That entire section 132 is an example of massive fear techniques.

9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?
10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?
11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?



Is Smith essentially admitting to his adultery in vs 9 & 10 ?

Is his word "offering" mid 19th century code for nookie-with-the-maid aka adultery?

Is vs 10 saying that Smith's sex offering wasn't appointed by the Lord?

Does vs 11 admit that because of Smith's adulterous affairs the lord had to appoint polygamy as a law?

So rather than chastising Smith and telling him to do penance or something of that sort, the lord said it was only acceptable under the law of polygamy and went ahead and ordained Smith to be polygamous to cover up his adultery.

We know by reading the intro to D&C 132 that he came up with this as early as 1831 (note church was organized in 1830).
He also knew that Emma was not going to accept it. So, he cleverly added a threat from the Lord to convince her. I believe there is a story that he made a peace offering of a horse also. (Someone correct me if that is not correct.) She contended she was his only wife and she was correct as the others were not legal!

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.


https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19?lang=eng



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2014 01:57AM by SusieQ#1.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We know by reading the intro to D&C 132 that he
> came up with this as early as 1831 (note church
> was organized in 1830).
> He also knew that Emma was not going to accept it.
> So, he cleverly added a threat from the Lord to
> convince her.


Yes, somewhere between 1831 to 1835, which seems awfully weird that an important date would be obfuscated by a group known for journaling important details about revelations. Then again, I stand corrected, they had a history of inaccuracy with their dates !

We know that the record keepers later covered their tracks on the Fanny Affair dates and info, omitting and/or obfuscating the date she left the Smiths residence.

I have some thoughts and I’d love your, or anyone’s, opinions on them.

Bear in mind their just random thoughts and I apologize in advance if they may be hard to follow in the complex and confusing Smith storyline.

Fanny was born in 1816. Herparents converted in 1830, the same year Smith decided to make it into a church, and brought Fanny to the Smiths in 1830 where she'd be their house servant at age 14.

The revelation is allegedly written, or later interpolated, back to year 1831, just a year after it became a church. Fanny would have been about 15. I use the word interpolated because of the evident obfuscation and later redactions.


Three years after they met they were married in 1833?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives


The lds.org site completely steers clear of writing about or talking about the Alger marriage chaos and for good reason. They never want to draw direct attention to these kinds of sticky problems do they.


I wonder if he wanted to be close to her, having her move into their home as a servant or if his attraction to her grew after she conveniently moved in. When he found himself being attracted to her one would think he’d have her move out right away. Living under the same roof would be very tempting. But no, he liked to live dangerously I guess. He lived in an era when sexual infidelity was a lascivious scandal in rural religious communities like Illinois.
Polygamy seems like a clever concealment for his lust.

If polygamy had been a revelation practice before he brought Fanny to live in their home it seems like the Algers didn’t know about it. It seems that Emma didn’t know about it, neither did Cowdery. After the affair the Algers left and no longer practiced Mormonism. If polygamy was the reason for Smiths God ordained sexual affair one would think the Alger parents would have come forward with the info to clear Smith’s name or their daughters name. They didn’t however.

That’s one reason I think verses 9, 10, 11 are Smith’s way of actually stating that the sex came first, unappointed of God, and God had to bail him out with polygamy and threaten Emma to follow suit.

The next polyg marriage was Lucinda Harris in 1838.

There’s a long gap between 1831’s alleged revelation, 1833’s marriage to Fanny, and 1838 marriage to Lucinda.
Obviously there was no legal marriage record with Fanny so we have only the apologists word that they were indeed married.

If D&C 132 was written in 1835 it was 2 years after the marriage to Fanny. One would think that if he received a revelation from God to practice polygamy it would have arrived, been dated and then traced from that point onward. Instead it looks back inserted.

Now I’m beginning to see why the Mormon apologists, prophets and apostles don’t clear up this detail.
There was another loooong 3 yr gap where in 1841 he married 3 women.

But in 1842 he married 11 women. He seemed to be getting accustomed to this lifestyle.

In 1843 he married even more; 17 women before he was killed.

As I’m looking at the dates I notice that he didn't seem to have trouble marrying in 1842, but in 1831 he wasn't ready to accept the polygamy spirit? It took him 2 years to marry Fanny after God gave him the revelation?

This looks like it supports my theory that Fanny wasn’t an ordained polygamous marriage because they wouldn’t have had the date problems or the long wait between 1831 to the actual marriage of Fanny in 1833.

So that’s why LD$ inc doesn’t recognize the marriage date of Fanny Alger and steers clear of it. That’s if they were married, if not it points toward an awkward coverup for the sexual affair, taking a long time before they had the idea of wrangling a married woman, Lucinda, into agreeing to polygamy/polyandry.

I think that’s another reason why it took so long to get an actual bonafied polygamous marriage. He fell in love with Fanny, had a sexual affair (as opposed to a polygamous marriage) and didn’t want to choose. Leaving Emma would have been an end to his new found ministry prophet career. He didn’t think of the idea of polygamy until later.

Is that why he had to create the D&C and publish it in 1835? Was publishing the polygamy revelation the driving factor for clearing his name?

How long did it take before Emma found out they had sex is anyone’s guess.

Not only did Emma not approve but Oliver Cowdery didn't approve either. I could understand Emma being jealous and not approving. But Oliver’s disapproval was about infidelity, not about polygamy. That’s my additional supporting reason in favor of the theory that Smith had sex first, then wrote the revelation disclosing that his relationship with Fanny wasn’t “appointed” by God. Oliver didn’t talk about a polygamy commandment and if he knew of one he would have. The church didn’t redact his statements; it was too much to redact.

To remedy the fact that sex with Fanny wasn’t approved / appointed by God a revelation was required to remedy the situation and make the approval known. Is the D&C 132 an interpolation from God himself? One of many redactions on the long list ?
God didn’t give the polygamy commandment before Joe Jr got lusty so he had to later go back and insert it and then publish it. In the real world the word we use for unappointed sex is fornication or adultery. In the 1830’s rural religious community it was lascivious sin. A nasty filthy situation as Oliver Cowdery called it.

""In April 1838, Mormon leaders meeting as the Far West High Council excommunicated Cowdery, in part because he had "seemed to insinuate" that Smith was guilty of adultery."' (Bushman p.324-325)

At this point, Alger disappeared from the historical record of the Church, only to have a number of stories about her relationship with Smith arise during the late nineteenth century. All of these second-hand witnesses, Mormon and non-Mormon, agreed that Smith had married Alger as a plural wife. (Bushman p.325)

Bushman acknowledges that any assertions that Smith married Alger late in the 19th century from second-hand witnesses. Very interesting.

Todd Compton discusses this late nineteenth-century evidence and its differing reliability, concluding that Smith's relationship with Alger, though fleeting, was more than a casual sexual affair and that she was "one of Joseph Smith's earliest plural wives. (In Sacred Loneliness p.25)

Historian Lawrence Foster disputed Compton's assumption, arguing that although "contemporary evidence strongly suggests" that Smith and Alger engaged in sexual relations, the evidence does not indicate that the relationship was "viewed either by Smith himself or by his associates at the time as a 'marriage.'"
Foster noted that before Smith's first documented plural marriage to Louisa Beaman in April 1841, Smith's "earlier sexual relationships may have been considered marriages, but we lack convincing contemporary evidence supporting such an interpretation." (Lawrence Foster, "Review of Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith)

Ah, but he had a polyandrous marriage in 1838 with Lucinda Harris, which Foster omits.

I lean more toward Fosters theory.

Here are more reasons why I think vs 9, 10 & 11 are his admittance of a sexual affair (with Alger).

The Alger family disappeared. Something went terribly wrong. Emma was upset and Cowdery was excommunicated for insinuating an affair. There was no discussion of a polygamy ordinance during this time frame; if there was Smith could have used it in his defense and Cowdery would have known it was polygamy ordained of the Lord or God . None of that happened. It was a cover-up mess that all validates Cowdery’s adultery accusation.


Gossip was problematic.

The chaos explains why there was a lack of polygamous marriages until 1841. The newly formed religious adulterous debacle and scandal surrounding Fanny Alger was no small thing to work around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-_tIuVstdQ

at 1:35 in the above youtube interview Sandra Tanner explains that there were rumours going around as a result of the Fanny Alger affair. In 1835 the section on marriage said in as much as we’ve been accused of the crime of fornication and polygamy we declare that one man should have one wife with the exception of death. Sandra said that was in the D&C clear up to 1876 until they removed it.

I think the chaos with Algers moving out and all the extenuating problems around Cowdery’s moral values surrounding fornication and adultery caused Smith to admit to his adulterous “unappointed” sexual offerings. I think it was written in 1835 and back inserted to around 1831 with the intention of pre-dating and therefore excusing or explaining the Fanny Alger affair. With one problem, Emma hadn’t heard of it. Apparently Cowdery hadn’t either.

I think the gap between 1835 and 1838’s first polyandrous marriage to Lucinda Harris shows the problem the group had in dealing with Smith’s adulterous affair with Alger. They needed to get out of this mess Horny Joe had created so early on in their newly organized church.

Then in an attempt to redeem themselves the first polygamous marriage was a polyandrous marriage, Lucinda having been married to a man at that time. LD$ inc doesn’t stand by this as the first polyg marriage but it was the first marriage which was polyandrous. Here’s the thing, nowhere in D&C 135 does God condone or reveal or appoint polyandrous marriages.
LDs claim that the 1841 marriage to Louisa Beaman was the first, perhaps because Louisa was single and not married to another man at the time?

Now I wonder if the first polyandrous marriage was a way of softening up poor tortured Emma to the idea of polygamy. Lucinda was not only married but was 4 or 5 years older than Emma. If Emma’s ego was broken after Joes affair with a much younger Fanny, which I’m sure it was, this might be a way to introduce Emma to accept the cover-up of Polygamy. Was it a tactic to calm Emma down a bit and help her adjust to God’s revelation?
Could she never quite agree to it because she walked in on the lustful adultery relationship in the barn and saw it with her own eyes?

It would be hard to excuse seeing your husband having sex with somebody else and then watching him cover it up with a threatening intimidation revelation as found in 132; Emma didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. What had been seen could not be unseen. No wonder she had to be threatened into believing the law of polygamy. I think polyandry was just a way to soften up Emma so the rumors of fornication and adultery would be turned into a God ordained righteous sacrifice and offering.

I know this gets confusing but just follow me on this…..

So the next polygamous attempt, Louisa Beaman, was 26 yrs old and single. Emma was now 36 yrs old. Okay, if my husband had a sexual relationship with a woman 10 yrs younger than me there’d be trouble. No wonder Emma went crazy.
6 months later Smith marries Zina, a 20 yr old who was young, but married. Was this his way to again appease Emma while still having a younger woman ? The woman was young, sure, but she was already married?

The problem with this choice was that Emma was 37 years old. Talk about a kick in the woman’s self confidence and ego.

Smith’s next choice was a 31 yr old, a little closer to Emma’s age, but married. Again, was the married woman supposed to make it easier on Emma? At least Smith didn’t completely gut Emma by going after another 20 yr old or a teen. There was plenty of time for that later, once Emma got adjusted. But Emma never would adjust because she, like Cowdery, knew it was a scam to cover up fornication.


November 16, 1838, Fanny Alger married Solomon Custer, a non-Mormon in Indiana. She left Mormonism behind and moved on with her life without ever trying to use a revelation of polygamy to defend their affair. Does this explain why Smith was unable to date the polygamy revelation prior to Alger? Would Alger have denounced it?
In those days it was customary for a man to ask the father permission to marry.
Fanny’s parents didn’t speak about Joe asking marriage permission before the sexual affair.
Other parents have documented that Joe asked permission to wed their daughter; but not the Algers.

...just a few random thoughts and impressions that came to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2014 10:27PM by joan.

Excellent analysis Joan...I think you are spot on. I've read these verses many times. It appears that Smith purposely attempted to be vague so that it wouldn't stir up any unnecessary introspection by newbies and for his stalwarts - he could point to this section to show them how the Lord condoned his actions. Very clever con man Smith was.

The 1831 date is a reference to the revelation about taking daughters of Lamanites for wives.

D&C 132 never existed until 1843.

Does anybody else wish Emma had said "Go ahead, have God destroy me! There's no way in hell I'm going along with this!" -?

Oh, if only Emma had pulled a "Lorena Bobbitt."

ohdeargoodness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
In response to your comments: she came close! :-)

She did not accept it, ever. She made quick work of Fanny Alger -there is the story of her and a broom and Fanny falling down some stairs.
She also did not like Brigham Young and made it known. He basically took over a large faction of the church three years after Joseph and Hyrum's death. That was a time when many groups of Mormons splintered off. She refused to leave Nauvoo also. She said something to the effect that she didn't leave the church, they left her. There are accounts of the brethren asking her to come to Salt Lake, but she refused.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2014 02:02AM by SusieQ#1.

I believe the broom/stairs story was in relation to Eliza Snow.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2014 09:38AM by Facsimile 3.

As I read and critique section 132 I realize that I was wrong in my early post about my assumption that polyandry wasn't mentioned in this alleged revelation.

It appears to me that it was mentioned.


When I read the entire section 132 I could see that the 1st verse was an introduction to justify polygamy.
As the earlier posted Tanner video described some of those old testament men that JS mentioned weren’t polygamists.
Isaac and Moses were God’s chosen prophets but God doesn’t remember that they weren’t polygamists?

How could this revelation possibly be from God?
Surely God would have known which old testament guys were polygamists and which weren’t. God is omniscient after all.
The Tanners date this ‘revelation’ at July 12, 1843.




>""1. 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—"



It shows that it came from Smith, who is clearly not omniscient and clearly not getting a revelation from an omniscient God about reinstating polygamy.

The theory that 'men make mistakes' doesn't float when it's a very important revelation based on a Christian foundational ordinance of marriage.
When God can’t get his names and dates right in his own revelation we have a problem with Mormons claiming it's restored truth through a prophet and mouthpiece.
Then we’re right back to the issue of what’s the point having a prophet as a mouthpiece on earth restoring the truth when he isn’t restoring truth.


Verse 1 shows that Joe’s research was in error and therefore God’s response was actually following up on Joe’s written response under the guise of “God’s” revelation.
God never at any time cleared up Joe’s polygamy errors. Instead dates were omitted altogetehr and doctrines embellished with creative grandeur resembling ideas straight out of other books of Smith’s time - like Swedenborg’s Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders.




>>"2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter."



Touching what matter?
Polygamy?
The question of whether to bring polygamy back or not? So he’s asking God about polygamy and concubines.

Here’s what verse 2 says to me:
Smith had an affair with teenager Fanny.
Emma found out and now he needs to save himself from ruin and rumor so he reads up in the old testament on polygamy, concubines and asks God if it’s okay.
Yep that ought to appease Emma and the rumours.
Pfft, sure!




>>" 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."



Smith asked God and God said to him, 'okay, you’re just asking me about polygamy but instead of giving you a basic answer I’ll go ahead and give you the instructions and tell you to live it. Oh and by the way all those who have it ‘’revealed’’ must obey too.
You must obey my instructions on polygamy, although you only asked me when or if I justify it.

I feel like saying, whoa, wait a minute here God, he just asked a simple question about concubines and wives. He just wanted to know when it might be justified ………..say like if a guy is married and fell in love with a teenager ?
Would you justify it then God?


This entire revelation is fabricated from verse one and it gets worse………



>> "4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."


> "5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.


> "6. And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."




Whoa, wait a minute here!!
God not only failed to answer Joes simple question about when is it justifiable to have a concubine or a wife?
Like if he’s horny, if there’s a hot maid living in the house, answers a long that line, but God’s coming out shooting with both barrels.

God says that the new name for polygamy is “the new and everlasting covenant” and if you don’t do it you’ll be damned and won’t enter into God’s glory.

That’s a heavy fear tactic right there!

I guess God made up his mind that he’d tell Joe to go for polygamy or be damned, without even bothering to answer the basic simple questions.


>> "7. And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."



Obviously God’s been reading Swedenborg, again.



> " 8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion."



Joe and his followers are clearly confused at this point.
He banged the maid, a member of his newly formed church, and his wife found out.
Not only did his wife find out but others did as well.
It destroyed his relationship with his cousin, Oliver Cowdery, among others.

He had to appease his wife while also appeasing the local community rumor mill.
Here’s what God did, he gave polygamy a code word called the “New and everlasting covenant”. It likely sounded better to Emma and the new concubines / wives and their parents.
JS had a habit of re-naming things.

To the rest of the community he will claim that he isn’t practising polygamy and denounce it in case they lynch him from the highest tree for lascivious sacrilege.
In his sick mind he might be able to convince himself that he isn't practising polygamy or polyandry -- he's practising the "new and everlasting covenant".

That God; gotta hand it to him. He’s clever what with his tricky double-speak revelations.

From that point onward God ordained organized confusion under the heading of the one True church restored via God’s revelation through a prophet mouthpiece.

God applied the same thing with the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, causing the Mormons to have a history of organized confusion; the rest of the world calls it fraud and deception, but never mind the technicalities.



> " 9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?"



The first 8 verses are pertaining to the topic of polygamy/concubines etc. using a new Mormon code word.

They’ve shown that they use code words. This entire section develops new Mormon words for everything.

Does this verse describe Joe’s sexual affair with Fanny as an ‘offering’?

Is the word “offering” in keeping with his code words? As I point out later on, the old testament used the word "offering" too. Smith obviously used the o.t. to format his revelation. God wouldn't have used the same word that was used in an English translated bible. This was Joe's grammatic writing habit -- not God's.

In relationship to the other verses on polygamy/concubines, is this vs declaring that the Lord did not receive the sexual ‘offering’ relationship because it wasn’t “made” in God’s name? meaning that they weren’t legally married.

Remember that marriage and adultery was a big deal in rural religious America in the 1830’s.

He had sex that wasn’t made/appointed in God’s name in a legal marriage.
A sexual union was only supposed to take place after the marriage ceremony.

In this vs is Joe acknowledging his sex before marriage and asking God in vs 1 and 2 about polygamy and/or concubines?



>>"10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?"



Receiving that which God has NOT appointed?

In this context it seems very clear that it’s talking about sex that isn’t appointed by God, or ordained by God.

Remember that monogamy was the God ordained Christian lifestyle. God had not ordained or appointed polygamy or concubines in Christianity and Smith knows it.



>" 11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?"



This appointment is talking about polygamy / concubines.

Smith writes that the Lord is telling him that it has to be a Law. In the same sentence it induces and programs the follower toward allegiance by announcing and reminding the person that JS was ordained before the world existed. This is a programming phrase implant.



>"12. I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.


He’s securing the law in place."


> 13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

>14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed."



If polygamy was ordained of God why was it shaken and destroyed less than a hundred years later?


>>"15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world."

>16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

>17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever."


God’s still reading Swedenborg I see.


>>"18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.


>>"19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."



The tradition of marriage was a crucial and mandatory Christian ordinance in those days.
Living common law was considered living in sin and sex without marriage was considered fornication.

Smith is hooking people in with the hope, lure and promise of being resurrected and have eternal sex with a “continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

Now what horndog couldn’t resist that promise!

As long as they don’t murder or shed innocent blood.



>>"20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."



He’s impacting his audience on the need for an everlasting marriage ordinance.

Hope of being a god is a big hook linking polygamy as a marriage ordinance.

Even though BYoung doctrine was similar to this godhood doctrine they’ve decided more or less that the Young version is obsolete and the JS version is the one they’re going to stick with.




>>"21. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory."



Fear, threats and promise to abide the polygamy marriage now known as the “new and everlasting covenant” or you can’t attain God’s glory.




>>"22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me."



More fear and degradation.



>>"23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.

>>"24 This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law."



If you receive God’s law (polygamy marriage) then you’ll know God and be exalted and go to heaven.
I’ve heard this doctrine in other polyg sects.
They believe that plural marriages will help them be better people and know God.

Wayne Bent’s polygamous cult describes the same thing. Is this a brain pattern in a cult leaders psychology which shows up in other Christian cults?
It can't be coincidence. Their must be a brain wiring pattern common in this psychological profile that keeps showing up over and over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvytVhqiO6E




>>"25 Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law."




More threats, fear tactics about what will happen to you if you don’t abide this law of polygamy from vs 1 and 2. Afterall, God said he was going to explain polygamy to JS and this is quite the explanation.



>>"26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God."




His appointment and word in the context of this section refers to polygamy.

If he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of this new and everlasting covenant they’ll be exalted after they die, but in this life they’ll be destroyed in the flesh and given over to Satan.

Maybe JS destruction came from his disobedience over polyandry.
I don’t see polyandry mentioned here.

Nah, that can’t be it.
God forgot to outline the do’s and don’t’s of polyandry in this revelation and I guess JS failed to ask God for more questions about polyandry therefore no revelation was forthcoming.

This shows me that polyandry was an idea that popped up after this ‘revelation’ was penned.

it would have been included in God’s answers and explanations since that was the whole purpose of this revelation. (His first marriage after the alleged Alger marriage was Lucinda Harris in a polyandrous union in 1838. )





>>"27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."



So much for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Basically this vs is saying that you can go ahead and marry a 14 yr old, have sex with your servant, send men out of the country and marry their wives, threaten parents and children with fear of death and sin if they don’t consent to being a wife, just don’t kill anybody.





>>"28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was."




JS and Cowdery claimed to have received this prieshood in 1833, but it wasn’t in the early record. This priesthood was only revealed in the revised and re-named Doctrine and Covenants in 1835.

Why?


http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/boc/boc28.shtml


I think it was lumped into this polygamy revelation to give the new Law more force and Godly clout.
Something as big as bringing back polygamy marriage had to have a super duper power to make it more credible.

Apparently the Melchizedek priesthood was just that ticket.

Notice that they don’t actually refer to it as the Melchizedek priesthood, but as the Holy priesthood.

I guess they didn’t quite have the names and details down at the time of this edit.
I wonder when they first recorded the priesthood as the Melchizedek phood?

If not here in a most important revelation introducing it then when?




>>"29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne."




A reference to be like Abraham and obey revelations and commandments.
In other words, obey THIS revelation and be exalted like Abraham and get your own throne referencing the previous God verse.




>>"30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them."




A connection is made in the mind linking Joseph with Abraham. Abraham was a man of God and Joseph is too. Linking a former old testament Father with Joseph in this way is very clever.




>>"31. This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

>>32. Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved."



Be like Abraham and be saved. The ‘law’ is code for multiple wives or concubines.



>>"33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham."




Don’t obey and you won’t be saved. It’s the lure and hook of a promise with threats and fear of a consequence if you don’t follow. A typical fear tactic.



>>"34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises."



The phrase, "and why did she do it?" doesn't sound like a phrase that is in keeping with Jesus character.
Maybe if Joseph had put a "verily" in front of it the phrase would have sounded more Jesus'ish and flown under my radar.



Actually, Sarah gave Hagar (her servant) to Abraham specifically for sex; not as a wife, but as a means of having a child via her maid.
God didn’t command this, Sarah did.
This wasn’t the law of God, it was a solution to Sarah’s impatience.

Sarah wanted a child. Hagar conceived Ishmael and Sarah despised her. She was jealous.

Her plan didn’t work.
Jealousy generally rears its head in non-monogamy.
Abraham finally sent Hagar and Ishmael away.


In any case, it certainly wasn’t the Law.





>>"35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it."



Now there we go; throw in a 'verily' and a 'nay' and it's almost passable.
Almost.....if I didn't know anything about the old testament that is.


(Genesis 16:3En (ESV) 3: after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. )

Again, the Lord didn’t command it.

Sarah commanded Abraham to have sex with Hagar out of her impatience for a child.
Hagar could be labeled as a concubine because Servants were considered chattel / possessions.

Some Jewish sources label Hagar as a concubine for that reason.
I believe, if I’m not mistaken, that the KJV bible says Hagar was a wife.

It wouldn’t be typical for an Egyptian servant to be a wife, hence the implementation of a concubine.

Sarah had no business offering her servant to Abraham, and Abraham had no business having sex with Hagar as it wasn’t ordained or appointed of God. (there’s that word “offering” used again.)

It’s thought that after Hagar conceived she forgot her rank and place as a servant; which caused Sarah to anger.

The first record of polygamy is in Genesis. Lamech takes 2 wives but it doesn’t state that God commanded him.




>>"36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness."



Another example of obedience sandwiched between the command to obey the “law” of multiple wives/concubines. If you obey you’ll be righteous. Be righteous like Abraham and obey the Law of multiple wives.




>>"37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods."



After Sarah's death, Abraham took another "wife" according to Genesis 25:1. However in a later record she is called a concubine.

Other than that little incident with Hagar the maid, which he did to appease Sarah, he didn’t have multiple wives while he was married.

JS should not claim these later marriages as polygamous when Sarah was already dead.

Again we see Smith upgrading the obedient people who accept and obey/live the law of polygamy to the state of gods rather than mere angels.

Who doesn’t want an upgrade?

It’s a lure, hook and bait.





>>"38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me."




Drawing a comparison to an old testament character lends credence to JS’s polygamous law. David did it so polygamy must be okay.

You’re in good company, no need to fear, you’ll be rewarded as a god if you obey.




>>"39 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; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."



Nobody wants their portion going to another.

Basically Smith did the same thing David did to Uriah.

For those who don’t know the Uriah/Bathsheba story let me recap (and I’m guessing you don’t know it since you likely had your head in the BoM.)
David saw Bathsheba bathing on a rooftop.
He lusted after her. She was married to Uriah.
2 Samuel 11:15 David sent a letter to his war camp.
The letter instructed Joab, "Station Uriah on the front lines where the battle is fiercest. Then pull back so that he will be killed."


Did JS get his polyandry tactics from David?

The idea to Station a husband in a foreign country and marry their wife could easily have come from David’s example.

Reverting back to a previous verses 19 and 26, Smith said it’s okay to have more than one wife, or do anything, as long as you don’t kill innocent blood.

The bible was clear that David had fallen out of favor for this action.

Smith made sure to enter this caveat earlier in his revelation and now we see why. He took a lesson from David!





>>"40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word."




If polygamy truly was implemented by God one would think that God would have come to him and offered the information and the practice of polygamy first, without JS having to ask God for it. God says that God will give JS what he wants, which is polygamy.

God is telling JS that he will restore all things, meaning polygamy and concubines.
Fanny, the house maid, may have fallen under the concubine umbrella.

Smith lucked out!

He got God on a good day, seemingly happy to please and restore old practises just because Smith asked a few questions about concubines and polygamy.

Yes, Smith was very, very lucky.

But wait, God’s asking JS if there’s anything else he wants and it will be given unto him.

Wow, God is kinda like a magic genie here.





>>"41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."




Okay, it seems that God decided to give the law of polygandry.
This popped up right after the verse in which God tells JS to ask for anything and God will give it / approve it.
The way this story is progressing it appears that JS decided to ask God to marry other people's wives.
He had to cover up Lucinda Harris somehow.

this verse shows two things.


1) Smith asked about adultery. Why would he ask about that in relation to wives and concubines? He’s trying to cover up his adultery. The gossip got out and he’s on damage control. God helps him out by reinstating and enforcing polygamy on his behalf.

2) polyandry is given the green light by God. If God appoints the man to marry the already married woman it’s okay. If God doesn’t appoint/ordain it she’s committing adultery.

If a man marries a woman who is with (married to) another man, and if God didn’t appoint or approve of that marriage, it’s considered committing adultery.
Why would the woman be destroyed for adultery?
Why not the man who wants to marry the woman?
That let’s JS off the hook and puts the sin on the woman. Why is he guiltless when JS as a prophet, receiving God’s directions, would know if God “appointed” the marriage?
This is complete insanity.

JS has God wrapped around his little finger.

Did JS say, listen God, I want to “be with” a female who is already married, but it’s considered adultery and it doesn't qualify under the heading of your biblical ordained polygamy.
Could you fix that so I’m not sinning like David?
God says, Okay, but only if I appoint the marriage relationship and I'll let you know so you can tell others it's appointed. How convenient for JS.

If I don’t she’ll have to be destroyed. I don’t want to make the same mistake I made with my chosen son David.



>>"42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery."



God’s figures this is so important it deserves a repeat verse. And just in time too. Lucinda Harris wasn’t getting any younger!
Tick Tock.

As a matter of fact, this entire thing could easily have been interpolated / back written from 1938 after he married Lucinda Harris as a polyandrous wife.

It certainly would account for the time lapse between this alleged 1835 account and the 1938 marriage to Lucinda.

Anybody who’d like to do a little comparison between the Book of Commandments and Doctrine and Covenants is welcome to it.

http://mit.irr.org/scanned-images-of-entire-1833-book-of-commandments-and-1835-doctrine-and-covenants





>>"43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery."



If he has vowed to a polygamous marriage and breaks his vow he’s committed adultery, but lucky for him he isn’t destroyed like his female counterpart.




>>"44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.


>>"45 For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time."



JS got to be the judge. God promises to reveal important life and death information to JS about who’s having sex and who isn’t, but God can’t manage to reveal to JS previously mentioned information about God’s absence of revelation to Abraham and Sarah?




>>"46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

>>47 And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God.


>>48 And again, verily I say unto you, my servant Joseph, that whatsoever you give on earth, and to whomsoever you give any one on earth, by my word and according to my law, it shall be visited with blessings and not cursings, and with my power, saith the Lord, and shall be without condemnation on earth and in heaven."




These 3 verses are saying that God’s giving JS carte blanche; the freedom to do whatever the hell he wants to do and not be condemned for it.



>>"49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father."



God forgot a lot of details about Abraham.
It’s surprising he remembers where he placed Abraham’s kingdom.
Now I know why lds apologists can’t locate Kolob; God has a terrible memory.




>>"50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac."




This verse is telling.
What sins?
Escape from what?
Is he referring to polygamy as an escape from his adultery with Fanny Alger?
Is he referring to an escape from the rumors and gossip circulating?

To what sacrifice in context to fidelity/polygamy is he referring?

It had to be a big sacrifice to mention it twice in one sentence.




>>"51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice."



JS offered Emma something as a sacrifice.
Now JS gets a revelation from God to command Emma not to accept that offer.
God said it was a test like Abraham to prove that God might require an offering, by covenant and sacrifice, but DON’T PARTAKE OF IT EMMA.

She must stay herself.

Whatever could this mean?

Might this be referring to the offer and sacrifice JS made to Emma that Emma could take another man as payback and restitution?

It certainly fits the description!





>>"52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God."



Applicable to all except for God’s faithful servant Joseph Smith.

If he’s not pure God will forgive him (unless it’s shedding innocent blood like David) otherwise God will tweak a few laws and commandments to accommodate him and create a few more new ones to bolster him up.

Those are the privileges of being chosen before the world was created.

Lesson taught: don’t lie about your purity! God will know and destroy you! (unless your Joseph Smith…..or Abraham in which case God will forget the details and bless you.)




>>"53 For I am the Lord thy God and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him."




The command to make JS the ruler sets the stage for followers to obey under any circumstances – again a carte blanche approach.

Claiming that JS was faithful is a stretch considering JS came to God asking for details about nookie in the 19th century. Faithful seems contrary to JS reasons for inquiring and receiving this specific revelation.
Mathew 5:28 “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

People aren’t stupid!

They can figure out that JS already thought about the topic and asked God about adultery and concubines/polygamy.

He had already committed it in his heart according to the new testament. Jesus knew the new testament scripture but forgot about it in this verse.

Or maybe he was so forgiving that it didn’t matter?




>>"54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law."



Another reminder, in case the last one didn’t take hold. Joseph gets to have many wives but Emma must only have Joseph – no one else.

If she decides to be with another man she’ll be destroyed.
Other women might be approved of polyandry, as mentioned in a previous verse, (JS will be told by God who they are) but

Emma is being told that she is not approved for polyandry, so don’t even think about it!

Did she threaten to take other men as revenge?

It was so important that God repeated the curse of her destruction twice in one sentence.





>>"55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds."




What did JS say he’d “do for her” if she didn’t abide this commandment?

More threats and fear tactics.

I’m surprised Emma didn’t go crazy and off the misogynist male chauvinist pig in the middle of the night.

But if Emma doesn’t abide by this commandment (the law of polygamy and not taking another man for herself) JS will be blessed with hundredfold wives and crowns (not just one crown but hundrefold crowns – a new crown for every day perhaps?) and eternal lives (plural) in the eternal worlds (plural).


God is promising JS eternal lives? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

Oh well, who am I to critique God’s revelation and promises….afterall, he’s God right? He should know all about the eternity he created.

This verse shows me that the revelation isn’t from any omniscient God providing restored truth at all.

It’s from the creative mind of JS.

When dealing in an actual revelation God would be expected to get details right notwithstanding human error.
God has no human error. If God has human error how can a person use the bible as God's reference? How would anybody know if it's correct or error.




>>"56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice."


This is an admission of trespasses.

The entire section is pertaining to adultery/polygamy therefore the details of this verse would be in that same context. Similar to verse 9, 10 and 11.

My theory is that it’s explaining his adultery to Fanny Alger and demanding that Emma forgive him.

If it was not adultery there would be nothing to forgive. Were Emma’s trespasses her revenge of not “abiding only with Joseph”?

Keep in mind that during this time Cowdery was still having trouble coming to terms with Smith’s affair with Fanny Alger as referenced previously.

There was a lot of turmoil going on at this time. So much so that God had to clear it up in a revelation AFTER JS inquired, not before he inquired.




>>"57 And again, I say, let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for Satan seeketh to destroy; for I am the Lord thy God, and he is my servant; and behold, and lo, I am with him, as I was with Abraham, thy father, even unto his exaltation and glory"



Another association made to Abraham creating a link in the mind of the follower.



>58 Now, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto."



Details of the priesthood to support this new marriage commandment are now forthcoming.
This shows that these priesthood details weren’t on the scene prior to polygamy.




>59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him."




Starting the sentence using the word 'Verily' doesn’t make it better, but it was likely intended to give it a little more biblical weight and presence.

A reminder that Jesus says Smith can do anything, as long as it’s in Jesus name, and it’s not considered sin.
Jesus will justify him.
I don’t know about Jesus but the description sure fits the Mormon apologists to the letter.

It implants the Mormon program into the followers to justify anything that he does.






>>"60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God."




It’s like Sandra Tanner said, rumors were flying and this revelation was written in an attempt to squash the rumors.

It was a fear tactic to threaten anybody who would “set on my (Jesus) servant Joseph”.

Jesus admits JS transgressed and needed to sacrifice.

The point of this was in response to JS asking about adultery and where God stood on concubines, it’s pretty safe to say at this point that this verse is an admission and response to JS adulterous transgression.
Is polygamy what’s referred to as the justification for the transgression?




>>"61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."



He’s implemented the doctrine that the first wife has to consent to a second wife.

But he’s specified that is only if she’s a virgin.
He reveals himself here by saying “if their vowed to/married to no other man” it’s not adultery.
Jesus can’t remember that back in verse 41 and 42 he, speaking as the Son of God, said JS was justified to take married women as long as Jesus appointed it and approved.
Jesus has countered and confused his own polyandry decree.

JS married Lucinda Harris who was married/vowed to another man and wasn’t a virgin.

Now Jesus is saying that it’s not okay if their married/vowed to another man.
Now I understand more clearly why they were tarred, feathered, run out of town and JS was killed.

I think the word justified is key in this verse.

JS was looking for JUSTIFICATION of his sins/transgression/adultery in an era when gossip and accusations and judgments were coming forward by Cowdery and others. This alleged revelation was nothing more than justification, just as Sandra Tanner said in her video.





>>"62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."



Fanny Alger was a virgin.

I guess he was justified.



>>"63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified."




Does this mean that if a woman is a virgin and gets married she can’t enter into polyandry?
But JS married women who were already married.
Does this mean they weren’t virgins before they were married and that was the criteria allowing God to approve of them marrying other men?

Nah, that just means that JS wanted to have virgins dedicated only to him.
They couldn’t marry anybody but him.

But if he had his eye on a woman who was already married it was completely alright for him to have her.

As long as it was avowed/married because after all it was rural Christian 19th century and marriage was the law!

Of course this would all be determined by Jesus approval first, goes without saying.
LoL.
On second thought, it doesn’t matter since JS could do no wrong unless he shed innocent blood.



>>"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."




If the wife doesn’t go along with it she’ll be destroyed for not abiding in Jesus law.

It would be okay to kill the woman who refused polygamy because according to the criteria this wouldn’t fall under the umbrella of “innocent blood.”




>>"65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife."



For the 3rd time, You didn’t command Abraham to take Hagar – Sarah did.
He is exempt from the law of Sarah?
What?

Now JS is just babbling nonsense.




>>"66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen."




Where is the ‘more’ revealed hereafter?

Maybe Jesus later privately revealed to hide it, lie about it, and pretend it didn’t exist at all, because that’s what Smith did.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2014 09:39PM by joan.

"Here’s what verse 2 says to me:
Smith had an affair with teenager Fanny.
Emma found out and now he needs to save himself from ruin and rumor so he reads up in the old testament on polygamy, concubines and asks God if it’s okay."

Putting this into its historical context: Smith's affair with Fanny occurred between 1833-36 in Kirtland. He concocted the "revelation on celestial marriage" in 1843, in Nauvoo, as an effort to intimidate Emma into accepting his relationship with Emily and Eliza Partridge.

Smith didn't really ask God about polygamy; he just came up with that story to invoke Biblical precedent and "authority" for his extra-marital relationships.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Putting this into its historical context: Smith's
> affair with Fanny occurred between 1833-36 in
> Kirtland. He concocted the "revelation on
> celestial marriage" in 1843, in Nauvoo, as an
> effort to intimidate Emma into accepting his
> relationship with Emily and Eliza Partridge.
>
> Smith didn't really ask God about polygamy; he
> just came up with that story to invoke Biblical
> precedent and "authority" for his extra-marital
> relationships.



That's an interesting timeline. That would mean the section was back inserted or the dating was post/back-inserted. I'm not sure if there is a copy before 1843 that includes this specific information on polygamy and polyandry.
I haven't checked.

I haven't heard about the revelation as a theory behind the Partridges.

The revelation date of 1843 would make more sense than 1835 because even though polygamy and polyandry was practised Smith managed to keep it quiet up until around 1843ish, when William Law caught wind of a proposal to his wife. I got the impression that it was news to Law and it was underground secrecy. Isn't that correct?

Did this revelation take the secrecy out of it, explaining his death in a year and not prior?
That would mean that Cowdery's judgment would have been secret as well back in 1838.

He had already had an affair with a teen virgin (Fanny) and a married woman (Lucinda) which is why this revelation sounds like an after-thought to excuse it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2014 10:09PM by joan.

Think about it this way... From 1831 to 1876 there was in the original Book of Commandments sect 101:4 that stated that "As far as the crime of fornication and adultery, that one man shall be married to one woman and one woman to one man except that one should die, then the other spouse is free to marry again"

This was changed in 1876 which removed section 101 completely and added sect 132 as we see today.

Quick summery, during the height of pologamy section 101 says they did not practice it, but after 1876 when they said that they did not practice it section 132 says they did.

very interesting.
Have they ever been honest about ANYTHING?
That makes sense because William Law said that these things weren't known to a lot of the members; which is what he planned on exposing.

As a result it's impossible to tell what dates are correct.
Could this section revelation have been coined as late as 1876? Could it have been written by the prophet of the 1876 era?
Is that why some members think that JS wasn't responsible for polygamy (even though he lived it himself?)
Is this where the apologist confusion lies? (lies - pun intended.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2014 05:57PM by joan.

Joan look at this. https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng Read the historical section of the manual. This describes in detail about the dates and was after Joseph's death tha BY placed it in the D&C removing section 101

I was re-reading this section and something noteworthy popped out at me.

Jesus had been giving the green light for polygamy aka Mormon code name “the Law” or “sealing” or “the new and everlasting covenant” when he got to vs 40.

Vs 40 says “Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.”

The section doesn’t say that JS asked about marrying other men’s wives, but it says that whatever he asks will be granted him.

suddenly in the next vs Jesus is giving the green light for polyandry.

This means that JS wanted to marry other men’s wives. Jesus gave JS what he wanted and asked for.

This confirms that it really was all about SEX for Joe Smith Junior. It was written in a way to omit JS request while focusing on Jesus response.


I don’t for a second believe that the responses actually came from Jesus the Lord, especially when Jesus says he’ll give JS anything he wants. And the next request is to marry other men’s wives. (Lucinda Harris must have been quite irresistible.) That’s waaay toooo convenient.

>>"41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."


Jesus just had to give him polyandry because Jesus just finished telling JS that he’d give him anything he asked for.

Js could have asked for anything, but he asked for God to okay him on the sex scene.

It was okay as long as God appointed it and said it was okay.

The lds read this passage and are still programmed and indoctrinated from it, evident by their responses that it’s okay because God said it was okay.

Apparently God only gave JS the sex requests that he asked for.
JS wanted to be the president of U.S.A. and he did not get that office.

God approved of JS sex interests but not his political interests.

This makes God something of a perv or it means that the section wasn’t written by God at all but reflected Joe Smith Jrs sexual interests at that time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2014 06:19PM by joan.

I just realized JS was not sealed to Emma until 1843.

What the what?

For the first time since leaving I’ve gone over this stuff for myself. I knew it was a fraud when I first landed on this site and didn’t bother researching for myself.

I’m kind of using this thread as my venting avenue.

D&C 132 Vs 46 and 49 both mention the word seal.

If this ‘revelation’ were given before 1843 why did it take so long for JS to be sealed to Emma?

JS had polygamous relationships before 1843.

That sort of goes along with RandyJ’s comment that JS “concocted the revelation on celestial marriage in 1843, in Nauvoo.”

It explains why many of the apologists don’t reference the Fanny affair as a sealed polygamous marriage and why the lds.org steers clear of mentioning Fanny in any truthful detail, since Fanny was involved in the 1833-36 Kirtland encounter.

Some apologists might try to say this revelation was given as early as 1831 or 1833 or even 1835 to cover their Fanny (pun intended), but it doesn’t match the sealing of Emma to JS.

It is all in keeping with lies and deception starting with the visions and the book of mormon. It shows that they have a pattern and that pattern shows up throughout mormonism past and present.

Was JS too busy sealing himself to other women to be bothered sealing his marriage to Emma?
NO, I think RandyJ is correct that this ‘revelation’ arrived in 1843 and as a result soon after he was sealed to Emma.

It explains why section 132 decides that it’s okay to practise polyandry as Lucinda Harris was polyandrous in 1838, before this ‘revelation’ was composed.
The section was giving god’s approval of polyandry from a place of already having happened, not from a place of fore-ordination.

The Partridge sisters became part of his harem in March of 1843.

This revelation pops up and he’s sealed to Emma in 1843.

It sounds like RandyJ is right. I have always respected RandyJ’s word as gold (okay, that’s a bad comparison under the circumstances) but now that I’m researching myself I understand why I trusted his word many years ago when I landed here.

If this section/revelation were given in 1938 to squash rumors coinciding with Cowdery's objections why would't Emma be sealed in 1838 instead of 5 years later in 1843?

JS bartered with Emma for the Partridge sisters and they were married in March.
They were 19 and 22 years old.
Weeks earlier JS had married a 16 yr old.
Emma was almost 38yrs old.
I defy ANY woman to tell me that at 38 yrs old that age difference would not leave her completely gutted.

Of course JS had to do some serious wheeling and dealing. The sealing to Emma would be another way to appease Emma to make her feel just as special.

We know that JS offered Emma something (the didn’t describe what) but that he withdrew in this revelation.
It was something so serious that he had to command Emma a few times that the offer was renegotiated and off the table.

In the context of the verses the threats of destruction to Emma were likely given to make sure she didn’t seek revenge by having an affair, which is why the section says she cannot take another man but must remain faithful to JS under the threat of being killed/destroyed.

To emphasize his point he had God give him a revelation about it.
Was the offer of another man JS barter for the Partridge sisters?
He couldn’t just leave Emma because a lot of this was in secrecy and divorce/separation in those days was a religious taboo, especially in his position within his church.

The essay on polygamy is causing me to delve deeper and it’s all becoming much clearer now why the prophets, apostles and apologists past and present lie.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2014 11:42PM by joan.

Have you listened to the Mormon stories podcast with Grant Palmer on William and Jane Law? IIRC, Grant Palmer's research showed that Emma basically asked for William Law as a second husband for herself (Joseph Smith had his own eye on Jane Law, surprise surprise) Both of the Laws were shocked/revolted and The Nauvoo Expositor project happened not too long after. So one of the things Joseph Smith was doing in D&C 132 was withdrawing the offer of William Law as a consolation husband for Emma, since William Law had adamantly refused to take part in any such thing.

Palmer shows the timing of the writing of D&C 132 and how it relates to the events in the Law's and the Smith's lives in the months leading up to it.

http://mormonstories.org/grant-palmer-on-sexual-allegations-against-joseph-smith-william-and-jane-law-and-his-resignation/

This must be the one.
I'll listen to it thanks for sharing.

Yes, that's the one

D&C 132 is one of the best instruments to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of Joseph Smith. You don't even need to go any further than Chapter 1, Verse 1:

" . . . inasmuch as you have inquired."

So, we have a man who has stood in front of a church with his wife and took a vow to be faithful to her. And we see he is dropping to his knees and pleading with God for permission to violate that vow and bed other women.

I always ask Mormons if they ever think it's appropriate to pray that God grant them permission to violate their marital vows. The answer always starts, "No, but . . . "

Right.

Good point!

The strange and sad thing is that when I was TBM I never once thought about the words "inasmuch as you have inquired."

I thought it was a revelation God gave because God wanted polygamy to happen.
I didn't even know about polyandry or the teenagers.

Isn't it weird how a person can omit what they want.
The power of programming can be very powerful.

I listened to the Palmer interview and noticed that a comment at the bottom of the interviewer claims that Lawrefutes that he or his wife were propositioned by JS.

I read the William Law letters to check into it.

I noticed that letter one does show Law's denouncement of his wife or him being proposed to by JS:

"Your informants, however, may, now and then, have drawn a little on their imagination, may have reached false conclusions in some instances judged from circumstances and not from facts; doing injustice, perhaps, to the innocent. Where testimony conflicts it is sometimes very difficult to form conclusions. Mormon history is rather a mixed up affair. I would call your attention to one or two little mistakes concerning myself........ On page 108 you speak of "swapping wives," and state that you have it from one who knows. Now let me say to you that I never heard of it till I read it in your book. Your informant must have been deceived or willfully lied to you. Joseph Smith never proposed anything of the kind to me or to my wife; both he and Emma knew our sentiments in relation to spiritual wives and polygamy; knew that we were immoveably [sic] opposed to polygamy in any and every form; that we were so subsequent events proved. The story may have grown out of the fact that Joseph offered to furnish his wife, Emma, with a substitute for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in her house and to be well treated, etc."


noteably the sentence: " (JS) knew that we were immoveably [sic] opposed to polygamy in any and every form; that we were so subsequent events proved."

This is a contradiction in a sense. Even though GPalmer distinguishes the confusion between the word 'substitute' for polygamy, and even though Law might not be aware of all the different code words or labels, it's obvious he knows about the "other forms" of polygamy which is what pushed his subsequent events of exposing them in the newspaper.

Letter 2 says that Jane Law knew a lot about JS sexual evils and it had to be very serious because she was cut off from mormonism for speaking evil of JS. Law doesn't detail what those evils were exactly, but it's pretty clear that JS proposed to her, which caused Law to be outraged and JAne to smear his name.

Why doesn't Law detail the events in letter 2 but only allude to them?
Why does he omit and denounce the proposal to Jane while even aditting that the forms of polygamy caused Law's subsequent events?

Because he was protecting his wife's reputation!
I'm convinced of that.

He had distanced himself from mormonism for 40 yrs and only now wrote about it to correct some of Dr. Wyl's documentation. Law had children and grandchildren and his wife had been deceased for 4 yrs. He was protecting his dead wife's reputation. He wasn't interested in mormonism at all, but only interested in his wife.
The below statement from letter 2 that her reputation and memory is as dear to him as life itself.



"My wife is dead over four years, and a truer, purer, more faithful wife never lived. My brother Wilson is also dead, these ten years. He stood by me in all my troubles at Nauvoo, risking his life, defying the "Destroying Angels" and all the rest of them. You would not wonder then that the reputation and memory of such a wife and such a brother, should be as dear to me as life itself."


He spent years distancing himself:

"The great mistake of my [life was my] having anything to do with Mormonism. I feel [it to] be a deep disgrace and never speak of it when I can avoid it; for over forty years I have been almost entirely silent on the subject and will so continue after his. Accept my kind regards."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 10:30PM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

As I read the 3 letters of Dr. William Law the other day it dawned on me why there are so many different interpretations of history, whether by people like RandyJ, Sandra Tanner, Grant Palmer, or Mormon apologists for that matter.

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/newsletters_articles/newsweek/newsweek/lawint2.htm

Law states that the history was mixed up, which explains a lot.

Law also states that it was difficult to know the truth because of secrecy. It took a long time for him to learn the truth and even then he admits that he didn’t know all the details.

It explains why not everybody knew about the details of Mormonism.

Law’s info also explains why Mormons state that there were non-mormons in that era who gave favorable reviews about JS and Mormons.
According to Law they wouldn’t have known the real details either as they were well hidden from people.
JS denied practising polygamy so it’s easy to see the deceptions going on and the difficulty in getting accurate info.

Letter 1
“the Smiths and others preached morality and brotherly kindness every Sunday. I saw nothing wrong until after the city charter was obtained. A change was soon apparent; the laws of the country were set at defiance and although outwardly everything was smooth, the under current was most vile and obnoxious. Time revealed to me and to many others much that we had not even suspected. We were kept in the dark as long as possible and held up before the public as examples of the Mormon people.”


Law also states that Rigdon was the man behind JS, but that JS liked to have the lead and because of this Rigdon always seemed like a disappointed man. Rigdon’s plan to stand behind JS backfired as JS took the lead. Law says that JS had a good memory, which explains how he could recant a lot of information from that era and transpose or plagiarize it as his own.

>“As to the history of Joseph Smith, I have but little to add to your knowledge of him. One trait was his jealousy of his friends, lest any of them should be esteemed before him in the eyes of the Church or of the public. He would destroy his best friend for the sake of a few hundred dollars. It was his policy to get away with a man's money, first, because he wanted it, and second, because he believed that in getting a man's money he deprived him of power and position, and left him in a measure helpless and dependent. He was a tyrant; self-exaltation and gratification of his grosser passions with an entire disregard of others rights. [sic] And of all morality, led to his destruction at last. Hyrum Smith was as evil as Joseph, but with less ability; he had, I think a little more caution. Joseph had a wonderful memory. Hyrum was short in that; was a very poor public talker, but a pretty good secret worker. Sidney Rigdon was very close. I could never fairly understand him. While I knew him he appeared like a disappointed man, very retired in his ways. He professed to be a great Biblical historian; he was an eloquent preacher. I can hardly think he intended to be a bad man; would be leader if he could. Bennett was a scoundrel, but very smart. I never became closely acquainted with him. Joseph thought he was using him, and he was using Joseph. They were a bad pair.”


>“Brigham Young was a deep, quiet, wicked man; kept his thoughts mostly to himself; I never understood him. John D. Lee was a leader in the Danite band; I knew but little of him.”


I’ve read about Mormon apologists claiming that Dr Law couldn’t be a good character witness because he was an adulterer as stated in the Journal of Discourses. I think it was volume 6 but I may be mistaken on the volume number.
The journal of discourses was written by Mormon writers whose agenda was to defend JS and their organization.
They’ve had a long history, past and present it seems, of deceptively twisting information to their own purpose and ends.
Why would I trust the Mormon written JoD portrayal of William Law?
The JoD seems to be completely contrary to Law’s actions.

If Law was an adulterer why would he defend Jane and denounce Mormonism by exposing it in a newspaper and risk his life?

Law says:
>”….the disgrace attached to our names, on account of our association with such a gang.”

I’m getting a better picture of how the Mormons wrote deceptively and how non-mormons and Mormons alike might not have known actual details about the seedy underbelly of Joseph Smith’s Mormonism.

Now if ever a mormon refers the Journal of Discourses reference of Law’s character as an adulterer I can have a better understanding of the Mormon deceptive writing practises to discount it out of hand. Later Mormons writing the Journal of Discourses would defend JS not only because the details were secret and hidden, but because they were taught to defend and protect their leaders with lies and deception.

The current essays show how that has apparently and obviously been a traditional lds writing technique.

Yes, it’s not easy to get actual details when redactions and lies abound.
As for Law, I respect his intention to protect and defend his deceased wife’s reputation and understand why he didn’t want to come out and admit to JS proposal to his wife Jane, but as he did admit the many forms of polygamy caused him to expose it all, which led to JS literal end.