1882 Oracle received by John Taylor about Celestial Marriage

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

You quote the wrong quote that I was referring to. Weird. Then, you took that simple statement that I was quoting and proceeded to just make up some interpretation that fits what it is you are trying to say. I'll quote what Joseph Smith said again:

I challenge anybody to look at what you wrote that I quoted, and try and find if there was really any "made up interpretation". I suppose it is possible that that you didn't mean to say what you said, but I am not a mind reader. Why not just admit that instead of accusing me of misrepresenting you?

Maybe, as always you should simply quote Joseph Smith and stop before you write:

Here is what Joseph Smith is plainly saying in my own words:

Because usually after you say that is when things fall apart.

Joseph Smith doesn't think that it is right to call up a person and try him (its not right to have a disciplinary counsel) because he is mistaken in doctrine. He doesn't like this because it is too much like how the Methodist do it and because it is not what Mormons do (Latter day Saintism).

Joseph Smith wants the freedom to explore the doctrine found in the scriptures and what is being revealed to him by the Holy Spirit without the superstitious and artificial boundaries that men in or out of a church place on what a person should or ought to believe.

In response to this I will pose a thought question:

What were the charges leveled against William Law, in 1844 for his excommunication, and who conducted his excommunication hearing?
(Think of the word Apostasy, it might help... Also, I'm sure jwharton would know this, because his apostasy was to REJECT plural marriage)

We are a religion that embraces free agency

There is no such thing as Free Agency!

In this case, I might be able to figure out what you mean, even if it is contrary to what you say. But if you can't say what you mean, it ifs often hard to guess what you mean. This is not a problem of simply trying to hold you to expressing yourself in reasonably coherent English.

Because by saying things wrong, you tend to follow your incorrect statement with subsequent irrational conclusions.

by the way there is Agency, but it isn't FREE. We have the agency to make the choices we desire, but we DO NOT have the freedom from the consequences of those choices. If we humbly repent and come to Christ, he may take on that payment, but it must be paid!

Regards,

George Clay

[Delight]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

Neither have I.

[rewcox]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

Neither have I.

Polygamy was turned off in the early 1900's. Saying it wasn't is apostate doctrine. Saying we need to hold our leaders accountable for that is apostate doctrine.

[Melissa]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

That's not doctrine. Those are practices, policies and procedures. The practice of polygamy, as a Celestial Law whenever required or mandated by God, is true doctrine. It's up to the Lord to decide when polygamy will be practiced again, and it's His decision on what to do with anyone, leader or not, who fights against the principle.

Are we merely pawns?

[Mark]

To those who feel the need to mock and torment me with your crude, callous and nasty remarks, I urge you to cease and desist, aka repent.
I do not take kindly to such treatment, and especially from those who have covenanted to build Father's Kingdom.
The forum moderators are likely too busy to deal with this so I'm going to take matters into my own hands.
This is my first official warning.

How many official warnings do I get jw? :-ss You are too much brother. Go take a break and pay some attention to your wife instead of a bunch of non celestialized internet strangers.

[gclayjr]

jwharton,

To those who feel the need to mock and torment me with your crude, callous and nasty remarks, I urge you to cease and desist, aka repent.
I do not take kindly to such treatment, and especially from those who have covenanted to build Father's Kingdom.
The forum moderators are likely too busy to deal with this so I'm going to take matters into my own hands.
This is my first official warning.

You've got my curiosity. what is the penalty for ignoring your warnings?

Regards,

George Clay

[Mark]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

That's not doctrine. Those are practices, policies and procedures. The practice of polygamy, as a Celestial Law whenever required or mandated by God, is true doctrine. It's up to the Lord to decide when polygamy will be practiced again, and it's His decision on what to do with anyone, leader or not, who fights against the principle.

Good grief sister are you even reading jwhartons posts? The man believes that plural marriage for the benefit of all the widows should still be actively preached and practiced in the church and we are under condemnation for discontinuing this type of marriage arrangement In the early 1900's. The Woolleys are his Prophets of choice. Wilford Woodruff and succeeding Prophets rejected the Lords sanctioned doctrine so the Woolley stepped in to save the day. He is a fundamentalist in all his thought processes. Are you a fundamentalist in your belief system as well? If you agree with jwharton I guess you must be..

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue;

Reading your posts here, it is clear that you will not listen to any arguments against your views.

I do listen and then I try to also get a sense of whether or not I am being listened to.

It's as if none of us have even discussed this--you are still going on about widows needed to be polygamously married to men, in order to help them. This is the weakest of your arguments because in our society women don't need to marry a man in order to be taken care of. Single LDS women don't want to be married polygamously to some middle aged man with a wife and kids. They want a man who will love and cherish them, alone-and if they can't have this, they will get on with having a fulfilling life and hoping for this in their future. That is what LDS women want.

This isn't me telling those women what they SHOULD do.
If that is what they want, then I'm sure not going to stop them.If they join in a polygamous union they will be excommunicated from the Lord's only true and living church; if they were someone I knew, I'd try to talk them out of it.
What I'm addressing are those women who do wish to become a plural wife.What women??? LDS women who believe that Thomas S. Monson is the Lord's anointed Prophet and president of the church, don't want to enter a union that is considered an 'abomination' when the Lord has not authorized it--which is the way it is right now.
I'm addressing you and others who are telling them what they SHOULDN'T do.Anyone with half a brain who cares about their membership in the LDS church would tell them NOT to do it! Also, it's illegal in the US.
If you can keep this context in mind then you will understand me better.I don't understand you. I don't understand why you would want to believe the tales of Lorin Woolley. I don't understand why you ignore the teachings in the Book of Mormon and embrace the fanatical views of the FLDS. I don't understand why you are not happy with your one lovely wife and instead secretly pining to take other wives. I understand and accept that polygamy will be a type of marriage for some in the next life, but I am certain that those engaged in it will not be men sealed in the temple to the wife of their earthly life, but who did not 'cleave to her alone' because in their heart they were looking forward to and fantasizing about having others. In the next life, we won't be able to hide our unclean, unrighteous, prideful thoughts and actions which we did not repent of--all will be able to see them. Do you really think that a woman would want to join herself eternally to a family where in life, the husband was unfaithful(in a variety of ways) or disrespectful or dismissive toward his wife? Why would a woman want that kind of man? Why not choose a man who was completely faithful and cherished his one wife and never harbored secret desires for other women.

You seem incapable of understanding that polygamy is not something modern LDS women want, no woman wants to be treated like property to be collected or awarded to a man and the Lord delights in the chastity of women, he doesn't treat us as if we have no value unless we are married.

Your picture of plural marriage and what it allegedly entails is much different than mine.Maybe it's because you've got some rose colored fantasy of what it would be like to actually live it.

The church is NOT under condemnation

The Church has been under condemnation for a VERY long time and yet is.Why are we under condemnation? Because we stopped practicing polygamy? This is ridiculous to even be arguing. You think the church is condemned, you reject the manifestos, you believe in some shadow priesthood--you don't believe Pres. Monson is the 'anointed' prophet--how can you think of yourself as a faithful LDS? You are faithful only to your convoluted beleifs of this strange tight rope you walk.
We were under condemnation far prior to 1890 and to this day the Lord has not removed this status.If YOU think we're under condemnation, why are you even a member of this church? It simply does not make sense--I can't fathom this type of compartmentalization.

, we followed the directive of the Lord, through his prophets, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, in ending the practice. The polygamists were wrong and they've reaped bitter fruits for believing the claims of Lorin Woolley. Hindsight ought to be 20/20 for you, you can see what a century of their 'fruits' of believing his claims has given them. I can have sympathy for earlier polygamists--they didn't know, but anyone today can see that the manifestos were divinely inspired! Why you would want to believe in Woolley's claims which have come to destroy families, damage relationships and ruin whole communities, I cannot fathom.

By their fruits shall ye know them. That was the Lord's counsel in recognizing false prophets. What more proof do you need???

There is a lot more I could say and would say but I have agreed to steer clear of controversial subjects that people respond contentiously to.

I agree the FLDS are a dead and disgusting body that refuses burial and I'll leave it at that.

But the FLDS are the 'fruits' of what you are promoting and believing. They are a 'dead and disgusting body' because they believed Lorin Woolley---made him out to be a prophet and followed his directives--created a priesthood body (not the one Woolley claimed because they were all dead and there's no evidence any of them were ever involved in this so called 'priesthood body') out of his authority and several other men that he chose. They put polygamy above all else--they were disobedient to the Prophet, Joseph F. Smith, the only one who actually held the sealing power, they refused to acknowledge that he could stop this or require it--and they followed after false prophets and false teachings and look at the bitter fruits they've brought forward. Do they care for widows and orphans? They even live the United order (their version) but most live in poverty and the women are passed around as prizes for the men who are obedient to their prophet. The young men are pushed out because they compete for the very limited commodity of young virgins in the community. This is what happens when polygamy is practiced over generations. Why do you think the practice was only to be used when the Lord authorized, and it MUST be temporary. When it goes on too long, it degrades over time and is rife for promoting unrighteous dominion, child abuse, sexual abuse and power struggles. Just look at the Muslim countries which allow it.

[AI2.0]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

That's not doctrine. Those are practices, policies and procedures. The practice of polygamy, as a Celestial Law whenever required or mandated by God, is true doctrine. It's up to the Lord to decide when polygamy will be practiced again, and it's His decision on what to do with anyone, leader or not, who fights against the principle.

Lizzy, if you haven't read any false doctrine in jwharton's posts, you aren't reading them, so I'll spell out some of his teachings for you.

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the Prophet of the LDS church may be the president of the church but may not be the Lord's 'anointed' prophet--that these two things do not go hand in hand. Jwharton believes that Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, down to Thomas S. Monson are not 'anointed' prophets and so the manifestos were not binding on the members of the church. He believes that Lorin Woolley was one of the Lord's 'anointed' prophets and so was able to pass the sealing power to other men and keep polygamy alive.

Jwharton believes the false doctrine that Pres. John Taylor set up a shadow priesthood organization, calling and setting apart men to work outside the LDS priesthood hierarchy to continue the practice of polygamy.

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the practice of polygamy cannot be ended by the prophet, but must always be practiced or the church is under condemnation.

He preaches the notion that the LDS church is under condemnation because we no longer practice polygamy and we excommunicate those who do. He preaches the false doctrine that polygamy is required and necessary for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom and those of us who reject this belief are headed for perdition. He also preaches that church leaders who excommunicate polygamists are headed to perdition.

He also preaches the false doctrine that polygamy being ended and the end of living the united order put the church under condemnation. These may be practices involving doctrine, but he has made how they are practiced part of his doctrine.

So, Lizzy and Delight (who claims to be a lifelong member of the church)--do you think you can identify some false doctrine in his teachings?

If you responded because you feel he's being ganged up on or treated unkindly, then say so, but please don't ignore the fact that he IS preaching false doctrine.

[Jeremy]

Rewcox, you're about as recalcitrant as they come. This is to be expected, I suppose, from a blowhard so enmeshed in his own sense of self-righteous indignation that he emblazons every post with a picture of Texas. If I were to have the misfortune of having you as my advocate for anything of any importance, I'd be utterly embarrassed.

You do nothing to contribute to the conversation. You ignore every point made and blather on like a buffoon while insulting people from all demographics who have the dubious responsibility of having to wade through your drivel every time you mash the keys on your keyboard.

@-)
Wow. Being someone who isn't really rew's biggest fan, even I thought this a bit harsh and over the top. Granted, rew, like many others and myself included, often contribute nothing in conversations. But to state it so absolutely is kind of obnoxious... even if it was slightly empathized with.

I happen to know that rewcox has put forth an effort many times to add content on this forum that is intended to be uplifting and edifying. Surely, Jordan you have come across such posts? If not, I feel sorry for your misfortune during this half a decade or so. I imagine you might have scrapped out your eyes and wasted to much vinegar my friend.

I suggest that perhaps you can attempt to add to this forum with material and content that has more value yourself before wasting precious posts (two as of the time of this post) adding more contempt to a forum already dripping with contention.
By my count, rewcox seems to have a more preferred ratio of positive content to drivel. Lucky for you, your two posts away from a tie. =))

Try to find something good in rew, even if you have a problem with Texas. FYI - SECOND biggest state ;)

[rewcox]

Rewcox, you're about as recalcitrant as they come. This is to be expected, I suppose, from a blowhard so enmeshed in his own sense of self-righteous indignation that he emblazons every post with a picture of Texas. If I were to have the misfortune of having you as my advocate for anything of any importance, I'd be utterly embarrassed.

You do nothing to contribute to the conversation. You ignore every point made and blather on like a buffoon while insulting people from all demographics who have the dubious responsibility of having to wade through your drivel every time you mash the keys on your keyboard.

Try to find something good in rew, even if you have a problem with Texas. FYI - SECOND biggest state ;)

Just sayin'....

[iWriteStuff]

Ok I'm gonna go off the rails for a second here and just toss out a thought I had the last time I read through the D&C while finishing Rough Stone Rolling....

Has anyone wondered if maybe Woodruff's statement about leading the church astray and removal from office was retroactively effective as well? If you read the histories published even by the church, it wasn't until polygamy was taught by Joseph Smith that he got in over his head. The circumstances that led to his death can be tied in nearly a straight line back to his preaching (in secret) the practice of polygamy. Even "Rough Stone Rolling" alludes to it, heavily. He even denied practicing it to his wife, and went out of his way to hide a lot of it from her. This whole "The Lord commanded me to do it.... but don't tell Emma" thing stinketh to me.

So there it is: what if preaching polygamy led to the Lord removing Joseph Smith from his position as President? What if polygamy was "not in the programme"?

I guess there's the other argument that he never preached it at all, nor practiced it, but I don't believe that. Too many witnesses. And please don't get me wrong - I love the prophet, have a strong testimony of the B of M, but simply can't wrap my head around his supposed desire to preach something in private that he couldn't even fully explain to his wife and went to great lengths to hide. I don't see The Lord wanting to drive His church into a ditch over something as confused, messy, and fatal as multiple wives (some of which were already married to other men). Joseph didn't raise any seed, like unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, nor did he re-establish a sustainable and essential principle for salvation by marrying other men's wives and hiding it from Emma. I can't imagine this being a principle of a "house of order".

Anyway, flame away now I guess. It's been sitting there for a few months, just thought I'd get that out there. :ymsick:

[iWriteStuff]

Christ leads His Church, Thomas Monson in the living currrent Prophet, and the Church/Leaders/Members continue to move forward.

I agree 100% with this statement.

* Disclaimer & Addendum: I've been considering the alternative that perhaps Joseph Smith never consummated any of these plural weddings. But as you say, how can anyone really know what the heck actually happened with so many conflicting theories and histories? I'm just glad we're not into polygamy now - my head would literally explode trying to take care of more than one wife. :ymparty:

[jwharton]

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the Prophet of the LDS church may be the president of the church but may not be the Lord's 'anointed' prophet--that these two things do not go hand in hand.

They are two distinct mantles of authority joined in Joseph Smith Jr. when the body made the choice to appoint him as Church President.
It was within the power of the body to choose whoever it wished to be the presiding officer.
There was an oracle given instructing the Church to appoint Joseph Smith Jr. as its President.
This also gives a clear indication that it was a separate mantle of authority as well.

Jwharton believes that Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, down to Thomas S. Monson are not 'anointed' prophets and so the manifestos were not binding on the members of the church.

This doesn't represent my view accurately either. What took place under Wilford Woodruff with regard to the Manifesto didn't require the Lord's Anointed mantle of authority. This is why he specifically spoke in the capacity of President of the Church only. And, the Church accepted it by common consent and so it is binding UPON the Church. And, the terms of the Manifesto and OD-1 is that he gave his ADVICE to cease from promoting it by way of the Church and any Church related function. He stated any who would be found violating this would receive a REPRIMAND.

So, yes, as a function of the Church, it was indeed stopped. It didn't even become recognized and accepted by the Church until 1852 so obviously this is pretty much a moot point because it was before and could easily again be a function of the Priesthood, which is a superior and presiding body over the Church. If you doubt this, just do some basic study of Church history. There is such thing as the School of the Prophets and it is a body that presides over all of the appendages of Zion, including the Church. It's President is the Lord's Anointed Prophet.

He believes that Lorin Woolley was one of the Lord's 'anointed' prophets and so was able to pass the sealing power to other men and keep polygamy alive.

I am not concerned about the claims of Lorin Wooley as he was much later than 1890.
I'm pretty sure by the time he was involved in things Abel was pretty much dead already.

Jwharton believes the false doctrine that Pres. John Taylor set up a shadow priesthood organization, calling and setting apart men to work outside the LDS priesthood hierarchy to continue the practice of polygamy.

It is in the very oracles themselves where the Lord instructed John Taylor:
"Let the School of the Prophets be organized". You can look it up for yourself.
I didn't say anything about it being a "shadow" organization either.
That is your word and a word that puts a disrespectful twist.

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the practice of polygamy cannot be ended by the prophet, but must always be practiced or the church is under condemnation.

I simply teach what is in the oracles, which says that the Father has specific and unchanging and immutable requirements that He considers the acceptable offering. If a group is out of harmony with them, the Father calls upon them to repent and set their houses in order. He makes a fair number of these requests and accompanies them with warnings. Eventually, He gets exasperated and makes pretty much a final warning. All of those conditions can be found, and especially in the final years just prior to 1890. I simply am saying "TAKE THE WARNINGS SERIOUSLY" and consider the possibility that the negative things God says He will do can and likely shall be done, if we do not take HIS commandments seriously. He especially warns the church to not take the oracles lightly. There are several oracles that were received just prior to 1890 that you and many others are taking lightly. I am not going to take anything that is the Word of God, spoken in first-person, lightly. Doing so is to let loose of the Iron Rod.

He preaches the notion that the LDS church is under condemnation because we no longer practice polygamy and we excommunicate those who do. He preaches the false doctrine that polygamy is required and necessary for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom and those of us who reject this belief are headed for perdition. He also preaches that church leaders who excommunicate polygamists are headed to perdition.

You are perpetuating the false doctrine that we don't have to take any warnings seriously that God speaks to us in His oracles .
You are implying the false doctrine that God will always and only always do that which is to the blessing and betterment of His Children, even if they are prideful and totally ignore His warnings.
You are saying God doesn't really mean it when He says HE WILL SEND STRONG DELUSION and that HE WILL CAUSE THEM TO BELIEVE A LIE.

WHO IS GOD TALKING TO HERE?

Who will God send strong delusion to?
Who does God warn, "be careful what you ask for because it could turn to your condemnation"?

He also preaches the false doctrine that polygamy being ended and the end of living the united order put the church under condemnation. These may be practices involving doctrine, but he has made how they are practiced part of his doctrine.

What I have done is point out how these essential components of the FATHER'S PLAN are not to be trifled with.
If the Gentiles reject them, and they have, then they shall be counted as salt that has lost its savor.
Do you at least accept that God could have really meant what He said in this regard?

Read section 103 where God says things are going to go one way or the other.
Either Zion would never cease to prevail against the Kingdoms of the World.
Or, if Zion doesn't keep all of the commandments to build Zion in an acceptable manner with diligence, etc.
that the kingdoms of the world would prevail against Zion and it would become salt that has lost its savor.

Can't you see what happened in 1890 indicated we are going the "salt that has lost its savor" route?
What are the implications of this?
We are yet under condemnation and we are deeper in condemnation for rejecting Celestial Law and Celestial ministration.

It really is simple if you just take the Word of God objectively and take His Word seriously.
Read it like you would source code of computer software and press play and it makes simply logical sense.
The problem is, however, that it has dire ramifications that prideful and self-righteous people are too big of cowards to confront.

So, Lizzy and Delight (who claims to be a lifelong member of the church)--do you think you can identify some false doctrine in his teachings?

If you responded because you feel he's being ganged up on or treated unkindly, then say so, but please don't ignore the fact that he IS preaching false doctrine.

You only have post-Manifesto Telestial ministration to go on, but you have no oracles or Celestial ministration, to back you up.
If you want to bank the eternal welfare of your soul on the basis of trumping Celestial ministration with Telestial ministration, go for it.

[Jeremy]

I demand all mockery cease because if it doesn't what I am threatening is that I will place a seal upon your soul that will demand that this behavior be counted as a testimony against you in your day of judgment. While I am not in an office of authority above you, my priesthood is fully intact and you are not to mock anyone who has such authority. Think of this seal I will put on you as a lien against your eternal salvation that will have to be rectified or released before you are cleared for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. You may scoff, but I have had the Spirit give me the authority to seal people to Babylon. I have done it before and I will do it again if I am moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so. I'm patient, but that's because I do carry a big stick.

#:-s
Sure, the mockery is lame but so is an appeal to ones own priesthood authority being used to seal people to Babylon. Let people seal their own fate. No need to carry or threaten with your supposed big stick. Persuade some other way.

[gclayjr]

jwharton,

mock
[mäk]
VERB

tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner:
"he mocks them as Washington insiders"
synonyms: ridicule · jeer at · sneer at · deride · scorn · make fun of · [more]

ADJECTIVE

not authentic or real, but without the intention to deceive:
"a mock-Georgian red brick house" · [more]
synonyms: imitation · artificial · man-made · simulated · synthetic · [more]

NOUN

dated
an object of derision:
"he has become the mock of all his contemporaries"

Verb Adjective or noun?

For me, not verb. While I think you are a complete heretic. I only respond, because you seem to be artful enough with your BS to seduce some into believing it. I only hope that in pointing out the inconsistencies and failings of your arguments, that maybe I will shine a bit of light on the cesspool of what you believe that maybe someone who might have been tempted to buy into your dangerous heresy might have enough of an aha moment not to fall for it.

And I certainly am not laughing.. too serious and horrible for that

Adjective. Probably true, but that is what you create of yourself, not what we do to you.

Noun. This is obsolete. If it were true, I would not waste my time refuting your BS. So while I am not responsible, I guess I would be relieved if it were true.

So I guess Mock or not Mock comes from you... not us!


Regards,

George Clay

[jwharton]

Polygamy was turned off in the early 1900's. Saying it wasn't is apostate doctrine. Saying we need to hold our leaders accountable for that is apostate doctrine.

It was turned off for the Church. Nobody contests that.
The question is what was the "wise purpose" the Lord had in doing so?

Our leaders should be held accountable to the oracles of God and be removed according to "the programme" if they turn away from them or their duties. The President of the Church is subject to REMOVAL if they do not have integrity to the oracles. We get this doctrine on OD-1. READ IT please.

You are who keeps spouting the false doctrine that more or less implies our Church President if infallible and should be treated accordingly.

The ORACLES of GOD back me up on this.
The only backup you have is the precepts of men.

You know what I have faith in today...? That IF the president of this church goes off base that the LORD himself will remove him from office. That I have faith in!

He doesn't operate alone and has a quorum of men. This prevents one man from exercising dominion and becoming off base and also serves to uplift and support. I believe that if the prophet receives a revelation, that those in his quorum will equally be inspired of the revealtion and it's truthfulness.

We need not worry so much, the Lord is in control...not man.

Ok I'm gonna go off the rails for a second here and just toss out a thought I had the last time I read through the D&C while finishing Rough Stone Rolling....

Has anyone wondered if maybe Woodruff's statement about leading the church astray and removal from office was retroactively effective as well? If you read the histories published even by the church, it wasn't until polygamy was taught by Joseph Smith that he got in over his head. The circumstances that led to his death can be tied in nearly a straight line back to his preaching (in secret) the practice of polygamy. Even "Rough Stone Rolling" alludes to it, heavily. He even denied practicing it to his wife, and went out of his way to hide a lot of it from her. This whole "The Lord commanded me to do it.... but don't tell Emma" thing stinketh to me.

So there it is: what if preaching polygamy led to the Lord removing Joseph Smith from his position as President? What if polygamy was "not in the programme"?

I guess there's the other argument that he never preached it at all, nor practiced it, but I don't believe that. Too many witnesses. And please don't get me wrong - I love the prophet, have a strong testimony of the B of M, but simply can't wrap my head around his supposed desire to preach something in private that he couldn't even fully explain to his wife and went to great lengths to hide. I don't see The Lord wanting to drive His church into a ditch over something as confused, messy, and fatal as multiple wives (some of which were already married to other men). Joseph didn't raise any seed, like unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, nor did he re-establish a sustainable and essential principle for salvation by marrying other men's wives and hiding it from Emma. I can't imagine this being a principle of a "house of order".

Anyway, flame away now I guess. It's been sitting there for a few months, just thought I'd get that out there. :ymsick:

True oracles do not conflict so the problem you have with this theory is you would have to claim Joseph Smith Jr. was a fallen and false Prophet prior to when he received the oracle calling for the doctrine of plural marriage as an essential part of the Celestial Patriarchal Order.

You have to carefully delineate between the doctrines and policies the first-person oracles call for vs. the other stuff that is just Holy Ghost, at best, inspiration.

[jwharton]

I demand all mockery cease because if it doesn't what I am threatening is that I will place a seal upon your soul that will demand that this behavior be counted as a testimony against you in your day of judgment. While I am not in an office of authority above you, my priesthood is fully intact and you are not to mock anyone who has such authority. Think of this seal I will put on you as a lien against your eternal salvation that will have to be rectified or released before you are cleared for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. You may scoff, but I have had the Spirit give me the authority to seal people to Babylon. I have done it before and I will do it again if I am moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so. I'm patient, but that's because I do carry a big stick.

#:-s
Sure, the mockery is lame but so is an appeal to ones own priesthood authority being used to seal people to Babylon. Let people seal their own fate. No need to carry or threaten with your supposed big stick. Persuade some other way.

That is how a seal works Jeremy. My seal would act as a lien, which the Judge would have to validate.
And, it would only be their own foul actions that would give any authority for a judgment to be rendered.
Doing this just guarantees that this grievance I have will be drawn up and paid specific attention to.
Normally I'm happy to roll with things, but a point comes when I either stand up for myself or totally withdraw.
I'm just making sure they know that I'm not going to continue pissing around and putting up with their deliberate mockery.
I have every right to hold them accountable to conduct themselves with a certain level of basic human decency and respect.
So, if after a 3rd warning takes place and the deliberate mockery continues, I will see to it that they are accountable.
Of course there is the risk they will mock me all the more because demons would love to have any destroyed and they will prod them to continue.
Just know, I'm fully prepared to defend myself if it seems that this forum isn't going to apply sufficient moderation to curb it.

There's also the chance I will be banned for threatening to stand up for myself as well.
If this does in fact happen, the others who provoked it should be banned as well.
So, you all decide. I have drawn a line to say I've had it and I won't tolerate it any more.

[gclayjr]

IWriteStuff,

So there it is: what if preaching polygamy led to the Lord removing Joseph Smith from his position as President? What if polygamy was "not in the programme"?

Then why did he replace Joseph Smith with Brigham Young?

Doesn't look very consistent or logical!

Regards,


George Clay

[gclayjr]

IWriteStuff,

So there it is: what if preaching polygamy led to the Lord removing Joseph Smith from his position as President? What if polygamy was "not in the programme"?

Then why did he replace Joseph Smith with Brigham Young?

Doesn't look very consistent or logical!


Regards,

George Clay

[AI2.0]

My responses in red:

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

That's not doctrine. Those are practices, policies and procedures. The practice of polygamy, as a Celestial Law whenever required or mandated by God, is true doctrine. It's up to the Lord to decide when polygamy will be practiced again, and it's His decision on what to do with anyone, leader or not, who fights against the principle.

Lizzy, if you haven't read any false doctrine in jwharton's posts, you aren't reading them, so I'll spell out some of his teachings for you.

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the Prophet of the LDS church may be the president of the church but may not be the Lord's 'anointed' prophet--that these two things do not go hand in hand. Jwharton believes that Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, down to Thomas S. Monson are not 'anointed' prophets and so the manifestos were not binding on the members of the church. He believes that Lorin Woolley was one of the Lord's 'anointed' prophets and so was able to pass the sealing power to other men and keep polygamy alive.

Jwharton believes the false doctrine that Pres. John Taylor set up a shadow priesthood organization, calling and setting apart men to work outside the LDS priesthood hierarchy to continue the practice of polygamy.

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the practice of polygamy cannot be ended by the prophet, but must always be practiced or the church is under condemnation.

He preaches the notion that the LDS church is under condemnation because we no longer practice polygamy and we excommunicate those who do. He preaches the false doctrine that polygamy is required and necessary for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom and those of us who reject this belief are headed for perdition. He also preaches that church leaders who excommunicate polygamists are headed to perdition.

He also preaches the false doctrine that polygamy being ended and the end of living the united order put the church under condemnation. These may be practices involving doctrine, but he has made how they are practiced part of his doctrine.

So, Lizzy and Delight (who claims to be a lifelong member of the church)--do you think you can identify some false doctrine in his teachings?

If you responded because you feel he's being ganged up on or treated unkindly, then say so, but please don't ignore the fact that he IS preaching false doctrine.

You are butchering what I am attempting to communicate.No, I am simply explaining exactly what you teach.
When I have time, I'll attempt to help you get what I am saying for what I am trying to say.
Injecting in subtle shifts to what I am saying, whether intentional or not, is quite unhelpful.
This makes edification impossible and drives away the Spirit of Truth.I have the spirit of truth, when pondering on things, I often receive inspiration before I post and even feel it flowing as I type at times. I know what the spirit feels like and I know when I am receiving inspiration.
I want to be judged for what I am actually trying to say, not a contorted version of it.Then face up to what you are actually preaching. Yes, it sounds ugly in the cold light of reality, but I'm not misrepresenting you.
Please, give me the respect to at least be understood correctly.
Then, I'm sure you will yet have plenty to complain about.
But, where it goes from there is the question of whose position is supported by the written oracles and whose isn't.I'm sorry, but your position is supported by 'oracles' which are not in the LDS canon. We don't even know if they are real. We also know that they contradict the written canonized revelations which came later--the Manifestos, the scriptures which say that only one man on earth can hold the sealing power at a time(D&C 132) and the scriptures which make it clear that polygamy could be commanded or rescinded, by God (Jacob 2) and when it's not commanded IT IS AN ABOMINATION!

The difference here is who is holding fast to the Iron Rod, which is the Word of God, and who is in that large and spacious building that can only be seen to be without a foundation from holding fast to the Iron Rod, which is where I believe I am standing and am fully prepared to go the distance with all those who seem to be out of ammo, except for rude mocking.I am not mocking you. I am giving you the respect of actually challenging you rather than simply ignoring you or ridiculing you. It should also be evident to those reading these threads that the mockery and taunting and jeering is pretty much a one-way effort from youI have NEVER mocked, taunted or jeered you. I don't appreciate you claiming that I have. and your other alleged LDS exemplary Saints, but who in my eyes are a disgrace.I have no problem with my responses standing as a testimony at the judgment day and I certainly feel no disgrace in the defense of the prophets and the church these last 100 years.

I demand all mockery cease because if it doesn't what I am threatening is that I will place a seal upon your soul that will demand that this behavior be counted as a testimony against you in your day of judgment. Please, go ahead an do that. Frankly, I don't recognize your 'power' to do such a thing, but I am fully prepared to stand at the judgment seat of God and own every word I have written to you. And if you forget, I'll remind you on that day in the next life. I fully expect that the things I've written on the forum will be recalled to me when I stand before God and while some things I've said may cause me embarrassment or regret, my declarations in defense of the church and the prophets in ending the practice of polygamy--I stand by completely. My Great grandfather, Joseph F. Smith was responsible for the 2nd manifesto, and I defend his actions in this matter. He was the Lord's anointed prophet and was inspired to completely end this practice and was fully authorized as the Lord's prophet to excommunicate those who defied his priesthood authority. He held the sealing power and could revoke this practice, which he did. And when he revoked it, polygamy became an 'abomination', as it was in the days of the Prophet Jacob. While I am not in an office of authority above you, my priesthood is fully intact and you are not to mock anyone who has such authority.Just one thing you've obviously forgotten; D&C 121:36-37 Think of this seal I will put on you as a lien against your eternal salvation that will have to be rectified or released before you are cleared for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.You have no authority over me. I am already qualified to enter the Celestial Kingdom because I was baptized by one who had the priesthood authority to do so and you have no authority to deny this to me. You may scoff, but I have had the Spirit give me the authority to seal people to Babylon.Sorry, but in my faith, I don't believe the spirit can give you authority to seal anyone to Babylon, so this doesn't work on me. It might work on those like Delight who apparently hang on your every word (now THAT was mocking, but I couldn't resist). I have done it before and I will do it again if I am moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so. You have no authority over me, I don't recognize your priesthood or your right to pass judgment against me. I'm patient, but that's because I do carry a big stick.

Do you know why you've lost it, railing against me, condemning me to 'babylon' etc.--why you've reacted so harshly to me? Because I've exposed you and your duplicitous nature.

Your anger is a perfect example of 1 Nephi 16:2 '..the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.'

[Mark]

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

That's not doctrine. Those are practices, policies and procedures. The practice of polygamy, as a Celestial Law whenever required or mandated by God, is true doctrine. It's up to the Lord to decide when polygamy will be practiced again, and it's His decision on what to do with anyone, leader or not, who fights against the principle.

Lizzy, if you haven't read any false doctrine in jwharton's posts, you aren't reading them, so I'll spell out some of his teachings for you.

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the Prophet of the LDS church may be the president of the church but may not be the Lord's 'anointed' prophet--that these two things do not go hand in hand. Jwharton believes that Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, down to Thomas S. Monson are not 'anointed' prophets and so the manifestos were not binding on the members of the church. He believes that Lorin Woolley was one of the Lord's 'anointed' prophets and so was able to pass the sealing power to other men and keep polygamy alive.

Jwharton believes the false doctrine that Pres. John Taylor set up a shadow priesthood organization, calling and setting apart men to work outside the LDS priesthood hierarchy to continue the practice of polygamy.

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the practice of polygamy cannot be ended by the prophet, but must always be practiced or the church is under condemnation.

He preaches the notion that the LDS church is under condemnation because we no longer practice polygamy and we excommunicate those who do. He preaches the false doctrine that polygamy is required and necessary for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom and those of us who reject this belief are headed for perdition. He also preaches that church leaders who excommunicate polygamists are headed to perdition.

He also preaches the false doctrine that polygamy being ended and the end of living the united order put the church under condemnation. These may be practices involving doctrine, but he has made how they are practiced part of his doctrine.

So, Lizzy and Delight (who claims to be a lifelong member of the church)--do you think you can identify some false doctrine in his teachings?

If you responded because you feel he's being ganged up on or treated unkindly, then say so, but please don't ignore the fact that he IS preaching false doctrine.

You are butchering what I am attempting to communicate.
When I have time, I'll attempt to help you get what I am saying for what I am trying to say.
Injecting in subtle shifts to what I am saying, whether intentional or not, is quite unhelpful.
This makes edification impossible and drives away the Spirit of Truth.
I want to be judged for what I am actually trying to say, not a contorted version of it.
Please, give me the respect to at least be understood correctly.
Then, I'm sure you will yet have plenty to complain about.
But, where it goes from there is the question of whose position is supported by the written oracles and whose isn't.

The difference here is who is holding fast to the Iron Rod, which is the Word of God, and who is in that large and spacious building that can only be seen to be without a foundation from holding fast to the Iron Rod, which is where I believe I am standing and am fully prepared to go the distance with all those who seem to be out of ammo, except for rude mocking. It should also be evident to those reading these threads that the mockery and taunting and jeering is pretty much a one-way effort from you and your other alleged LDS exemplary Saints, but who in my eyes are a disgrace.

I demand all mockery cease because if it doesn't what I am threatening is that I will place a seal upon your soul that will demand that this behavior be counted as a testimony against you in your day of judgment. While I am not in an office of authority above you, my priesthood is fully intact and you are not to mock anyone who has such authority. Think of this seal I will put on you as a lien against your eternal salvation that will have to be rectified or released before you are cleared for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. You may scoff, but I have had the Spirit give me the authority to seal people to Babylon. I have done it before and I will do it again if I am moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so. I'm patient, but that's because I do carry a big stick.

Seal away brother. While you are at it you can also make a voodoo doll with my name on it and throw darts at it every night before you retire. Maybe that will relax you a bit. You are wound tighter than a 2 dollar watch. Take a deep breath and go do something fun rather than continuing to post threatening damnation to souls on a loonie internet forum. :ymcowboy:

[gclayjr]

jwharton,

You can either continue with me in the Spirit of Truth and actually try to achieve mutual understanding or be quiet.

Apparently AI2.0, in fact , has more than 2 choices.

OK, I do think that things my be descending into mocking, but are you so clueless as to not see how you are now encouraging it?

To unbelievers, like AI2.0, Mark, Rewcox, and me, you look like a child pouting and looking between his thumb and forefinger as he wiggles them to squeeze our heads.

When you first started whining about people mocking you, you were just unable to take true rebuttals to your ridiculous arguments. Now you have descended into a childish tantrum. It is hard not to goad you when you make such ridiculous claims.

If I claimed to be a wizard, and people didn't believe me, then It would be natural for them to challenge me to "prove it"

Don't make any such claims unless you are prepared to "walk your talk:, instead of just whining!

or... expect the mocking to continue.

Regards,

George Clay

[Melissa]

My extreme desire with regard to plural marriage is to get the sword of vengeance to no longer be hanging over us for neglecting widows.
This is talked about by Moroni in Mormon chapter 8. He saw our day and the awful spiritual and temporal plight of widows.
When the Lord talks about a sword of vengeance hanging over our heads because we are giving widows the shaft, I do get very unsettled.

The interesting thing about widows is that many of them already remarry. Some to widowers and some to divorced men and some to men who've never been married. There's no shortage of single men.
Plus there are those widows who have no desire whatsoever to remarry.

Very true, there are men everywhere. We have no shortage from what I can see. People like to use the poor widow as a righteous reason to marry more than one woman. It's distasteful and a bit offensive the way some use this idea. Like women are somehow to be dictated what to do with their life or something like helpless children. Women are not stupid and can find someone if they want to.

[creator]

I demand all mockery cease because if it doesn't what I am threatening is that I will place a seal upon your soul that will demand that this behavior be counted as a testimony against you in your day of judgment. While I am not in an office of authority above you, my priesthood is fully intact and you are not to mock anyone who has such authority. Think of this seal I will put on you as a lien against your eternal salvation that will have to be rectified or released before you are cleared for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. You may scoff, but I have had the Spirit give me the authority to seal people to Babylon. I have done it before and I will do it again if I am moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so. I'm patient, but that's because I do carry a big stick.

This is NOT an appropriate way to communicate with others, especially if you expect anyone to take your message seriously.