POINTS IN MORMON HISTORY
Pearl of Great Price Changed in 1902 to Agree with Inspired Version of Bible (IV)
The Pearl of Great Price (PG) was changed in 1902 by John Taylor to agree with IV
JS never claimed PG was Scripture- “A translation of some ancient Egyptian papyri purportedly written by Abraham.” Times and Seasons (TS) 3:704
If the PG is truly God’s word, why were there over 1100 words added to it in 1852?
In the “Book of Abraham”, 255 words were added between the brackets to the 1852 edition of PG printed in England. “And again the Lord said unto the [ ] woman”
In the “Book of Abraham”, 270 words were added between the brackets- “to dust you shall return. [ ] After Adam had been driven out.”
In the “Book of Abraham”, 350 words were added between the brackets- “and it shall be unto you according to his desire. [ ] and Cain went into the field”
In “Joseph Smith I”, 160 words were added between the brackets- “I found myself lying on my back looking up into heaven. [ ] Some few days after.”
In “Joseph Smith I”, 90 words were added between the brackets- “offensive in the sight of God. [ ] In consequence…”
Sections Added and Deleted to Mormon Doctrine & Covenants in 1876
26 sections were added in 1876 to the Mormon DC. They are: 2, 13, 77, 85, 87, 108, and 109-132 except 112, 119, 124, 127, and 128.
Section 101 (111 RLDS DC) which stated that the law for the Church is monogamous marriage between and man and a woman was deleted in 1876.
Enid DeBarthe wrote a thesis paper on stylistic analysis. In it she analyzed the writing style of the author of Section 132 (MDC) to determine which one of the early church leaders was the author. She analyzed 14 different points of style: prepositional phrases, word length, sentence length, sentence structure, word usage etc. Eight out of the 14 points matched one of the early leaders’ style. That leader was Brigham Young. In a court of law, only 3 must match in order to prove a case. See attached thesis paper in .pdf format.
Brigham Young Changed Joseph Smith’s History
BY stated numerous times that he revised (changed) Joseph Smith’s history- “I commenced revising the history of Joseph Smith at Bro. Richard’s office”. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (HCLDS) 7:389-390, 408, 411, 414, 427-428, 514, 519, 520, 532, 533, 556
Few outside Brigham Young's inner circle were aware of the secret alterations so seamlessly integrated into church history. Charles Wesley Wandell, an assistant church historian, was aghast at these emendations. Wandell wrote in his diary:
I notice the interpolations because having been employed in the Historian's office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph's death his memoir was 'doctored' to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards. Inez Smith, “Biography of Charles Wesley Wandell” Journal of History 3 (January 1910): 455-463
Joseph Smith III Was Joseph Smith Jr.’s Successor
3000 voted to uphold JS III as JS II’s successor- the record was taken to SLC: quote by James Whitehead in the Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence (CAPE) 27-33 found in the Records of the Circuit Court of Lake County, Ohio
John Carter -Joseph Smith came on the podium in the grove in Nauvoo. He was asked about who his successor would be. He said Joseph Smith III was.- CAPE 179-181
Lyman Wight went to Liberty Jail with Emma. He states that he saw Joseph Jr. appoint Joseph III as his successor. History of the Church 2:789, Northern Islander July 18, 1855
Brigham Young Was NOT Joseph Smith’s Successor
Lorenzo Snow –Brigham Young was not Joseph Smith’s successor.- CAPE 323
BY stated when asked if he thought to be Joseph’s successor, “You never heard me say so. I say that I am a good hand to keep the dogs and wolves out of the flock. I care not a groat who rises up. I do not think anything about being Joseph Smith’s successor.” June 3, 1860 Journal of Discourses of Brigham Young (JD) 8:69
BY stated when asked what the requirements were to be the Prophet of the Church, “…only the appointment by the people is necessary…” Millennial Star (MS) 16:442 This contradicts church law which states that the Prophet of the Church must be called to this office by revelation through the Prophet that precedes him and then be approved by the voice of the church members. DC 99:6 (MDC 99:9), DC 43:2a (MDC 43:4), DC 25:1b (MDC 26:2)
All Mormons Were Re-baptized When Arriving in Utah
J. F. Smith stated, “…unnecessary to re-baptize…” Doctrines of Salvation 2:335
Yet “all were re-baptized… the Twelve setting the example” Doctrines of Salvation 2:332, Historical Record (of Utah) 9:87
Tullidge in “Life of Brigham Young, or Utah and Her Founders” quotes words from “the historian Woodruff,” late president of the church: “On the 6th of August, the Twelve were rebaptized. This we considered a privilege and a duty. As we had come into a glorious valley to locate and build up Zion, we felt like renewing our covenants before the Lord and each other. We soon repaired to the water, and President Y0oung went down into the water and baptized all his brethren of the Twelve present. He then confirmed us, and sealed upon us our apostleship and all the keys, powers, and blessings belonging to that office. Brother Heber C. Kimball baptized and confirmed President Brigham Young.”
What are the reasons claimed for the re-baptism of all the church members who went to Utah?
...That the church membership records were lost: This claim was proven false by Wilford Woodruff’s statement, “President Young felt impressed…”. Wilford Woodruff p.31
...That the church members wanted to renew their covenants: The only reason to re-baptize is because of sin and if all were re-baptized then none were worthy or had authority to re-baptized.
In the Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, pp. 8-9, Brigham Young himself stated, “I will refer again to the brethren and sisters who have lately come over the plains. My counsel to them today is, as it has been on former occasions to all who have come into these valleys, Go and be baptized for the remission of sins, repenting of all your wanderings from the path of righteousness, believing firmly, in the name of Jesus Christ, that all your sins will be washed away. If any of you inquire what is the necessity of your being baptized, as you have not committed any sins, I answer, it is necessary to fulfill all righteousness. I have heard of some of you cursing and swearing, even some of the elders of Israel. I would be baptized seven times, were I in your place; I would not stop teasing some good elder to baptize me again and again, until I could think my sins forgiven. I would not live over another night until I was baptized enough to satisfy me that my sins were forgiven. Then go and be confirmed, as you were when you first embraced the religion of Jesus Christ. That is my counsel.”
There Was No Prophecy About the Saints Moving to the Rocky Mountains
On July 20, 1845, Parley P. Pratt said that there would be no scattering from Nauvoo. MS 6:92
On October 6, 1863, BY said, “Before we left Nauvoo, members of Congress made a treaty with the Latter-day Saints, and we agreed to leave the United States entirely. We did so, and came to these mountains, which were then Mexican territory. When we were ready to start on our pilgrimage west, a certain gentleman, who signed himself “Backwoodsman,” wished to know on what conditions we would overcome and settle California. He gave us to understand that he had his authority from headquarters, to treat with us on this matter. I thought that President Polk was our friend at that time; we have thought so since, and we think so now. We agreed to survey and settle California—we drawing the odd numbers, and the Government the even numbers; but I think the President was precipitated into the Mexican war, and our prospective calculations fell through, otherwise we should have gone into California and settled it. Many of you were not aware of this.” JD 10:255
Willard Richards stated, “San Francisco Bay is the chosen spot…” MS 9:39
On October 6, 1844, John Taylor said in a church conference in Nauvoo, “Did the prophet ever tell us that if a certain man should happen to die we should scatter abroad? No! no such thing ever emanated from the lips of God.” Times and Seasons (TS) 5:684
Polygamy Was Started by Brigham Young NOT by Joseph Smith
In the newspaper Daily Alta California July 16, 1869, BY stated, “…polygamy started here, (Utah) not with Joseph Smith, and I know we are right!”
Apostle George Q. Cannon stated in a sermon on June 11, 1871, “Joseph and Hyrum Smith were slain in Carthage jail and hundreds of persons were persecuted to the death previous to the Church having any knowledge of this doctrine.” JD 14:166
Monogamy was the only rule of marriage found in the 1835 DC- CAPE 303
James Whitehead JS’ personal secretary said that there was no polygamy practiced in the church prior to JS’ death.- CAPE 37
The Church denied ever having taught or practiced polygamy TS 6:894
“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin. We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew [show] that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despise. In support of this position, we present the following certificates:
We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did.
S. Bennett, N. K. Whitney,
George Miller, Albert Pettey,
Alpheus Cutler, Elias Higbee,
Reynolds Cahoon, John Taylor,
Wilson Law, E. Robinson,
W. Woodruff, Aaron Johnson. Oct 1, 1842 TS 3:939-940
We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised [practiced] in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a disclosure of his own make.
Emma Smith, President,
Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counsellor [Counselor],
Sarah M. Cleveland, Counsellor [Counselor],
Eliza R. Snow, Secretary,
Mary C. Miller, Catharine Pettey,
Lois Cutler, Sarah Higbee,
Thirza Cahoon, Phebe Woodruff
Ann Hunter, Leonora Taylor,
Jane Law, Sarah Hillman,
Sophia R. Marks, Rosannah Marks,
Polly Z. Johnson, Angeline Robinson,
Abigail Works. Oct 1, 1842 TS 3:940
7. A number of years after Joseph Smith’s death and while she was a practicing polygamist, Eliza R. Snow claimed that she was married to Joseph on June 29, 1842, three months prior to signing this affidavit. Which should we believe, her signed affidavit written during Joseph’s life, or her testimony given while she was one of Brigham Young’s wives and seeking to bolster the practice of polygamy among her other co-believers written after Joseph Smith’s death when he could no longer deny the allegation?
8. Hyram Brown was cut off for teaching polygamy. TS 5:423
TIMES AND SEASONS.
CITY OF NAUVOO,
THURSDAY FEBRUARY 1, 1844.
As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hyram Brown, has been preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges.
Presidents of said church
9. Hyrum Smith wrote on March 15, 1844, “To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, greeting:-Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to-day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and loose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about.” TS 5:474
10. When Udney H. Jacob, the publisher of “The Peacemaker or Doctrines of the Millenium”, wrote that polygamy was a true doctrine, Joseph Smith published in the church newspaper, the “Times and Seasons”, the following rebuttal, “I do not wish to have my name associated with the authors in such an unmeaning rigmarole of nonsense, folly, and trash.” TS 4:32
11. On May 26, 1844, Joseph Smith replied to the accusations that he had more than one wife. “A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives .... I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves .... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers". HCLDS 6:410
12. Willard Richards wrote in Smith's diary that Joseph 'gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives .... Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife'. Van Wagoner, R. S. (1994) Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books) p. 292
13. Every single historical reference that we have where Joseph Smith refers to polygamy, he condemns it. So, if as the Mormons claim, he was practicing it secretly, but publicly condemning it and those that practiced it, then he would have been a liar and a hypocrite. He could not have been a liar and a hypocrite and still be a prophet of God as the Mormons claim. He was either a liar and a hypocrite or he was a prophet of God. He could not be both at the same time.
14. From 1904 to 1907 a series of Congressional hearings were held in the U.S. Senate to decide whether or not Reed Smoot could serve as a U.S. senator from Utah since he was an apostle in the Mormon Church. During these hearings, Fred DuBois, the U.S. senator from Idaho, made the following statement, “In order to induce his followers more readily to accept this infamous doctrine, Brigham Young himself invoked the name of Joseph Smith, the Martyr, whom many sincerely believed to be a true prophet, and ascribed to him the reception of a revelation from the Almighty in 1843, commanding the Saints to take unto themselves a multiplicity of wives, limited in number only by the measures of their desires...Such is the mythical story palmed off on a deluded people.” (underlines added) Congressional Record, December 13, 1906
15. Section 132 (MDC), a supposed revelation on polygamy which the Mormon Church claims was received by Joseph Smith in 1842, was analyzed by Enid DeBarthe for her master’s thesis on stylistic analysis. In it she analyzed the writing style of the author of Section 132 (MDC) to determine which one of the early church leaders was the author. She analyzed 14 different points of style: prepositional phrases, word length, sentence length, sentence structure, word usage etc. Eight out of the 14 points matched one of the early leaders’ style. That leader was Brigham Young. In a court of law, only 3 must match in order to prove a case. See attached thesis paper in .pdf format.
16. The following is a lengthy quote from the website www.defendingjoseph.com.
“As background, the statements below from Historical Record 6 indicate that Emma Smith supported polygamist marriages of Joseph prior to July 12, 1843—the date which the celestial marriage document (Section 132) was allegedly first recorded and read to Emma by Hyrum Smith. These statements were made from 26 to 36 years after the events. According to Andrew Jenson, they were all published in the Historical Record to prove Joseph Smith introduced plural marriage to the Latter-day Saints (ibid., 219). Also, prior to being published in the Historical Record, all but William Clayton's statement were published in the Deseret News in October, 1879, to refute an article in the Saints' Advocate. According to Joseph F. Smith, that article was entitled "'Last Testimony of Sister Emma,' in which that lady is made responsible for a statement to the effect that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, never in his lifetime taught nor practiced the principle of plural marriage" (ibid., 220-224).
Eliza M. Partridge Lyman's statement:
"Be it remembered that on the first day of July, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, Edward Partridge, probate Judge in and for said county, Eliza M. (Partridge) Lyman, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith, that on the 11th day of May, 1843, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by James Adams, a High Priest in said Church, ... in the presence of Emma (Hale) Smith and Emily D. Partridge." (ibid., 223, italics added)
Emily Dow Partridge Young's statement:
"Be it remembered that on this the first day of May, A.D. 1869, personally before me, Elias Smith, probate judge for said county, Emily Dow (P.) Young, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath said, that on the 11th day of May, A.D. 1843, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by James Adams, a High Priest in said Church, ... in presence of Emma (Hale) Smith, (now Emma Bidamon) and Eliza M. Partridge Smith, (now Eliza M. Lyman)." (ibid., italics added)
(Sister Young, in her autobiography published in the Woman's Exponent Vol. 14, page 38, says: "The first intimation I had from Brother Joseph that there was a pure and holy order of plural marriage, was in the spring of 1842, but I was not married until 1843. I was married to him on the 11th of May, 1843, by Elder James Adams. Emma was present. She gave her free and full consent. She had always, up to this time, been very kind to me and my sister Eliza, who was also married to the Prophet Joseph with Emma's consent. Emma, about this time, gave her husband two other wives—Maria and Sarah Lawrence.") (ibid., italics added)
It should be noted that the statements of both Eliza and Emily Partridge included the phrase, "who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath said [or saith]...." I presume this phrase was included to assure the reader that the statement was true because it was made under oath to a judge. However, there is no indication on the statement or elsewhere that they were made in a court of law. In addition, it is important to remember that the judges were probate judges. Since the statements did not concern probate matters, it is highly unlikely that they were made before the judge in a court of law. Thus, there would have been no cross-examination and no penalty for perjury. As a result, even though these two statements were made to a judge under oath, I do not believe that they have a higher probability of truth than any other statements made outside a court of law.
Lovina Walker’s statement, given June 16, 1869:
"I Lovina Walker (eldest daughter of Hyrum Smith), hereby certify, that while I was living with Aunt Emma Smith, in Fulton City, Fulton County, Illinois, in the year 1846, she told me that she, Emma Smith, was present and witnessed the marrying or sealing of Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Maria Lawrence and Sarah Lawrence to her husband, Joseph Smith, and that she gave her consent thereto." (ibid., italics added)
Eliza R. Snow’s statement, in part, first published in the Deseret News, October 22, 1879:
"It is a fact that Sister Emma, of her own free will and choice, gave her husband four wives, two of whom are now living, and ready to testify that she, not only gave them to her husband, but that she taught them the doctrine of plural marriage and urged them to accept it." (ibid., 224, italics added)
William Clayton’s statement given February 16, 1874:
"On the 1st day of May, 1843, I officiated in the office of an Elder by marrying Lucy Walker to the Prophet Joseph Smith, at his own residence.
"During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other wives. Amongst the number I well remember Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according to the celestial order. His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of some, if not all, of these being his wives, and she generally treated them very kindly.
"On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the 'brick store,' on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum ... remarked, 'The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,' or words to their effect. Joseph then said, 'Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.' He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.
"Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present." (ibid., 225-226, italics added)
Analyzing the Witnesses' Statements
All of the above statements agree that just prior to Joseph dictating the celestial marriage revelation (now Section 132 of the LDS D&C), Emma was very supportive of Joseph teaching and practicing this new doctrine. According to the above accounts, she attended the weddings, gave her complete consent to the plural marriages, taught the principle, and even gave from two to four wives to Joseph. From their statements, she appeared to not only be a willing participant in polygamy but an enthusiastic one. And she maintained this attitude toward the four to eight additional wives Joseph allegedly married during the period from May to July, 1843. There is nothing in their observations of Emma to indicate that she did not accept this doctrine or was antagonistic toward the plural wives or Joseph during this time. She was observed by them to be a model plural wife. The position of these statements definitely reflects the reason for which they were collected and published—to refute Emma's statement published in the Saints' Advocate and prove Joseph Smith introduced polygamy to the Latter-day Saints.
The above statements indicating that Emma was a model plural wife seems to be in direct conflict with the celestial marriage revelation allegedly dictated by Joseph on July 12, 1843. This document brings stern warnings to Emma if she does not embrace this new doctrine. (underline added) LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132:51-56 states:
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.
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.
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; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
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.
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 hundredfold 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.
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. (italics added)
Analyzing Section 132
According to this part of the alleged revelation on celestial marriage, God told Emma to "receive all those that have been given" to Joseph. He commanded her "to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else." And He warned her that if she did 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." If this revelation is true, it was a stern reprimand from God to Emma to accept the principle, support it, and support Joseph's practice of it. If she did not do this, God threatened to destroy her. Since it is not stated whether this destruction would be temporal or eternal, I assume it means a complete destruction which would be both temporal and eternal. According to this document, God was telling Emma that He would destroy her both physically and eternally (cast into outer darkness) if she disobeyed His command. Thus, this document was a warning to Emma of gravest consequences if disobeyed.
The Witnesses' Statements Conflict with Section 132
If this revelation is true, why was God being so stern with Emma? According to the above statements in Historical Record 6, prior to the date the revelation was given she had received "all those that have been given" to Joseph with open and supportive arms. Not only this, but she had willingly given wives to Joseph, attended some of their weddings, taught them the principle, and by her actions was showing them how to obey it. And she was doing this with faith in her husband as a prophet of God and belief that the principle of celestial marriage taught by him was of divine origin. To me, this sounds like a very obedient handmaiden of the Lord. However, instead of recognizing and praising Emma for her faith and obedience, the Lord threatened her with both physical and eternal destruction if she was not faithful to the principle.
So, how can the above testimonies be reconciled with the Lord threatening Emma in Section 132? The truth is, they cannot be. If the testimonies are true, certainly the Lord would have observed the same and commended Emma in the revelation for her faith and obedience to the new celestial principle. However, He did not do this. Instead, He threatened her with total destruction. This indicates she was reluctant or disobedient in accepting and living the principle, which is in direct opposition to the testimonies.
In regards to Emma, the above statements and Section 132 are in opposition to each other. Thus, one or the other must be false about her. Logically they both cannot be true.
Either the Witnesses' Statements or Section 132 Are Entirely False
If the revelation is true, the witness statements about Emma are false. And if the statements about Emma are false, I believe that the statements which these individuals also made about Joseph have no credibility for being true. As I stated previously, if part of a statement or affidavit is false, I believe the credibility of the entire statement becomes suspect. On the other hand, if the witness statements about Emma are true, the part about Emma in the celestial marriage revelation is false. And, as I stated earlier about revelation, if part of the revelation is false, I believe the entire revelation is false. So logically, either the entire revelation is true and the entire witness statements are false or the entire revelation is false and the entire witness statements are true. If the revelation is false, Joseph did not give it as purported by William Clayton. If the witness statements are false, they cannot prove Joseph's involvement in polygamy. Whichever the case, both the witness statements and Section 132 cannot be used together as proof that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy.
Emma's and Joseph's Lives Prove Both Are False
While both the statements and Section 132 can be in opposition to each other and one be true, they can also be in opposition to each other and both be false. It is my opinion that both are false. All statements made by Emma throughout her life opposed polygamy and supported the position that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. Since she was accepted in her community throughout her life as a person of honor and integrity, we have to assume her statements truly reflected her position on polygamy. In addition, her strong opposition to Brigham Young's leadership and her refusal to go West with her family and friends are also good indications of her opposition to polygamy. Thus, the probability of the truth of the above statements in Historical Record 6 regarding Emma is very low. This is especially true considering that the statements were made from 26 to 36 years after the events, these individuals were heavily involved with polygamy in Utah, and the purpose of their statements was to refute Emma by proving that Joseph was a polygamist and that she supported the principle. And I believe that if these statements were not true about Emma, they were also not true that Joseph was a polygamist..
Actually, Emma's stand against polygamy in her life is more reflective of the position taken in Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Yet, the prophetic nature of this document comes short of fulfillment. Verse 54 states, "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." As stated earlier, since the type of destruction was not specified, we can assume it was intended to be a total destruction—both physical and spiritual. However, after July 12, 1843 (the date this revelation was allegedly given), Emma lived another 35 years—to the age of 74—in opposition to polygamy. Obviously, this part of the alleged revelation was not fulfilled.
In addition, according to verse 55, the Lord stated about Joseph that if he is faithful to the principle, "I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of ... houses and lands, wives and children...." This means the Lord promised to give Joseph 100 times the number of "houses and lands, wives and children...." that he possessed on July 12, 1843. However, within a year Joseph was dead and this blessing, I believe, was unfulfilled as follows: (underline added)
At the time of his death, he had not received a "hundredfold ... of ... houses and lands...." He left Emma with very little financial means to support herself and their children.
Since July 12, 1843, Joseph had not received a "hundredfold ... of ... children...." In 1843, all of his children with Emma had been born except for David Hyrum. In addition, it is alleged that he had twelve children by plural marriages, which if true is hardly a "hundredfold" increase. However, DNA studies have proved that five of these children (almost half) were not his children and may eventually prove that the remaining seven children were also not his.
While many claim that Joseph had over 30 plural wives, they do not claim he had a "hundredfold" increase in them since July 12, 1843. In addition, Joseph's involvement in polygamy is not a proven fact. There is too much evidence against it to be a proven fact. Throughout Joseph's life, he denied his involvement. Emma and his immediate family—those that should know—always denied his involvement. His sons pursued allegations of his involvement but never found credible evidence to support the allegations. The statements of alleged plural wives did not withstand cross-examination in court during the Temple Lot Case and the judge ruled that there was no credible evidence that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy.
Since God is all knowing and always speaks the truth, why did He promise these "hundredfold" blessings to Joseph knowing that he would not live long enough to receive them? And why did He promise to physically destroy Emma but did not do so? These promises to both Joseph and Emma in Section 132 were not fulfilled because they were not God's promises, but man's.
We must remember that this revelation was first made public in 1852, approximately eight years after Joseph's death, by those heavily involved in polygamy. (underline added) Thus, Joseph had no opportunity to acknowledge or deny it as true. Its authenticity was never voted upon by the Church, which was the final authority prior to Joseph's death to decide if a revelation was the mind and will of God. Throughout Emma's life she denied that Joseph gave this revelation and that he taught or practiced polygamy. Those who did not go west with Brigham Young did not embrace this revelation as God-given through Joseph. In addition, the judge's ruling in the Temple Lot Case found there was not sufficient evidence to prove Joseph gave this revelation. (underline added) Considering the dubious circumstances surrounding this revelation and the fact that the promises to both Emma and Joseph were not fulfilled, I can only conclude that it was not of God and was not given by Joseph. As such, I do not believe it is credible evidence that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy.
When the above testimonies are compared to Section 132, it is obvious to me that either one or the other is false. And when they are analyzed separately according to known facts, they both appear to be false. In my opinion, neither one is credible proof that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy.” http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2011/01/polygamy-statements-conflict-with-lds-d.html
17. Section 132 (MDC) contradicts the Bible when it states that Isaac had many wives and concubines.
"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 of their having many wives and concubines—" Section 132:1 (MDC)
Isaac had only one wife. He had no concubines. (see Genesis chaps. 24-28, & 35) Therefore Section 132 cannot be a true revelation from God.
18. Why didn’t Joseph have children by his other ‘wives’. We know he was fertile, because he had a number of children by Emma, but yet not one by his other ‘wives’. The following is from a Wikipedia article, “Origin of Later-day Saint Polygamy”. “The question of children from Smith's alleged plural wives has been raised since his death. Smith has not been proven to have had children other than those born to Emma Smith. (underline added) As of 2014, there are at least twelve early individuals who, based on historical documents and circumstantial evidence, had been identified as children of women sealed to Smith at the time of the births. In 2005 and 2007 studies, a geneticist with the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, Ugo Perego showed that five of these individuals were in fact not Smith descendants: *Mosiah Hancock and John Reed Hancock (sons of Clarissa Reed Hancock); Oliver Buell (son of Prescindia Huntington Buell); Moroni Llewellyn Pratt (son of Mary Ann Frost Pratt); Zebulon Jacobs (son of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith); and Orrison Smith (son of Fanny Alger). For the remaining four, Frank Henry Hyde, Orson Washington Hyde, Algernon Lightner, and Josephine Rosetta Lyon patrimony cannot be proven. Orson Washington Hyde and Algernon Lightner died in infancy so it is impossible for current DNA testing to prove patrimony. Current DNA testing cannot provide conclusive evidence as to Josephine Lyon’s patrimony since research into this history is complicated by Y-DNA genetic testing only being possible for descendants with an unbroken male line.
-Moore, Carrie (2007-11-10). "DNA tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-11-12.
-"Research focuses on Smith family". Deseret News. 2005-05-28.
-"DNA tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants: Scientific advances prove no genetic link". Deseret News. 2007-11-10.
-"Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith, Jr.: Genealogical Applications" Perego, Ugo A.; Myers, Natalie M.; Woodward, Scott R. (Summer 2005), (PDF), Journal of Mormon History 32
* updated from Wikipedia’s “List of Joseph Smith’s Wives”, “Allegations of children born to alleged polygamous wives”
19. The first polygamist child in the church on record, Brigham Heber Young, was born to Brigham Young and his first polygamous wife, Lucy Ann Decker on June 19, 1845. He was conceived 9 months earlier in October 1844, about 4 months after Joseph was killed in the Carthage Jail.
20. Some Mormon apologists try to explain that the reason that God “commanded” the Church to practice polygamy publicly from 1847 to 1905 was because there was a paucity of men in Utah. This is historically false. According to Widstoe, there were more men than women in Utah during the mid to late 1800’s.
21. According to the historical record, the most probable reason that the Mormon Church stopped practicing polygamy is because on March 23, 1882 the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act which declared that practicing polygamy was a felony. The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, but also revoked the right of polygamists to vote, disallowed them from holding political office, and also made them ineligible to serve on juries, regardless of whether they were practicing or merely believed in it. Practicing polygamists had their civil rights taken away without a trial or due process. (“Chronology of Mormonism”, from Wikipedia.) The president of the Mormon Church, Wilford Woodruff, made a deal with President Grover Cleveland: He agreed to forbid polygamy in return for statehood, amnesty and return of escheated church property. Woodruff gathered the Mormon elders together in 1890 and revealed that plural marriage must cease. The last to speak was Joseph F. Smith, a nephew of the first Prophet. Tearfully, he said, "I have never disobeyed a revelation from God. I cannot—I dare not—now." Utah became a state in 1896. “Brigham Young’s 19th Wife” by Claudia Glenn Dowling, “American History Magazine”, published online June 1, 2012.
22. Today, the Mormon Church has officially renounced the doctrine of polygamy, yet Brigham Young claimed, “…polygamy is essential to salvation.” MS 27:673 Either Brigham Young was a prophet and the Mormon Church today does not preach the essentials of salvation or Brigham was not a prophet and the Mormon Church is in apostasy.
23. John Taylor stated that polygamy was “as much a part of our religion as faith, repentance, and baptism”. Life of John Taylor p. 357
24. Brigham Young stated on August 19, 1866, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” JD 11:268-269, MS 15:226
Plurality of Gods Doctrine Started by Brigham Young NOT by Joseph Smith
The King Follett Sermon has inaccuracies and changes within the body of the text. It was copied from memory and long-hand notes and then published 6 months after JS’ death. HCLDS 4:556
“the presence of the eternal God” was removed and “of all other gods” was added in its place. TS 1:103
Enid DeBarthe in her thesis paper concerning the authorship of Section 132 MDC also deals with the authorship of the King Follett sermon. On page 315 she states, “Since the tests all applied to Section 132, would they apply equally to the King Follett sermon, which is sometimes cited as the basis for the new doctrines taught by Brigham Young? The pattern did fit, and the conclusion seems evident. Brigham Young wrote Section 132 and rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon.” See attached thesis paper in .pdf format.
Adam-God Doctrine Started by Brigham Young (no longer accepted by Mormons)
The Adam-God theory was taught as doctrine by Brigham Young. MS 15:769-770, JD 1:50
“He (Adam) was the one who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him.” JD 3:319
“He helped make this world and was the chief manager of that operation.” JD 4:1
“Adam is our Father and our God.” MS 16:534
“…Adam being our Father and our God”- Willard Richards MS 16:482
“He (Adam) is God of the whole earth” MS 17:195
Blood Atonement Taught by Brigham Young (no longer accepted by Mormons)
“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife and put a javelin though both of them, you would be justified and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God.”- pres. Brigham Young, March 16, 1856 JD 3:247
“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.”- pres. Brigham Young, September 21, 1856 JD 4:53
“Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?” All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the sheding (sic) of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?”- pres. Brigham Young, February 8,1857 JD 4:219
“I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye… Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins”- pres. Jedidiah M. Grant, September 21, 1856 JD 4:49
Ordination of Blacks (dated)
In 1978, the Mormon Church started ordaining blacks again, but in JS’ time blacks were ordained in the Church. BY should never have prohibited them from being ordained. Biographical Encyclopedia 3:577
Baptisms for the Dead Performed Incorrectly by Mormon Church
“it first must be revealed to the man of God lest we should run too far.” HCLDS 6:366
The Nauvoo Temple was never finished prior to the Saints leaving for Utah.
“Joseph located the site for the Temple Block in Jackson County, Missouri, and pointed out the south-east corner of the Temple in the year 1831,—also laid the corner stone for a Temple in Far West, Caldwell County, Mo. These Temples were not built. We built one in Nauvoo. I could pick out several before me now that were there when it was built, and know just how much was finished and what was done. It is true we left brethren there with instructions to finish it, and they got it nearly completed before it was burned, (underline added) but the Saints did not enjoy it.” JD 18:304
“Suffice it to say, to this congregation, that we shall attempt to build a temple to the name of our God. This has been attempted several times, but we have never yet had the privilege of completing and enjoying one.” JD 1:277
“Here let me ask the old Saints a question. Have you ever seen a temple finished, since this Church commenced? You have not.” JD 4:42
“I have been spending the winter in St. George. Our Temple there is finished, which is the first completed Temple built to the name of the Most High, in which the ordinances for the living and the dead can be performed, (underline added) since the one built by Solomon in the land of Jerusalem, that we have any knowledge of.” JD 19:220
See also Discourses of Brigham Young p. 630, Nauvoo the Beautiful p. 39
God told Joseph that if the Nauvoo Temple was not completed within an appointed time that the Church would be rejected as a church with its dead.
“But I command you, all ye my Saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.
But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God.” DC 107:10f-11a (MDC 124:31)
The Nauvoo Temple was not completed before the Mormons left for Utah with Brigham. Since it was not completed within the “sufficient time” that the Lord gave the Church, therefore the Church was “rejected as a church with its dead” by the Lord God.
“did not give endowments before 1846”- Lucy Kimball (one of Heber C. Kimball’s plural wives) CAPE p.379
There were no endowments performed before JS’ death.- W. Griffith CAPE p.466
This point is not a proof. Between 1904 and 1907, the following people testified before a series of Senate hearings on Reed Smoot’s acceptance as a U.S. senator concerning when they first received their endowments in a temple. Please note that all of them received their endowments after JS’ death. James McGuffie- 1856, John Bond- 1858, Joseph Silver- 1862, Martin D. Wardle- 1863
Word of Wisdom Practiced Incorrectly by Mormon Church Today
The early Saints drank tea and coffee and occasionally beer or wine.
“I recollect being at a trial not long since where quite a number of Bishops had been called in as witnesses, but I could not learn that there was one who did not drink whiskey, and I think that most of them drank tea and coffee. I think that we have some bishops in this city who do not chew tobacco, nor drink liquor nor tea nor coffee to excess.... If a person is weary, worn out, cast down, fainting, or dying, a brandy sling, a little wine, or a cup of tea is good to revive them. Do not throw these things away, and say they must never be used; they are good to be used with judgment, prudence, and discretion. Ask our bishops if they drink tea every day, and in most cases, they will tell you they do if they can get it.- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 12:402
Please note that in the following quote nothing is said against tea and coffee, just against tobacco. “We are doing a great business in the tea, coffee and tobacco in the Co‑operative Store. When we first established it we thought we would not sell tobacco at all; but pretty soon the Superintendent asked the Directors if he might not bring in some poor kind of tobacco to kill the ticks on the sheep. It was very soon discovered that unless they sold tobacco, so many Latter‑day Saints used it, that a successful opposition could be run against them on the tobacco trade alone, and they had to commence it, I believe, under the plea that it was brought on to kill the ticks on sheep. Shame on such Latter‑day Saints, so far as tobacco is concerned.”- George A. Smith, JD16:238
July 12, 1841, Joseph Smith proposed to the city council “that any person in the City of Nauvoo be at liberty to sell vinous liquors in any quantity, subject to the city ordinances.” (HCLDS 4:383) This ordinance made a distinction between distilled and fermented drinks.
March 10, 1843 - "Joseph decided that he had no objection to having a brewery put up by Theodore Turley." The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989, pg. 329
In December 1843, the city council passed an ordinance "Section 1 - Be it ordained by the City Council of Nauvoo, that the Mayor [Joseph Smith] of the city is hereby authorized to sell or give spirits of any quantity as he in his wisdom shall judge to be for the health and comfort, or convenience of such travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time to time." HCLDS 6:111
Joseph drank beer and wine occasionally after becoming the Prophet of the Church and it was not considered sinful. He did not drink hard liquor though.
"drank a glass of wine with Sister Janetta Richards, made by her mother in England"- Joseph Smith, May 3, 1843 History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 380
“Capt. White of Quincy was at the Mansion last night and this morning drank a toast"- Joseph Smith, January 29, 1844 The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989, pg. 443
“Drank a glass of beer at Moesser’s”- Joseph Smith, June 1, 1844 MS 23:270, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989, pg. 486
"Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph, who tasted, as also Brother Taylor, and the doctor,..."- Joseph Smith, June 27, 1844 HCLDS 6:616
Tithing Practiced Incorrectly by Mormon Church
The law of tithing of the increase was understood and taught by Joseph Smith and leaders of the early church. It was still taught as late as 1847, almost 3 years after Joseph Smith’s death. After the Saints went to Utah, Brigham Young changed the law of tithing to be 1/10th of one’s total income. Apostle Orson Hyde stated on January 1, 1847, “The celestial law requires one-tenth part of all a man’s substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church, and one-tenth part of his annual increase ever after. If it requires all a man can earn to support himself and family, he is not tithed at all. The celestial law does not take the mother’s and children’s bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. The poor that have not this world's goods to spare, but serve and honour God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the Eternal Kingdom of our Father. But the rich, and such as have this world's goods which they can spare, without injury to themselves and upon their families, can never obtain a celestial crown unless they pay their tithing. They are not excluded, neither dis-fellowshipped from the church if they do not do it. We have no law to authorize us to do this; still, such as are able and do not pay their tithing, their light, like that of the foolish virgins, will go out; they will have no oil in their vessels, and consequently cannot be admitted. It, therefore, remains with everyman to decide for himself whether he will seek for a celestial crown of his own free will and choice, without compulsion, or not. The poor will readily pay their tithing and more too, because tithing is not particularly required of them. The rich think that it is a hard law as a general thing, yet, once in a while-a-rich man is caught in the gospel net, whose heart is open not only to pay his tithing, but even to sell all that he hath and give to the poor, and go forth and preach the gospel without purse or scrip. But we expect that not only our property will be tithed, but our life also, not one-tenth of it particularly, but even the whole.” Millennial Star 9:12. (The Millennial Star was the only official church publication at that time. The official publication "Times and Seasons" had been discontinued after the Feb 15, 1846 printing.)
Court Judges that the Mormon Church is NOT the Original Church and Has Departed Substantially From the Original Church Doctrines
Kirtland Temple Decision
February 23, 1880
Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio
L. S. Sherman judge.
“That the main body of said religious society… were located at Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1844, when said Joseph Smith died, and said church was disorganized and membership (then being estimated at about 100,000) scattered in smaller fragments, each cla(i)ming to be the original and true church before named, and located in different States and places.
That one of said fragments, estimated at ten thousand, removed to the territory of Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young, and located there, and with accessions since, now constitute the church in Utah, under the leadership and presidency of John Taylor, and is named one of the defendants in this action.
That after the departure of said fragment of said church for Utah, a large number of the officials and membership of the original church which w2as disorganized, at Nauvoo, reorganized under the name of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and on the 5th day of Feb., 1873, became incorporated under the laws of the state of Illinois, and since that time all other fragments of said original church (except the one in Utah) have dissolved, and the membership has largely become incorporated with said Reorganized Church which is the plaintiff in this action.
That the said plaintiff, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is a religious society, founded and organized upon the same doctrines and tenets, and having the same church organization, as the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, organized in 1830 by Joseph Smith, and was organized pursuant to the constitution, laws, and usages of said original church and has branches located in Illinois, Ohio, and other States.
That the church in Utah, the defendant of which John Taylor is president, has materially and largely departed from the faith, doctrines, laws, ordinances and usages of said original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and has incorporated into its system of faith (and) (the) doctrines of celestial marriage and a plurality of wives, and the doctrine of Adam-god worship, contrary to the laws and constitution of said original church.
And the Court do further find that the plaintiff, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is the true and lawful continuation of, and successor to the said original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, organized 1830, and is entitled in law to all its rights and property.”
The Inspired Version of the Bible was Finished
The Inspired Version of the Bible was finished. (TS) 6:802
Mormon Doctrine Claimed to be Infallible
“Mormonism is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which is invalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one of its leading principles is acknowledged to be false,” October 28, 1865 MS 27:673
“Mormonism is true in every leading doctrine, or it is false as a system altogether.” October 28, 1865 MS 27:675
The Land of Zion is NOT in Utah, but in Missouri
The land of Zion is situated at about equal distances from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.”- Joseph Smith TS 5:450