Would Jesus Vote?

Have you ever asked yourself that question?  Do you think if Jesus were here he would ever participate in an election and try to choose which politician would get into power and then direct the force of government against his neighbors? Is that what Jesus would do?

Did Jesus ever give any stamp of approval to any political or religious authorities during his ministry? Did he ever tell his followers, the rulers and authorities of that time had any moral right to force people to do what they said? Did he ever tell people they were commanded to obey and therefore must submit to those same rulers?

Where do rulers get power over people, anyway? Does it come from God? Think carefully before you answer because you should think about what those same rulers then do with that power. Do they use that power to keep God’s commandments or to break them? How does any ruler exercise power and what do they do with that power? Isn’t all political power expressed by force or by the threat of force? Isn’t the power of the state projected at gunpoint when you boil it down? If all political power is based on force, and it provably is, can you imagine a loving and just God giving that force his stamp of approval? Where is the scriptural support to be found if you believe that?

I am sure many of you reading this will immediately reply with, “Render unto Caesar.” Do you really think Jesus thought Caesar was morally due anything? How did Caesar get anything in the first place? He stole it, didn’t he? He used his power(armed soldiers or cops) to rob his subjects and enrich himself in the process just like all governments do. Where in the Bible does it say you have God’s blessing to rob your neighbors and steal their property? So if you rob somebody and take their property by force, coercion or intimidation do the victims then have a moral obligation to “render” more to you? The blind see this statement as a reason to submit to being robbed and controlled and exploited. The wise see it for what it is; merely a statement with many layers of meaning used to confound the ignorant. Jesus is telling you, if you can think clearly and thus understand his real message, you don’t owe anything to Caesar or Obama or any other gang created by evil people and called a government.

If you still can’t see this simple and basic truth can you cite the scriptures which say Thou Shalt Not Steal unless you are employed by or part of a government? Where would I find those exemptions? How about Thou Shalt Not Kill unless you work for the state? Is that in the Bible, too? How about Thou Shalt Not Covet unless you work for the gang know as government? Where do we find Thou Shalt Not Lie unless you are a politician? What scriptures give any people exemption from God’s commandments just because they form a big gang and brainwash people into believing it somehow then has moral legitimacy and must be obeyed? Gods commandments apply to ALL people and no exemptions  to them were ever granted in scripture.

What did Jesus spend the bulk of his ministry doing? Wasn’t it teaching people to love one another and then demonstrating that love himself by healing thousands of people, all types and classes of people? If you advocate your neighbor be robbed, threatened, bullied, kidnapped, controlled, caged and murdered can you ever seriously think you are demonstrating love for them? Did Jesus ever rob anyone? Did he ever send out any of his followers or disciples to rob anyone on his behalf? If he never did any of those things and we are to follow his example, why do you think you can choose(vote for) people to rob and bully and threaten and kill your neighbors and call yourself a Christian?

I am going to say, flat out, “Jesus would never vote for any political ruler to have any power over anyone, ever.” If we want to be like him, love one another and follow his example we should NOT be voting either. Voting for ANY political ruler is actively condoning, supporting and legitimatizing the force, violence, immorality and corruption of the gang known as government and that it be directed at your neighbor. Do you really want to be a part of that?

 

 

 

The False doctrine of exaltation.

The LDS doctrine of exaltation is Not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is merely a doctrine of man created to sell polygamy. The easiest way to prove this to yourself is to do a word search in the the scriptures. Click here and type in ‘exaltation‘ in the search the scriptures window. You will then find only 12 results in all the scriptures. And guess what? 11 of them are found in one chapter and constitute the first and only introduction of a new, higher doctrine called  “exaltation”. The only other use of the word exaltation, found outside section 132, in all other scripture is found in D&C 124 and has nothing to do with the doctrine of exaltation, introduced, created and found only in D&C 132. Strange, Huh?

Don’t you think it is odd that in all scripture you can only find out about the supposedly highest reward and glory one can receive in one dubious chapter, with a highly questionable origin?  And only showing up many millennium after the world began and after thousands of years of God’s recorded dealings with his children. We also know Joseph Smith never put section 132 in the D&C and while living never demonstrated any intent to do so either. Why not, as it is the only ‘scripture’ which lays out the supposed highest degree of glory a human can attain? It was only put into the D&C many years after his death and after the practice of polygamy was firmly ingrained in the culture.  I find that very troubling.

More importantly why is there no mention of the doctrine of exaltation in the Book of Mormon(which remember, contains the FULLNESS of the gospel) or the Bible? Neither the word exaltation nor the doctrine of exaltation appear in any of those books . . . not even once. Why not? Up until the grand, disjointed revelation contained in D&C 132 the promise of eternal life was the highest reward one could receive and there are more than a hundred verses cementing that truth in all the books of scripture. And yet no mention of “exaltation”. That raises a big red flag in my eyes.

How come we find in Moses 1:39  “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man“. ? ? Why doesn’t it say, “to bring to pass the exaltation of man”?  Surely God knew there was something better than just eternal life, right? Or maybe there really isn’t. Maybe He meant what he said and said what He meant. Maybe the doctrine of exaltation didn’t come from God at all. We can find many references all throughout scripture to the immortality and eternal life of man as being the reward God has in store for his children but only in D&C 132 do we learn of a higher reward, called exaltation, reserved for polygamists. Pretty strange, right?

Lets go read some verses that teach of eternal life, none of them being of suspicious and questionable origin like section 132:

D&C 14:7 And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

Alma 11:40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

Mosiah 26:20 Thou art my servant; and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life; and thou shalt serve me and go forth in my name, and shalt gather together my sheep.

Helaman 5:8 And now my sons, behold I have somewhat more to desire of you, which desire is, that ye may not do these things that ye may boast, but that ye may do these things to lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers.

2 Nephi 31:20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

D&C 81:6 And if thou art faithful unto the end thou shalt have a crown of immortality, and eternal life in the mansions which I have prepared in the house of my Father.

Alma 22:15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy.

Moroni 7:41 And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise.

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Titus 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

1 John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

D&C6:13 If thou wilt do good, yea, and hold out faithful to the end, thou shalt be saved in the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God; for there is no gift greater than the gift of salvation.

D&C 50:5 But blessed are they who are faithful and endure, whether in life or in death, for they shall inherit eternal life

D&C 75:5 And thus, if ye are faithful ye shall be laden with many sheaves, and crowned with honor, and glory, and immortality, and eternal life.

D&C 133:62 And unto him that repenteth and sanctifieth himself before the Lord shall be given eternal life.  

Moses 5:11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

Abraham 2:11 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.

Where is the promise of exaltation in these verses??

Doesn’t God know exaltation is better than mere “eternal life”? Better than just salvation. Better than plain old immortality.

Why did He wait so long to reveal the doctrine of “exaltation”?

Salvation, Eternal Life and Immortality, Yes.

exaltation?

Don’t bet on it.

Blacks and Priesthood Heresy

This heretical policy all started with Brigham Young and his declaration in 1852 that blacks could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, and sadly and shamefully lasted until 1978.

What were the reasons put forth to explain and justify this policy by God’s prophet? (Yes, it was nothing but a policy and not based on any commandment or revelation from God)

These were the main reasons put forth justifying this travesty:

Claiming the curse of Cain applied to all those with black skin, who were descendants of him and thus cursed also.

The belief that Blacks had been less valiant in the pre-existence and were thus being punished.

The belief Blacks are less intelligent.

The belief they were supposed to be servants.

The belief that it was a sin to intermarry with them.

The belief they were not fit to hold any office of authority.

Those are all awful, hateful, racist reasons and have no basis in scripture, as they contradict the basic laws of the gospel of Jesus Christ and simple logic.
I am not going to go through and refute each one of them by the scriptures, even though it can be done as there is a far simpler way to prove this is and always was a false doctrine. However I am going to include the following scripture from the Book of Mormon which always contradicted Brigham’s doctrine: 2 Nephi 26:33

  • For none of these iniquities(injustices) come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

So I have a question.  While this policy of man was in effect, over an unbelievable 126 years in a church claiming continuous revelation, was there any other established doctrine which completely contradicted and refuted it at the same time?
Yes, there was and it proved this racist doctrine false the whole time.

Lets turn to Moroni chapter 8 and start reading:

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. 

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

and in Mosiah 15: 25 And little children also have eternal life.

And finally a revelation received by Joseph Smith in 1836 and recorded in D&C 137:10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

The doctrine of the restored church has been that ALL children who die before the age of accountability will inherit celestial glory and eternal life. This is taught as the pinnacle of what is possible and only the most righteous followers of Jesus Christ will receive this reward. This doctrine has never been challenged or changed in the church.

Now do you see the problem with Brigham Young and his racist policy towards blacks contradicting the doctrine of Jesus Christ regarding little children? It is a massive and irreconcilable  contradiction which for some reason he missed(or ignored) and which has also been disregarded by all the leaders after him, who also ignored it and kept this evil policy in place for almost another 101 years after BY died.

How did they miss this? Why did they miss this?

How many millions of Black children do you think have died under the age of eight since Brigham’s ban was put into place?

Did a little searching on Google and came up with this statistic: In Africa there are 2.6 million deaths of little children under the age of 5 each year due to under-nutrition. That is a lot of Black children who go to the celestial kingdom isn’t it? Assuming this is pretty accurate, if we were to add up all the Black children who died under the age of 8 from 1852 until 1978 we would have a huge number wouldn’t we? Definitely more than 15 million, which is what the ENTIRE membership of the LDS church currently stands at.

Although I can’t find the yearly statistics to prove this my guess is way more than 100 million black children under the age of 8 died during that period and were saved in the Celestial Kingdom. One hundred million righteous, valiant, intelligent and much loved spirit children of our Father who were born into temporary physical bodies that just happened to have black skins. There haven’t even been 100 million members of the church in the entire history of the church. That is a lot of proof we shouldn’t put our trust in men and their works.

And yet according to Brigham none of those millions of Black children were valiant enough, intelligent enough or worthy enough for that blessing or even far lesser ones. According to him they were all cursed and fit only to be servants to superior people like him. Guess God disagreed with him.

And here’s a thought: How many white children do you think died before the age of eight during that same period? That would be an interesting comparison wouldn’t it? If it was proven that more black children than white children died under the age of eight what would that say about who is more righteous? More valiant? More intelligent?

Something to think about, isn’t it?

It also leads to the ironic conclusion it is much better to die before the age of eight if you want to go to the Celestial Kingdom, doesn’t it? 7.5 million children die a year who are under the age of five. Every 2 years the equivalent of the whole membership of the entire church make it to the celestial kingdom, all without any help whatsoever from the church. Between 2000 and 2010 at least 92 million children have died and gone to the Celestial Kingdom, again, all without the slightest help from the LDS church, its money, its temples and its leaders. None of them ever followed a prophet. That is sobering. Starvation and disease is more likely to get you into the celestial kingdom then a ‘living prophet’, apostles, changing doctrines and policies, endless meetings, donations, programs, correlation, rules and callings. Who would have thunk?

The real question one should ask is why did it take so long for the presidents, apostles and other prominent leaders of the church who succeeded Brigham to get rid of this obviously false doctrine? Why did they teach two completely opposing doctrines for so long without ever seeing their hypocrisy? What happened to continuous revelation and the constantly chanted mantra that God would never allow His servants to lead His church astray? It’s obvious somebody isn’t telling the truth here, isn’t it?

Racism is evil. It is not of God and not condoned by Him. We are to Love our Neighbors regardless of their color, race or nationality and treat all people as we want to be treated. Spirits don’t have a race or nationality. Those are just ways man has come up with to discriminate and separate and excuses to hate, harm, divide and control others. We are all God’s children, equally loved and valued. Skin color or race is no indication of where we stand in God’s favor or love. Anyone who tells you differently is a liar.

We believe in being subject to . . .

Why?                  Seriously. WHY?

This is one of the most evil doctrines on the planet as it is the source of most of the worlds ills.

Why should you be subject to any person? Why should you do what they tell you to do? Why should anybody have the right to force you to obey them? Where do they get that right? It certainly didn’t come from God and in fact that dangerous belief is completely at odds with the Ten Commandments, the eternal principle of Agency, the Golden Rule and the second greatest Commandment; Love Your Neighbor.

We are to obey God, not man. Acts 5:29 “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” Think about that. Why would you ever think you have a moral duty to obey men, who are just like you? Why would you ever think other humans have a legitimate right to FORCE you to do what they say? Where would they get that right? Not from God and not on His authorization. So who are they acting on behalf of? Whose system is based on force?

Where did the 12th article of faith come from? Do you know? Was it a revelation from God? Did any of the ancient prophets teach it? Is it taught in the Book of Mormon? The Bible? Lets find out.

On March 1, 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a letter to a Chicago newspaper editor named John Wentworth, describing 13 beliefs of Mormonism. This was basically an attempt to get some good p.r. for the church. These beliefs later became known as the Articles of Faith. And one of them, AOF 12, states this: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Kind of funny because this unfortunately contradicts the previous AOF number 11: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

See the problem? These two concepts are always at odds. These are contradicting statements, although one is called a belief and the other is a claim, which is stronger. Government, or as I refer to it the State, always claims ownership of and demands obedience from its subjects, contrary to the will of God, which states we are all created equal. What is all government based on? One thing . . . . FORCE!(more on this here) Isn’t that right? What gives the State its power over you? Its ability to force you to obey it right? Take away the force and what would you then have? Something very different, right? Stating you believe in being subject to men, which is what the state is is completely at odds with stating you also claim the privilege of worshipping God the way you choose. The state doesn’t allow you to worship God if that worship defies it and its dictates, which it ALWAYS does. How many instances in the scriptures and throughout all human history are we taught this lesson?

Lets just look at three examples proving this although there are many, many more:

Daniel and the lions den. (didn’t somebody important just talk about this in conference although he seemed to have missed the main point of the account?)

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and the fiery furnace.

Abinadi vs king Noah.

What do these three accounts all have in common? What main lesson are they teaching us? Do they teach us to obey God or man? They respectively teach us they didn’t believe in being subject to . . . . , right? In fact, they all refused to be subjects, didn’t they? They chose to obey God rather than man. Then man or the State initiated violence against them as a result, in an attempt to enforce obedience or as punishment for not obeying, just like it always does when its false satanic authority is challenged. Whose side was God on? That is the real lesson being taught by these stories which we should take to heart.

Now lets get back to the state and see why it is always in opposition to God. Let’s start with a few questions:

Are all God’s children equal in His eyes?       Yes.

Are all subject to the same commandments?      Yes.

Does God ever give you or any other person an exemption from obeying His commandments if you(they) form or join a gang or a group?    Does He?                    Of course not. That’s ridiculous.

Let’s look at a few of the commandments God has given to ALL His children and which apply equally to ALL of them, with NO exceptions. “Thou shalt not steal.” Hmm. . . . has there ever been a government, which is made up of ordinary people all who are subject to this commandment, which didn’t or doesn’t STEAL?   No, there hasn’t, as all governments steal from their subjects. Stealing, or ‘taxation’ as they have so thoughtfully renamed it, is the most potent tool they have, used to subjugate, exploit and control their populations. By stealing they gain immense wealth and power which they then use to gain even more wealth and power, all the while falsely telling their subjects it is for their own good. Which leads to two more commandments the state defies as part of its daily operation. They are: “ Thou shalt not bear false witness and Thou shalt not covet”. The state breaks these commandments in hundreds of different ways, far, far to many to detail and address here. The state is based on lies. It is founded and operates on lies and thrives and grows on lies. It covets everything it sees and covets control and power over all people everywhere. Does this sound like something God is behind or something Satan backs? Pretty obvious isn’t it?

We haven’t even dealt with this commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Does the state have a problem with killing? Only a complete idiot would try to make that case. Just since the 1900’s the state has murdered over 260 million of its subjects worldwide. Democide (click here to learn more) is the term but mass murder has been the result. Over 260 million of God’s children murdered at the bloody hands of people who justified this by calling themselves government! This ungodly number is exclusive of the tens of millions more killed in wars between states, jockeying for power, amongst themselves, during that same period. Do you think God will give them a pass for these atrocities at judgment day? I can hear it now: “But God, I was just doing my job.” Or “I was just doing what I was told to do.” Or, “All I did was vote for them to represent me. It’s not my fault they did those things.” Or “But God, my leaders told me to follow them and said they would never lead me astray.” Good luck with those lame excuses.

You think God claims the state as His? Do you think He authorized it to do His work? Name one thing the state does which spreads the gospel of Jesus Christ.                 Can’t, can you?

What lesson did God authorize we be taught about rulers(the state)?

Lets turn to chapter 1 Samuel chapter 8 and find out:

6. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

7. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected ME, that I should not reign over them. (did you get that? The rule of man is not the rule of God. Not by a long shot.)

10. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.

11. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. (wow, only a tenth?)

16. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.(the servants are never the master and the master is NEVER accountable to the servants.)

18. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. (Not a good thing to have happen.)

19. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

Did God want His people ruled by men? Whom did they reject when they chose to be ruled by men? Why doesn’t God want his children to be ruled by men? Maybe because NONE of them are fit to rule over other people? Maybe because none of them could do so without breaking most of His commandments in the process? Maybe because He knew what far greater evil and harm would be done in the name of their bastardized version of ‘authority’.

What lessons do the Book of Mormon teach on being subject to men?

Lets look in Mosiah chapter 23 and see:

6. And the people were desirous that Alma should be their king, for he was beloved by his people.

7. But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.

13. And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust NO man to be a king over you. ( all political rulers are like “kings”)

This seems pretty clear to me. Now we know Alma was a righteous man, a good man and one beloved by his people, yet he was not fit to be their king. Think about that. All of you reading this who think that if you could just get(by voting) the right man or woman in power over you everything would be great are in fact being told by God just the opposite!! God doesn’t want anyone to be a ruler over you, for your sake and for theirs. Becoming a ruler guarantees a person will become evil and do much evil as such. God loves us all and doesn’t want any of us to live in bondage to sin or to other people. God knows when people believe they have power over other people they will invariably abuse that power and do far more harm then they ever could otherwise. We are to stand fast in liberty and trust NO man or woman to rule over us. We should pay strict attention to these words in the “most correct book on earth” as this is a revelation here.

Nobody should think they are above another, is a key point made here also, contrary to what ALL rulers think. This is wrong and leads to all kinds of evil and harm being done to billions of God’s children.

On the other hand, AOF 12 wasn’t a revelation and it certainly doesn’t trump this one. It was just an attempt to get some good p.r. out and probably also an attempt to convince the ruling class the church wasn’t a threat to them and their power structure. Remember, many of the issues the early members had were because they were seen as a political threat to various levels of the existing power structure. You think the inclusion of this particular AOF might have had something to do with that reality?  Either way it isn’t revelation and it doesn’t supersede previous revelations. Joseph Smith never claimed it was nor did he EVER try to establish it as such. That attempt came much later, long after he was dead, in 1880 when the church was again threatened by the state due to the false doctrine of polygamy which was declared illegal by the state. Wait a minute. This should never have been an issue since the church believed in being subject to the . . . . . . so how could this have happened? . . . . oh never mind. At that point it was voted on and canonized as doctrine probably as another p.r. attempt to pacify the state. At no time was further revelation received from God declaring these beliefs to be revelation.

So lets take a look at what God has established as His model for people living together in a stateless society according to His commandments. Are there any good examples of this in the scriptures? Yep. There sure are. Lets turn to Moses chapter 7:

13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.

14 There also came up a land out of the depth of the sea, and so great was the fear of the enemies of the people of God, that they fled and stood afar off and went upon the land which came up out of the depth of the sea.

15 And the giants of the land, also, stood afar off; and there went forth a curse(being subjects of violent and immoral states?) upon all people that fought against God;

16 And from that time forth there were wars and bloodshed(the lifeblood of the state) among them; but the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness.

17 The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.

18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

Here we learn God’s people lived together in peace, safety and righteousness while protected from the state and its tyranny and violence. The people were equal and none sought to rule over, control or exploit their neighbor or force them to act in the way they thought they should. They didn’t steal from their neighbors to pay for roads, schools, museums, libraries, bombs or armies and lavish lifestyles for rulers. They didn’t steal for ANY reason. None were poor and none were rich. Did they believe in being subject to the state? No! They were anti-state and anti-government. They lived completely separate from the state and independently from it. On the other hand, the state feared Zion and fled from it. This is the model God desires His children to live under. Zion and the state are polar opposites. They are antithetical. They must be separate. Until people realize this fact Zion is an impossibility. It will continue to be a legendary place until God’s people fully reject the state and its corrupt model and quit participating in it, killing for it and supporting it in any way.

We also have a brief account of this type of society existing in the Book of Mormon. It existed after the coming of Christ and is recorded in 4th Nephi chapter 1:

3.  And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

15.  And it came to pass that there was no contention(states thrive on contention) in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

16.  And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

17.  There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites(no subjects, citizens, americans, germans, russians, etc.); but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

Sound pretty wonderful doesn’t it? And of course none of this would be possible inside a state where some people are more equal than others and who use their power to control, rob and subjugate the rest. You can’t have a state without systematic theft which also didn’t exist in this account.

Joseph Smith attempted to set up this type of a society but he failed due to the wickedness, unbelief and stubbornness of the people. And more than likely because they were to committed to the state and its systems and couldn’t divorce themselves from it. Yet, the saints, even after failing to establish Zion the first time where given another chance with this amazing promise found in D&C 103:5-10

“But verily I say unto you, that I have decreed a decree which my people shall realize, inasmuch as they hearken from this very hour unto the counsel which I, the Lord their God, shall give unto them. Behold they shall, for I have decreed it, begin to prevail against mine enemies from this very hour. And by hearkening to observe all the words which I the Lord their God shall speak unto them, they shall never cease to prevail until the kingdoms of the world are subdued under my feet, and the earth is given to the saints, to possess it forever and ever. But inasmuch as they keep not my commandments, and hearken not to observe all my words, the kingdoms of the world shall prevail against them. For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the savior of men; and inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under the foot of men.”

So what happened since this revelation was given?

Who prevails against whom?

Who fled from the other?

Who teaches they must be subject to the other?

Does the state tell you to vote for the the church?

Does the state say you should participate in the church and do your duty to it?

Does the state say you should fight, kill and maybe die for the church?

Does the state tell you to obey the rulers/leaders of the church?

Does the state tell you to obey the laws of the church?

Who is afraid of offending the other?

Who is afraid to speak out against the other?

Who exists at the pleasure of the other?

Whose laws determine what the other can and can’t do?

Whose money gets taken for the benefit of the other?

Who is trodden under the foot of men?

I think you get the picture here and I should stop belaboring the issue, right? Clearly the state is in control and prevailing. That isn’t even debatable at this point. So who do you think you should be subject to? Are you going to trust in the arm of flesh or in the power and word of God? You CANNOT do both.

Here’s something else to think about regarding this issue. Let me ask you this regarding obeying, honoring and sustaining laws: Was it ‘legal’ for Hitler to murder millions of Jews? Did you ever hear the story of a young Latter-Day Saint named Helmuth Hubener? He had the same kind of moral courage Daniel had but you won’t hear his story at conference. Why? because he refused to accept the false doctrine taught in the 12th AOF. You should read about him and how he was excommunicated for opposing the nazis and later beheaded by them. Then ask yourself who was in the right? Was it legal for the Jews to crucify Jesus Christ? Was it legal for Governor Boggs to issue an extermination order against the saints? Was it legal to own slaves in the U.S. under the constitution? Was it legal to murder millions of American Indians?

If you believe in being a subject rather than a son or daughter of God then how can you criticize those “legal” crimes against humanity? In reality, legal and illegal have nothing to do with with what is right and wrong and what is moral and immoral. Most of the laws in this world, are nothing but threats issued by the ruling class and violate the commandments of God. ALL political rulers, unequivocally violate His commandments. And you think you should support them, honor them and submit to them? WHY? Why would you think that?

When you have rulers, they make the laws and they determine what is legal or illegal, irregardless of what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, completely disregarding God’s laws. Believing you are a subject to anyone but God is extremely foolish and naïve and is plainly contradicted by scripture. There is nobody between you and God. In Nephi we are told He employs no gatekeepers, “keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there.”

Letting other people make decisions for you is a big mistake and you will be held accountable.

You won’t be able to excuse yourself by saying you were just being obedient. Obedience to God is commanded while obedience to man is precluded. In fact, according to God you will be cursed if you put your trust in man.

Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

Any person who thinks you should obey them is not a good person. Any person who thinks they have a right to force you to obey them is a truly evil person. Stay away from those people!

P.S. I have just read an amazing post by a woman who has an incredible understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and why Christians shouldn’t vote. Please read it and forward it.

D&C Section 132 is truly an “other gospel”

I have spent quite a bit of time reading and thinking about this. I think some of the stuff I point out is nit-picky but it all adds up to create some serious questions about this dubious “revelation.” And some of the issues and concerns I have with this, which I will point out, are very serious and major problems, IMHO. What do you think?

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence(what evidence?) indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.
(When was this revealed to the general church, by whom and when was it canonized?)

See Official Declaration 1.

1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way leads to eternal lives; 26–27, The law is given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation are made to prophets and Saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled(threatened) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing plural marriage are set forth.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine(exactly when did it become a principle and doctrine?) of their having many wives and concubines—

When and why would Joseph Smith have inquired about this after he already translated the BOM, which gave three clear witnesses it was an abomination, with no equivocation? Why would he have even thought they were justified? Where would he have got that idea? By the way, Isaac only had one wife and no concubines. We have a real problem here.

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey(first use of this phrase in scripture) the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey(sounds like force) the same.

Everyone reading this now has it revealed to them and therefore MUST obey.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant(before this verse this phrase was associated with baptism. See D&C 22:1); and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

Pretty harsh words for not complying. You would think God would try to sell the positives and not focus mainly on the negatives. Sounds more like a threat then a blessing. Once you know about this if you don’t do it you will be damned. Adam and Noah didn’t do this. Nor did Enoch and the city of Zion. Neither did Lehi, Nephi, Jacob or Alma. The original 12 apostles didn’t either. The following vision of JS, recorded in D&C 137 also contradicts this:

1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham(why not “Father” also); and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins. (or yet sealed into this new and an everlasting covenant.)
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

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

“blessing at my hands” is a a weird phrase and the first and only time this appears in any scripture.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted(when?) for the fulness of my glory(sounds like satan’s words); and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

Another threat. Sure seems to violate agency. Threats are an attempt to force which seems more in line with the plan of Satan. There is no mention of this in either the Bible or the Book or Mormon so when was it instituted?

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: ALL covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise (first of 4 references in 132), of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

Is the covenant of baptism sealed by the HSoP for time and all eternity? Of course not. Which means according to this it will be of no force in the next life. Hmmm. This verse is problematic in so many ways and defies logic and reason. It makes no sense. What about friendships? Friendships are “bonds, connections and associations”, right? Looks like they are going to disappear or evaporate somehow. According to this, nothing will last in the next life if not sealed by the HSoP.
And how can the church have so many temples operating and doing all kinds of sealings when there is “never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred” ? Clearly this has been ignored by the leaders. This verse raises so many red flags.

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

Sure seems like God is lying to us here as there was and still is lots of confusion and disorder over polygamy even to this day which seems to be increasing.

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

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

“receive at your hands” is another weird phrase appearing here for the first and only time in all scripture.

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

Shouldn’t it be my “Father and I?” Jesus never put himself before the Father before in any other scripture.  Also why is he talking about himself in the third person here?

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

Third person again. Why does he have to say “saith the Lord” at the end of this when it is clear he is already speaking? Weird. Comes off as being a bit insecure.

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

Is this another HSoP reference? Nothing will last unless sealed up first? Why does the Lord feel the need to keep saying over and over he is the Lord? Seems to be trying to reassure himself or something.

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

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

Marriage is a voluntary contract which is outside law. It isn’t enforced and the law isn’t what binds you together.  A commitment to each other and a desire to be together does, which is what marriage really is.  So God will force people who have agency, to no longer associate with past spouses? Really strange.  How? Will it be illegal to have any contact or association with an earthly spouse? Will there be marriage cops(angels with swords?) in heaven who go around shocking and arresting people who act like they are married? Will they kidnap them and throw them in heavenly cages to keep them apart? Or will God just wipe out all the memories of couples who didn’t get that temple marriage?

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

How is a person who is free, “given”  in marriage in the first place? How can you legitimately and morally give another person to somebody else? Sounds like force and a loss of personal agency. Why would God take away our agency? Does this mean God will force all people to get a divorce in heaven? And if you want to be a ruler you must first get that special plural/celestial marriage. Seems like a noble goal right? After all how can you truly love your neighbor if you can’t force them to do what you say? What if I don’t want to be a ministering servant? Is God going to make me be one? What happens if I do a lousy job and don’t show the proper deference to my betters? Probably get sent to hell, right?
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation(what does this mean? First time of 9 it appears in this section and the first time in ANY scripture), in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

So now we learn angels are limited creatures and can’t advance. Look at the use of the word “henceforth” here. Makes no sense at all and seems to be a poor choice of words. It means “from this time forward.” Wouldn’t that mean they were gods to begin with? So they get changed from a god to an angel?

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

This just made it a lot less orderly. How can the angels be ministering servants to God and the other mighty, exalted ones if they can’t abide their glory? Pretty tough to be a servant if you can’t even be in the presence of your master.

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

This verse makes very little sense.  Is it trying to say that if you marry by his law and don’t commit murder after that you can do anything else and still receive all things and better yet, exaltation?  It sure seems so. This is definitely an “other gospel.” It also negates the atonement as it allows you to save yourself just by getting a celestial/plural marriage and by not shedding “innocent blood.” This is true blasphemy.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end(our spirits have no end so wouldn’t that already make us gods?); therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

This is silly. Completely illogical.  According to a literal interpretation of this,  “then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them,” even God will be subject to these new gods who became gods due to this new special kind of marriage.

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

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives(what? reincarnation?), and few there be that find it, because ye(shouldn’t this be ‘they’) receive me not in the world neither do ye(‘they’?) know me.

What does “continuation of the lives” mean?

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

24 This is eternal lives(what is this? first and only mention in all scriptures)—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.

How can a person or being have “eternal lives” ? If you have more than one eternal life you never had one in the first place? This is completely illogical.

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

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood(what about not so innocent blood?), yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

Is this a clarification of verse 19 which was almost incomprehensible? So basically entering into this type of marriage is like getting a free pass to engage in any and all sin, except that of murdering an innocent person. But this also seems to leave the door open to murder people who aren’t so “innocent”.
Isn’t everybody going to be “destroyed in the flesh”. Isn’t that the definition of death? If not what does this mean?
According to this a person can also work out their own salvation(exalt oneself) merely by engaging in eternal/plural marriage. That sure seems to be a brand new gospel found in no other scriptures. I seem to remember Nephi warning against this belief . . . . . Oh yeah, here it is: 2 Nephi 28:8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

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

Still a loophole here for shedding blood that ISN’T innocent. Do I detect the influence of Brigham Young and his blood atonement doctrine? Could Brigham Young have been the real author of this mess?

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

So now the Holy Priesthood is built around multiple wives? And again, only here do we find Jesus putting himself before the Father.

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
He already received exaltation?
Where in the scriptures does it say he was commanded to marry Hagar? When did he gain exaltation? Who sealed him into the new and everlasting covenant?

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

All of the righteous seed of Abraham who received the greatest blessings came through the FIRST wife, Sarai, later called Sarah and not the polygamous ones. Christ Himself came from the lineage of the first wife(Sarai) as does Joseph so it kind of negates the argument for polygamous “seed” this verse makes.

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

So what about people who are not of the lineage of Abraham? Are they still included? It says all who have this revealed to them MUST obey in verse 3. Sure seems confusing. So without this law the works of His father can’t continue?

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham(which are?); enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

Seriously? Are we to infer the “works” of Abraham were to have more than one wife(he had three) and to have kids with them?

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

What promise was made to Abraham regarding having more than one wife?

34 God commanded Abraham(to do what?), and Sarah(No, it was Sarai), gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law(where is that law written?); and from Hagar sprang many people(righteous people?). This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

Big problems with the claims made in this verse. First, where is the scriptural proof Abraham was commanded by GOD to take another wife? It doesn’t exist. Sarai, not Sarah, was old and even though promised she would bear a child, after many years lost faith and decided to take matters into her own hands. She, as Sarai, convinced Abraham to take a younger woman, her servant Hagar, as a wife so Abraham could father a child. Apparently Abraham had lost faith as well and also liked the idea of having a younger(more attractive?) wife and agreed to Sarai’s urging. Nowhere do the scriptures say this was commanded by God or that it was His plan.
Also Sarai didn’t become Sarah until 13 years after Abraham took Hagar as his second wife.

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

Again, where is that commandment recorded in scripture? It doesn’t exist outside of the statement made here above.

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

But he DIDN’T kill him so by this logic if you were commanded to practice polygamy and were about to do it God would stop you and you would pass the test, without actually doing it. Bad logic. God sure doesn’t seem to be able to grasp simple logic here.

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him(given by who?), and he abode in my law; as Isaac(can’t find ANY scripture or any statement offered by any scholar stating Isaac had a wife other than Rebekah. So this alone proves this is false doctrine) also and Jacob(Jacob got tricked into marrying Leah instead of Rachel whom he married later and then had 2 concubines given him by Rachel) did none other things than that which they were commanded(no commandments are in the Bible regarding this, NONE); and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

So now we hear it is commanded to have concubines also, so why didn’t the saints have them too? Isaac had ONLY one wife and that was Rebekah and took no concubines. The scriptures show this and this is what you will find on the net. Other Biblical scholar and researchers agree. So if in fact Isaac only had one wife this whole thing falls apart right here and now. Isaac and Rebekah had faith and patiently waited over 20 years before they were blessed with a child as promised. They did not resort to polygamy as did Abraham and Sarai in order to try and fulfill God’s promise.
Websters 1828 dictionary defines a concubine like this:

CONCUBINE, n. [L., to lie together, to lie down.]
1. A woman who cohabits with a man, without the authority of a legal marriage; a woman kept for lewd purposes; a kept mistress.
2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws.

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses[no scriptural proof Moses had a wife other than Zipporah and if he did that he was married to both at the same time, which isn’t polygamy. Some scholars think he divorced Zipporah. There is a reference to his wife being ethiopian or cushan which could mean black(meaning Zipporah might have been black) but there is a lot of controversy on the net over this. There is no convincing proof he was married to more than one woman, let alone two at the same time.] my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation(not Adam and Eve so here is another red flag this is false doctrine) until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

Not what BOM teaches or the Bible teaches. David was not allowed to build a temple because of his other sin:

1 Chronicles 22: 8. But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight. JST 1 Kings 3:14 And if thou wilt walk in my ways to keep my statutes, and my commandments, then I will lengthen thy days, and thou shalt not walk in unrighteousness, as did thy father David.
And as for Solomon: JST 1 Kings 11: 4. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, and it became as the heart of David his father.
5.For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6.And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father, and went not fully after the Lord.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin(this completely contradicts the BOM Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.) against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

What other prophets living at the time of Nathan had the keys of this power and where did they get it from? Who did Nathan get it from? Remember only one can have it at a time on the earth according to verse 7. Who sealed up Solomon’s 1000 wives and concubines to him?
What, are they like cows to be given to whomever the Lord feels like giving them to? Do they have any choice in the matter? This whole section seems to be the work of a misogynist.
He fell from his exaltation? That means he had it in the first place otherwise how could he have fallen from it?

40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things(so polygamy is a restoration?). Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.

What other Old Testament practices are going to have to be restored? Stoning adulterers?

Adultery verses

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery(I thought he was asking about the many wives of David and Solomon. Do you consider that as adultery?), verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and(this would be a lot less confusing if ‘whom’ replaced “and” assuming that is the meaning here ) I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

This is written sooo poorly it is hard to follow. Sounds like she could also be sealed to another man other than her original husband. Just how is she going to be “destroyed” and what were some examples of where this actually happened?

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant(even if she is married to him?), and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

What’s the difference with the previous verse?
So even if married normally it will be adultery? Sounds like the author of this is trying to say that this new and everlasting covenant is so special and wonderful that normal marriage is almost like adultery or even considered as such?

43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow(what vow), he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.
And?? what about the shall get “destroyed” threat? Is vow another term for the special new and everlasting covenant?

44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.
Wait a minute. So she gets passed around? And being married in this way makes a man a ruler of women? Nice. Women you must love this. Re

45 For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things(all things? What about Zion and the law of consecration?), and make known unto you all things in due time.

46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever(this verse is only instance in all scripture of this awkward word being used) sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

So JS has power to forgive all sins now? Where is the scriptural precedence for that? No man has or ever had the power to remit another person’s sins. They can only forgive another person’s sin but not absolve them from it. That only comes through the atonement.

47 And again, verily I say, whomsoever you(joseph?) bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse(who was Joseph cursing?), saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God.

So Jesus is making himself subservient to JS here? Odd.

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

Sure was a ton of blessings which came out of polygamy. Not! Way more cursings. And it has been condemned on earth even to this day.

49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation(if it was sealed on him HERE he no longer had to do anything in order to receive it, including practicing polygamy), and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.

How many times in this section does God have to reiterate that He is God? Sounds like he is feeling a little insecure about it. Way to throw another reference to Abraham in here. How is Abraham his father?

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

So he doesn’t need to to this after all, just as Abraham was granted a reprieve? And what is the point of forgiving his sins as he already was sealed up to exaltation? Kind of redundant, right?

Emma Verses 51-56

The first time I ever read this it really bothered me the way Jesus(?) talks to Emma in this section. And the more I read, study and ponder it the more it seems completely out of character and UN-Christ-like. I just can’t picture Jesus speaking to her like this. But if Brigham Young wrote this, like I think he did, it makes a lot more sense.

Lets look at how Jesus addresses her in D&C 25(we know BY didn’t write this):

Hearken unto the voice of the Lord your God, while I speak unto you, Emma Smith, my daughter; for verily I say unto you, all those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters in my kingdom.

A revelation I give unto you concerning my will; and if thou art faithful and walk in the paths of virtue before me, I will preserve thy life, and thou shalt receive an inheritance in Zion.

Behold, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou art an elect lady, whom I have called.
(is this also telling her her calling and election is made sure?)

Obviously He loves her and holds her in high esteem here. Now lets compare how she is addressed quite differently in D&C 132 by him(?) :

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

Notice she is “mine handmaid”(which means servant) and not “my daughter”. Also why does Jesus feel the need to tell JS, Emma is his wife? Does he think JS doesn’t know that? Does anybody else in the church not know that? What is the point of including that in this ‘revelation’? The tone of this is as if whoever is writing it is blaming Joseph’s “wife” for causing trouble or something. How did Jesus give Emma to JS? Emma used her agency to choose to marry him, right? So how was she “given” to him? And just what was she commanded to do which she is now told not to “partake” of? It sounds like it was a test similar to the one Abraham had, which she passed. So if she passed then she didn’t have to do what she was told(only offered) to do and she no longer, like Abraham needs to, right?

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.

It sounds like this ‘revelation’ is after the fact(so where is and when was the first revelation about this given?) as “those” women have already been given to JS, including some women who were not “virtuous and pure” who shall have to be “destroyed”. Oops! Somebody obviously screwed up the “giving” part. So who was it? Who gave him bad women? Couldn’t have been Jesus as he is perfect. And who were those bad women who married JS and then got destroyed? Notice it says shall be destroyed not might and Jesus doesn’t lie. I don’t recall any of Joseph’s supposed wives getting destroyed.

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

YE SHALL OBEY! Shall means will, right? What ever happened to the principle of agency? And if you tell somebody they shall obey and they don’t, what does that say about your power to make them obey? Oops again! Why doesn’t the Lord just tell her what he expects and what the reward will be for being faithful like he did to her in D&C 25:2 above? This verse also implies JS is to rule over her and over many things(women?).

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

Wasn’t she already doing this? I haven’t heard of any rumors claiming she was having an affair. And then it says if she doesn’t abide this commandment(cleave unto Joseph and none else she SHALL BE DESTROYED not once but twice in the same verse!) That is pretty harsh and the only time in all the scriptures a woman is told by name she will be destroyed for not “abiding and cleaving” to her husband when she was already doing so or for any other reason. So why the big threat? Why can’t she just divorce him and go her way if she doesn’t want to put up with this? No forgiveness for her? Just destruction? Really? If you look at verse 53 above, she is already told she will obey(shall) so why is she now being threatened if she doesn’t obey? Doesn’t make sense. Also who ended up getting “destroyed” less than a year later? Wasn’t Emma was it?

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

What did Joseph say he was going to do for(to?) her if she disobeyed this commandment? How does one get an “hundred-fold” of fathers and mothers? And just how many crowns of eternal lives can one have? You can only have one eternal life right? Why would you need a hundred houses? A hundred wives? This blessing is completely illogical. JS sure didn’t receive any of those blessings before he died, in this world. Surely Jesus is much smarter than this. I know he is.

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

Doesn’t seem like Jesus is to fond of Emma anymore with all these threats and commands to obey or be destroyed. Jesus always treated women much better than this and always showed them a great deal of love and respect before this. Even adulterers weren’t threatened or condemned, but forgiven, while Emma is guilty of no major sin here, yet told she will be destroyed. When Jesus says he will “multiply her” which I find to be an odd statement, this is the only instance in all scripture this occurs. Then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her(how would she get multiplied?), and make her heart to rejoice. How did she trespass against God?

57 And again, I say, let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for Satan seeketh to destroy; for I am the Lord thy God(how many times does Jesus have to say he is god in one passage?), and he is my servant; and behold, and lo, I am with him, as I was with Abraham, thy father, even unto his exaltation and glory.

How many times does the name of Abraham have to be dropped here? If Abraham is his father why isn’t it also pointed out just as many times Sarah is also his mother? Maybe because she wasn’t the polygamous wife?

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

59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron(Aaron only had the aaronic priesthood which is much less priesthood than what Jesus has), by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood(what priesthood? This seems to be a reference to the Melchizedek priesthood), if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.
How many times and ways does Jesus need to justify and explain his commandment to practice polygamy here? Why does He even feel the need to justify it once let alone over and over? Just command it and be done with it. You are God, right? Sounding more and more desperate, pathetic even.

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

So now polygamy is a sacrifice required to atone for past transgressions? But wait . . . he was already forgiven of his sins and sealed up his exaltation(see verse 49). Remember? So why does he still have to sacrifice for his past transgressions? This is sure confusing. Make up your mind, God.

61 And again(we get it), as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another(virgin?), and the first give her consent(and if she doesn’t she gets destroyed, right?), and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins(wait, do they have to be virgins?), and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that(what a derogatory term to use for a woman) that belongeth unto him(don’t the women, like men own themselves?) and to no one else.

How do all you women feel about being referred to as a “that”? And how come you have to be a virgin but your husband doesn’t have to be one? And how do you feel about being the belonging of a man? If I was a woman reading this I would be insulted and feel demeaned. I certainly wouldn’t feel my Savior loved me after reading this garbage.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him(given by whom?Again what about their agency?); therefore is he justified.

Who cares if you commit adultery anyway, as you already said in verse 26 as long as they don’t commit murder they will gain exaltation. Does this mean the plural wives must be virgins? Sure likes throwing around the term. Seems like that should be clarified here.

63 But if one or either(aren’t these redundant terms) of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed(so if a women commits adultery she gets destroyed? Why not the man?); for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth(why didn’t Joseph have any children by these marriages then?), 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(not women? Pretty sexist here); for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

SO, the stated purpose of this ‘law’ is to “multiply and replenish the earth” yet so far it has been proven JS only had children with Emma. If he kept the ‘law’ by marrying all those other women why wasn’t his obedience to that ‘law’ blessed and its purpose fulfilled? Seems like there is plenty of multiplying and replenishing the earth going on without polygamy. Also getting pretty sick of hearing the newly introduced term “exaltation” over and over.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power(how does she hold the keys? If she says no she gets destroyed. Some keys.), and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe(what just because he says so? No confirmation from the spirit for her first?) and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

This whole thing sure sounds like an attempt to threaten and bully women into doing this with no attendant blessings in it for them and with no similar threats given in turn to men. The tone seems to be one of instilling fear into women as to what terrible punishment they will face for not complying. God sure seems to love threatening to “destroy” women. Yet we learn in 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me(isn’t he above the laws so why does it have to lawful?), if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor(so if a woman doesn’t break her marriage vows and let her husband take more wives she is a sinner?); and he is exempt from the law of Sarah ( the law of Sarah? Is this a joke? And again, her name was Sarai at the time) , who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham(where is that law found in the scriptures? Oh, only here of course) to take Hagar to wife.

This is the only mention in all the scriptures of the new and wonderful “law of Sarah”, another ‘first’ in this wonderful revelation. It gives women a Hobson’s Choice where they lose either way. It doesn’t say anywhere in the account of Abraham, God commanded him to take Hagar to wife. But it does say Sarai was old and had lost faith she could or would have a child, as promised by the Lord, and so convinced Abraham to take Hagar as a wife so he could have a child, period. She messed up, as later she was blessed with the child she had been promised with. It was her lack of faith and Abraham’s willingness to succumb to temptation and take a much younger( and attractive?) woman to wife. There was no law given and kept here.

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

Finally we get an end to this wonderful “revelation”. Whew!!
But we are still left waiting for that further revelation, aren’t we?
Oh wait, it destroyed families and many, many lives and ripped apart the church into various factions. The church almost suffered total destruction by the state because of it, which it was supposed to rule over and instead bowed to and became a subject of. The church violated its own articles of faith requiring it to be subject to the state which declared polygamy illegal. It created an atmosphere of lying and deception for generations within the church due to the illegality and risk of practicing it. To this day it is a stumbling block and a source of contention. Some blessing that revelation was.

“But verily I say unto you, that I have decreed a decree which my people shall realize, inasmuch as they hearken from this very hour unto the counsel which I, the Lord their God, shall give unto them. Behold they shall, for I have decreed it, begin to prevail against mine enemies from this very hour. And by hearkening to observe all the words which I the Lord their God shall speak unto them, they shall never cease to prevail until the kingdoms of the world are subdued under my feet, and the earth is given to the saints, to possess it forever and ever.
“But inasmuch as they keep not my commandments, and hearken not to observe all my words, the kingdoms of the world shall prevail against them. For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the savior of men; and inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under the foot of men. ’ “(D&C 103:5-10 February 24, 1834)

Who is prevailing over whom?

Five times the saints are ordered to obey this. Seems kind of desperate.

Ten threats of damnation or destruction for not complying with this edict.

Men only threatened with damnation but the women who refuse to do it or who commit adultery after doing it are told they will be destroyed. So women get the harshest penalty for not complying. Seems real fair to me.

Thirty one times Jesus says he is God or the Lord in this section(must be a record). WHY? Maybe the author seems to think if he tells a lie enough times it will be made true?. “I am”, “I”, “me”, “my”. Sounds like obama. Also sounds like he has an inferiority complex. He also talks about it being done for his glory and not the glory of his father. I find the whole tone pathetic and tyrannical and arguments supporting it illogical, with many contradictions and outright falsehoods.

No real discussion offered as to what blessing or benefits would come from this. Which would seem logical given the obvious lack of benefits to women and children. Although we do hear about a new super, highest degree of glory offered as a reward, called “exaltation,” which is introduced for the first time here and supported nowhere else in all the scriptures.

Why does the author try so hard to explain it as being his law and the way it has been done in the past? If you are God why do you have to justify or explain yourself? And the so-called proof offered certainly isn’t very convincing and some of it seems to be completely false. He also jumps around in the flow. Back and forth rehashing the same stuff and re-arguing it it even seems.

Particularly noteworthy is that this is the first time we hear of the term exaltation as being the highest glory attainable. Interesting that in Moses 1:39 we learn: For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. But, what about exaltation? If that is the highest attainable glory why did God ignore it in this verse? Lots of other scriptures in the standard works talk about immortality and eternal life but none address the concept of exaltation. If exaltation is the pinnacle why wasn’t it mentioned in Moses or anywhere else in the scriptures? I find that odd. Note – the word exaltation is used once in section 124 but it clearly has a different meaning and use than what we find it used for in section 132.

Doctrine and Covenants 22:2 says, “Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.” Since the only examples mentioned here of the ‘law’ of polygamy being practiced, were in the Old Testament, under the law of Moses, why wasn’t this ‘law’ then done away with when Christ came. There are no New Testament examples cited in this ‘revelation’ nor is this practice condoned in the New Testament or in the BOM where it is absolutely condemned: https://gregstocks.wordpress.com/

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Why didn’t JS when translating the Bible, change any verses to show polygamy was ordained of God?

It has been said JS had to restore all things. So if polygamy was an Old Testament law which needed restoring, why not some of the other laws of Moses which demanded an eye for an eye also? How about killing kids who dishonor their father and mother? Should we also start stoning adulterers? Sacrificing animals? No more eating bacon or babyback ribs? Why was this the only ‘law’ which needed restoring? Also if this was a part of Mosaic law why were the Nephites and Lamanites, who were also living under Mosaic law commanded NOT to practice it? That makes no sense. Or does it?

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

Out of all the standard works we have all kinds of new doctrine, many weird phrases and word usages and an “other gospel” being introduced only here and not backed up anywhere else in scripture.  And the provenance on this is very sketchy. Joseph allegedly received it, didn’t record it until 12 years later and never made it public while he was alive? In public he preached against this while at the same time he preached and practiced it in secret with the elect and elite. It wasn’t made public until 8 years after he was dead, half the church was in Utah, and many were and had been practicing polygamy for years. Pretty odd.

The language is really weird here with new words and phrases(13 by my count) introduced that had never been used by JS in any other revelations. And also some words were introduced not found in any other scripture at all. Again, quite odd. This sure seems to be the “other gospel” Paul warned against in Galatians 1.

Reading this section is also very strange. It doesn’t sound like previous revelations and it really sounds like a bad imitation of them compared to the way and manner God spoke in other revelations. It is really disjointed and confusing. To me it sounds like Satan, with lots of statements of how powerful he is, blustering and bullying with the whole thing coming off as a threat. The author resorts to using fear to force compliance with this great law. Ask yourself this? Why all the threats? What other gospel principle is taught with so much threatening? Can’t think of one can you? Remember this statement found in 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. And yet “exaltation” is supposedly the greatest glory there is.

It is also critically important to understand that the Lord endorsed the Doctrine and Covenants when it categorically condemned the spiritual wife doctrine and contained the Article on Marriage found in section 101. In 1876 one year before his death, Brigham removed the Article on Marriage and replaced it with section 132. Before the significant changes made in 1876 the Doctrine and Covenants contained three sections(three witnesses) forbidding polygamy/plural marriage and declaring monogamy as the marital law of the Gospel; sections 42, 49, and 101(the Article on Marriage). It did however, also include this prophetic warning in Section 124 verse 120, ” For that which is more or less than this cometh of evil, and shall be attended with cursings and not blessings, saith the Lord your God. Even so. Amen.” In 1921 The Lectures on Faith were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants which they had been the “Doctrine” part of for over 86 years probably because they also contradicted the “other gospel” contained in Section 132 and it was causing to many problems for the official LDS 132 narrative.
Section 132 is false doctrine. It is an entirely new gospel created by lecherous old men who loved to dominate, control and exploit women. It is refuted in scripture over and over again. The Book of Mormon absolutely destroys this pack of lies. It was an attempt by polygamists to sell others on accepting and participating in their sin by twisting the scriptures and misinterpreting them. Jacob totally condemned this. In order to do so they craftily created a special, new type of marriage, which can’t be found anywhere else in the scriptures and called it eternal or celestial marriage. They they intertwined this with polygamy, which they renamed ‘plural marriage’ and said both are only for the most righteous and faithful. Pretty slick, huh? Typical elitist strategy used to fool the masses. The two new marriages created here are like Siamese twins and thus you can’t have one without the other. Why is there not one word in the Bible or the Book of Mormon about eternal marriage or celestial marriage ? Don’t you think that is a big problem?

If you believe this came from God then how do you explain the errors and inconsistencies in it? Is God an idiot? Can’t He craft something that makes a lot more sense? Does He lie? Can He think logically? Or does He just think we are idiots? Do you think God hates women and thinks they are just chattel to be passed around and used by men as they see fit? I sure don’t. Yet this section is the most misogynist teaching in all scripture. What woman would consent to being an eternal child-bearing machine so some man can use her womb for his own purposes and glory? How does one reconcile that idea with D&C 93:33?
“For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;”
Think about what this says. Pregnancy and birthing a child won’t even be possible according to this after we are resurrected.

If after carefully studying this ‘doctrine’, thinking about it and pondering and praying about it, you still think it came from God, then that is your decision, as you have agency to believe whatever you want. As for me, I want nothing to do with it and reject it totally and completely as false doctrine. Will be interesting to see how long this stands now that so much information undermining it is available.

Polygamy vs the Book of Mormon

I have been doing a lot of studying and thinking about the issue of polygamy and this is what I have come up with. I have settled the issue in my mind and believe what the Book of Mormon teaches on the issue. So this is what I have concluded:

Jacob 1:15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

What is Jacob telling us is a wicked practice here? And who is being portrayed as an example of someone involved in doing that wicked practice?

17 Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having first obtained mine errand from the Lord.

Wow! Jacob teaches them after being told to do so by the Lord, polygamy is an abomination! And where is he teaching them this? From within the walls of the temple. How ironic is that? You think this is just a coincidence?

He continues here in:
Jacob 2: 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

What is a grosser crime? A really bad one right? Like committing whoredoms and then attempting to justify them because of what David and Solomon did. And we learn here they did that because they DIDN’T understand the scriptures. So you are being told here if you think polygamy is commanded by God you DON’T understand the scriptures. Here are some relevant scriptures from the Bible:

David and Solomon did other things which displeased the Lord also, besides having many wives and concubines and David wasn’t allowed to build a temple because he had “shed much blood” in wars.(1 Chronicles 22:8)

JST 1 Kings 11:
4.For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, and it became as the heart of David his father.
5.For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6.And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father, and went not fully after the Lord.

and in
JST 1 Kings 3:14 And if thou wilt walk in my ways to keep my statutes, and my commandments, then I will lengthen thy days, and thou shalt not walk in unrighteousness, as did thy father David.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

And now back to the actual words of God given through Jacob:

Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

What is being labeled abominable here by the Lord? And what was the definition of that word as used in the time Joseph Smith used it? 1828 Websters says: ABOM’INABLE, a. [See Abominate. ] 1. Very hateful; detestable; lothesome. 2. This word is applicable to whatever is odious to the mind or offensive to the senses.

Pretty clear condemnation, I would say.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

Why did God say He led Lehi and the people with him out of the land of Jerusalem to the promised land? So he could raise up a righteous branch(who are commanded not to practice polygamy) from the lineage of Joseph(who also did not come from a polygamous line). He did this without instituting the false doctrine that polygamy or plural marriage(as if there is any real difference) was required and in fact is stating just the opposite. He is telling us here in no uncertain terms, a righteous branch of His people, is one which DOES NOT practice polygamy!!

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

God is stating he will not allow this practice to continue within His people. These are his people and in order to remain “His people”, they will live according to a higher standard. Not only is he stating many wives and concubines is an abomination, in the next verse He even says having two wives is in violation of His commandment.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

No man(not the prophet, not the king, apostles, priests or leaders), shall have more than one wife or any concubines. There is no waffling in this statement or any exception granted to “any man.”

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

It is clear here that God is equating polygamy with whoredoms. And He is saying it makes women who are involved in it unchaste. What does the 1828 Websters say a whoredom is? WHOREDOM, n. Horedom. 1. Lewdness; fornication; practice of unlawful commerce with the other sex. It is applied to either sex, and to any kind of illicit commerce.
So having more than one wife is unlawful and therefore when any other marriage is entered into and results in sexual intercourse, adultery is committed.
That is the exact same policy followed by the restored church with its Article on Marriage, instituted in the 1835 D&C(and later removed in 1876 by the polygamist Brigham Young) and was established as the “Law” of His church in 1831, by direct revelation as laid out in D&C in section 42:22, “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else” and again stated in D&C 49:16  “Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; ”
This is the standard which will continue until the “earth might answer the end of its creation” which clearly hasn’t happened yet, has it?

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

Having only one wife is a commandment and those who break it will be cursed not blessed. One can go through the history of the restored church and also read about what happened to the Nephites and the Jaredites to see those breaking this commandment have been cursed, far more than blessed.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Now this is the verse that gives people a lot of trouble and one which has been totally misinterpreted by pro-polygamists, desperate to find something in the BOM they can use to justify their whoredoms. Now think about this, we just read eight verses very clearly condemning the “abomination” and “whoredom” polygamy is in the eyes of God and how He will curse the land of the people who practice it and now we are supposed to think He says it is OK if He wants it to be? That’s what we should think this means? Seriously? Not!
If that is what you see here you are being blinded by the doctrines of men and you don’t understand the scriptures. Instead, we need to look at the one misinterpreted word used here by advocates of polygamy, which causes this verse to be confusing when it is taken out of the context it is clearly in. They claim this one word overrides all the verses before and all the verses after and and thus we find the following foolish claim made on an LDS apologist site, “The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the Lord may, under some circumstances, command the practice of plural marriage.” Huh? Makes it clear? Where? Certainly not in verse 30! If it is clear why is there any controversy over this issue which has been raging for generations?

This is ridiculous, completely false and is a blatant corruption of the word of God.
The word otherwise as used in 1828 had a different definition which was OTH’ERWISE, adv. [other and wise, manner. ] 1. In a different manner.  Thy father was a worthy prince, and merited, alas! a better fate; but heaven thought otherwise.
When that usage is applied here this verse takes on a much clearer meaning which fits logically and completely with the context it is in. It is crucial to use the correct meaning of the word otherwise here in this verse as it was understood and used in the time this was translated. Let’s try : 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; in a different manner they shall hearken unto these things.

Just what manner of behavior is Jacob in the middle of expounding on and condemning here? The abominable manner of David and Solomon, right? And the abominable manner of the Nephites in misinterpreting the scriptures to justify committing “whoredoms” by having more than one wife. Isn’t this a type and shadow of what Latter Day Saints would later do? God is really reiterating here what he just stated in verse 25; When He chooses to raise up a righteous seed(branch) unto Him, He will give those people commandments to follow. And they will keep those commandments in a different manner than was done by “them of old”. Pretty straightforward. And we are being told here, one of the main and most important commandments given to them in order to be a righteous branch of His People, is they are to only have one wife. And this fact will even be made clearer by Him when we get to Jacob 3:6. So God is really stating here: IN A DIFFERENT MANNER than David and Solomon did of old, His people WILL hearken unto these things. What things(things condemned in verse 24)? His commandment to have only one wife.

This is also interesting:

Here is this verse straight from the original printing of the Book of Mormon in the 1830 edition which continued unchanged in the 1837, 1840 and 1841 editions all published while Joseph Smith was alive until it was changed in the 1849 edition published by the polygamist, Orson Pratt, probably under the direction of Brigham Young  : “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people: otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.”

Notice the different punctuation? See how it originally had a colon instead of a semicolon and a comma after the word otherwise? Why was this changed? By whose authority?  For what purpose? Maybe a little grammar lesson is in order here-  A colon is used to connect two sentences when the second sentence summarizes, sharpens, or explains the first. Both sentences should be complete, and their content should be very closely related.  NOT contradictory! A colon means “that is to say” or “here’s what I mean.” Colons and semicolons should never be used interchangeably. A colon instead of a semicolon may be used between independent clauses when the second sentence explains, illustrates, paraphrases, or expands on the first sentence.

This original punctuation more clearly shows God does not condone the way of David and Solomon, and commands His people to act in a different manner.  Again, what things are Jacob condemning here? The abominations and whoredoms of David and Solomon, by having many wives and concubines. He is telling all His people, if they are going to continue to be His people, they will have to act in another manner than David and Solomon did.
It is ridiculous to think God condemns something and then while in the middle of condemning it says “But if I feel like it I still might tell you to do this when I want you to.” God isn’t wishy-washy. He isn’t a flake. He is the “same God yesterday, today, and forever”(D&C 20:12).
Mormon also taught this great truth clearly, “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?”(Mormon 9:9)
Again, this verse is NOT an exception, it is not a loophole, it is a reiteration of verse 25: Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

And there is another perfectly logical interpretation of this verse which also condemns the practice of polygamy. Isn’t it far more likely that God is stating here that if he doesn’t command his people(His seed) NOT to practice polygamy they will use any excuse(the things written about David and Solomon) to engage in it?
God knows If he doesn’t tell them(US) NOT to, they will hearken(listen) to those who tell them it is o.k. and use any excuse, even corrupting the scriptures to justify it. Doesn’t that make a lot more sense here? It does to me. But then again I am not a polygamist searching for any excuse, no matter how ridiculous in order to justify my sin. I am not straining at a gnat so I can swallow a big, smelly, slobbering camel.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

Why were His daughters sorrowful and mourning in Jerusalem and in “all the lands of His people”? What caused them to suffer and mourn? The wickedness and abominations of their HUSBANDS! And what were the husbands doing that was wicked and abominable? Taking more wives and concubines due to their lust and then trying to justify it by INCORRECTLY interpreting the scriptures. Don’t sinners frequently try to justify their sins? Don’t they use any means to try and do so?
What does Alma say about this in chapter 41:10 “Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.”
So how can this wickedness ever lead to happiness? Is God a liar?

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

He loves all His children equally and the cries of His daughters do not go unheeded. God is stating He will not allow this practice to happen without consequences and in the next verse tells us what those consequences will be. Notice also how the men are the ones singled out here? The men are the cause of this wickedness. Women never come up with the idea of polygamy, do they?

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

That is a very interesting phrase, “lead away captive,” isn’t it? The men play on the “tenderness” of the women to lead them into the captivity of sin to satisfy their own lusts and desire for power and control. The men misinterpret the scriptures and then use them to ‘sell’ the sin they want to engage in(with) to the women. Here’s a question: what practice nearly caused the complete destruction of the restored church, until they finally abandoned it? What practice split the church more than once? What practice is still a big problem for it? What practice created a culture of lying and deceit?

Nephi warned of this, “Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
So again, we get a clear condemnation of what David and Solomon did here and the harm it does to women. And one should naively and foolishly believe verse 30 granted an exception? A loophole? Come on, really?

“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.”
Don’t you think we should heed the counsel offered in Acts 5:29?  “¶Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

Crystal clear statement the commandment was given to Lehi and his people to live the law of one wife married to one husband. There is no commandment given to men, by GOD, in the Bible contradicting this law, either. Yes, Abraham and Jacob had more than one wife but God NEVER commanded them to do that. There was no law given commanding them to do so. Their first wives, as in the case of Sarai(not named Sarah until over 13 years after the fact- D&C 132), and chosen wife, Rachel, both lost faith that they would ever have children as promised, due to their age, and came up with the plan of their respective husbands taking another wife or concubine, in the hope of then having children. That wasn’t God’s plan and not what He commanded them to do. Just a result of their lack of faith. Besides, Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah whom he thought was Rachel. And good luck finding in the Bible where God commanded polyandry which was practiced by some of the women in the restored church. It isn’t there. Or secretly marrying other men’s wives.

35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness(no loopholes) of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

Guilty of greater iniquities than the Lamanites? So how important is the commandment to only have one wife? If breaking that commandment breaks the tender hearts of the wives how could breaking that law ever become an act of righteousness? Jacob states here that this is a strict commandment which means no exceptions or loopholes. Websters 1828 says strictness is: exactness in the observance of rules, laws, rites and the like; rigorous accuracy; nice regularity or precision. Still think verse 30 means what the polygamists say it does? You going to put your trust in them?

Jacob 3: 5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father(Lehi)—that they should have save it were ONE wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

This is completely unequivocal in its condemnation of having more than one wife irregardless of what that process is called, be it polygamy, polyandry, plural marriage or the spiritual wife system. It is a commandment given to all of God’s people. Calling something by another name doesn’t change what it really is. You can call a rattlesnake a big earthworm but it is still a rattlesnake. Don’t be fooled into thinking ‘plural marriage’ is some new and special higher law just because the polygamists came up with a fancy new name for their sin. It isn’t. Remember, “wickedness never was happiness”.

6 And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people.

Amazingly, we learn here, just the fact the Lamanites observed this commandment was enough to offset the punishment for all their other unrighteous acts, allowing them to be saved from total destruction, which the Nephites suffered. And then they are promised they will become a “blessed people” for keeping this commandment. This is Huge! Could it be any clearer how the Lord feels about the sanctity of marriage being between only ONE man and ONE woman? How many times and in how many ways must he say it?
And we should foolishly throw all this out the window because of the misunderstanding of the meaning of the word, ‘otherwise’ or some misplaced punctuation? You think God will give you a pass for that?
“Sorry God, I ignored everything else you revealed about this and common sense and logic because I thought you created a loophole for me with a single word.” Good luck with that. I’m betting that isn’t going to work out to well for you.

7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?

What did Paul teach us in Galations 1? “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” Did Paul ever teach the other gospel of plural marriage? How did Joseph Smith say he received the directive to practice polygamy? From an angel threatening him with a drawn sword, right?
Is it possible Joseph Smith was fooled by this angel and led the church(at least the elite of the church) astray? Do you think this prophecy in Malachi 2:14 (about JS?) is referring to this very thing happening?
“Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.”
Did Joseph really tell William Marks he had been deceived about the doctrine of polygamy as Marks stated? http://tinyurl.com/p4ozxr8

Did the other apostles or Jesus Christ preach the gospel of plural marriage? Did Enoch? Noah? Adam? Moses? Nephi? Did Abraham? Isaac, who was Abraham’s son didn’t practice it (contradicting another lie found in D&C 132 in verses 1 and 37). Isaac also didn’t come from it and Isaac and Rebekah never lost their faith, and patiently waited over 20 years, until the promise they would have a child was finally fulfilled. The Nephites and Lamanites were living under Mosaic law at this time and commanded not to practice polygamy so how could this have been a commandment sanctioned by Mosaic law? And even if it was sanctioned under Mosaic law what did Christ say when He appeared to the people in the BOM?                          3 Nephi 12:46 “Therefore those things which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all fulfilled.

What is the purpose of the Book of Mormon? The Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (D&C 20:9). The Prophet Joseph Smith’s testified that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion.” The angel Moroni said, “there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.” He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;
If it is the most correct book of any book on earth, contains the fulness of the gospel and it condemns unequivocally the practice of having more than one wife should that condemnation be ignored or set aside? If it clearly states, which it does, that one who uses the scriptures to justify this practice does so in error, should that warning also be taken lightly and ignored?

Doesn’t it make sense to apply this directive here?  “But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.”  (D&C 46:7)

Why has the church been under condemnation for so long for taking the Book of Mormon lightly, since at least September 22, 1832 as stated in D&C 84?

Verse 54 “And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments(D&C 19:25) which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—              Whoa!!

Does the Book of Mormon have anything else to say about how God feels about polygamy? Any other passages which might further clarify or reinforce how God feels about this practice?

Lets look in Mosiah and read about what God said about the practices of wicked king Noah:
Mosiah 11- Verse 2
For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.

Interesting that we are told here wanting to have more than one wife was the “desire of his own heart”. Men are naturally attracted to women and lust leads them to covet more than one, yet in doing so we read one isn’t keeping the commandments of God. God knew this was an issue with the early saints and saw fit to warn them in 1829 in D&C 19:25 “And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife; nor seek thy neighbor’s life.” He knew this was going to be a ‘stumbling block’ for them and yet this commandment and warning was ignored and many coveted and then married their neighbors wives.

3 And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain.(taxation which is theft is also condemned here)

4 And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his concubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom.

He robbed people to pay for his whoredoms and the whoredoms of his priests. Sounds like our rulers nowadays.

5 For he put down all the priests that had been consecrated by his father, and consecrated new ones in their stead, such as were lifted up in the pride of their hearts.

Obviously the good priests wanted nothing to do with his wickedness and abominations so he had to get new ones who liked that sort of thing.

6 Yea, and thus they were supported in their laziness, and in their idolatry, and in their whoredoms, by the taxes which king Noah had put upon his people; thus did the people labor exceedingly to support iniquity.

7 Yea, and they also became idolatrous, because they were deceived by the vain and flattering words of the king and priests; for they did speak flattering things unto them.

And the people followed their rulers into sinning just like them. The rulers lied to them and convinced them good was bad and bad was good. So here we find another clear condemnation regarding having more than one wife and of that practice comprising “whoredoms”.

And finally we go to Ether 10 for one more proof of God’s condemnation in the Book of Mormon, of this practice among the Jaredites, another group of people he initially chosen to be a righteous branch. Verses 5-7:

5 And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings. (another condemnation of the theft known as taxation)

6 And he did erect him an exceedingly beautiful throne; and he did build many prisons, and whoso would not be subject unto taxes he did cast into prison; and whoso was not able to pay taxes he did cast into prison; and he did cause that they should labor continually for their support; and whoso refused to labor he did cause to be put to death.

7 Wherefore he did obtain all his fine work, yea, even his fine gold he did cause to be refined in prison; and all manner of fine workmanship he did cause to be wrought in prison. And it came to pass that he did afflict the people with his whoredoms and abominations.

He had many wives and concubines thus engaging in whoredoms and abominations, contrary to the commandments of God.

It is interesting that both the Jaredites and the Nephites, who at various times engaged in the condemned practice of having multiple wives and or concubines, were completely destroyed. Yet the Lamanites, who also engaged in other wicked practices done by the Nephites and Jaredites, but not polygamy, weren’t completely destroyed. Huh! And the reason given for them being spared was recorded in Jacob 3:6 “And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people.”

Pretty powerful message and warning to the rest of the world and the Latter Day Saints out of the most correct book on earth, from three distinct groups of people, isn’t it?
Three clear witnesses warning us away from this unholy practice. The Book of Mormon, which was written explicitly for us and contains the fullness of the gospel, is absolutely clear on its condemnation of polygamy and the accompanying sin of misinterpreting the scriptures to justify it.

So I can apply this wise counsel from Joseph Fielding Smith:

“ It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has
been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.

My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if
they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them.

Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances,
by which we measure every man’s doctrine.” (Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203).

Polygamy and its counterpart, plural marriage is false doctrine. Of that I have no doubt. And just like the church has now rejected the racist doctrine of claiming blacks weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood, for all kinds of previously offered ridiculous reasons, the false doctrine of polygamy will also fall. God is not a polygamist. He isn’t married and He isn’t dependent on a female goddess letting Him use her womb in order for His will to be done. We are not going to be polygamists in the next life. All of that is abominable doctrine and an “other gospel” created by lecherous, old men trying to justify their whoredoms.