Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[Equality]

Seems like a lot a of mental gymnastics would be required to explain this away. If only there were a Mental Gymnast around these parts who could give it the old college try.

John Taylor, whom Latter-day Saints declare a Prophet, who by their doctrine is incapable of leading them astray, claimed to have been visited by Jesus Christ himself (thus proving he is a true apostle, as that is a requirement to be an apostle) as well as Joseph Smith, propounded as revelation the doctrine that plural marriage would always be required in the one true church.

Then a few years later, church leaders claimed to have abandoned the practice so they could hold onto Mammon. But multiple apostles, knowing about Taylor’s revelation, continued to take plural wives.

Subsequent church presidents cast aspersions on these apostles while lying about Taylor’s revelation being a supposed “forgery.”

Now the church says “just kidding: Taylor did have a revelation but we are still not going to practice plural marriage because…” well, they don’t say why they are disobeying the Lord and his chosen Prophet’s unchangeable eternal doctrine.

So these are the possibilities:

1. Mormon God is trickster, like the Norse god Loki, who tells one of his “prophets” one thing and the next the exact opposite
2. Smith and Taylor were false prophets who lied about God commanding them to establish plural marriage as an eternal doctrine in the one true church
3. Smith and Taylor were true prophets, and subsequent LDS prophets led the one true church into a state of apostasy, where it remains today in open rebellion against the clear commandments of Jesus Christ.

It’s logically incoherent to assert that (1) God is unchangeable (i.e., not a trickster) AND (2) Smith and Taylor were true prophets who received true revelation that polygamy is a requirement in the one true church AND (3) the successors to Smith and Taylor acted properly in throwing Smith and Taylor and Polygamous Jesus under the bus in discarding polygamy as they lied for 125 years about the authenticity of Taylor’s claim to have received a revelation on the matter.

[sock puppet]

Seems like a lot a of mental gymnastics would be required to explain this away. If only there were a Mental Gymnast around these parts who could give it the old college try.

Maybe this one is an even more daunting challenge than the Hypocrite-in-Chief wants to tackle.

[Rivendale]

Brian Hales chimes in on Stephen Smoot's public Facebook page to try and save him.

I respectfully disagree.

It is true JT was asking about continuing plural marriage and that he interpreted the revelation as God saying it was to continue. However, for me, the words in the revelation are highly ambiguous when cross-referenced to the verbiage in section 132 and the many terms early Church leaders used to refer to eternal marriage and plural marriage. Strict interpretations are not possible in my view.

More importantly, D&C 132:18 tells us that all eternal marriages must be “through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power,” meaning the “one” man mentioned in verse 7; otherwise, “it is not valid neither of force.” Consequently, the only person’s opinion regarding the meaning of the 1886 revelation is that of the “one” man holding the keys, which passed from Joseph Smith to BY at his death.

Unfortunately, hundreds (thousands?) have read ithe 1886 revelation and concluded plural marriage must continue regardless of other issues, including the sealing authority. But freelance polygamy has never been eternal plural marriage, and Joseph Smith excommunicated such polygamists in Nauvoo (think Hiram Brown).

The Church believes the sealing keys went from Joseph Smith to President Nelson today. Having researched all other lines, especially Lorin Woolley, I don’t believe the authority to seal has ever left the Church.

I’m not trying to argue, but the 1886 revelation is easily misunderstood if decontextualized historically and theologically.

Best,

Brian Hales

[sock puppet]

How might, then, Brian Hales look at Joseph Smith's changing accounts of the so-called First Vision? Given Hales' take on the 1886 revelation, this might be his take on the FV--

I respectfully disagree.

It is true Joseph Smith was asking about a divine visitation and that he interpreted the personage first as an angel (Nephi cum Moroni), then as one godly being and then as two godly beings, the Father and the Son. However, for me, the words of Joseph Smith are highly ambiguous when one version of the FV is cross-referenced to the other versions and the many terms early Church leaders used to refer to whomever Joseph Smith saw in the Grove. Strict interpretations are not possible in my view.

More importantly, we now know (thanks to James Talmadge) the nature of the godhead and thus, what Joseph Smith saw in the Grove. The only version regarding the FV that has been canonized is with two godly persons.

Unfortunately, hundreds (thousands?) took Joseph Smith at face value when he told and/or wrote the earlier versions. Many no doubt could not understand later when Joseph Smith changed an angelic visitation to a godly one, and then to two godly persons at that. But Nephi cum Moroni is not God, and Joseph Smith clarified that confusion before he died.

The Church believes in the Talmadge version of the nature of the godhead to this day. Since Talmadge, there's been no need for the Church to change its teachings as to the godhead.

I’m not trying to argue, but the evolution of the telling of the FV is easily misunderstood if decontextualized historically and theologically.

Best,

Brian Hales

[Rivendale]

How might, then, Brian Hales look at Joseph Smith's changing accounts of the so-called First Vision? Given Hales' take on the 1886 revelation, this might be his take on the FV--

I respectfully disagree.

It is true Joseph Smith was asking about a divine visitation and that he interpreted the personage first as an angel (Nephi cum Moroni), then as one godly being and then as two godly beings, the Father and the Son. However, for me, the words of Joseph Smith are highly ambiguous when one version of the FV is cross-referenced to the other versions and the many terms early Church leaders used to refer to whomever Joseph Smith saw in the Grove. Strict interpretations are not possible in my view.

More importantly, we now know (thanks to James Talmadge) the nature of the godhead and thus, what Joseph Smith saw in the Grove. The only version regarding the FV that has been canonized is with two godly persons.

Unfortunately, hundreds (thousands?) took Joseph Smith at face value when he told and/or wrote the earlier versions. Many no doubt could not understand later when Joseph Smith changed an angelic visitation to a godly one, and then to two godly persons at that. But Nephi cum Moroni is not God, and Joseph Smith clarified that confusion before he died.

The Church believes in the Talmadge version of the nature of the godhead to this day. Since Talmadge, there's been no need for the Church to change its teachings as to the godhead.

I’m not trying to argue, but the evolution of the telling of the FV is easily misunderstood if decontextualized historically and theologically.

Best,

Brian Hales

Smoot can't hold his own when trying to defend the doctrinal whiplash from polygamy to no polygamy. His best shot? We don't sacrifice animals in the temple anymore. Brian's word jamboree is worse than his black box analogy and Joseph's word selection.

[drumdude]

The shell game between polygamy and temple marriage will forever be the crutch that they rely on to explain it all away.

The plain truth is that the new and everlasting covenant was understood to be polygamy from the very beginning when Joseph wrote DC132. Whatever ambiguity exists was just Joseph trying to manipulate those around him including his wife Emma.

It’s no less despicable than any other modern man trying to gaslight his wife to accept the husband’s extramarital affairs.

[MG 2.0]

Seems like a lot a of mental gymnastics would be required to explain this away. If only there were a Mental Gymnast around these parts who could give it the old college try.

The only apologetic that I can think of, and it's rather basic, is asking the question(s), "Did a restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ really happen?" Angels and divine beings and such. If the answer is yes, then secondarily, "Were there priesthood keys restored that were necessary in administering the ordinances of the Gospel?" Assuming that ordinances such as baptism/HG, etc., through divine authority are necessary. Thirdly, "Where do those keys reside today?"

If the answer to the first two questions is yes, then I place my bet on the CofJCofLDS as being the repository of that authority, including the sealing keys. If the answer to the first two questions is no, then the third question is obviously superfluous and unnecessary.

The reason I place my bet on the S.L. church is that this 'branch' is the only one that has successfully become an international church able to 'spread the gospel throughout the world' before the second coming of Christ.

Again, all bets are off if 1. There is no God 2. There was no need for a restoration 3. Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet...etc. (other reasons could be given).

I choose to believe in God as a creator. I choose to think that God speaks today in our time through scriptures and prophets.

To keep this short...I think John Taylor may have had this revelation...it may have been revoked...and the keys of sealing went with the S.L. church.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

this 'branch' is the only one that has successfully become an international church able to 'spread the gospel throughout the world' before the second coming of Christ.

Argument from popularity is a fool's errand.

[I Have Questions]

The reason I place my bet on the S.L. church is that this 'branch' is the only one that has successfully become an international church able to 'spread the gospel throughout the world' before the second coming of Christ.

Catholicism and Islam are way more global.

The reason you place your bet on the ‘S.L. Church’ is because you were brought up in it. All your contemplations are simply attempts at justifying that without admitting it.

[MG 2.0]

The reason I place my bet on the S.L. church is that this 'branch' is the only one that has successfully become an international church able to 'spread the gospel throughout the world' before the second coming of Christ.

Catholicism and Islam are way more global.

The reason you place your bet on the ‘S.L. Church’ is because you were brought up in it. All your contemplations are simply attempts at justifying that without admitting it.

That is an oversimplified view.

Regards,
MG