Found it!
Posted on 05/03/2008 1:18:09 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
This is a lot of mere assertions without substantiation.
The real issue is not so much “plural spouses” but sex with those who are essentially CHILDREN; sex usually against their will or after being seduced by persuasion that some god wants them to lie down with some old reprobate.
Plural marriage. Harems. Alpha males. Anthropolgy 101.
FIP ping
Aren’t be glad we’re no longer living in caves!
BTW, I’ve never met a woman who wanted to be in a harem, so golly, wow....maybe it’s a guy thing.
In this "message," he conceded that Smith's extra-marital "contact" may have started as early as 1832:
Excerpt:
To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832.
Then he makes a reference about an "article of marriage" (notice he doesn't reference it as a "revelation") which "found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority." (Imagine that...kind of describes D&C in its entirety):
About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery.
Then he says what I've said on several threads. That the purpose of D&C 132 was for none other than Emma Smith:
When the revelation was written, in 1843, it was for a special purpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not then designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form. There are personalities contained in a part of it which are not relevant to the principle itself, but rather to the circumstances which necessitated its being written at that time. Joseph Smith, on the day it was written, expressly declared that there was a great deal more connected with the doctrine which would be revealed in due time, but this was sufficient for the occasion, and was made to suffice for the time. And, indeed, I think it much more than many are prepared to live up to even now.
Of course the "personalities" he references is primarily "Emma Smith," who is referenced three times later in D&C 132. [I'd say it's pretty "odd" for a man to have been practicing extra-marital "contact" since 1832...have a "formal" ceremony for the first time with an extra-marital partner in 1841 (the Beasman woman)...and then finally get around to showing wife Emma this document in the summer of 1843...and how convenient that God not only targeted Emma in D&C 132, but that it contains specific "anti-polyandry" behavior...showing that Emma had already threatened tit-for-tat behavior.]
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
This is simply a sermon addressed to the LDS Church by one of their future prophets given inside the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City in 1878.
This sermon was given by someone with a lot more "authority" to preach on Mormon Doctrine than any of the LDS Freepers that we have here. I'm curious as to whether or not they embrace the words of their future prophet or reject them?
If I were to post any sermon given by C.H. Spurgeon in 1878, I am pretty sure that most Christian Freepers would be edified by the message. Spurgeon's gospel didn't change from the day he started preaching until the day he died. I'm not sure we can say that about Joseph F. Smith's preaching.
“righteous” ???
The sin of polygamy has nothing to do with God..He didnt invent it...
God is righteous...polygamony/adultery is unrighteousness and sin..
God said..Thou shalt not commit adultery.. Exodus 20:14
Man can claim that polygamy/adultery is “beautiful” till the cows come home but God has already said that such activity is lust and sin, and God tempts no man with sin..
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15
Mormons can use the excuse for forcing their pagan lusts on “celestial virgins” just as the pagans of old did..but God is not the author of such filth..
The false prophet Joseph Smith had a sin problem and he enticed millions to join him in his lust driven sin..
The weak minded guys joined him readily for the constant supply of innocent, vulnerable girls...
The girls were kidnapped, raped, coerced, and threatened and abused into submitting to the sexual desires of old dirty minded pedophiles and rapists..
Hardly the treatment of daughters by a merciful and loving, Righteous God..
I have noticed that. If a woman had many husbands she would just be considered a tramp.
Ah, such spiritual perversion.
In this he openly contradicts the apostle Paul:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Paul says "NOT from yourselves." Smith, part of the Joey Smith clan, says salvation is based "upon your own merits."
Paul says it is "NOT by works"; Smith says it is "by our works."
Paul says it is "the gift of God"; Smith says it's a "merit" competition.
Paul says there's no self-"boasting" when it comes to salvation. Smith says it's a self-"justification" issue.
Paul is all about Christ, the object of our "faith" as "the Way." Smith is all about "self"--self-obtain-ing, self-salvation, self-merited, self-works based, and self-justified.
This is the biggest difference between the true historic gospel of Jesus Christ vs. the Mormon "gospel" which is no "good news" at all. Notice the mention of the "grace" of the good news proclaimed by Paul...and notice its complete absence by Smith.
For Smith knew the Nephite verse from the Book of Mormon: "You are saved by grace AFTER ALL YOU can DO."
For the Mormon, grace is an "after-burner" rarely ever mentioned or testified about at sacrament meetings & other get-togethers. That "after-burner" never is to kick in until a Mormon has done "ALL" he can do.
That means to obey the 10 commandments & the hundreds of others in the Bible.
Obey the hundreds of commandments in the Book of Mormon.
Obey the hundreds of commandments in D&C and Pearl of Great Price.
Obey the "prophets'" (both alive & dead) admonitions...for example at two general conferences a year.
Obey the general authorities, including what they write in books & Ensign magazine articles & LDS curricula.
Strictly adhere to the dozen & a half temple recommend questions, lest they fail to perform the genealogical work, the proxy baptisms, the sealings...
Perfectly set aside the Sabbath, followed up by Family Home Evening the next night.
Shouldn’t this be an LDS caucus/devotional thread?
I take it you disagree with this Mormon Prophet? You do realize that he claimed that if you disagreed with this doctrine you would be damned?
Here's the quote:
I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that.
I wonder how many LDS members would cling to the precious words of the future prophet today?
I suspect the FLDS members still cling to these words.
Maybe they get their initials from Joseph F. Smith.
LOL!
I will be surprised if any LDS posters actually comment on it.
It is an open thread.
Let the light shine!
I've never met a guy who wanted to be in a harem, either.
But then, I've never been to San Francisco...
Wow, I missed that on the first read through.
How many times have we heard Mormon posters deny the very doctrine that Joseph F. Smith is preaching here?
And yet there it is in black and white by someone with a lot more authority to preach on the subject of Mormon doctrine than they have.
Tell me, who should we believe when it comes to telling us what Mormons believe?
Anonymous LDS posters or Ordained LDS Prophets?
So apparently the LDS Church does have an eraser when it comes to writing down their precepts "line upon line".
Off hand does anyone have a copy of this "article on Marriage" that was apparently erased from the earlier Doctrine and Covenants?
BTW if the LDS Church can remove sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, then why is section 132 still considered scripture?
(Well I guess there's many Mormon "tramps" in the celestial kingdom, then...one of the biggest "secrets" of Mormonism is that a deceased woman, by proxy, can be "sealed for eternity" to all of her (serial) husbands that she had in this lifetime in the Mormon temple...For some reason, they don't allow a living wife to do that...Since Mormons believe that marriages are "forever," we have words for that down here...some call it "polyandry" and others call it "tramphood.")
Found it!
Hoo boy, wear your fire suit, this will be a fiery thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.