The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,346 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
THE MORMON CURTAIN
|
|
2008 Exmormon Foundation Conference Oct. 17 - 19, 2008
|
The time is flying! And time to remind everyone again about the Exmormon Foundation coming up October
17-19, 2008.
Please join us for our annual weekend of education, enlightenment, personal stories, and mingling with a group of interesting and brave people who are exploring life after Mormonism.
Embassy Suites Hotel, Salt Lake City, UT Click here for details: http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/200....
Amazing line up of activities and speakers for 2008, including Steven Hassan - mental health counselor and expert on cults!
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
→
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
Total Articles:
3
During the time that Joseph Smith lived, he allegedly received direct revelation from Jesus Christ wherein Jesus Christ allegedly spoke to him. After the fact, Joseph wrote down word for word in his journals. These journals were later converted into the History Of The Church for which the Doctrine And Covenants were created. Since Joseph Smith died, no new direct revelation has been posted showing that no other prophet, past or present, has had divine revelation that the LDS Church has published. In addition, much of the earlier "revelations" that Joseph Smith received have been altered or deleted to fit with today's standards.
|
|
In reading Chapter 7 of Bushman's book, he got all excited about a "startling revelation" in relation to the new social order Joseph Smith was attempting to initiate, namely the "United Order." So I checked it out, and decided it might warrent a little side track here for a moment. Tell me what you think:
Quote:
D&C 49:20--But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.
And it struck me that the Church flat-out lives in violation of this, their very own scripture.
- The Church organization itself gives only a tiny fraction of its means to charitable causes, and keeps the rest for itself in building itself up.
- The General Authorities in the Church are all men of means, save Boyd K. Packer (who was an educator...and it probably helps explain his bitterness ). They rose in prominence in the Church coincident to rising in prominence in the world. Poor people simply don't qualify to be prominent leaders.
- The members of the Church in predominantly LDS communities appear to be relatively affluent. Most of the large, metropolitan communities in the Mormon corridor are diminishing in the percentage of Church members, yet the lion's share of the political and business clout is still held by Church members because they hold the wealth and the power.
Aside from consecrating all your time, money and talents to the church in the endowment ceremony, there is no other real effort on the part of the church to encourage this doctrine of "material equality among all men". (Good thing, too, or temple attendance would plummet through the floor. As it is, everyone knows "they don't really MEAN it..." ) Mormons will tell you they contribute heavily to church causes in the form of tithing, fast offerings, and other donations, and they do...but NOT for the purpose of stripping them of their excesses, only to support the corporate monster that is LDS Inc. They are, in fact, promised that their excesses are a measure of their faithfullness. In other words, BECAUSE of their righteousness, they are OUT OF HARMONY WITH THEIR SCRIPTURE.
I don't care who you are...that is irrational.
I would challenge any Member in good standing to demonstrate how the Church holds itself accountable to this scripture.
Oh, and as a side note, while trying to ensure that I read the above verse in context, I went back and read from the beginning of the 49th Section and found this tidbit.
[Context: Smith is sending Pratt, Rigdon and Copley to preach to the Shakers, a sect who preached celibacy]
Quote:
D&C 49: 15 -- And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
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;
17-- And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.
Goodness, if ever there was a good time for God to suggest that MULTIPLE wives is really the order of the day, that would have been a good one.
But no, it stands in stark contradiction to D&C 132 which gives Joseph free reign to do as Abraham and David in taking unto himself as many wives as he sees fit, and bestowing the same privilege to others.
In this scripture, God seems very satisfied that "the measure of man" can be fulfilled in the earth by virtue of monogamy. Yet later, we hear all about the need to "raise up a righteous seed" as the justification for polygamy. So which is it?
That God...He just confuses the hell out of me.
So anyway, what we have here are God's words, given through his very own, ordained mouthpiece, standing in stark contrast to one another, and everyone's just OKAY with that. No WONDER we were nuts! Our scriptures MADE US that way!
Anyway, just my little ramble for the moment.
| A TWO PART COMMENTARY ON D&C 130
PART 1
12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.
13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.
Wow! That is a very definitive statement. "It may probably arise through the slave question." (sarcasm off) The "voice" that "declared" that sounds very uncertain about the circumstances of the "difficulties" to come. (sarcasm back on) Maybe what the "voice" meant was: "The slavery issue will be used as a political tool half way through the American Civil War to garner shrinking support for it."
PART 2
14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
In the previous verses Joseph is expounding on his earlier statements:
It is the will of the Lord that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh even fifty-six years, should wind up the scene. (The History of the Church, vol II, page 182).
It is clear that Joseph is referring to the Second Coming. In fact, very decisively, he declares that "the coming of the Lord" will occur in 1891 (determined with some simple math). I have seen an apologist suggest that the word "should" indicates some uncertainty in Joseph's declaration, and thus his statements can be taken as nothing more that "strong opinion". This of course requires that the context of the word "should" not be considered. The word "should" used as it is, is a conservative estimation. By "conservative" I mean the extreme. In other words, the word "should" indicates the absolute limit for the "wind(ing) up of (the) scene." For example, the transmission went out on my truck recently (probably because I have not been paying tithing). After my mechanic had a chance to inspect the vehicle he called me to give me the diagnosis. At some point, I asked him what the final cost would be to repair my vehicle. His reply was something to the effect ,"X amount of dollars should cover it." He was being conservative my quoting me the extreme limit of the cost. He was not indicating the minimum cost. He was telling me the upper limit on the cost. The context is exactly the same as stated by Joseph. The same apologist suggested that the transcription of Joseph's statements concerning "the coming of the Lord" should not be taken to be verbatim. This of course, in his estimation, moves the statement from the category of "prophecy" that of "opinion". In doing so he has weakened his other argument about the word "should" being imperative to understanding the statement in its correct meaning (simply opinion).
Back to the verses of D&C 130. Could the "voice" be any more vague? Joseph asks a very specific question, and gets a reply (v15) that doesn't even remotely address his question (That being the time of the coming of Christ). Instead he gets a vague statement about seeing Christs face. The answer seems so vague to Joseph that he decides that it could mean one of 3 things. Those three options are as follows as given by Joseph in verse 16:
A. The beginning of the millennium will be 1891. If Joseph lives to be 85 will witness this event.
B. The viewing of Christ's face by Joseph referred to by the "voice" was actually one of the previous times Joseph had already seen Christ, or would yet see him again before the actual millennium. This option however, does not make sense. Joseph was referring to the Second Coming so either the "voice" was stupid or just being coy. Joseph claimed to have already seen Christs face, so it makes no sense for him to be asking about anything other than the Second Coming that would usher in the millennial reign of Christ.
C. The voice was simply telling Joseph that he would see Christs face when he (Joseph) dies. Acknowledging Joseph's belief in Jesus Christ being the savior and all, this option deserves a resounding: Well DUh!! Modern leaders of the church love to cover their backsides by declaring that no one, save God himself, knows the time of the Second Coming. This option actually fits in with that modern teaching. However, if that is the case, what was with the "voice" talking about Joseph living until he was 85? Why did the "voice" just say, "You won't see Christ until you die?"
So, did the "voice" not actually know the time of the Second Coming, or was it trying to confuse Joseph by not really answering his question. One possibility is that the "voice" Joseph heard was not God (an angel perhaps), did not not know the time of "the coming of the Lord", and was thus trying to confuse Joseph by making a vague statement. Or perhaps the "voice" was God and did not want to divulge the exact time of the Second Coming and subsequently gave Joseph some vague statements that didn't make any sense with regard to his question. This of course begs the question: Why didn't the voice just tell him that the time of the Second Coming was a secret and to be happy with the times he had already seen Christ? Or even more likely yet, Joseph, decided that his speculations of a decade earlier where too specific and he tried to tone them down a little.
Apart from the question of whether or not Joseph's statement were opinion or prophecy, I find the issue of confusion between Joseph and the "voice" very interesting. Did the "voice" misunderstand what Joseph was asking, or did Joseph misunderstand the answer given by the "voice"? It seems clear, given the context of the question, that Joseph was asking about the Second Coming. In that case, option "A" is the only viable answer as it is the only one that refers to the Second Coming (clearly the "voice" was inaccurate on this account). So the real question is: Did the "voice" misunderstand what Joseph was asking, or did it confuse him on purpose? The implications of either are intriguing.
17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.
OK. Here is a statement that the apologists should be able to correctly identify as opinion.
| Mormon Apologists Claim The Original Doctrine And Covenants 101:4 (1385 Edition) Now Removed, Was Not Revelation Because It Was Written By Oliver Cowdery, Not Jospeh Smith
Article Archived: Thursday, Apr 26, 2007, at 08:38 AM
Stored Under Topic: DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Randy J. | TOP | |
The original Doctrine And Covenants 101:4 (1835 Edition):
"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
that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry
again."
Why was the above doctrine removed and not found in the current Doctrine And Covenants?
Mormon Apologists claim: "The answer is simple. It wasn't a revelation. It was written by Cowdery, not Smith. We are well aware of Section 100 and what it says. That particular Section was written by Oliver Cowdery and approved by the membership of the Church while Smith was out of town."
To begin with, the Article Of Marriage (AOM) was in Section 101 of the 1835 D&C, and RE-PUBLISHED as
Section 109 in the *1854* edition, IN UTAH. For those unfamiliar with it, the
crux of the policy states:
"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 but one wife; and one woman, but one husband,
except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."
The idea that JS was out of town, and that Cowdery somehow slipped the "Article
on Marriage" into the D&C without his approval, is a prevarication designed
purely as an apology for Joseph's adulterous affair with the teenage Fannie
Alger.
Joseph Fielding Smith perpetuated the misinformation:
"This article on
marriage was not a revelation and I want you never to forget it....at this
conference held on August 17, 1835, Joseph Smith and Frederick G.
Williams...were not present; they were in Michigan....this article on
marriage...was written by Oliver Cowdery in the absence of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, and the Prophet knew nothing of the action that was taken ordering them
printed with the revelations. These were not revelations, never were so
considered, were ordered printed in the absence of Joseph Smith, and when
Joseph Smith returned from Michigan and learned what was done---I am informed
by my father, who got this information from Orson Pratt---the Prophet was very
much troubled. Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, my father, were missionary
companions; they traveled together, and my father learned a great many things
from Orson Pratt of these early days. When the Prophet came back from
Michigan, he learned of the order made by the conference of the Church and he
let it go through." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 11, pp. 194-95.)
First off---Joseph Fielding Smith claimed to have gotten his information
third-hand. By the time Pratt allegedly told this to JF Smith, the Mormons
were in Utah, and Pratt himself was a practicer and apologist for polygamy. It
served his agenda to "blame" the AoM on the excommunicated Cowdery, because of
its obvious contradiction to the 1843 "revelation on celestial marriage."
Also, Mormons constantly repeat that the only official LDS doctrine that is
binding on the members is what is found in the "Standard Works." The Article
on Marriage was voted on by "common consent", approved, and published in the
1835 D&C, whether JS was out of town or not. If, as later Mormons claimed,
that JS had had his first "revelation" on PM as early as 1831, then it is
obvious that upon returning from Michigan, and learning of the AoM, he should
have immmediately called a meeting, corrected the mistake, and ordered the AoM
torn out or stricken through in each copy. JS lived another nine years after
the 1835 D&C was published, and I am not aware of a single statement he made
against the AoM, nor of any action he took to correct it. That being true, it
is obvious that JS was perfectly willing to maintain the AoM as a public
policy, while privately teaching and practicing the exact opposite. And, if
you're going to argue that the AoM was not "official doctrine" IN SPITE of it
being canonized, then you cannot also consistently argue that JS' practice of
polygamy was proper or "doctrinally secure"----because when Smith attempted to
have his "revelation on celestial marriage" approved on August 12, 1843, by his
Nauvoo High Council, the attempt failed to carry, which is necessary according
to LDS rules of "common consent." That means that Smith secretly taught and
practiced polygamy without having proper approval----which was no big deal for
him, however, since he had been a polygamist for at least ten years before he
even presented his "revelation" for a vote. The High Council's refusal to
approve the "revelation" obviously slowed him down, however, because he took no
more plural wives for the last eight months of his life, as opposed to having
taken more than 30 before that time.
On top of all of this, the idea that Smith was in the dark about Cowdery's
inclusion of the AoM is ridiculous on its face. Smith claimed to be in regular
communication with God. If that were truly the case---and God had previously
"revealed" the "ancient order of plural marriage" to Smith---then it should
have been a snatch for God to put a bug in Smith's ear, perhaps telling him
something like, "Joseph, my son, Oliver is trying to mess up your love life.
Go therefore, and tell him to ixnay the Article on arriage-May." For Mormons
to believe that Cowdery could slip an incorrect principle into the "standard
works," they must concede that Smith's pipeline to God was operating at
somewhat less than peak efficiency. Objective thinkers will naturally conclude
that in light of the events, Smith possessed no such pipeline.
As I've documented several times previously, the historical context of the
origin of the AoM was JS' "nasty, filthy affair" with Fannie Alger, which began
as early as 1833, when she was sixteen. According to some accounts, Emma
herself caught them together, and JS expressed remorse over it in a meeting
with Emma and Cowdery.
In none of the accounts is the "prophet" quoted as saying, "I have received a
revelation that allows me to have sex with Fannie." No mention of an angel
with flaming sword threatening to kill him. No hint of asking the "first wife"
for permission to couple with Fannie, as D&C 132:61 requires; Emma was
obviously shocked and saddened at the discovery. All of the accounts paint a
simple picture of a married man having in illicit fling with a teenage girl,
being caught, and apparently being remorseful and repentant of it.
Because news of the incident spread quickly----there are numerous
first-and-secondhand accounts of it----Cowdery, and others, undoubtedly
realized that if it became widespread public knowledge that the "prophet" was
boinking a teenager, it could discredit their church, and destroy their infant
commune. That is undoubtedly why the AoM states that the "church has been
reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy." It was designed as an
official statement to nip the rumors in the bud. And it worked for
awhile---after being caught with Fannie, there is no evidence of any more
extra-marital activity on Smith's part until his affair with Lucinda Morgan
Harris at Far West in 1838. Fannie and family left Kirtland in 1836, she
married a Solomon Custer, and thereafter refused to discuss her relationship
with JS. In fact, the very REASON JS skipped town to Michigan during the
period may well have been so that he could avoid having to deal with the
fallout over being caught.
But the problem with JS, the AoM, and the truth, goes much deeper than all of
this.
Although Mormon Apologists have attempt to call the AoM "unauthoritative" and "not official
doctrine"----D&C 42, a "revelation received" on February 9, 1831, ALSO condemns
extra-marital relations: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and
shalt cleave unto her AND NONE ELSE.....Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he
that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out." Obviously,
this "revelation" WAS "official doctrine," and regardless that JS later claimed
to have received his first "inspiration" on PM in 1831 or 1832, monogamy and
fidelity was the canonized standard of behavior even without the AoM. If JS
had been dealt with according to the "canonized" D&C 42:26, he should have been
excommunicated over the Fannie affair; but instead, JS excommunicated Cowdery
in part for "accusing the prophet of adultery." That fact indicates that
contrary to what modern Mormons try to assert, JS held a position of
infallibility, and that he could violate a canonized rule of his church, and
not be punished for it. The incident reveals that JS was totalitarian and held
absolute power, accountable to no one for his behavior. It's also possible
that since Smith arrived at Far West on March 14, 1838---and he began a sexual
relationship with Lucinda Harris almost immediately, while living in her
home---Cowdery may have got wind of that relationship, and it may have been the
adultery that he accused Smith of that got him excommunicated on April 6, just
three weeks later.
As I've documented many times, Smith steadfastly publicly denied PM his entire
life. All public statements from him, and other Mormons, were that PM was not
an LDS practice, and that it was strictly forbidden. Smith and his followers
carried on a lifetime campaign of denial and deception concerning the practice.
| |