How to testify

Sharing testimonies is an important part of the Latter-day Saint experience. We bear testimonies in many settings — in the home with family and among friends and associates or in missionary experiences. In Church, one Sunday is set aside every month for the bearing of testimonies during sacrament meetings.

In his address at the October 2004 general conference, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve...said that his experience throughout the Church leads him to worry that too many members' testimonies linger on "I am thankful," and "I love," and too few are able to say with humble but sincere clarity, "I know." As a result, he noted, meetings sometimes lack the testimony-rich, spiritual underpinnings that stir the soul and have meaningful, positive impact on the lives of all those who hear them.

He...counseled, "We need to replace stories, travelogues and lectures with pure testimonies. Those who are entrusted to speak and teach in our meetings need to do so with doctrinal power that will be both heard and felt, lifting the spirits and edifying our people."

As we listen to general conference this October, we will hear many bear pure testimony. Numerous times over the years, we have heard President Thomas S. Monson, first as an apostle and now as president of the Church, bear such testimony. May we, as Primary children sing, be inclined to "follow the prophet" in our endeavor to nurture, strengthen and share our testimonies that we have a Heavenly Father who loves us, that Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was the prophet who was raised up to restore the fullness of the everlasting gospel...

GZ: Lets take a look among the other bats in DU's belfry

Ever the proponent of the politics of personal destruction...
I'm glad you at lease tried to read with an open mind %lt;/sarc>

DU: Communication then was not as good or immediate as it is now, often a woman's husband would be gone for years and she would have assumed he was dead, Joseph or one of the other men in the church would marry these women so they could take care of them (women being unable to own property, enemies of the church would try to seize their land).

GZ: ROTFLOL! do you have any citation for this or did you just make it up to sound good? without any links to factual historical data you post something so outrageous.

I considered the information on women and property rights to be basic knowledge for any American who has even a passing interest in the political history of the USA.

However, Since you asked, here is a link to when Women got property rights in the USA. Property Rights of Women, A short history of women's property rights

Women's husbands were often gone for years on missions or just traveling, this was not unusual for the age, horses just don't travel as fast as cars. Mail was sporadic at best, remember, the pony express was decades in the future.

if you need citations on hose speed Vs. Cars and freeways, let me know.

As for women having their property taken by men outside the church, you will have to remember that I am a descendant of Governor Liliburn Boggs, the man who signed the extermination order in Missouri. My ancestors were some of the men. I also grew up in the mid-west, I lived for part of that time near Nauvoo. I know this topic far better than you.

This reminds me of that time we were talking about the area of Oman we think was Nephi's Bountiful. You claimed that as a professional geologist there was no Iron there. I then posted an Article, wait, I've got the link here some where...

Here it is: Geologist find Iron ore in land believed to be Bountiful

Anyway, you had staked your "professional" reputation on the lack of smelt-able iron ore in the area.... Your post here reminds me of that, because you are ridiculing things without even checking facts and you are wrong, yet again.

DU: True, a fourteen year old woman was considered a marriageable age, boys were considered men at the age of twelve and often left home to seek their fortunes by 14. Joseph also married a 57 year old widow

GZ: So what is the purpose of marrying a 14 yr old girl in the first place DU (as well as the other younger teenage girls)? When they shared his bed, did they just sit and play patty-cake?

A, If you have proof that they slept together, please present it, otherwise admit that you are assuming.
B. My quotations of average age of marriage come from both having extracted marriage records of the day, and anecdotal histories of the area. C. 14 years of age was a bit early, but 16 was about average. GZ: No, less than 1% of the church ever practiced polygamy, the church does teach that marriage is required in order to obtain the Highest degree of glory in heaven, and the principle of polygamy has to be accepted, not the practice.

I do love how you cut out the Question, rendering the answer out of context, here is the whole thing:

Q: Didn't Joseph (or the church) teach that you had to practice polygamy in order to be saved?
A: No, less than 1% of the church ever practiced polygamy, the church does teach that marriage is required in order to obtain the Highest degree of glory in heaven, and the principle of polygamy has to be accepted, not the practice. (the principle being that it's valid as it was in the bible).

There, that's the question and the answer.
Then you attack my numbers citing a census in Utah, um first of all 5%-65%, really accurate, there, second so it's your assertion that all Mormons lived in Utah? LOL! I said 1% of the church and the sources I have are not on-line, so nope, no reference.

Then you quote me saying Wow, as you said to me "you must have a citation somewhere that you interpret to mean this, care to share, or shall we all just start teasing you about this post now?

Which I did say, but in response to this statement by you:

4. Young himself in 1877 admitted that his own "plural marriages" were not legal marriages, that means that no other Mormon "plural marriage" at any time was a legal marriage either.

Omitting what I was talking about and then responding to it as if I was talking about something else is tantamount to lying, no, it is lying by omission. I assume since you never did give a link that you have no source to back that up either... (crickets)

Then I answer some other "questions I have been asked on these threads:

Q: Didn't Joseph marry women against their will?
A: No, there were women like Helen Mar Kimball who were pressured to marry Joseph by their family, but arranged marriages were also common then and the fact of arrangement by someone else means pressure from outside the individual.

To which you respond:
GZ: Well, I guess all those 'angel with flaming sword' issues and salvation for the family promises don't factor in. Let alone not wanting to cross the 'prophet' hmmmm?

I really have no idea where you are getting some of your stuff, I wish you did cite sources that were definitive, but you don't. So far in your post you link to a post that says the census in Utah shows somewhere between 5-65% were polygamous, another source that says 50% And yet another says probably 15-20% again, in Utah. I spoke of the church as a whole, and I only posted one figure of less than 1% church wide.

When it comes to your widely varying figures, it makes me think of a saying my dad told me "figures don't lie, but liars do figures".

Your inability to stick to the topic of this thread, which was why it was somehow bad for Mormon leaders to council their flock to spend more time testifying of Jesus and less on travelogs, is really telling. as is the fact that you posts contain no testimony of him who you claim to be doing this for. Me, my testimony is posted on my page, and I will take the liberty of including it here.

My Testimony
I know that my redeemer lives. I know that though I will grow old(er) and die, I will in my Flesh stand before him to be judged. I testify that Jesus Christ is my redeemer, My Judge, My God. I know that only through his grace can I be saved. I know this with every fiber of my being. I have put the Promises contained in the Book of Mormon at Moroni 10:4, and in First John 4:1-3 and Prayed to God about the Book of Mormon and was told that it was true and that Jesus was my savior and walked in the flesh on the earth. I am far from perfect. Any errors in my page here, or in my posts or anywhere else, are my mistakes, attribute not to God my faults for mine are many and he is perfect. Blame me if you must blame anyone for the imperfections of my works, but know this, I tried to do a Good work, My failings are my own, and not my masters.

Last of all, I testify to you that Jesus lives! The bonds of death and hell cannot prevail against him nor against any who he calls his in the last day, my hope is to be among them and to have him wash me clean that I may enter in and dwell with him forever.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

gz: Quick look over there. Attend to the facts again DU -

Which law didn't matter as it was not in force in Nauvoo. GZ: Please note the date - 1833. As such it was illegal in Illinois as well as the rest of the country by 'common law'.

Don't give up your day Job to become a lawyer. Illinois law does not make anything illegal outside of Illinois, or even everywhere in Illinois, if there are exceptions. By your logic it is illegal for police anywhere to exceed the lowest speed limit in the country. (A. if there is a need, like "hot pursuit", the police are authorized to go as fast as they need to go. b. The speed-limit in a school zone is not enforceable outside that zone. c. private property may be exempt from other laws, like racetracks are not subject to speed-limit laws.) Nauvoo's city charter gave it all the above and more.

For a source on this, see Nauvoo city charter

Nauvoo could pass any law that did not directly violate the Constitution of the USA and Illinois. The law you cite was not a part of the constitution, was revoked by Nauvoo, in it's Jurisdiction, and therefore did not apply to those within the city. Joseph lived in Nauvoo, therefore there was no state law in Nauvoo banning polygamy. I await your apology... (but not holding my breath).

DU: Edmunds-Tucker act having been passed in the future in 1887

GZ: Was the last in a series of laws imposed to enforce existing anti-polygamy federal laws. It has no bearing any for Nauvoo - polygamy was already declared illegal by the state.

Sigh, I guess if you don't have a valid argument, you must keep repeating the failed one that you have, go read the Nauvoo city charter and stop spouting this balderdash.

The Edmunds Tucker act should have been struck down as unconstitutional, because it was specifically aimed at a religious practice and congress is constitutionally barred from creating laws that prohibit religious activity.

You might want to read this:

The Edmunds-Tucker Act granted the federal government unprecedented powers in prosecuting Mormon polygamists, and prosecutors took these powers to cruel and illegal extremes:
in the Edmunds-Tucker Act, [Congress] provided that a wife was a competent witness in polygamy, bigamy, and cohabitation trials and required that records be kept of weddings in the territories. These provisions still retained one restraint on spousal testimony, however; they provided only that a willing wife would be allowed to testify. The act specifically forbade attempts by the judiciary to compel wives to testify against their husbands. Utah’s judges did not always follow the law, however. A number of Mormon women were required to testify against their husbands or face contempt charges. The power of contempt could be a fearful weapon. On the basis of the most sketchy or nonexistent hearings, Mormon wives who refused to testify against their husbands could be sent to prison for indefinite periods. In 1888 Representative Burnes read to the House of Representatives a report by a visitor to Utah’s prison:
“I found in one cell (meaning a cell of the penitentiary in Utah) 10 by 13 1/2 feet, without a floor, six women, three of whom had babies under six months of age, who were incarcerated for contempt of court in refusing to acknowledge the paternity of their children. When I plead with them to answer the court and be released, they said: “If we do, there are many wives and children to suffer the loss of a father.”[1]

The most reprehensible aspect of this treatment of the women is that it was completely unnecessary. With the evisceration of evidentiary standards, the courts were practically assured of convictions without the testimony of Mormon wives:
In retrospect it is difficult to offer any explanation for this judicial conduct toward Mormon wives other than a spirit of vindictiveness. The polygamy laws, which were being vigorously enforced in the latter part of the 1880s, imposed ample punishment for the women who stubbornly clung to polygamy. The imposition of contempt sentences on wives who refused to testify introduced a sort of random sexual equality in the federal punishment of polygamy that was being imposed on Utah’s Mormons. Courts had reduced the quantum of evidence required to establish polygamy or cohabitation to such a low level that in almost any case ample alternate sources of proof must have been available. So Utah’s courts could not have believed that they needed to compel Mormon women to testify in order to convict their polygamous husbands. The cohabitation cases produced heartrending stories of suffering and pathos. Men were forbidden to associate with their children or provide for their former wives. Women were denied care and association with former husbands. Moreover, the law, not limited to prohibiting future polygamous marriages, fell with all its severity upon people whose relationships had most often been established when the law did not unambiguously forbid them.[2]
Legal challenges brought against Edmunds-Tucker failed, removing the final obstacle to those who sought to use the law to not simply stop polygamy, but to destroy the Church:
Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court combined to generate repressive legislation and distortions of Constitutional jurisprudence which to this day are unequalled in the degree to which they destroyed individual and institutional rights, freedoms, and privileges. Politicians so successfully exploited the situation that at times the nation was prepared to accept the destruction of the Church and its members.

DU: The Nauvoo charter did grant a broad degree of liberty, but it was still subordinate to the laws of Illinois. Section 36 of the "Legslative powers of the Council" state:

DU: Sec. 36. The City Council shall have power to make all ordinances which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers specified in this Act, so that such ordinances be not repugnant to nor inconsistent with, the constitution of the United States or of this state.

Ah, so either you are ignorant as to what a constitution is, or you think "a law" equals "The Constitution," or you are willfully ignorant of the fact that laws are not equal to or part of the constitution, but are subservient to it.

Lady Lawyer, would you please educate our Geologist friend here in the delicacies of jurisprudence in this matter?

GZ: Their powers were limited, not carte blanc. It is a lie to say that the city got to chose what laws it desired to keep or not to keep. The charter clearly rules that out.

Actually, it is painfully accurate, it could chose laws, it could not choose to violate the Constitution, perhaps the difference is lost upon you. you are after all IIRC not a man of the law, but a geologist.

GZ: LOL, I listed the material chronologically DU, even you should have been able to figure that out.

Yes, but the formatting was atrocious, tables and columns my dear friend would have made it so much nicer to read and for people to understand, Here, read HTML Table Tutorial, it even has a table generator that will generate the code for you...

DU: On My Page in the Section on polygamy, there is a subsection, Joseph Smith and Polygamy. Which talks about this allegation, and several others, you really might want to read it, since you missed several allegations you could have made.

GZ: Wow, smith is in bed with these women discussion next Friday's social then I guess.

You have proof they were in bed together? We know Joseph was fertile, He had children with Emma. There are distinctive Genetic markers from the smith family, they checked all the descendants who claimed to be from Joseph who would participate, and Guess what, only Emma's are his. The Wives who remarried later, had children, so they were fertile. Give us more than your dirty mind as proof anything less than pure happened there, or keep your lewd fantasies to yourself.

DU: I don't see any links, just footnote material

GZ: Is that the best refutation you can pull? OK, I'll get them pulled together for a later post

I'll be waiting... I try to post links whenever I can because then people can see that I have not taken things out of context. In my experience those who don't post links are often either quoting shady sources, or are out of context, and even a few times people have just made stuff up and hoped no one would check.

GZ: Polygamy was illegal - under Illinois statute as well as recognized common law within the US for all states and territories. It was specifically illegal by canon of the lds church from 1830 to 1877, unless you want to claim that the revelation of the prophet was flawed all those years. Jesus was rejecting a law made by man, not God. So Smith was violating both man's law and mormon god's revealed law. But then I guess that being the prophet just enhanced his ability to get to the women easier.

Common law polygamy? LOL!, maybe you should see this: Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy
You see, Common law marriage is that when you have lived with someone long enough, they become your spouse, then, if you have lived with too many people for two long, they convict you of polygamy using common law to establish the marriage.

Hey, I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm saying it's the law which is something entirely different than making sense logically.

Here are some interesting bits from that article written in 2004 BTW

Prosecutors have asked courts to declare a person as married under common law and then convicted them of polygamy.
...
This is what happened in the case of Green, who was sentenced to five years to life in prison. In his case, the state first used the common law to classify Green and four women as constructively married — even though they never sought a license. Green was then convicted of polygamy.

So obviously Common law does not have provisions that would keep a marriage polygamous, or you couldn't use it to establish a polygamous relationship to prosecute. Hey Lady Lawyer, what's it take to get a common law divorce? Just curious.

The author discusses the religious nature of this law as abuse of a religion:

The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an "alternative lifestyle" is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.

However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."

Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the "poly" to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.

I loved this part too:

For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law.

Individuals have a recognized constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relationship with any number of partners. Thus, a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry. However, when that same person accepts a legal commitment for those partners "as a spouse," we jail them.

Likewise, someone such as singer Britney Spears can have multiple husbands so long as they are consecutive, not concurrent. Thus, Spears can marry and divorce men in quick succession and become the maven of tabloid covers. Yet if she marries two of the men for life, she will become the matron of a state prison.

Now before you get your undies in a bunch and claim Jonathan Turley is a Mormon, I'll include this piece of him ending his article:

I personally detest polygamy. Yet if we yield to our impulse and single out one hated minority, the First Amendment becomes little more than hype and we become little more than hypocrites. For my part, I would rather have a neighbor with different spouses than a country with different standards for its citizens.

I know I can educate my three sons about the importance of monogamy, but hypocrisy can leave a more lasting impression.

So, He's not exactly a Mormon, or polygamy lover, just a lover of logic and just laws.

GZ: As stated in the supreme court verdict on the Edmunds-Tucker, polygamy was illegal in this country from its start.

I would love a citation on this particularly. As a matter of fact, as of the writing of my response, the only place google can find this being said, is in your post, LOL!

GZ: Right, just being in bed with the other woman, discussion next Friday's social. Historical context - the other men smith let in on polygamy who followed smith's example saw it more lustly

So... you have no proof that Joseph had sex with any of these women, got in bed with any of these women, or even had impure thoughts about these women, but you are willing to claim he must have had these thoughts. This is called logical projection, seek help.

GZ: I'll provide more details shortly.

Don't bother, you've embarrassed yourself enough already.

Ever the proponent of the politics of personal destruction...

Coming from the DUde who tried to paint me as a full time antimormon minister getting 'filthy lucre', I your whining amusing.

DU: Communication then was not as good or immediate as it is now, often a woman's husband would be gone for years and she would have assumed he was dead, Joseph or one of the other men in the church would marry these women so they could take care of them (women being unable to own property, enemies of the church would try to seize their land).
However, Since you asked, here is a link to when Women got property rights in the USA. Property Rights of Women, A short history of women's property rights

Lurkers will not what DU doesn't answer, the allegation that enemies of mormonism would try to seize the land from these women. DU's post only addresses generically those situations under marriage - not upon death of the spouse. Where are the documented incidents that this occured to mormon women DU, since you clearly state that was what was happening.

That given, lets look at what has to happen. First, the husband must be officially declared 'dead' by the courts, not just 'think' they are dead. But for the sake of arguement, lets say these virtuous and moral mormon men married these women to protect their 'property'. Any attempt to enforce that coverage would run into the fact that those additional marriages were illegal under the law and not enforceable for that purpose.

Now, how virtuous was smith in his application of this mighty honorable marriage?

John Taylor's Wife, Leonora - smith demanded her for a wife to Taylor's face (- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, John Mills Whitaker Journal, Nov. 1, 1890)
Heber C. Kimball's Wife, Vilate - Smith demanded her AFTER Kimball returned from England (Biography of Heber C. Kimball, "Heber C. Kimball, Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer." By Stanley B. Kimball, page 93)
Orson Pratt's Wife, Sarah - She rejected his advance and when Orson found out, he tried to commit suicide (Article "Sarah M. Pratt" by Richard A. Van Wagoner, Dialogue, Vol.19, No.2, p.72. Also see: http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/spratt.htm)
William Law's Wife, Jane - William Law, a former counselor in the First Presidency, wrote in his 13 May 1844 diary: "[Joseph] ha[s] lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and ha[s] found her a virtuous woman" ("Mormon Polygamy" by Richard S. Van Wagoner, page 44)

I could keep going, but that would be dog-piling. This clearly shows that your 'excuse' is an obfuscation and misdirection - These married women were not married to help them keep their property.

As for women having their property taken by men outside the church, you will have to remember that I am a descendant of Governor Liliburn Boggs, the man who signed the extermination order in Missouri. My ancestors were some of the men. I also grew up in the mid-west, I lived for part of that time near Nauvoo. I know this topic far better than you.

So, having a mormon man marry an already married women would not stop that AS YOU CLAIMED

Joseph or one of the other men in the church would marry these women so they could take care of them (women being unable to own property, enemies of the church would try to seize their land).

Do you even bother to read what you post?

Here it is: Geologist find Iron ore in land believed to be Bountiful
Anyway, you had staked your "professional" reputation on the lack of smelt-able iron ore in the area.... Your post here reminds me of that, because you are ridiculing things without even checking facts and you are wrong, yet again.

Here is the "ore" DU is touting as iron ore limonite and ferroan dolomite. anyone who wants to look and see how good an 'iron ore' ferroan dolomite (and its weathered by product, limonite) can click here.. What DU and Meridan doesn't tell you is that IF this was smeltable using 5th century BC iron technology, there would be mines as this region was occupied centuries before the myth of lehi/nephi time because of the frankencense trade. Bronze and iron age mines (1000 bc) are present in northern Oman by the persian gulf. Nothing near Salalah, probably because the rust-stained dirt (these 'geologists' called limonite), is not smeltable with technology of the period (doubt they had nice gas furnances and ceramic curcibles 5th century bc).

GZ: So what is the purpose of marrying a 14 yr old girl in the first place DU (as well as the other younger teenage girls)? When they shared his bed, did they just sit and play patty-cake?
A, If you have proof that they slept together, please present it, otherwise admit that you are assuming.

Well, it is clear that he was not 'protecting their property' at that age. If he wasn't sleeping with them, then he was violating the revelation and command from the mormon god
Verse 37: Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness...
Verse 41: And as ye have asked concerning adultery...

If these marriages were chaste - why did 'god' have to address adultry - which clearly involves the sex act.

Verses 62-63: And if he [Joseph Smith] 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.... 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.

Smith was commanded to multiply and replenish the earth with these wives 'given' to him - I considered the information on how children come about to replenish the earth to be basic knowledge for any American who has completed basic education in the US.

B. My quotations of average age of marriage come from both having extracted marriage records of the day, and anecdotal histories of the area. C. 14 years of age was a bit early, but 16 was about average.

You never cited an 'average' age. Perhaps you can cite something to try to bolster your 16 yr average for marriage.

I do love how you cut out the Question, rendering the answer out of context, here is the whole thing:

OK, two falsehoods in one Q&A, I chose to address one of them. So let me go ahead and address the first.

Q: Didn't Joseph (or the church) teach that you had to practice polygamy in order to be saved?

Now you attempt to minimize the practice (less than 1% practiced) to support your answer. I've already shown that to be grossly wrong. Secondly, under mormon definitions of 'saved', you should be referencing attainment of the celestial kingdom and godhood - instead of obfuscating the standard Christian use of the word. The second part of this 'question' you post is a trick question - because polygamy was illegal, smith revealed the principle to only a select few men. Section 132 was used as the justification for earthly polygamy and still is by the flds. mainline lds are not as spirital in honoring smith's revelation. However, the revelation makes the following points from D&C 132.
3 Therefore, aprepare thy heart to receive and bobey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. - means you must do as this command instructs
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye bdamned; for no one can creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. - Reject the command of this covenant and you cannot attain the celestial kingdom
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them. 21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my alaw ye cannot attain to this glory. - Reject the command of this covenant and you cannot attain the celestial kingdom, mormon god redundancy
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the aworks of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. - and what were those works, verse 30 stated it received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins
Verses 34-39 cover how the mormon god commanded polygamy
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. - Now smith claims the same commandment - notice it is in the PAST tense
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 amultiply 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. - For their exaltation in the eternal worlds - exaltation to the celestial kingdom

Later prophets made it much clearer that polygamy was essential to becoming gods (saved)

A: No, less than 1% of the church ever practiced polygamy, . . .

I provided 4 citations/links to prove that your 'answer' to your strawman question was not only wrong, it was very wrong and unsupported. Your 'source' is not online (nor even properly referenced in a manner to allow alternative follow up). Even you should still remember how to document a source.

4. Young himself in 1877 admitted that his own "plural marriages" were not legal marriages, that means that no other Mormon "plural marriage" at any time was a legal marriage either.
Omitting what I was talking about and then responding to it as if I was talking about something else is tantamount to lying, no, it is lying by omission. I assume since you never did give a link that you have no source to back that up either... (crickets)

Lying by omission eh? Now I don't do that mormon lying for the lord stuff. Had you not jumped over this post to you (conviently ignored?) to creat this post, you would have found 6 citation/links confirming that Young admitted that polygamy was illegal.

Now, since you ignored that post is it fair to say that your response is tantamount to lying

really have no idea where you are getting some of your stuff, I wish you did cite sources that were definitive, but you don't. So far in your post you link to a post that says the census in Utah shows somewhere between 5-65% were polygamous, another source that says 50% And yet another says probably 15-20% again, in Utah. I spoke of the church as a whole, and I only posted one figure of less than 1% church wide.

Denial of the links provided as definitive is pretty lame DU, but then the reading may have been too hard for you. How big was the mormon church at the end of when the principle was fully and openly taught and practiced DU? Through 1890 (when polygamy ceased) worldwide EVERY STAKE WAS LOCATED IN UTAH OR ADJACENT STATES. Those cited studies cover that period

When it comes to your widely varying figures, it makes me think of a saying my dad told me "figures don't lie, but liars do figures".

It is totally laughable that you are unable to read or follow the links I provided. The widest range (5 - 65%) were on a city by city basis, not the intermountain west as a whole. The 15-20 and 20-40 are demographically utah as a whole (where the bulk of mormons existed at that time). You provide a figure that you cannot cite a source too. . . .

Your inability to stick to the topic of this thread, which was why it was somehow bad for Mormon leaders to council their flock to spend more time testifying of Jesus and less on travelogs, is really telling.

Well DU, you are the one who started this bunny trail to begin with. Please also note that Nathan tells David that God gave him his wives and if they had not been enough would have given him more, this is a prophet in the Old Testament explicitly saying God approves of polygamy. (just for the record.)

Jesus Christ is my redeemer, My Judge, My God.

Interesting - though heavenly father was the only one worshiped and called "my God".

Don't give up your day Job to become a lawyer. Illinois law does not make anything illegal outside of Illinois, or even everywhere in Illinois, if there are exceptions.

It strongly depends upon the nature of those exceptions and if they are incorprated into statute - ask LL. It is by statute that civic authorities can establish speed limits for safety purposes. That is not what is at issue here and it is incredable how you try to pass your little speed law off as the same as marriage.

A better example is the passage of the DOMA act when massachusetts legalized gay marriage. A nation statute was necessary to allow the states the right to opt out of recognizing those marriages as legal and valid in their state. This is common law DU, it is the reason you do not need to get a drivers license in every state you drive through. That is incorporated into federal statute and practice. The fact is, no state recognized polygamy at any time as legal, most often it fell under adultry or bigamy laws because it was so rare. Only the mormons pushed the issue resulting in the federal gov't having to respond to enforce laws already on the books.

For a source on this, see Nauvoo city charter

DU, your link is to FAIR mormonwiki site that does not enumerate the charter. The charter can be found at this link. The charter makes it clear that, though broad, it cannot superseed the laws of the state "and to pass such ordinances, as may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers specified in this Act; provided such ordinances are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or of this State, Even your sourced link disagrees with the extent of the powers granted to Nauvoo, stating "The Nauvoo Charter granted great power to the city, but it was not unique in this respect—the other charters in Illinois were similar. . This is what happens when you don't read your links DU.

Nauvoo could pass any law that did not directly violate the Constitution of the USA and Illinois. The law you cite was not a part of the constitution, was revoked by Nauvoo, in it's Jurisdiction, and therefore did not apply to those within the city.

Already dismissed prior, Nauvoo's charter was no different than other charters in the state. However, if you believe this, provide the reference/link PROVING that the appointed leaders of Nauvoo revoked Sec 121 of the Laws of Illinois? I'm waiting. . . . (LL, you may need to help him out on this point).

Who held the power to revoke the Nauvoo charter DU? It was the Illinois legislature which did so on January 24, 1845. (confirmed by your link) If we follow your arguement, Nauvoo could have revoked the revokation.

Joseph lived in Nauvoo, therefore there was no state law in Nauvoo banning polygamy. I await your apology... (but not holding my breath).

What was it that general said regarding the repetitive questions, stuck on . . . ? Similar can be said about the repeaditive denial of basic law. The charter was given under the conditions that Illinois law was followed.

But for grins and giggles, lets say you are correct. Why then did smith continue to deny his practice (as well as those chosen inner circle) of polygamy and to go as far as order the destruction of a newspaper that exposed the practice? Where is the law on the book of Nauvoo stating polygamy was legal DU? . . crickets . .

He still had that pesky published revelation from God - smith violated mormon canon Doctrine and Covenants section 101, Verse 4 (1835) included a section denying any practice of polygamy: "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 247). Note: this section in the Doctrine and Covenants was in every single edition until 1876, when the Doctrine and Covenants first included Section 132 justifying plural marriage)
In the same year that Smith began his involvement with polygamy by "marrying" Fanny Alger, the church published the Book of Commandments (the predecessor of the Doctrine & Covenants) which contained the following statement: "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the CRIME of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (Section C1, 251). If it wasn't illegal, why include the word CRIME?

Sigh, I guess if you don't have a valid argument, you must keep repeating the failed one that you have, go read the Nauvoo city charter and stop spouting this balderdash.

Lurkers will note, a FAIR wiki article does not contain the text of the Nauvoo charter - so why read it. I've linked the text above.

The Edmunds Tucker act should have been struck down as unconstitutional, because it was specifically aimed at a religious practice and congress is constitutionally barred from creating laws that prohibit religious activity.

Sorry DU, but the courts have time and again held that 'religious activity' does have boundries. Animal sacrifices, use of illegal drugs for worship and yes, polygamy have all been ruled outside the boundries. Now you can stand up and defend the FLDS at this point, it would be a breath of fresh air. But then you would need to do the same for gay marriage too (as there are gay religious groups - even in the mormon church). All of the federal laws enacted against Mormon polygamy from 1862 to 1879 merely served to force the Mormons to comply with existing common laws. But the fact that those additional laws were enacted does not mean that Mormon polygamous marriages were ever legal in the first place.

Ah, so either you are ignorant as to what a constitution is, or you think "a law" equals "The Constitution," or you are willfully ignorant of the fact that laws are not equal to or part of the constitution, but are subservient to it.

The constitution provides the foundation upon which the statues are built upon.

The clear facts are against you
1. You cannot cite any ordiance by the Nauvoo council legalizing polygamy
2. Smith kept his polygamy SECRET and could have been open if it was legalized (which you claim he had the power to do).

During Smith’s lifetime, polygamy in Nauvoo and elsewhere was kept secret because it was also illegal.

During Smith’s lifetime, polygamy in Nauvoo and elsewhere was kept secret because it was also illegal. Lady Lawyer, would you please educate our Geologist friend here in the delicacies of jurisprudence in this matter?

It would be interesting to see. In President Lorenzo Snow's testimony in the "Temple Lot Case", pp. 320-322, he states
"A man that violated this law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes sir, he would have been cut off from the church, I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too." Is one of your prophets leading you astray on this point?

Yes, but the formatting was atrocious, tables and columns my dear friend would have made it so much nicer to read and for people to understand,

Lessee, simple, generally one sentence statements with a blank line inbetween. No need for tables, etc, just the ability to read.

Give us more than your dirty mind as proof anything less than pure happened there, or keep your lewd fantasies to yourself.

Oh, NOW you believe in DNA, ROTFLAICGU.

The D&C 132 states that the purpose of polygamy was to produce children - not take care of women. It is a little difficult to produce children without having sex.
D&C 132:63: ...for they [the virgins referred to earlier in the verse and in verses 61 and 62] are given unto him TO MULTIPLY AND REPLENISH THE EARTH, according to my commandment, and to fulfill 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. (Caps added)

And from Brigham Young
"Birth control----There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles [bodies], now what is our duty?---To prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can. This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, so that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)

If Joseph was commanded to marry these women for the express purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth, he would have been breaking the "commandment" from God if he did not try to procreate with his wives.

And your morg apologists don't agree with you either DU

"This is not to argue, I hasten to add, that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. I believe they were legitimate marriages, and as such could easily accommodate righteous marital relations."

FARMS reviewer Gregory L. Smith admits, 71 pages into his 86-page review of George D. Smith's new book, Nauvoo Polygamy: "…but we called it celestial marriage" ("George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy," FARMS Review 20:2, 2008), that Joseph Smith had "conjugal relations" with at least eight women in addition to his first wife, Emma.

"Partly to maintain secrecy, Joseph could not have spent much time with [Louisa] Beaman or any of the women he married. He never gathered his wives into a household--as his Utah followers later did--or accompanied them to public events. Close relationships were further curtailed by business. Joseph had to look after Emma and the children, manage the Church, govern the city, and evade the extradition officers from Missouri. As the marriages increased, there were fewer and fewer opportunities for seeing each wife. Even so, nothing indicates that sexual relations were left out of plural marriages" (Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling [New York: Knopf, 2005], 438-39).

For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law.

Cry me a victim card.

I would love a citation on this particularly. As a matter of fact, as of the writing of my response, the only place google can find this being said, is in your post, LOL!

I may have had the specific law being challenged incorrect, but not the Supreme court decision:

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.… In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. o... you have no proof that Joseph had sex with any of these women, got in bed with any of these women, or even had impure thoughts about these women, but you are willing to claim he must have had these thoughts. This is called logical projection, seek help.

And you have no proof that he didn't either. If he didn't, he wasn't obeying God's commandment either. Disprove these while you are at it:

"Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this." - Joseph Smith's close confidant and First Counselor, William Law, Interview in Salt Lake Tribune, July 31, 1887

Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife 'in very deed.' (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, p. 156.)

In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, p. 427)

Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she 'roomed' with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had 'carnal intercourse' with him. (Temple Lot case, (complete transcript), pp. 364, 367, 384; see Foster, 'Religion and Sexuality,' p. 15.)

Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated. (William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May; see Smith, pp. 105-106)

"I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened." "Dr." Bennet was an abortionist.

Have a good evening.

Godzilla, I took my time responding to your "post", at first, I dashed of a scathing response to your scurrilous attacks on Joseph Smith's character, refuting you point by point. Now, I will simply point out that the "doctor" in question was excommunicated from the church for exactly the things he claims he did for Joseph. He was called a liar then and the book you quoted from was refuted By many of the people it "quoted" at the time of it's publishing.

You once challenged archaeological evidence based on the fact that the person to first document it was caught embellishing other "finds". Your source here is even more dubious in that there is no physical evidence, just this persons questionable word.

Attacks on the character of any deceased man are not exactly a resume enhancement, there are similar books available on the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, or just about any religion, I consider them all to be of questionable character and will not quote from them here, or indeed even in private conversation.

As a Mormon, and I believe a person of good character, I prayed about my response before hitting the submit button, the Lord told me not to submit it, instead, he reminded me of this scripture:
3 Nephi: 11:28-30

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

I realized that I had allowed you to make me angry, I was angry because I had begun to expect honesty from you and you disappointed me, I Gave you too much credit. So, I took a couple of days to respond. I still think that what you said is unconscionable, I think that this poster says a lot about the information you posted:

My hands are clean... God wants me to stay that way.

Now for a bit of logic.

If Joseph Smith was the scoundrel, charlatan, cheat, and all around loser you portray, how exactly did he amass a large following of good people, people who built houses, tilled farmland and built a city larger than Chicago in an area that was a swamp and had to be drained before anything could be done with it? Moreover, why did people still have a loyalty and even respect for this man after he died? You will undoubtedly say because he had bewitched them, fooled them, or something else equally base. I will say that Joseph was a noble man, doing God's work in the latter-days. Joseph, like Jesus, was beset by people willing to lie about him, and try to hedge up the way against him, Joseph like many prophets of old sealed his testimony with his blood. He died a martyr for his faith and his God. How do I know this? I know because I have put the Book of Mormon, to The test contained in First John 4:1-3 which says:

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Lurkers, Men may lie, God never will. Either Godzilla is Lying, or mistaken, or I am lying or mistaken. We are diametrically opposed, I say Joseph was a prophet of God, Godzilla says he was a fake and a fraud, and a horrible person to boot. There is a way to know what the truth is, it's simple, get a Book of Mormon, pray about it in faith and let God answer your prayer in the affirmative or the negative, Compare that answer to First John 4:1-3, and see if the answer was of God or not. To date,this method has never failed if followed, I know, I have followed this myself, thus I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, the accusations against him are false and the Book of Mormon is indeed God's word. Not a bad result for a simple process.

I would like to end with my testimony as published on My page on Free Republic.

My Testimony
I know that my redeemer lives. I know that though I will grow old(er) and die, I will in my Flesh stand before him to be judged. I testify that Jesus Christ is my redeemer, My Judge, My God. I know that only through his grace can I be saved. I know this with every fiber of my being. I have put the Promises contained in the Book of Mormon at Moroni 10:4, and in First John 4:1-3 and Prayed to God about the Book of Mormon and was told that it was true and that Jesus was my savior and walked in the flesh on the earth. I am far from perfect. Any errors in my page here, or in my posts or anywhere else, are my mistakes, attribute not to God my faults for mine are many and he is perfect. Blame me if you must blame anyone for the imperfections of my works, but know this, I tried to do a Good work, My failings are my own, and not my masters.

Last of all, I testify to you that Jesus lives! The bonds of death and hell cannot prevail against him nor against any who he calls his in the last day, my hope is to be among them and to have him wash me clean that I may enter in and dwell with him forever.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Godzilla, I feel you have been less than Genuine in your arguments here on this thread, but I believe your feelings are heartfelt and genuinely yours. I wish you all the best, I hope that God will see fit to touch your heart and heal the bitterness that is evident in your posts, bringing you closer to him in the process. I will pray for you tonight and for the rest of this week God bless you.

Godzilla, I took my time responding to your "post", at first, I dashed of a scathing response to your scurrilous attacks on Joseph Smith's character, refuting you point by point.

For a person to have their character attacked, they first must have character. In smith’s case, he was one.

Now, I will simply point out that the "doctor" in question was excommunicated from the church for exactly the things he claims he did for Joseph. He was called a liar then and the book you quoted from was refuted By many of the people it "quoted" at the time of it's publishing.

Citations please on the refutation. However, even I know the reported reasons for his excommunication. The good doctor was thrown under the bus because he wasn’t as discreet in his practice of polygamy as smith was. They were both in continuous adultery throughout the period. Perhaps too, Bennett knew where the smith’s skeletons were buried. The facts are that Bennett was instrumental in getting the charter approved as well as getting Masonic practices embedded into mormonism. Bennett was also part of smith’s inner circle – one doesn’t become mayor of Nauvoo without smith’s blessing.

You once challenged archaeological evidence based on the fact that the person to first document it was caught embellishing other "finds". Your source here is even more dubious in that there is no physical evidence, just this persons questionable word.

Dubious upon your say so.

Attacks on the character of any deceased man are not exactly a resume enhancement, there are similar books available on the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, or just about any religion, I consider them all to be of questionable character and will not quote from them here, or indeed even in private conversation.

Your character is known by what you do when no one is watching. In front of his general followers and the rest of the country, he vehemently denounced any rumors that he was a polygamist. In the secret/private part of his life he was actively engaged in polygamy and introducing it to his innermost circle. On the other hand, elevating smith to the level of a demi-god on earth, pure and chaste before all man as mormon apologists do is a lie in the face of the clearly established facts of history. He scammed people with his peep stone. He scammed people with the Kirkland bank scandal. He scammed people with his contorted lies about the practice of polygamy. He scammed people with his bogus translation of the Egyptian papyri. His by and far the largest scam was his production of the bom.

As a Mormon, and I believe a person of good character, I prayed about my response before hitting the submit button, the Lord told me not to submit it, instead, he reminded me of this scripture: 3 Nephi: 11:28-30

DU, every time you poke your head in here you violate your scriptures.

Perhaps you are angry at the messenger in place of the message. The facts of history clearly show that smith practiced polygamy AT THE SAME TIME he wrote and published ‘revelation’ that specifically banned its practice, sent apostles out to deny the claim (many of whom were practicing polygamy at the time), committed perjury when brought to trial and finally ordered the destruction of a newspaper that dared to expose his dark secret and hypocrisy. He lied to his followers, sought the destruction of those who opposed his secret behavior, and spoke out of both sides of his mouth regarding god’s so-called revelation. Yes DU, smith’s fruits are lies and deception. That is his character – that which one does when no one else is looking.

If Joseph Smith was the scoundrel, charlatan, cheat, and all around loser you portray, how exactly did he amass a large following of good people, people who built houses, tilled farmland and built a city larger than Chicago in an area that was a swamp and had to be drained before anything could be done with it?

A lot of bad men have done exceptional things – that doesn’t change the fact that they were bad men. Were on to take your example to its logical conclusion, then you would have to say the same for Hitler, who rebuilt the economy of an entire nation.

Moreover, why did people still have a loyalty and even respect for this man after he died? You will undoubtedly say because he had bewitched them, fooled them, or something else equally base. I will say that Joseph was a noble man, doing God's work in the latter-days.

Begging the question DU. It is not ‘base’ to indicate that through his charisma and vision he was able to inspire people. It is also not base to note that cultic mind games kept the mormon community together (we are the poor persecuted people, etc). Then there is the tight control of history and the ‘follow the prophet, he will never lead you astray’ factors. Oh, I know you will deny these factors DU, however, mormons are leaving lds in droves today because they are now finding out the unfiltered truth of smith’s history.

Joseph, like Jesus, was beset by people willing to lie about him, and try to hedge up the way against him, . . . . .

Oh please. Smith never even came close to being Jesus-like. The Nauvoo Expositor brought the lie that was smith’s life – polygamy – to light for all to see. The only one documented to lie was smith himself and clearly indicated by the timeline in this post. People didn’t need to line up to lie, smith’s own life was a lie – the people only came up to tell the truth. Lies tend to come from the mouths (and keyboards) of mormon apologists. Such as -
"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." (Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28)

And you rant about my honesty and integrity DU, mormon leaders seek to present a candy coated mormon history.
Boyd K. Packer demands that Mormon historians demonstrate and affirm that "the hand of the Lord [has been] in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now."…Mormon historians may share the convictions of the Nephite prophets and Boyd K. Packer that the "hand of the lord" operates throughout history and that "His purposes fail not," but they also have an obligation to examine the evidence, reflect upon it, and offer the best interpretations they can for what has occurred in Mormon history…
"The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials. (D. Michael Quinn, On Being A Mormon Historian, 1982, pp. 2, 8-10, 13-14, 16-22; revised and reprinted in 1992 in Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, pp. 69-111)

Fact is DU, the mormon church HID for years the FACT that smith was a polygamist and allowed the world to believe Young started the practice. All because this would be a difficulty of the church’s past. That is why they show smith with a depiction of the golden plates doing transcription – rather than the truth – smith stuffing his face into a hat to see what was ‘revealed’ by his seer stone.

Joseph like many prophets of old sealed his testimony with his blood.He died a martyr for his faith and his God. How do I know this? I know because I have put the Book of Mormon, to The test contained in First John 4:1-3 which says:

Jesus never brought a hand gun with him and killed others in the process. He died because he became a violent man with his ordered destruction of the Expositor and seeking out retribution on disenfranchised mormons, thus his violence begat violence.

Actually, one can research the REAL history and background of smith. Test smith’s ability as a prophet against the Biblical standard :
"And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." — Deuteronomy 18:21-22

One example (among many) of smith’s false prophecies include this one – “President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. . . . it was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh — even fifty six years should wind up the scene.” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182). This prophecy was spoken by smith in 1835, and recorded by Oliver Cowdery. The fifty-six years were passed by 1891. Was he a prophet – the bible says a resounding NO.

Compare that answer to First John 4:1-3, and see if the answer was of God or not.

Mormons will try to diffuse criticism of their so-called “test” by citing 1 John 4. DU will allege that I claim we should not pray about things – that is false. What I will say is that this passage states nothing about praying about any kind of ‘other revelations’. DU also omits the ‘subjective’ burning in the bosom qualifier that the missionaries always present as a proof. Mormon attempts to use 1 John 4 in their defense is just further reason to disqualify them. The word "try" in this verse is the word dok-im-ad-zo which means to examine, prove, or test. When it comes to making a decision of whether or not the bom is from God, we are to test what it has to say. If it contradicts what God has already revealed, it fails. The real Holy Spirit will not contradict the Words of the True God. This standard was already set for us by the Bereans “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”—Acts 17:11
Does it not makes sense that if Satan wants people to believe the bom is sacred scripture, he would incorporate an unbiblical method in order to come to such a conclusion? The Bible never says to pray about the matter. Unfortunately many sincere people fall for this ploy, not heeding the warning set forth by the Apostle John, and have, in essence, "gained a testimony of the Book of Mormon" in an unbiblical manner. It makes perfect sense that the father of lies would employ a false testing standard in order to seduce a person into believing a lie.

Joseph Smith, through biblical examination of his claims to be a prophet show that he was not a prophet. Therefore, any prophetical ‘claim’ to the authorship of the bom is tainted at best, and an outright lie at the worst. One must ask themselves why Smith sought to sell the copyright to the book of mormon? It was done so by smith in order to turn a quick ‘profit’. Can anyone say filthy lucre?

This leaves unsaid the thousands of changes to the bom over the years, the lack of archaeological support, anachronism in the bom, animals and plants alleged to be in the Americas, demonstratable parallels between the bom storyline and verbiage to other publications at the time (“View to the Hebrews”, Spaldings works, the KJV bible), no supportive DNA data. Add to this smith’s bogus translation of a common Egyptian prayer scroll, claim to have translated the bogus kinderhook plates and greek psalter, further indicate the bom is a work of fiction. Yes, dok-im-ad-zo the bom, it shows it self to be the work of man – not God.

To date,this method has never failed if followed, I know, I have followed this myself, thus I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, the accusations against him are false and the Book of Mormon is indeed God's word.

DU has been told by myself and others here that have tried the bom ‘test’ that it has failed. DU’s only standard of ‘validation’ is a subjective feeling or experience. The bible also warns against that -

“…in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;”—1 Timothy 4:1
The bible is explicit about subjective experiences

God also warns us in the Bible - But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8). DU would have us ignorant of other scriptures like the above that need to be considered. They would want to channel you into their cherry picked out of context passages and blind you to these others. In the light of these (and other) scripture passage and examples, the Test is more snake oil than truth.

Godzilla, I feel you have been less than Genuine in your arguments here on this thread, but I believe your feelings are heartfelt and genuinely yours.

Lurkers, you can see the genuineness of my arguments as you can follow the links back – and the volumes that DU is unable to answer to. He is forced to the vehicle of last resort - his testimony. In my case, I not only have faith, but I have facts and experience that the bom test is false. It is a typical tactic used by mormon to placed under suspicion the integrity of any individual who rejects the bom true and smith is god’s prophet. I have dok-im-ad-zo the bom according to the example of the bereans and the bible and it comes up wanting.

I wish you all the best, I hope that God will see fit to touch your heart and heal the bitterness that is evident in your posts, . .

Again, mormons must project SOME reason for the rejection of mormonism. To the exmormons out there it is commonly some sexual infidelity implied. To Christians, they try to attribute it to some kind of ‘bitterness’ as DU does here. Does DU’s attempt to read my mind validate his argument? No, I have clearly stated the facts regarding smith’s life and lies about polygamy. This response could well be considered as projection as I am not bitter about anything regarding mormonism.

I rejoice that I am not under the bondage of mormonism but that I have my freedom in Christ. I have the truth and testimony of the Bible, founded upon facts (and not fiction). I rejoice in the Power of God in my live in a real and tangible way. And I worship the Triune Creator of the Universe who for “while we were yet sinners” (Rom 5:8) He came down and sacrificed Himself on the Cross. There was absolutely NOTHING I could do to merit salvation of any kind on my own, since all my works of. . righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags;(menstrual cloths). . . . (Isa 64:6). Yet because of His sacrifice I am sanctified and perfected forever.. (Heb 10:10,14). For it is by His grace I am saved, through faith regardless of anything else I can/could do, so that I cannot boast in my own rightness but on the grace of God. (Eph 2:8-9). Were I to die today, I know without a doubt that I would be in the presence of the Heavenly Father.

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.