Maverick

Thank you for the apology. It certainly is ironic that the two of you jumped to the conclusion that you did about me. That was very unexpected, considering our prior interactions about the character of Brigham Young and the truthfulness of his teachings, where it was very clear that I considered him to be a true prophet and man of God.

This was their official position for a very long time, established by their first church president, Joseph Smith III, when they were still known as the RLDS church. It is my understanding that their church historians have since admitted that Joseph Smith had more than one wife, which led to a schism in their church and the formation of "Josephite" breakoff groups, who still adhere to the original position.

Or perhaps their morning Pepsi or Mountain Dew.

It's certainly a conundrum for those who hate on Brigham Young and consider D&C 132 to be a forgery to justify his abominable practice. If they were consistent they would join the Community of Christ (RLDS), the Rigdonites, or some other group that agrees with their position. But they tend to remain members of our church or become affiliated with fringe groups like the Snufferites or Doctrine of Christ.

Can you please provide the source for this? As I mentioned in the another thread, I think you're referring to the Temple Lot Case, which was after Brigham Young's death, which had nothing to do with a divorce. In the case of the Temple Lot, the testimonies of 3 of Joseph Smith's plural wives given by deposition is evidence that he consummated some of his marriages, but it's not the only source of this evidence. Other testimony by witnesses also show this. There's also considerable evidence that Emma was very upset with Joseph Smith over his marriages to other women. It seems unlikely that she would be this upset if these marriages were nothing more than a ceremonial sealings.

According to the thought process of those who reject that polygamy was commanded by God through Joseph Smith, the church didn't abandon this abomination until after the manifesto in 1890, when the practice began to stop. But I've also seen people in this camp accusing President Nelson and President Oaks of being polygamists because they are sealed to two wives (the first wives being deceased). Agreed. And what drives me crazy is the inconsistency of people who do this. They'll downplay or outright ignore similar teachings and actions of Joseph Smith that they don't like, praising him as a true prophet, while criticizing Brigham Young and speaking evil of him until kingdom come.

If I remember correctly the first 7 presidents of the church had plural wives, so by this logic, the Church leadership only realigned itself with God after 1945. Hating on Brigham Young is an easy out. I know people who essentially disregard his status as prophet, because "too many wives, too racist" Thank you @zil2! This is correct, I was referring to the thought process of those who deny that Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy, not stating my own views. I have the polar opposite take on Brigham Young. I consider him to be a true prophet and man of God, who is appropriately referred to as the "Lion of the Lord." I should have been more clear in my post, but I am a bit surprised, that considering my defense of the priesthood ban and the false charge of racism against Brother Brigham, that @Vort and @NeuroTypical jumped to the conclusion that they did.

No, there's really no substance to these theories. This is the basic thought process of people who espouse these theories: 1) I don't like polygamy. It makes me really uncomfortable and I don't want to believe God commanded it. 2) Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith made multiple public denials that they were teaching and practicing polygamy and Emma denied that Joseph ever had any other wives to her children. 3) No known offspring have been found from Joseph Smith by any other woman than Emma. 4) If only accept Joseph and Hyrum's own publicly recorded contemporaneous statements and Emma's later denials as evidence and ignore the mountain of very solid evidence that Joseph Smith taught and practice polygamy, including receiving and teaching D&C 132, then I don't have to believe that polygamy was commanded by God or that Joseph Smith would "lie" or say or do anything that makes me uncomfortable. But now I also believe that Brigham Young was a really bad dude and the church went off the rails after Joseph Smith's death, so I don't really believe that the church is the Lord's church anymore...* Edited for clarity: *I do not espouse these beliefs or agree with this thought process. I'm pointing out the thought process of those who reject D&C 132 and speak evil of Brigham Young over polygamy and other grievances.

Great article, thank you for sharing!

You can count me as one of the Saints who outright rejects organic evolution from a single celled organism billions of years ago as the origin of human life upon this earth. It's not that I'm threatened by this idea, it's that it directly contradicts the scriptures and teachings of the prophets.

Yes, this is correct. And even today all people who marry are marrying their brothers and sisters. As Brigham Young taught in the October 1854 General Conference:

I'm not making a strawman logically fallacy. From the very beginning you have being saying that what was taught as doctrine by the highest authorities of the church regarding the priesthood ban and the reasons for it was the result of faulty scholarship. And when I asked you specifically about whether the covenant path includes believing the teachings of the prophets, you said that it didn't include "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology." Obviously you've dismissed my explanations, which echo what they taught, as "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" as well. And as I have said several times now, you can keep saying this over and over again like a worn out record, but your words ring completely hollow, when you refuse to back them up with any kind of evidence or reasoning. You haven't even made any attempt to address the direct evidence you kept demanding, which has now been provided. Until you back up your claims, they don't mean anything.

Your projecting again. And this again rings completely hollow unless you back it up with evidence and reasoning.

We both know that the long established doctrine of the church is that the president of the church is a true prophet, who speaks for God, as are the apostles. And it's the long established position of the church that when they teach doctrine, especially in an official capacity and for many years, that what is taught is true and from God. Again, you are welcome to write off the official doctrine of the church as taught by the highest authorities of the church for 130+ years as the word and will of God, as nothing more than "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" if you want to. But this is all on you and your words are completely hollow as long as you refuse to back them up with any kind of evidence and reasoning. And we both know that if this was taught as official doctrine today, the expectation would be that the membership believe and follow this as the word of God, just as it was during the 130+ years that it was taught as official doctrine.

I'm very well versed in the history of plural marriage in the church and I've never heard of this. I think you may be conflating this with the Temple Lot Case, which had nothing to do with a divorce, but was rather a dispute between the RLDS and Hedrickites about who was the rightful owner of the Temple Lot in Missouri. I disagree. If we're talking about the Temple Lot case, the women in question swore under oath that what they said was true and there's substantial other evidence showing that they were Joseph Smith's wives. It's also not the only evidence that Joseph Smith hard marital relations with at least some of his wives. Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of this. My understanding is that there testimonies are credible and that they were all members of the church who lived in Nauvoo at the time and personally knew Joseph Smith. I believe at least two of them were known to have been living in the prophets home at the time and their testimonies are corroborated by other sources. As they should in my opinion. It's still eye witness testimony and considered primary source evidence, even if it is from years later. Later testimony is not as reliable as contemporaneously recorded evidence, but it's nevertheless solid evidence from a credible source. His testimony is also corroborated with other evidence, which strengthens its reliability.