The Bible talks about church discipline. With a double emphasis on holding firmly to the truth and living a moral life, the New Testament says the church (the body of true believers) is to call sinners to repentance. If someone is accepted as part of the visible church but refuses to repent of sin, whether it is of a moral nature or a heretical nature, the church is to turn them out of the fellowship.
For example, 1 Corinthians 5 tells of a man in the church who is proudly unrepentant of his blatant immorality. Paul instructs, “Let him who has done this be removed from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:2). Following this pronouncement Paul includes, “Purge the evil person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:13).
When Paul wrote to Titus, he warned about a person who “stirs up division” within the church with unsound doctrine. Paul says, “…after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11).
Jesus spoke about what to do with unrepentant people in the church also. After approaching the person twice with a call to repentance, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector,” Jesus said (Matthew 18:15-20).
In 2 Corinthians Paul warns the church about people who teach heresy for truth. He calls them “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). Paul told the Corinthians, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?…’Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord'” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
Why do I bring this up? A friend of mine once said, “Mormons want to be embraced as part of the Christian church, but they wouldn’t be happy with the reality. For if they were part of the visible church, they would be subject to discipline for believing the heretical doctrines the LDS Church teaches.”
What would the result of such church discipline look like on a corporate scale? It would look exactly like what we see today. In obedience to the mandates of Scripture, the greater Christian church would denounce Mormonism and remove it from among us. The Christian church would purge itself of LDS heresy. It would have nothing more to do with Mormonism. We would be obligated to obey the command to be separate from the LDS Church, for what fellowship has light with darkness?
If Joseph Smith and his followers were ever embraced as part of Christianity, if Joseph ever taught his followers the true nature of God as God has revealed Himself in the Bible, when Joseph began to teach that God the Father became a God by obedience to laws and ordinances, that there are multiple true Gods, and that human beings can become the same sort of God as God the Father has become if we but follow the same path of obedience, everything would have changed.
At that point Christians would have been obligated to call Joseph Smith to repentance for his false teachings. Historical evidence suggests that this very thing transpired. But Joseph refused to repent. Therefore, by necessity, compelled by the Word of God, Mormonism would have been (and has been) cut off from the tree of Christian fellowship.
Today Christians continue to call believers in Mormonism to repentance for the sin of idolatry. We plead, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD God of Israel” (Joshua 24:23). Put them away, friends, and enter into the joy of the Lord.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Whether the revelation as it appears in the D&C [w]as first given July 12, 1843, or earlier, I care not. It is a fact, nevertheless, that this principle was revealed at an earlier date.”
You see, Smith was eyeing the Indian lands in Missouri & wanted a claim by intermarriage with them & invented ‘revelations’ to do so. It is not hard to see Smith next eyeing the wives of his fellow Church members & then re- introducing the doctrine as we see here:
Zina Huntington was living in the Joseph Smith home when Elder Henry B. Jacobs married her in March 1841. According to family records, when Zina and Henry asked Joseph Smith why he had not honored them by performing their marriage, Smith replied that “the Lord had made it known to him that [Zina] was to be his Celestial wife.” Believing that “whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man,” the devout Elder Jacobs consented for six-months-pregnant Zina to be sealed to Joseph Smith 27 October 1841. (“History of Henry Bailey Jacobs.” By Ora J. Cannon, page 5-7. also, “Recollections of Zina D. Young” by Mary Brown Firmage)
Zina and Henry lived together as husband and wife until the Mormon pioneers reached Mt. Pisgah, Iowa. At this temporary stop on the pioneer trail, Brigham Young announced that “it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. Brother Jacobs, the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, & get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit” Young then called Jacobs on a mission to England. He was so emotionally ill they had to “put him on a blanket & carry him to the boat to get him on his way”. (“Short Sketch of the Life of Henry B. Jacobs” By Ora J. Cannon)
Henry returned from his mission and settled in California. But he was still in love with his wife Zina, now a plural wife of Brigham Young. Henry’s letters to his wife Zina were heartrending. On 2 September 1852 he wrote: “O how happy I should be if I only could see you and the little children, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” “I am unhappy,” Henry lamented, “there is no peace for poor me, my pleasure is you, my comfort has vanished…. O Zina, can I ever, will I ever get you again, answer the question please.” In an undated Valentine he added:
Zina my mind never will change from Worlds without Ends, no never, the same affection is there and never can be moved I do not murmur nor complain of the handlings of God no verily, no but I feel alone and no one to speak to, to call my own. I feel like a lamb without a mother, I do not blame any person or persons, no–May the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham and all purtains unto him forever. Tell him for me I have no feelings against him nor never had, all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our god Joseph [Smith].” (source above)
As noted above, It takes a Church Vote to sustain a revelation and make it binding in the Church. This was NEVER done with the revelation on Celestial Marriage & Polygamy in Smith’s lifetime. At various times, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and William Law were Joseph Smith’s counselors in the First Presidency; and William Marks was the Nauvoo Stake and High Council President, which at that time, was the governing body of the church, rather than the Q12. Since all of those men were strongly against polygamy, Smith’s secret polygamy practice ran counter to the laws and orders of the church which he himself established. When Smith tried to have his “revelation on celestial marriage” sustained by the High Council on August 12, 1843, his attempt was defeated as explained by Todd Compton:
To Be Continued…
Ralph,
I understand that it’s hard to get past the notion that creation and sexual intercourse go hand in hand. Since I understand the theological challenges to which the LDS Church has subjected its members, I can feel for you and your desire to express yourself in a way that will champion your faith. The conclusions you draw are a total misrepresentation of what Christianity teaches regarding the virgin birth. I believe it was a virgin birth, but apparently you think sexual intercourse had to happen somewhere. Tell me if I am wrong in this assumption.
sub,
Your desperation is clearly evident. Praying for you, man.
Peace
Jackg,
Go back to the discussion about the Virgin Birth – I never advocated for the position of a physical union. However I still believe that Heavenly Father is the literal physical father of Jesus. How this occurred I do not know, I could be wrong but I do not believe that it was through sex – but this has nothing to do with my salvation so it does not concern me that much. If we look at the question and Peter’s answer again, Peter professed Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of The Living God. He did not say the Son of the Holy Ghost, nor the Son FROM the Triune God. He said the Son OF the Living God.
RickB,
I agree that we believe in the same historical figure, but our beliefs differ when it comes to His deity, etc. But that does not mean that we cannot be labelled Christian.
I am a human, just like you, just like everyone on this blog. However, I am caucasian – some on this blog aren’t. I am male, some on this blog aren’t. I am Australian, most on this blog aren’t. See I am human the same as everyone, but there are major differences in our looks, backgrounds, etc that make us individual.
The Christian community has many denominations that have differnces making them all individuals. In fact within these denominations are also divisions. For instance the Lutheran church in Finland allow fornication and so does the Pentacostal church here in Newcastle. The Anglican church in England a few hundred years ago also allowed it. Where as the Bible speaks out against fornication, and so does the Lutheran church in Australia, and the Pentacostal church in America and the current Anglican church. These are differences you are willing to set aside under the name Christian.
We LDS believe in Jesus as The Christ and the Son of God, thus according to Jackg we are Christian like you, but we have different beliefs. We are a denomination, thus you cannot say that you represent the LDS church, just like you and I cannot say we represent the Pentacostals or Lutherans, etc
Ralph,
Your correct on the denotations but the problem is, if you deny the Bible or teach things that go against Gods word then your not a christian.
You need to read the Bible better, the Bible says things like, Wolves will arise from with in and destroy, deceivers will come, false prophets and false Gospels. If these things are true, then you cannot say we have different belief’s yet follow the same God.
The Bible tells us to search the scripture to know if these things are true. Jesus tells us that not everyone who says LORD, LORD will enter heaven but be told by Jesus Himself, I NEVER KNEW YOU.
The question people need to ask themselves is not Do I know Jesus, but does Jesus Know me. Rick b
“In early 1843 Austin [Cowles]….played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young, guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles, and Parley P. Pratt. These men—the Nauvoo Stake President, his first counselor, and an eloquent apostle—would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism.
Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent. Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12.
Three of the leading brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin Cowles,& Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also remarkable that Marks, Cowles, and Soby would openly reject it. This was a watershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history.
“Undoubedtly Austin soon saw that he could not function as a church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith’s revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the high council minutes, ‘President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Councillor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council.’ Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin ‘was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo.’ After resigning his presidency, he ‘was looked upon as a seceder, and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place.’
…..Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed president and selected Austin Cowles as his first counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was ‘cut off’ from the main LDS church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the ‘Nauvoo Expositor,’ the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the ‘Expositor’ press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that led to his martyrdom.” (“In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph
Smith”, pp. 549-550.)
Bigamy, & Polygamy were illegal in Ohio, Illinois, & Missouri. Smith broke the laws of the land & defied his own Church Councils to not START, but CONTINUE to practice polygamy, which he did in secret with a select few that he bullied & manipulated into it.
Here is a flat out lie, PUBLISHED in England and WRITTEN by John Taylor:
“We are accused here of polygamy,… and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;… I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. ‘Doctrine and Covenants,’ page 330… Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death,…“‘ (tract published by John Taylor in England, in 1850, page 8; published in “Orson Pratt’s Works,” 1851 edition).
Notice Taylor’s linking of fornication with polygamy? Then he has the audacity to quote from the 1835 D&C Article of Marriage about having only ONE wife. Two YEARS later the Church would ‘officially’ vote to sustain D&C 132 & polygamy. And how did the Church Leadership feel about these ‘wives’? Above you read that Young referred to them as ‘property’. Here are some gems from Heber C. Kimball, counselor to Young & other Prophets & who gave his 14 year old daughter to Smith:
“I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.” (- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, quoted in The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.)
Speaking to a group of departing missionaries…
“Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.” –( Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp.129-30).
and again…
“I say to those who are elected to go on missions, remember they[the women] are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You under stand that. Amen” (- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.256.)
It gets better & goes back to Smith as it always does, for he is the PATTERN that these later leaders followed & worshipped. Benjamin Johnson tells the story of how this all sprang from Smith & the tactics Smith used to ‘persuade’ his fellow conspirators:
“About the first of April, 1843… we sat down upon a log he began to tell me that the Lord had revealed to him that plural or patriarchal marriage was according to His law;
and that the Lord had not only revealed it to him but had commanded him to obey it; that he was required to take other wives; and that he wanted my Sister Almira for one of them, and wished me to see and talk to her upon the subject.”
Smith then tells Johnson he will preach a sermon that night to make it ‘clear’ about the doctrine of polygamy & that only Johnson would ‘understand’:
“At the meeting he read the parable of the Talents, and showed plainly that to him that hath shall be given more, and from him that had but one should be taken that he seemed to have, and given to him who had ten.”
This was the justification for taking other mens’s wives, and Smith would do this again and again, going to men he could manipulate, telling them he wanted their wives, and then after they agreed telling them it was a test. In some cases he was entirely serious (as quoted above) for he did send men on missions & marry their wives in secret, & he did tell some that if they would help him gain one woman or another, their whole families would ‘be saved’, & he did break the laws of the land and his own church to do so & he did this with underage women on more than one occasion.
Hyrum Smith then told Johnson:
“Now, Brother Benjamin, you know that Brother Joseph would not sanction this if it was not from the Lord. The Lord revealed this to Brother Joseph long ago, and he put it off until the Angel of the Lord came to him with a drawn sword and told him that he would be slain if he did not go forth and fulfill the law.”
Johnson continues:
He told my sister to have no fears, and he there and then sealed my sister, Almira, to the Prophet.
Soon after this he was at my house again, where he occupied my Sister Almira’s ROOM AND BED, and also asked me for my youngest sister, Esther M.”
She was engaged to another man, so Smith backed off. But then Johnson suggests Smith take his serving girl as a wife instead & Smith replies:
“No, but she is for you. You keep her and take her for your wife and you will be blessed.”
Johnson was elated:
“This seemed like hurrying up my blessings pretty fast, but the spirit of it came upon me, [I BET] and from that hour I thought of her as a wife that the Lord had given me.” (Johnson Diary) Notice that Smith equals Lord.
No Church vote here, nothing but the Smith brother’s assurance that it was a ‘revelation’ from God. Smith would hold out the stick and the apple repeatedly to these men to get his hands on their wives & their sisters. Here is Sarah Whitney’s account of what happened to her:
“[My father] asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph … [Smith] said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. … [After the marriage] I felt quite sore over it … and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.”
Why would she feel ‘like an abused child’ if she were only ‘sealed’ to Smith? The answer is obvious. Smith’s 1843 “revelation on celestial marriage” which is still Mormon scripture as D&C 132, states that the purposes of “plural marriage” was to “multiply and replenish the earth” (D&C 132:63).
To be Continued…
Evangelicals ask the following: ” What did Joseph Smith teach regarding the necessity of practicing polygamy to reach the highest level of glory in the Celestial kingdom? ”
My understanding is that one must at least believe in their hearts that the principle of plural marriage is God Given and Gods law when required. Would love to see where it has to be practiced to achieve the Highest Degree in the Celestial Kingdom. Source and quotes would be most appreciated.
J.
Ralph,
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You’re demonstrating double-talk, which was previously addressed. I know exactly what’s in your head because it was once in my head: in some way you can’t really articulate because even the thought of it is innately heretical, you believe there was a physical, sexual relationship between God and Mary. You try to get in the back door by couching it in terms such as ” However I still believe that Heavenly Father is the literal physical father of Jesus. ” “Literal” in the Mormon sense IMPLIES a sexual relationship. We are not naive to the language used by Mormons. Ralph, I have been taught the same garbage you have been taught. You can’t trick me with Mormon-ese. I speak it fluently!
The rest of what you say is a convoluted attempt to remove yourself from the fact that you do not believe in the biblical Jesus; otherwise, you would have to reject the the lies of JS that Jesus is the brother of Satan, or that He had a beginning somewhere in time despite the fact that God is not governed by time (nor any other laws for that matter).
Praying for you, Ralph.
Blessings…
Smith would make ‘proposals’ to many of the wives of his followers that were rejected by them. This account by Sarah Pratt is indicative of how Smith handled their rejection:
“Sometime in late 1840 or early 1841, Joseph Smith confided to his friend that he was smitten by the “amiable and accomplished” Sarah Pratt and wanted her for “one of his spiritual wives, for the Lord had given her to him as a special favor for his faithfulness” (emphasis in original). Shortly afterward, the two men took some of Bennett’s sewing to Sarah’s house. During the visit, as Bennett describes it, Joseph said, “Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as God granted holy men of old, and as I have long looked upon you with favor, and an earnest desire of connubial bliss, I hope you will not repulse or deny me.” “And is that the great secret that I am not to utter,” Sarah replied. “Am I called upon to break the marriage covenant, and prove recreant to my lawful husband! I never will.” She added, “I care not for the blessings of Jacob. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me.” But according to Bennett, the Prophet was persistent. Finally Sarah angrily told him on a subsequent visit, “Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will make a full disclosure to Mr. Pratt on his return home. Depend upon it, I will certainly do it.” “Sister Pratt,” the Prophet responded, “I hope you will not expose me, for if I suffer, all must suffer; so do not expose me. Will you promise me that you will not do it?” “If you will never insult me again,” Sarah replied, “I will not expose you unless strong circumstances should require it.” “If you should tell,” the Prophet added, “I will ruin your reputation, remember that.” (Article “Sarah M. Pratt” by Richard A. Van Wagoner, Dialogue, Vol.19, No.2, p.72.
Sarah Pratt became a vocal opponent of polygamy & was excommunicated for it. She would make this comment about her husband, Orson Pratt:
“Here was my husband, gray headed, taking to his bed young girls in mockery of marriage. Of course there could be no joy for him in such an intercourse except for the indulgence of his fanaticism and of something else, perhaps, which I hesitate to mention.”
That these liaisons Smith had with the women were sexual in nature she also verified to Smith’s son, Joseph III:
“I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: ‘You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don’t you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?’ He answered: ‘If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?’ I said to him: ‘Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.” (Wymetal, Wilhelm Ritter von (1886) & above)
Smith repeated this scenario with Nancy Rigdon, & Jane Law, who reacted with as much indignation as Sarah Pratt did. Smith carried out his threat to Sarah Pratt & Nancy Rigdon, & the Laws & others left the Church over Smith’s behavior. Smith & his brother then started an all-out smear campaign against all that opposed them. They got Church members to swear out affidavits against Mrs. Pratt who, when they were confronted by her had this to say:
“It is not my fault; Hyrum Smith came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. Joseph and the Church must be saved, said he. We saw that resistance was useless, they would have ruined us; so we signed the papers.” (Van Wagoner, 1986)
As one former member Tal Bachman so aptly put it:
Here is the ‘Lord’s Prophet’, a foster father who secretly had sex with his teenage foster daughter – and Smith did that TWICE (with both the Lawrence and Partridge sisters). He secretly had sex with his housemaids & did it while publicly DENOUNCING polygamy in his church charter. He secretly propositioned other men’s wives, even telling them that unless he could “marry” (have intercourse with) them, that an angel would murder him. He slandered women who rejected his sexual advances, as he did with Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt. This 38 year old man secretly had sex with fourteen year olds, and in so doing, consigned them (& the husbands of other wives) to lives of loneliness, devoid of love. The truth is Smith was a loathsome character, not a ‘prophet of God’ let alone the ‘restorer’ of the True Christian Church. (paraphrased, see source below)
“Everywhere Joseph Smith went, in the service of his cult of self-aggrandizement, he gave the finger to American law, American religion, American tradition, American mores, American culture, everything that those “in his own time” regarded as sacred and necessary. And as a consequence, everywhere he went, almost EVERYONE got totally sick of him and his band of deluded, obedient followers. The illegal banking, the vigilantes, the false prophecies, the mockery of a religion most Americans thought true (Christianity), the bloc voting, the occultism, the furtive sexcapades, the shameless public lying, the destruction of other’s private property, the delusions of grandeur (“God is my right hand man”, “I have no law”, etc.), announcing other’s people property belonged to “the Saints” by divine right, etc., etc…”(direct qoute:
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_talbachman_section5.html)
This is the man revered as ‘the Prophet of the Restoration’ by the Mormon Church. By no stretch of the imagination is polygamy a ‘Christian’ doctrine, and any church that would allow it, and STILL believe in it cannot be classified as ‘Christian’. Why was this ‘hard’ doctrine introduced by Smith? Why did Smith re-invent God? To justify the ‘patriarchal order’ & give himself free license to other men’s wives & everything else they had. This is the LIE of ‘progressive revelation’ & Smith & those that followed him still exercise the right as prophets to DICTATE Church policy & revelation. If the founding fathers of Mormonism did not obey their OWN rules, how then can they be hailed as prophets & restorers of Christ’s Church? Here is what Young said about those who deny the practice of polygamy:
“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further, and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.” (Deseret News, November 14, 1855)
Now let’s read the text of Section 132 and examine it:
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 – Behold and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter…”
It is obvious the revelation is about POLYGAMY. It is the context of why Smith ‘went to the Lord’ with the question and it is the ‘Lords’ answer to Smith why he was COMMANDED practice it:
“Therefore prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same [POLYGAMY]
.
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then ye are damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory . . . “
This is what Young was referring to above, and since the Manifesto in 1890 ALL Mormons are damned for not following it. Later in the revelation it says this concerning David:
“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…”
The whole revelation is about POLYGAMY, & the Celestial Marriage part of it is to show the ‘sealing power’ of the priesthood & how it justifies the ‘patriarchal order’ which is polygamy. How can Smith justify this revelation in direct contradiction to the BOM:
“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” (Jacob 2:24). It then goes on to say, but if I want to raise seed up to myself it is justified… but here the BOM is saying that specifically David & Solomon were NOT justified under these grounds & in D&C 132 it says they were.
LURKERS
There is so much information that is there in your OWN history. Read it with an open mind. They tell you there are rules to be followed, but Smith never followed his own rules. He thought himself a god, and acted like he was one. Will you stand with Smith, or will you stand with Jesus? How can anyone believe in a man who took these liberties with his closest friends? How can you believe the lies? How can you have an apostle (John Taylor) writing that the Church was NOT practicing polygamy when he was doing so himself? Ask yourself: Why did these men lie? Who is the father of all lies?
Last, but not least JANET, is the quote from the Lion of the Lord Himself, Brigham Young:
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” (Journal of Discourses (JOD) 11:269).
Here is the conundrum of polygamy come full circle. Eternal Principle Commanded by God, & rescinded by men, but only those that practice it can become gods (so that lets out all the rest of you Mormons). The principle Smith died for, thrown out by men forced to do so by the American Government. That Section 132 is all about polygamy is evidenced by the division this one revelation caused within Smith’s church. I am sure that if Smith had ‘explained it away’ as Celestial Marriage, [as Mormons do now] his counselors would have accepted it gladly. But the revelation was twofold, the sealing power & celestial marriage & the requirement of polygamy & these men knew Smith had his eye on their wives. They rejected polygamy & Smith. Who was ‘destroyed’?? Not Emma. She lived to be an old woman & Smith died with guns blazing little more than a year later. This is Mormon ‘progressive revelation’ & it is false, unscriptural & not Christian.
For further clarity:
“The doctrine which Orson Pratt discoursed upon this morning was the subject of a revelation anterior to the death of Joseph Smith. It is in opposition to what is received by a small minority of the world; but our people have for many years believed it, though it may not have been practiced by the elders. The original of this revelation has been burnt. William Clayton wrote it down from the Prophet’s mouth; it found its way into the hands of Bishop Whitney, who obtained Joseph Smith’s permission to copy it. Sister Emma burnt the original. I mention this to you because such of you as are aware of the revelation, suppose that it no longer exists. I prophesy to you that the principle of polygamy will make its way, and will triumph over the prejudices and all the priestcraft of the day; it will be embraced by the most intelligent parts of the world as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any people.
You have no reason whatever to be uneasy; there is no occasion for your fearing that a vile mob will come hither to trample underfoot the sacred liberty which, by the Constitution of our country, is guaranteed to us. It has been a long time publicly known, and in fact was known during his life, that Joseph had more than one wife. A Senator, a member of Congress, was well aware of it, and was not the less our friend for all that; so much so, as to say that were this principle not adopted by the United States, we would live to see human life reduced to a maximum of thirty years…
We could not have proclaimed this principle a few years ago; everything must abide its time, but I am now ready to proclaim it. This revelation has been in my possession for many years, and who knew it? No one, except those whose business it was to know it…
Without the doctrine which this revelation makes known to us, [polygamy] no one could raise himself high enough to become a god.”(B.Young, August 28th, 1852)
So you’re a mind reader no Jackg? I have not and do not believe that Heavenly Father and Mary had sex. I have never entertained that thought. Not because it is reprehensible to me, but because I just don’t believe in it. I do understand that some LDS do, but that is their choice. It has nothing to do with my salvation. The fact that Jesus is the literal Son of God does not automatically mean nor does it imply sex was involved. I am a biologist and I know there are a couple of different ways available for reproduction in humans to occur – mainly sex, artificial insemination or IVF are involved. God most likely knows of more as there are a number of different reproductive ways in the animal kingdom on this earth. Also, in biology sexual reproduction means the exchange of genetic material, it does not have to involve sex. There is no intellectual disconnect for me on this one because of what I know from my uni courses and that I know that God knows more about biology than my professors.
Yes you have a background in LDS, but that does not mean you know everything. You only know what you have had experience in. It also does not mean that you understood everything either while you were in the church. It’s the same charge others have placed against subgeneous and Pookachamp who said that they converted from an Ev background to the LDS church and now they are telling what they learned while in their old church. They are being told that they did not fully understand what they were taught. You also did not understand all that you were taught. I have been a member all my life (39 years) and I still don’t understand all of what is taught. I learn something new at least once a month.
You see, Ralph, using the word “literal” helps you to say one thing and mean another, and then when confronted resort to old and tired tactics. As for whether or not believing in heresies or even leaving the door open for them is not a salvation issue–you’re just fooling yourself, Ralph.
As for how much I know, didn’t know, what does that really matter? In the end, I know that the LDS Church is a false church set up by a false prophet and teaching false doctrines. How much do you need to know–or not know–before you allow yourself to be moved from the lies of JS to the truth of Christianity? The glimmer of hope I see for you is that you can say you don’t believe in the doctrine of God and Mary have sex EVEN though you see that the Church has the door wide open for those who want to believe in it. Okay, I will accept your claim that you don’t believe God had sex with Mary. I just want you to see that your attempt to leave it open for others puts you in the same boat under the label of Mormonism. Ralph, God wants you to get out of the false church. The fact that you see a Mormon teaching (and please don’t go into the “official church doctrine” rhetoric)as reprehensible means that you are being wooed by the Holy Spirit to the truth about JS church.
Praying for you, Ralph.
Peace…
Last, but not least JANET, is the quote from the Lion of the Lord Himself, Brigham Young:
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” (Journal of Discourses (JOD) 11:269).
I appreciate the reply and quote, I am now wondering if the whole paragraph could be posted? It would help solve this often used single sentence but does not accurately represent Brigham’s quote above. I often wonder why some will misrepresent the facts, is this not suppose to be a forum that discloses total honesty and openness. Just wondering.
[Janet, please feel free to go ahead and post the entire paragraph if you’d like. -Mod]
grindael
the following may be good individual examples of brevity:
Polygamy is not LDS Doctrine.
Brigham Young and as a source of criticism for current LDS Doctrine is wearing thin and carries little intellectual (LDS or non-LDS) weight.
Remember, our church believes in Progressive, or Coninuing Revelation, so your juvenile Obsessions on pre-1900 speculations, journal entries, or ‘discussions’ may not have the influence you hope it will.
You see, we recognize the fallibility of man, even amongst prophets (just look at the OT and NT for more failed prophecies).
Levirate marriage is still in effect according to the Bible.
mormoncurtain is a pitiful reference to use…..its like referencing the Jerry Springer show.
Even Lurkers don’t read long cut-n-paste diatribes that take up multiple posts…zzzzz.
Your bigotry is showing, that the revelation is OBVIOUSLY about POLYGAMY…which means you have not read it. The bulk, the majority, of that revelation is about celestial marriage. Does your lack of any real knowledge of the LDS have any bounds?
For all our Lurker, we find that the copy and paste of some various accounts of Joseph Smith polygamous doings by Evangelicals here at MC which can be viewed as a take it or leave it according to whom you want to believe.
Example is given of reports by a Dr. John Cook Bennett, once a member in good standing. We find a very confused soul, who seems to have need for vindication after being excommunicated for adultery by Joseph Smith. So as not to bore you with the likes of long copy and pasting as we have see by some, I will direct you to another point of view.
The Saintly Scoundrel – The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett
by Andrew F. Smith
http://www.salamandersociety.com/museum/bennett/
Janet,
Are you really challenging the notion that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?
I was away from this blog for more than twelve hours and the place kind of exploded with fabulous posts by my Christian friends. I love to watch the dynamics going on.
grindael,
Your posts are volumous and right on the mark. I always can tell when the Mormons have been hit by a tidal wave of pertinent information because they pull out the “cut and paste” charge. Your work flows and is fully documented and is complete. Excellent!
jackg,
I like the way you are able to relate to Ralph’s thinking process and reasoning. You lived inside that world and know how these folks think. Keep posting!
I think Mormons would do well in doing a little research and see why a Mormon sect such as the Temple Lot left Smith’s religion and called him a fallen prophet. Even those Mormons see Smith as a heretic within his own religion.
They should also do a little study on why there’s an FLDS and why the Salt Lake City Mormons are seen as participating in a Mormon apostasy.
Christianity has a basic set of doctrines that is substantiated by the Biblical text. Mormonism is outside the scope so far that they couldn’t even be considered heretics. Heretics at least retain some semblance of the Christian religion. Mormonism does not.
Janet said
Janet, Even if people post more than a quote, LDS who simply want to believe the false teachings of their church will no matter the evidence.
I know from past experince, I had LDS over to my house, I pulled out the JoD or the original D and C with the lectures of faith bound into it.
I would use these to show LDS from their own scripture, when they could not pull the Cut and past issue, they would resort to, I dont understand what I’m reading, but yet they could not clear up the issue for me either.
Or they would say, since it is not stamped with the currant “Official” LDS stamp for books it could not be trusted. I know from experience you guys will seek to throw out evidence no matter how solid.
You can go to my blog from a while back, I scanned actual JoD book copies onto my blog for LDS to read, I would scan 3 pages, a page before the quote, the page of the quote and a page after the quote for more than full context, yet LDS would still deny what is written by your prophets. Rick b
Ralph,
One of the obstacles in defining the term,
” christian”, is that it has such a broad
meaning in society today.I remember reading
years ago that in rural England, I think it
was, that a clean bed in a motel was referred
to a ” christian” bed.Also my Pastor actually
witnessed to a man who said he was a christian
because he lived in America.
So I appreciate you using Peter’s confession
in Matt.16.
The problem is however, that as Peter came to
realize, there would arise those who would claim
authority as prophets/teachers who would interpret
what Peter had once proclaimed. This came to be
a paramount concern to Peter [ 2Pt.2:1 compare
2Tim.2:15-18 ], and should also be to us today.
The Mormon leadership, in their efforts to be
included as a Christian church, has, in my
opinion, diluted the description of who is a
christian.There are those who today would agree
with Peter’s confession, but then proceed to tell
you the other beliefs of their “christianity”.
A few examples:
Marcus Borg,American theologian. His friend,Tom
Wright, Bishop of Durham (2006) tells us that
Borg does not believe that Jesus rose bodily
from the dead.He goes to say that Borg loves
Jesus and believes in Him passionately.He further
stated that he would’nt want to say that Borg
is’nt a christian.
John Shelby Spong, popular Episcopalian Bishop
(retired now), has problems with God being a
“person”.His definition of the Trinity(in his
book,Why Christianity must change or Die) is
Life is good(Father), Life is loved(Son)
be all you can be(Spirit).
The Rev.David Hart,Church of England priest.He
converted to Hinduism and changed his name, yet
he was still allowed to continue to minister as
a priest.He says that Hinduism accepts the
Divinity of Jesus, and that he has not explicitly
or implicitly renounced his christian faith.
In the Times Online,9-8-2006 there’s a picture
of him offering prayers to an idol of the
elephant god .
from http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-11/
“Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham attained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to tit in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,” – the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”
cont.
Well the remainder of my post was lost I guess
since it did’nt go thru.Rather than re-doing
it I’ll just briefly tough on the high points.
Ralph, the reason I referenced these three men
was because they would all say they’re christian,
and it seems like you might also.This is to
broad of a definition , in my book.
In your reply to Jackg, you stated that the Mormon
church was a christian denomination among the
christian denominations. Yet I had a statement
from Ezra T. Benson where he was not so accomm-
adating as you. He said that the Mormon church
was not just another church, it was not one of
a family of churches.It was the only true church.
If the Mormon church is the only true church, then
Mormons constitute the only true christians, and
since the claim is made that there is only
ultimately 2 churches in existence today, one
being the Mormon church, the other, the Devil’s
church, then all other “christians” are in that
church.
Brigham Young said that all other christians are
not actual christians as the New testament defines
“christianity”
Lastly, I referred to how your leadership did’nt
want the news media in 2008, to refer to the FLDS
as “mormons” because it might confuse the public.
Yet in a press release a spokesperson for the FLDS
said that they deserve the name Mormon, since
among other things, they are faithful to the
truths Of the gospel as restored thru Joseph Smith.
I also offered to cite statement by several recent
LDS authorities where the called the FLDS such
names as “cultists” and “apostates”. Is this
because the FLDS are not true Mormons?
Ralph, the problem is not you.I believe that you
truely are striving to serve God and that you
believe you’re a christian. It seems that road-
blocks have been placed in your path preventing
you from fully experiencing Jesus. These road
blocks are the interpretations of the written
Word by prophets in the latter-days(Matt24:11)
Jackg,
Someone on this site a while ago identified themselves with a denomination (can’t remember which) that holds strictly to the 2nd commandment about graven images. They believe that there should be no depictions of God or Jesus in any type of media – ie no statues, crucifixes (I know the difference between crucifix and cross), pictures, etc. When I questioned them about other Christian religions who do display a depiction of Jesus their statement was that these other religions do not understand the 2nd commandment properly so they can still break it and be saved. This is a large disparity between one Christian movement and the main body, but the group that is hard line are willing to overlook the other denominations’ practice, and vice cersa. Then there are differences in some Christian denominations that allow or do not allow sex before marriage (fornication) but still call each other Christian – as I mentioned above. The list can go on. So why can’t we LDS allow some ‘free thought’ on matters that do not affect our salvation, like how Jesus was conceived?
As I also explained, Jesus being the literal Son of God means that He gained some of His genome from God and the other from Mary. It does not mean or imly sex occurred. Just like my friend who had a child throgu IVF, his child is literally his child, but no sex occurred for the child to be conceived.
Setfree,
Did you fully read and understand the quote you gave? It states that to be ‘classed’ as a polygamist all one needs to do is accept that it was from God and that if they got a chance to be in a polygamist relationship that they would. This is opposed to the people living at that time in the LDS church who were thinking that they will not accept it because if the LDS church dissolved then they could get better offers from outside if they were not polygamists. It all has to do with what is in ones heart, head and faith, not that they have to be in a polygamist relationship.
Janet,
I remember learning (when a Mormon) that those of us who didn’t marry in the temple, but otherwise led a “worthy” life, got to be in the celestial kingdom as “ministering angels”, or servants, to the ones who became gods. In your opinion, would you say that’s what BY meant when he said “Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory…”
Do you expect to be a polygamist wife in the hereafter? why or why not?
I would have highlighted it differently –
“Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham attained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,” – the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”
So… does that describe you, Ralph? Are you a polygamist in your heart?
Janet, will have it for you shortly…
“Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught
and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,”–the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” –Brigham Young, JOD11:269-27
Ralph, You were talking about a person that called themselves a christian and other detonations that appear to do things that go against Scripture, like allowing sex outside of Marriage.
Ralph, here is the problem, Way to many people try and be politically correct and refuse to call sin, sin. Then people like you come along and say, look these so called believers claim to do this or that.
Here is how it should be handled, if you see someone or some denomination allowing sin to go on, either confront them, or if you cannot, like I cannot call a church in England to account, then be public as best you can, and on sites like this simply say, listen this person or group is living contrary to scripture so I do not believe they are believers or know the Word Of God and probably do not even know God.
Problem is, way to many people refuse to do that, and then when people like me do do that, we get attacked by believers that live in sin. I can handle those attacks, sadly to many cannot so they give in if they even try saying anything to begin with. Remember these things, Search the Scriptures as the Bible tells us, Deceivers will arise from with in our own ranks as scripture tell us, and Jesus will say to what appeared like believers, I NEVER KNEW YOU. They did miracles and cast out demons in Jesus name, Yet Jesus still said, I NEVER KNEW YOU. Rick b
Young speaks here about living polygamy and not coping out because of threats or worldly desires, etc. (like Utah becoming a State if they gave up polygamy). Young would not, neither would Taylor. It was W. Woodruff who finally gave in to the US government.
He says that the man that has the worldly desires in his heart and passes on polygamy, will come short of dwelling with the Father & the Son. He then says you only get to be gods if you ENTER INTO polygamy, not if you ‘believe it in your heart.’
You don’t get the blessings if you refuse to accept them [polygamy] while you are here on earth.
Janet,
Seekers of the truth do not limit themselves to ‘friendly’ sources. Both sides of the issue should be presented and weighed. I quoted from mormons and non-mormons. JC Bennett had problems, to be sure, but even some of your Church Scholars quote him now and again. I ask everyone to read up on everything quoted here. Then you will find the truth.
As for Bennett, they guy I got the quote from, Richard Van Wagoner, is a Mormon. He used the quote from Bennett, weighing it in the light of what Sarah Pratt herself said. Most Church Historians believe that Sarah Pratt did NOT have an affair with Bennett as was claimed by Smith & believe the Hyrum Smith affidavit story.
Be that as it may, read up on it yourself. There are plenty of articles in Dialogue, I know, I’ve read lots of them.
Janet, another thing I noticed also. Many LDS Once confronted with very extensive quotes and sources either run away from sites like this because they cannot refute the truth, but also so badly want to believe what they want to believe, or they leave peoples homes and do not want to talk any more, or they seldom stay but then simply say things like, thats your opinion, or you really do not understand what your reading. Yet they also will not help us to understand what we read. where will you fall? Will you run away, or defended the things that cannot be defended, or will you seriously look into both sides and all the evidence? Rick b
In regards to different denominations allowing say fornication and regarding it as ‘ok’ and then being recognized as Christian I would have to ask…has anyone here done that? Has anyone heard Rickb or Jackg or Sharon or Aaron say that the church that just ordained an openly gay clergy is scripturally Christian? I think you’ll find that no one would. I’m as open about my concerns for Mormonisms false teachings as I am oh say the Emergents like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren. So I assure you that you’re not being called out because your Mormon but because you aren’t following scripture and we’d do the same to any other ‘christian’ out of love and concern for them and those they influence.
Let me add to rvales,
I will gladly call out any person or church, the problem is just like mormons they do not want to talk about it or listen to scripture. Then as I pointed out, I cannot talk specially to an entire Church. Like the Church of England, I live in MN, I cannot afford to go to England.
But then on the other hand, no Church is simply going to allow me to walk in, go to the pulpit and openly call out a church for sin. Trust me, I would if I could, I’m just the sorta guy that would do it. Rick b
Rick,
You hit on some excellent points regarding Mormons “discovering” information that makes them uncomfortable or is contrary to what they are told to believe; even when their own church authorities have been authors of the material. Mormons are well trained to run away from anything that is “uncomfortable”, being told that it is Satan pulling them (away) and trying to deceive them. So Mormonism, with its built in “bad feelings-good feelings” paradigm, effectively keeps folks away from the truth.
It’s a big part of the con and the sowing of confusion. That’s why when Mormons get the courage to do some real independent thinking, they don’t last long in Mormonism. It all comes down to losing their fear and their losing confidence in the LDS church. Once that happens, the flood gates are open and they flow out of the sect.
Jesus said He was the Bread of Life. He said that He was Living Water. Once a Mormon gets a meal of this spiritual Bread and Water, Mormonism, for them, is over.
Praise be to God!
Falcon,
as I believe you know many a mormon that knocks on the door of people like us here, the LDS do not stay long, they honestly cannot contend with the truth so they leave. That in it’s self should speak volumes, sadly they dont care. Rick b
Ralph, Sub,
Please provide a Scripture reference for baptism in the name of Jesus (ONLY). I have looked, I don’t see it, but I could be missing it somehow. In Matthew 28:19 it is very clear and it is included as part of ‘what we are to do as Christian’ or as it is called – the Great Commission – to go out and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I see Scriptures that say “you were baptized into Christ Jesus” and I believe that is what happens – the believer is united with Christ in His death on the cross and resurrection. I just don’t see ANY scriptures that say “go out and baptize in the name of Jesus.”
As I said, without the truth of Jesus death on the cross as the basis of your salvation, your baptism, and your walk with God then baptism becomes just another meaningless work of self-righteousness. Baptism divorced from the one true God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – is just another item to check off on your list of works of self-salvation. Baptism in the name of the non-existent Mormon god is completely without value of any kind. I think of all the hours of worthless effort baptizing dead people by proxy, dunking the same people in the names of dozens of other people, over and over, in a never ending purposeless ritual. So really, discussing baptism with a Mormon is a non-starter, without understanding the nature of our salvation through Christ alone, and in the name of the one true God it’s pointless to discuss. The nature of God and Salvation are the starting point, before anyone comes to understand baptism.
[Janet, please feel free to go ahead and post the entire paragraph if you’d like. -Mod]
This quotation is often used in anti sources. Unsurprisingly, they do not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion:
We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us…It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,”—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.
Source, Brigham Young, “Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City,” (19 August 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:268-269.
Janet,
I don’t think this helps your cause. The whole idea of becoming gods, which is what BY means when he refers to reigning as kings in glory is not biblical. His message is still the same: polygamy is required to attain the highest level in the Mormon perception of “heaven.” What you have presented only strengthens our claims regarding BY teachings. Regardless, it’s all heresy.
Peace…
All I can do is produce the full context, if it means something other then what I discern then we are at loggerheads. I did not post it to address the doctrine of becoming a God, I posted to address the misrepresentation of Evangelicals concerning that one must practice polygamy to abide the highest degree of Glory. I wish we could stay on topic.
J.
Janet,
What you posted supports the lie that practicing polygamy is THE way to attain the highest degree of glory. Please show me what I am missing here? Am I only one missing Janet’s point? As far as the charge for going off topic, I think I addressed your issue. Becoming a god is attaining the highest glory. It seems, Janet, that you are not being forthright in what you present and what it implies, then try to accuse me (in this case) of misrepresenting the Mormon teachings and going off topic.
Peace…
Janet,
The FULL context is obvious in the paragraph above. Young was stating that the Saints already practicing polygamy & those it was presented to then were not embracing the doctrine in their hearts, and did not even have faith in the principle. That was why he mentioned the women, and how HARD it was on them. He then goes on to say that if they are doing this because of persecution, or expected persecution, or for worldly reasons, it was wrong. Then he says that ALL WHO DO NOT ENTER INTO THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY WILL NOT BECOME GODS, & that means bye bye to the Highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.
Nice try with your explanation though, and you did not address all the supporting doctrine that I posted. (D&C 132) etc. This is the tactic of a lot of Mormons, to take a piece of the whole and make an issue of it or change the subject. You have not quoted one source to say that what Brigham Young said IS NOT TRUE. You have not refuted that Smith & the Apostles under him & Young lied about it in print. And your tactic of printing the whole paragraph is obvious, but you are dealing with a lot of former members that have their own copies of the material, and unlike many mormons, have read it.
But if you want some more, I definitely can oblige you on that.