc.​

​

Absolutely correct.

 

[Helaman]

Helaman,

I appreciate the effort, but your post did not address my question. You claimed that God instructed David and Solomon to take more than one wife. Could you please provide a specific verse that sustantiates this?

Thanks.

That is not exactly what I said. I said that the abomination was that Solomon and David took more wives that the Lord allowed (see page last). It is the abomination at issue here, not the initial taking of wives. The above site clearly addresses the abomination issue, which is what is at issue.

 

[skylark1]

That is not exactly what I said. I said that the abomination was that Solomon and David took more wives that the Lord allowed (see page last). It is the abomination at issue here, not the initial taking of wives. The above site clearly addresses the abomination issue, which is what is at issue.

My mistake. You wrote:

Joseph Smith took exactly as many wives as he was commanded.


​

I thought that because you were replying to a comment about David and Solomon having many wives, that the implication was that if they had more than one wife, it was because God had commanded it.. Are you saying that God only allowed than to have more than one wife, rather than commanded for them to take more than one wife? It might be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me.

 

[Helaman]

My mistake. You wrote:

Joseph Smith took exactly as many wives as he was commanded.
​

I thought that because you were replying to a comment about David and Solomon having many wives, that the implication was that if they had more than one wife, it was because God had commanded it.. Are you saying that God only allowed than to have more than one wife, rather than commanded for them to take more than one wife? It might be irrevelant to you, but it isn't to me.

To be honest, I don't know.