Nothing

Just FYI, I haven't shared that blog with anyone. I wrote it all in a Word document because I have been thinking of sharing my concerns with my wife, and then I put it in a blog just so it would be available online. I was just toying with different ways to let her read it.

Lehi, you also said "and let him make good on his promise to carry me as his back load (I think those were the words), than to try to enter the Kingdom on my own.." It really sounds like you want Joseph Smith to carry you on his back into the Kingdom. I'm sorry if I misunderstand you. There are many people who don't believe in D&C 132 and are perfectly active in the Church. That's how it works. Well, I'll get out of here. It seems to me that most people here are more interested in being right that in trying to help a brother out. I started writing that blog last Thursday, about a week after I first posted here. My mind was open but I just got criticized.

Lehi, I'd rather rely on Jesus Christ.

I haven't changed my thoughts because no one has presented any evidence that would change my mind. I was interested in the idea that "virgin" can refer to virtuous women but nothing was posted to support that. Did you find anything incorrect in my blog? Are there any questions that are unfair? I came here to only point out that disbelieving in section 132 does not necessarily constitute "wholesale apostasy" and then I was pushed to talk more.

Actually this discussion has helped convince me that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. Until, now I have been asking questions and trying to work things out. Thanks for the help. I wrote it on my own.

I read your explanation and responded to it. Jacob 2 does not say "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord, but I allowed it so it was actually okay." That's an odd interpretation.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe D&C 132 is from God. It specifies the conditions to be met in order to have plural wives and not commit adultery. It's very clear that a plural wife must be a virgin "and have vowed to no other man," meaning she's not married to another man. In answer to that, I have heard only conjecture that "virgin" can mean "virtuous woman." So if Joseph didn't meet those conditions, was he committing adultery?

So let's say God did allow "them of old" to practice polygamy. Let's say that's referring to Abraham and Jacob and maybe some others. That does not change the fact that the scripture says "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." Again, no conditions were placed on that statement. It doesn’t say anything like “It was okay for David to have many wives and concubines except Bathsheba.” Then D&C 132:39 says "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife..." This doesn't change the fact that God specifically said that David's and Solomon's (not Abraham or anyone else's) practice of having many wives and concubines was abominable. D&C 132:39 says God actually gave David's wives and concubines to him and it was not a sin (not abominable). God says the only was sin was "the case of Uriah and his wife." I still don't see how they are compatible.

Maybe you are thinking of the Partiridge sisters or the Lawrence sisters.

There's no need to apologize. I do see the difference between venerate and worship. I am not saying people worship Joseph Smith as a God, but I think some people come close to worshipping Joseph Smith as a demigod. I am concerned that hyperbole has effectively become official Church doctrine and it causes some people to hold Joseph to an excessively high standard.

Haven’t we been taught through official channels to see Joseph Smith as a hero and place him on a very high pedestal? John Taylor “the Book of Mormon, and this book of Doctrine and Covenants of the church, cost the best blood of the nineteenth century to bring them forth for the salvation of a ruined world…” (D&C 135:6). The hymn says “Death cannot conquer the hero again.” Following are some quotes about Joseph Smith by presidents of the Church found in Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals: We are taught that no one can have a testimony of Christ without having a testimony of Joseph Smith. We are taught that his character was unimpeachable, he was the most exalted of people, his moral character was without fault, he never wronged anyone, he was God-like, and some people considered him to be a superior being. What concerns me the most is how he was likened to the Savior. When speaking of “a lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” only Jesus Christ should be mentioned.

I guess you and I understand verse 26 differently. It sounds like it’s saying one could commit any sin except murder and then be exalted even if they don’t repent during mortality. If they did repent, they wouldn’t be “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption,” right? So it seems that it’s talking about people reveling in sin, not repenting, and not enduring to the end. I am considering scripture from the Book of Mormon, which is translated correctly. If Jacob 2 does not agree with stuff from the Old Testament, doesn’t the Book of Mormon trump it? It’s very simple: Jacob 2 and D&C 132 do not agree, regardless of what the Old Testament says. Sorry, but this just isn’t accurate. Fanny Alger was Joseph’s first plural wife and Emma was completely surprised by it. “For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3). I think God did go along with the language understood in the 19th century, and they understood “virgin” the same way we do. Do you have any support for the idea that it means “virtuous women, not given to licentiousness or low moral repute”?

I think some people come close to worshipping Joseph Smith as a demigod, but not as God. I see what you mean here. People say nice things about a guy and ignore negative things when he dies. But should a eulogy become doctrine? I think it's kind of weird to sing a hymn of praise about Joseph. Here are some other hymns of praise that we sing: -Praise to the Lord, the Almighty -Praise the Lord with Heart and Voice -Praise Ye the Lord -Praise God, from Whom All Blessings Flow I wonder if singing a hymn of praise makes the word "praise" mean more than to "express warm approval or admiration of." This is a good point. Having excessively high expectations for someone can lead to painful disillusionment. So why do some people place Joseph on a pedestal?

Did someone specifically address the three concerns I brought up? I'm sorry if I missed it.

I guess there are no good answers to my three concerns.

Third, consider this verse: Joseph and other after him definitely did not follow these rules. Emma was not even given the opportunity to consent to Joseph’s marriage to Fanny Alger. Richard L. Bushman wrote that Chauncey Webb “reportedly took Alger in when Emma learned of the marriage” (emphasis added, Rough Stone Rolling, chapter 18). The faithful LDS apologist Brian C. Hales, who is cited repeatedly in the “Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah” article (https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng), wrote: Verse 61 specifies that a man can take only virgins as plural wives in order for it to not be adulterous. It is well documented that many plural wives were not virgins. I see three possible explanations: 1. The word “virgin” doesn’t really mean virgin. This is almost certainly not possible considering the understood definition of the word now and in the 19th century. 2. There was another revelation or another justification for taking non-virgins as plural wives. I don’t know of any support for this, though. 3. Joseph and others did not follow the rules prescribed by God and were committing adultery. 4. Section 132 is not inspired by God and Joseph and others were committing adultery. I have to wonder: Did God not want the men to take care of widows? I fail to hear God's voice in D&C 132. Can anyone help me understand it?

I have decided to address this: I have several concerns about D&C 132. I’ll mention just three of them. First, consider this verse: If I understand that correctly, this means that if a man and woman get married “and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise,” then they can commit any sin except murder and still be exalted. They can cheat, lie, kidnap, enslave, torture, and rape all they want. They would have to do some time with Satan, but would be exalted after doing all of those things. I don’t see how that is compatible with the Plan of Salvation I have been taught. What about enduring to the end? Second, the Lord stated: That simply means that David having “many wives and concubines” was abominable to the Lord. Now consider this: No conditions are placed on the first statement. It doesn’t say anything like “It was okay for David to have many wives and concubines except Bathsheba”. I don’t see how those two verses could not be contradictory, despite how apologists try to twist it. TO BE CONTINUED

The 1890 Manifesto states However, plural marriages continued to be solemnized. According to the The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage essay, it was okay because: That’s actually kind of funny. Anyway, It wasn’t just a few rogues. To see the details, you have to look at footnote 36, which says:

Chapter 1 of the Brigham Young manual quotes the Deseret News a lot because that is the chapter about his ministry. From chapter 2 onward, it quotes much more from "Discourses of Brigham Young" (DBY), which is just a compilation of sermons found in the Journal of Discourses.

I get it now. Thanks for the clarification. I understand why pasting from an anti site is against the rules and I respect that. I’m not fighting for it. I just wanted to understand.

I want to clarify why I have talked about the Journal of Discourses (JOD) here. Take a look at Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young. Many, if not most, of the quotes are taken from Discourses of Brigham Young selected by John A. Widtsoe, 1941 (which is abbreviated as DBY). The preface of this book states: So the JOD, which "so faithfully and fully preserved" Brigham Young’s sermons, really is the primary source for a great amount of information in the Brigham Young manual. Despite this, when someone brings up a concern with something Brother Brigham said, some people quickly discount that concern by saying the JOD “is not an official publication of The Church” and “Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions.” I wonder if would it be better to discuss the concern rather than simply discounting the source, a source which is good enough for Church manuals.

This was discussed on this forum here: http://lds.net/forums/topic/56520-women-sealed-to-more-than-one-husband/ On that thread, there is a link to this: http://askgramps.org/can-a-woman-be-sealed-multiple-times/. It says: No, it's not an official source, but I believe such sealings are performed.

estradling75, others can totally have an opinion and I can give me own. I didn't say NeedleinA can't have an opinion, I just pointed out that I don't like it. That's okay, right? It's too bad, though, that this forum is okay with sarcastic and unkind remarks toward others. Eowyn, I didn't say I believe everything BY ever said to a group of people is scripture. I only posted a quote by BY himself.

Duplicate.

I know the Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of the Church. However, it still contains sermons given by prophets in General Conference and other meetings. It was originally approved by the First Presidency and paid for by the Church. It is quoted in many Church lesson manuals and other official publications. It was an official publication of the Church containing sermons of General Authorities given at General Conference and other official meetings, yet when people read something that makes them uncomfortable, they say “The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and “Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented.” It's just interesting.