#How Latter-day Saints view Joseph Smith

[mindfulldsliving]

Exaltation and Misconceptions: Clarifying Joseph Smith’s Role in LDS Belief

Joseph Smith’s name often stirs strong opinions—both admiration and misunderstanding. A common claim is that Latter-day Saints worship him, but this is far from accurate. In the faith, Joseph Smith is revered as a prophet, much like Moses or Peter in the Bible, not as a deity. Misconceptions like these can blur the truth and fuel unnecessary confusion. By exploring scripture and core LDS beliefs,…

[nerdygaymormon]

Below are excerpts from the article:

Steven E. Snow, the emeritus general authority and former historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a bit of an outlier...the St. George native remains a staunch Democrat and a passionate environmentalist.

As the faith’s historian from 2012 to 2019, Snow is widely credited with helping bring openness and transparency to the church history department. He helped shepherd to completion the Gospel Topics essays, which tackled some of the thorniest of the faith’s historical and doctrinal issues.

Snow’s other signature achievements include overseeing the publication of the landmark Joseph Smith Papers and “Saints,” the new multivolume narrative history of the church. With Snow at the helm, the history department also took over supervision of church historical sites, where he placed a premium on education over proselytizing.

His beloved wife of 52 years, Phyllis, died from post-COVID-related issues eight months ago.

I didn’t always see eye to eye with all the brethren on environmental and political issues, but I can appreciate that. I tried to listen and be respectful of their points of view and understand them. I appreciate where they are coming from.

What did you think about the now-abandoned policy of not allowing the children of same-sex parents to be baptized?

I was surprised by the policy and was quite delighted when it was reversed. … I thought it was unnecessary, and I think it caused unnecessary hurt during the time it was in place. I was pleased to see President Russell M. Nelson revoke it.

How do you feel about the way the church addresses LGBTQ issues?

The church is trying. I’ve been really pleased with President Dallin Oaks’ and others’ efforts to try to find common ground. That’s why this recent action they took with regard to [transgender individuals in] the [General] Handbook seemed a little off, based on what they have been trying to do.

It’s a very difficult place for them to be. President Oaks continues to talk about gays in his General Conference talks. It’s as if he wants to draw a bright line that this is the way it is and there is not going to be a relaxing of that policy. It seems to me, that is what he’s trying [to articulate].

I have two gay granddaughters who have left the church. It causes me great sadness that we don’t have a place for everyone. They feel like there is nothing there for them.

How does environmentalism inform your faith?

We are given this beautiful planet upon which to live. As simple as I can state it, we should take care of it. We ought to make it a better place than when we came. We have to leave it in better shape, and we’re not doing that.

[thoughtfulfoxllama]

Names of Gods

In the Temple Liturgy, we see the Creation of the Earth by Three Deities: Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. The Temple Endowment is one of the most sacred, symbolic experiences in the spiritual life of Latter-day Saints, but it is ill understood by many (because of its highly symbolic nature)

One of the issues of debate however, is the identities of the beings discussed in the Temple Liturgy. Usage of the names has been hotly debated since the introduction of the Nauvoo Endowment (the Endowment Proper, to separate from the Kirkland Endowment, known as the Initiatory in the Modern Church)

In this essay, I will explain the various views held throughout Church History. Although the Culterite Branche also practices the Nauvoo Endowment, we have no information on their ritual, so we will focus solely on the Brighamite Branches

Points of View discussed

MC- Modern Church. This holds that Elohim in God the Father (or our Heavenly Parents), Jehovah is the Premortal Christ, and Michael is Adam

BY- Brigham is infamous for his "Adam-God Doctrine," where Adam is God the Father, Jehovah is his God, and Elohim is Jehovah's God. He did also advance other views however (such as Elohim being the Father, Jehovah being the Premortal Christ, and Michael being the Holy Ghost)

Sym- Symbolic Interpretation. This was developed by Max Skousen in his infamous "Temple Book," and was further added on by later individuals. It holds that Elohim is our Divine Intelligence (which is a part of God), Jehovah is our Self, and Michael is our Physical Body. He believed that the Endowment was teaching us that we need to have everything in it's proper place. The Self listens to the Divine, and the Self has control over the Body. The Body don't control the Self, and the Self doesn't control the Divine

HS- I call this the "Holy Spirit Theory." It is based off of some interesting wording in the 5th Lecture on Faith. It says that the Holy Spirit is the shared mind of God the Father & Christ. However, in D&C 130, it says the "Holy Ghost [...] is a personage of Spirit. This believes that all gods have a shared mind, known as the Holy Spirit (BH Roberts also connects this shared mind to the Light of Christ). Elohim is the Light of Christ, Jehovah is the entire Godhead, and Michael is all of humanity

T- Title Theory. This is the theory that the Names of God are not names at all, but merely titles. For example, if God has "names" like, "Endless," "Eternal" (Meos in Adamic), and "Man of Holiness" ("Ahman" in Adamic), how can we trust any of his names. While often used to try to justify Adam-God, it is it's own separate thing

CRT- "Creator, Redeemed, Testator." Joseph Smith said that before Creation, Covenant was made between 3 Archetypical Beings, the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Testator. The idea is that each of the beings in the Temple is one of these beings

Elohim

In his Sermon in the Grove (Joseph's last sermon), he stated that Elohim was always plural. He then went on to give a radical retranslation of Genesis 1:1. Instead of "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth," he said that it meant roughly "The Head organized the Gods, and all things" (my own translation, but faithful to Joseph's words). While the King Follet Discourse revealed man's potential, the Sermon in the Grove populated the Eternities with, in the words of Paul "gods many and lords many."

MC- The belief that Elohim is God the Father is unsustainable, given Joseph's statement that Elohim is always plural. This doesn't mean the Modern Church is wrong though, but rather that we don't look at Elohim with a full understanding of Godhood. Godhood is Couplehood (or Throuplehood, or Quadruplehood, and so on). So, Elohim may refer specifically, not to Heavenly Father, but Heavenly Parents. After all, Modern Prophets have stated that Heavenly Mother(s) are deeply involved in our lives. Why wouldn't HM be there, alongside HF. He wouldn't be God without her, so Elohim still fits

BY- Admittedly, Adam-God is a huge cluster-screw. We know nothing from Brigham about the identity of Elohim from his own words. We have Joseph F Smith quoting an earlier source saying the Creation Trinity were "Grandfather, Father, and Son." He did state Jehovah was Michael's father, so maybe this is where that came from. But this is only 1 of the many inconstancies with Adam-God. For his views on it being "Father, Son, Spirit," see the MC explaination

Sym- Skousen has some interesting ideas. The idea that Elohim is in essence the root of being is an intriguing idea, and it allows Elohim to be plural. If one wanted to go further, the Lecture also says the Father is a Personage of Spirit, while the Son is a personage of Tabernacle. This has been connected by the Fundamentalists as the Liquid in their Veins (Blood or... It's never explained, but Spirit is the best word they can come up with). However, the idea that God the Father is this Divine Intelligence doesn't line up with D&C 130 (which states the Father was a body of Flesh & Bone), or with the First Vision. Unless, Elohim is what we are all called when we're Exalted (which connects to the Degrees of Glory. Celestial listen to the Intelligence, Terrestrial listen to Themselves, Telestial listen to their Senses)

HS- The Light of Christ makes an odd amount of sense here actually. In the Liturgy, Elohim commands the Creation, while Jehovah & Michael are the primary actors. The Light of Christ gives us (among other things) our Conscience. When were about to do something bad, we can get this feeling that we shouldn't. Maybe the Light of Christ also inspires that feeling in the gods. As this light is "in all things," it knows the proper timing, the proper order, everything like that. It also makes sense in the order as a whole, because the Earth was created spiritually, then physically. Jehovah (the gods) tells Michael (the Spirits), what needs to happen, then Michael reports when it's done. Maybe Michael needed to do their part, so Jehovah could do theirs

T- In the Title Theory, Elohim (more accurately, El) is the "Reshit," the Head of the Gods, speaking for the entire Divine Council. El (with his authority as essentially an EQ President) commands Jehovah & Michael to create the Earth, and commands Michael to people it.

CRT- Elohim (El) is the Great Organizer. He organized the Gods, and Organized the Creation (although he didn't actually participate, he did organize the work that needed to be done)

Jehovah

The name with the most debate, even before we get the Restoration. Jehovah (originally YHVH, but I'll just use Jehovah) was originally seen as a Storm God & a War God. Even by the time we get to Lehi's Departure, Jehovah was not a sole divinity. He was connected most notably with Asherah (Goddess of War, the Seas, Trees, and Motherhood) & El (the Head of the Gods)

By the Second Temple Period, Jehovah was stripped of equals. It also became prohibited to speak his name in public. This means, with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple (one of, if not the only place the Name could be spoken), the pronunciation was lost

In the Restoration, the use of Jehovah became... Chaotic to say the least. Joseph Smith used Jehovah to mean the Father in D&C 109, while in 110, Christ speaks with "the sound of rushing great waters, even the voice of Jehovah" (D&C 110:3). Brigham used Divine Names interchangeably, even saying "Elohim-Jehovah" as one name on more than one occasion. This naturally causes so much debate that Wilford Woodruff has to tell people to stop fighting about it. But, it went on. Jesus & Jehovah continued to be separated individuals in the Endowment, Joseph F Smith said Jehovah was Heavenly Father, and eventually, James Talmage wrote that Christ was Jehovah (an idea first officially pushed in the 1916 talk "The Father & the Son," and reiterated in "The Living Christ," on January 1st, 2000)

MC- Jehovah is Jesus Christ. "Before Abraham was, I am." This is the phrase Talmage used to prove his point. He also pointed out that Christ said in the Book of Mormon it was him who gave the Law on Sinai, and Jehovah was the Lawgiver

BY- Jehovah is God's God. He was well aquatinted with Adam's Children (possibly even being the god they worshipped, instead of Adam. This connects to the teachings of Fred Collier, who believed that Adam had 72 Sons, who were the gods of the 72 Nations). That's all Brigham had to say, aside from throwing out names like "Elohim-Jehovah" when referring to Michael (which makes no sense Brigham! No wonder people struggled to believe Adam-God, because it makes no sense, and you constantly contradict yourself!!!)

Sym- Jehovah is who we are, our Ego. It is meant as a go-between for the Divine Intelligence, and the Physical Body. This is similar to Christ, who came to mediate between Human & Divine

HS- This is based on the letters of the Name. According to David Ferriman (founder of the Fellowship of Christ, which is a Non-denominational Mormon Church), the Yod & the First Hei are our Heavenly Parents, while the Vav & the Second Hei are Christ & the Holy Ghost. While Ferriman (most likely, based on his other writings) doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit Theory, this interpretation of the name Jehovah is common for people who do

T- Jehovah is the God of a World. Before the Resurrection, Heavenly Father was Jehovah. When Christ said he gave the Law on Sinai, he did, and he was speaking on behalf of his Father. However, after the Resurrection, Christ became Jehovah, the God over this World

CRT- Jehovah is Christ. I've already said that above

Michael

In the Endowment Liturgy, Michael is Adam. There are literally millennia of people associating Adam with all of Mankind. This is especially meaningful when we are told to associate ourselves with Adam in the Temple

MC- There's not much to say. Adam is the First Man (possibly the Physical Son of Heavenly Parents, born Immortal, and needing to eat the fruit to become Mortal). He was the Archangel Michael (the only Archangel?), forgot that when he was created, and became an Archangel after death. He may have visited Christ during the Suffering in Gethsemane. Maybe he's resurrected, maybe not

BY- This one, more than any others, provides a huge discrepancy between the two views extended by Brigham (in the same flipping sermon!!!). Either Michael is "Our Father & Our God" or he his the Holy Ghost

There is a possibility he is both, as he is the Father of Humanity, our God (the Holy Ghost is a God), and "the Only God with whom we have to do" (because how many of us have seen Christ or the Father. Seriously, saying that part is even more confusing, considering we have 3 gods already!). This is not what Brigham had in mind however

If Michael is God, he is the Father of our Spirits (through Sexual Union), and then was sent to Earth by the Council, given Amnesia, tricked by Lucifer (who may also have a body, based on some interpretations of the Theory I've heard), and became the Father of Humanity. Eve is therefore Heavenly Mother (it appears we all share 1 Heavenly Mother. Each Wife gets a Planet, like they'd get their own house in Mortality)

Sym- Adam is the "Natural Man." Our physical desires, our fears and anger, all those things we associate as bad. However, we are not told to kill our passions, but to bridle them. No emotion is bad, but it needs to be under control (for example, libedo connects spouses, produces children, and gives pleasure. But, we are told to express it within strict bounds (marriage))

HS- Adam means "Man" (as in Mankind). We are told to associate ourselves with Adam in the Temple

T- Michael is the title of one who is called to begin life on a world. Likewise, Chavah (Eve) is the Name-Title of his help-meet (as Chavah means "Breath Giver," breath being representative of Life & the Spirit)

CRT- Michael is the Testator. However, we need to remember that we are told to associate ourselves with Adam in the Temple. Our first covenant (Baptism) include "standing as a witness of God." We are all Testators, we are all Michael

What do I think?

I think I need a break. The Hot Takes take a lot out of me, emotionally. Not just because I'm composing basically a full length essay, then vastly cutting it down (only keeping in about 1/50th of the Adam-God rants) in a couple hours, but because I'm worried about going too far

So, next week, it'll be something way more chill. Specifically, the Sabbath

[not-so-superheroine]

how did you come to join rlds/coc?

Sorry it took me so long to get to this question. I just knew it was a long answer.

I think my testimony gives a good idea, and i'll include . Because I felt the presence of God calling me to go join them is the overarching answer, but I can also give points that drew me in.

But in a few some points: 

I fell in love with the modern RLDS version of zion (and some of the old one too. nothing to do with israel.)

I saw they strived to be an inclusive place.

The Community of Christ's Enduring Principles are things I want to strive to live my life by.

The community made me feel very welcome and I saw people conduct themselves in a Christ-like manner

The community is very tight knit. society needs more of that.

Like, there is a certain behavioral affect (? cultural distinction?) that many members have that i thought was strange at first but it’s lovely. It’s kind, loving, and welcoming, and you adjust to it very quickly imo. Even to the lingo, which was a fun process. 

Continuing Revelation. Saw evidence of fulfilled prophecy in the Doctrine and Covenants and the spiritual growth in the church over the years

Continuing Revelation in general. I like that my faith is alive like that. We have prophets, God could reveal new truths for new scripture tomorrow. We are encouraged to be prophetic ourselves and discern the future together, i like that.

Also, no new scripture allowed in the mainstream? why not? does God still not talk in this way? great points in my head.

The communal aspect to everything is good. Just like how any sect of mormonism should imo The people i reached out to while seeking (investigating) were very kind to me and open to my questions. They were also there for me spiritually, and became friends. 

I could email leadership with questions and get responses. At one point, one of the church Presidents reached out to me. 

It’s academically welcoming. I was able to accept the book of Mormon as scripture when taught from a 19th century point of view. This, in turn, made me much more comfortable with the Bible. Community of Christ has an official statement on how to read scripture and there is scripture on how to think about and use scripture too.

I can even acknowledge when the history and the religious text don’t match. Because scripture doesn’t need to be historically correct to be sacred and hold an important message from the Lord.

Not really a reason but it is there: Joseph Smith III rocked and was intended to be next. It shouldn’t matter. But what does matter is that he set the church on a good path imo. Emma too. Out of all the early schisms of mormonism I would have to go RLDS belief wise, because Nauvoo era theology isn’t something I believe in. I think Smith got caught up in his own head and desires for much of it. No offense meant to post Nauvoo mormon sects.

This does not mean I haven’t picked some things up from Brighamites. For example, Trinity doesn’t work for me. And I pray to Heavenly Mother. I believe in one Divine source with many expressions. But that doesn’t mean “anything goes” and I accept it, just knowing that God speaks to people of many cultures all over, as the good book (of mormon) says.

But yes. This is why Community of Christ. Not that there are all common Community of Christ beliefs, but I thrive here spiritually and am encouraged to grow all the same.  Older testimony under cut that gives detail

I encourage y'all to watch this on video rather than just the text edited version i put here. not to be like "watch my talk on it" but please, watch my talk on the subject. I also talk about unity of the saints and what i have learned from other christians including other groups of latter day saints. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8w2M6PEKfg

I start giving my testimony and talk at 26:36

____________

I am Wednesday. Here I share a portion of myself and my testimony. At the time of this writing, I have lived 26 years. I am a Black woman of Gullah/Geechee ethnicity. I was raised in the African Methodist Episcopal church, which I am extremely grateful for. My nascent spirituality was nurtured here. I learned the meaning of community and was immersed in my culture. I was taught to love and respect my Black self, in a society that would not be inclined to show me the respect and love any human deserves. I may have converted, but I was meant to be nurtured here. I am a Lesbian, and have experienced discrimination in faith communities due attitudes towards LGBTQ+ persons. I despaired over thoughts that God didn’t love me, and wondered if I would be condemned to Hell. In part because of this and being scolded for my questioning nature regarding God and church doctrines, I fell away from faith. I grew a lot in this away time, but didn’t really deconstruct my faith until 2021. My isolation in the pandemic gave me time for introspection. I would watch content from mainly atheist ex-christians who discussed their deconstruction journey. They were usually ex-evangelical or ex-mormon, and were really helpful to me for unpacking the mess that was my faith. Then something peculiar happened that changed the path of my life. Through the ex-mormons, I encountered the Restoration. There was something intriguing about it, and I wanted to learn more, so I did. I learned history, and the doctrine of different Latter Day Saint sects. I loved how innovative and “of the people” the early church was and how alive the faith seemed to be. I listened to members and ex-members, past and present, talk about their experiences within their faith communities and how they experienced the Divine. These were some of the worst years of my life, but there was something here that gave me hope. 

I came across an interview featuring John Hamer, in which he talked about Community of Christ as a home for those in faith transition. Many of the concerns I had about Christian faith communities were addressed. I craved such a spiritual home and became a seeker.

I asked many questions of missionaries, and my inquisitiveness was welcomed. I got myself an Inspired Version of the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and Book of Mormon. I was very impressed by the Doctrine and Covenants and found the contents to be Inspired and even prophetic, so I started attending Beyond the Walls services online.

One Sunday, the service was centered on the Worth of all Persons, Christian acceptance of LGBTQ+ persons, and the church in Tahiti. I listened to the members talk about their acceptance, their being guided by faith in Christ in the process, and how those things were compatible and complementary. The speakers affirmed God’s love and mercy for all. Their faith was strong, and they spoke with authority. Their Christ-like compassion was palpable. I felt what I now recognize as the Holy Spirit, come over me. After the message, the choir sang “Spirit of God like a fire is Burning” and I felt that fire burning in my chest and cried and praised the Lord for hours after.

My faith in God is stronger than ever. And my passion and belief in the Restoration bloomed.

[bakerstreetbabble]

Re-blog: Sherlock Holmes and the Mormons

[I originally published this post on the original version of Baker Street Babble on Weebly in February 2014. Enjoy!]

Anyone who's read the very first Sherlock Holmes story, A Study in Scarlet, knows that the second half of the novel deals quite extensively with a sect that, at the time, was still somewhat in its infancy: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons.  A Study in Scarlet was published in 1887; the Book of Mormon was first published in 1830.  So the founding of Mormonism was far closer in time to Doyle than Doyle is to modern readers.  

If you have ever met any modern day Mormons (I've met quite a few in my life), you might find the sect as described in A Study in Scarlet vastly different from the people you've experienced. Portrayed as more or less fanatical minions of Brigham Young, the Mormons in the Holmes adventure are pretty grim figures.  Hard to reconcile them with today's freshly scrubbed, shirt and tie wearing missionaries!

It's unclear to me how much research, if any, Doyle did into the sect he chose as his villains.  According to Wikipedia, Doyle's own daughter said, "... father would be the first to admit that his first Sherlock Holmes novel was full of errors about the Mormons." (One obvious example is the reference to the Angel "Merona," a misspelling of the Angel Moroni from The Book of Mormon.) However, I don't know if he was that far off base at the time, considering how different Mormons of that era were from modern Mormons. I've done a pretty considerable amount of study of Mormon history, and it's pretty clear that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al, were a great deal more fanatical than their modern descendants. Smith, after all, was killed by a lynch mob, after being imprisoned for his political activity. Brigham Young led a dedicated group of Saints out to the frontier country which later became Utah, a trip on which many died.  And we've all heard about the polygamy that was common among Mormon leaders of the time.  (To be fair, the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has declared that polygamy is completely incompatible with modern Church doctrine.) Doyle himself is reported to have said: "all I said about the Danite Band and the murders is historical so I cannot withdraw that, though it is likely that in a work of fiction it is stated more luridly than in a work of history." Debate still continues over A Study in Scarlet, and its depiction of Mormons.  

The article linked below is an interesting piece on the controversy, written from an ex-Mormon's point of view: Mormons believe A Study in Scarlet is inaccurate. According to some reports Doyle later was repentant about his treatment of the sect in his novel.  This��article from The Salt Lake Tribune talks about Doyle's later dealings with the Mormons. Overall, I suppose the depiction of Latter-day Saints in A Study in Scarlet should be taken with a grain of salt. His treatment of the KKK in "The Five Orange Pips" still stands, though...

[craddon]

History of Polygamy Among the Mormons

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, claimed to have received many revelations from God telling him how to set up the church, and how the Saints should live their lives. Smith may have received the infamous revelation about plural marriage in the 1830s, shortly before he married his first plural wife, Fanny Alger, but polygamy at that time was reserved for church…

[fusion360]

Joseph Smith Wives: Joseph Smith Polygamy Timeline

Joseph Smith Wives: Timeline of Polygamy 

Joseph Smith, a prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is known for his practice of polygamy, which involved having multiple wives. However, the nature of Joseph Smith wives was often shrouded in controversy and secrecy. This blog will explore the controversial and secretive aspects of Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages, shedding light on the diverse beliefs and perspectives surrounding this practice within the Latter-day Saints community.

Timeline

1830 - Joseph Smith received a revelation from God that asked him to practice polygamy.

1833 - Joseph Smith begins a polygamous relationship with Fanny Alger.

1841 - Joseph Smith married Louisa Beaman, the first of his plural wives whose marriage is recorded in writing.

1842 - Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages are exposed, and he suspends the practice for five months.

1843 - Joseph Smith resumes his polygamous marriages and marries over a dozen women.

1844 - A mob in Carthage, Illinois, kills Joseph Smith.

1846 - Brigham Young and other Latter-day Saints begin to practice polygamy in Utah.

1852 - The LDS Church officially acknowledges the practice of polygamy.

1862 - The United States government passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which makes polygamy a federal crime.

1890 - Wilford Woodruff, the President of the LDS Church, issues the Manifesto, which officially ends the practice of polygamy.

1904 - The LDS Church officially excommunicates anyone who practices polygamy.

1930 - The LDS Church officially renounces polygamy.

Common Questions

Question 1: When did Joseph Smith start practicing polygamy?

Answer: Joseph Smith claimed to have received a revelation from God that allowed him to practice polygamy in 1830. However, he did not begin to marry women in plural relationships until 1833.

Question 2: How many wives did Joseph Smith have?

Answer: There is no definitive answer to this question. Some sources say Joseph Smith had as many as 40 wives, while others say he had as few as 14. The most likely number is somewhere in between.

Question 3: Why did Joseph Smith practice polygamy?

Answer: There are many different reasons why Joseph Smith may have practiced polygamy. Some people believe that God commanded him to do it. Others think that he did it because he was a polygamist at heart. Still, others think that he did it for political or financial reasons.

Question 4: How did Joseph Smith's wives feel about polygamy?

Answer: There is no one answer to this question. Some of Joseph Smith's wives were happy to be in plural marriages, while others were not. Some people forced them into plural marriages against their will.

Question 5: How did polygamy impact the Latter-day Saint Church?

Answer: Polygamy had a significant impact on the Latter-day Saint Church. It divided the church into two factions: those supporting polygamy and those not. It also made it difficult for the church to gain acceptance from the larger American society.

The Controversy 

The practice of polygamy within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons, was controversial during Joseph Smith's time. The views on polygamy varied among members of the faith, leading to differing beliefs and interpretations.

For some, polygamy was considered a divine commandment and a revelation from God. They believed that Joseph Smith, as the prophet of the restoration, received a divine mandate to restore the practice of plural marriage as it existed in biblical times. These individuals saw polygamy as a way to fulfill God's purposes, promote the church's growth, and ensure the continuation of the righteous bloodline.

On the other hand, there were members of the Latter-day Saints community who strongly opposed the practice of polygamy. They viewed it as contrary to traditional Christian teachings and a violation of the sanctity of marriage. These individuals believed that monogamy was the only acceptable form of marriage and that polygamy was a sinful deviation from God's original plan.

The controversy surrounding Joseph Smith wives extended beyond the church as well. Broader society saw polygamy as immoral and a threat to traditional family values. It generated criticism and scrutiny, leading to conflicts with the government and legal challenges. These external pressures and societal norms added to the complexity of the issue.

It is important to note that polygamy was not universally accepted or practiced by all members of the Mormon faith. It was a principle that some embraced while others struggled with or rejected entirely. The perspectives on polygamy within the church were diverse, resulting in ongoing debates and discussions among the members.

Over time, people within and outside the church increasingly opposed polygamy, which became increasingly controversial. Eventually, in 1890, under the leadership of President Wilford Woodruff, the church officially announced the discontinuation of the practice. This decision, known as the Manifesto, responded to mounting legal and social pressure and marked a significant shift in the church's stance on polygamy.

Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strictly prohibits the practice of polygamy, and it is not considered a mainstream belief or part of the church's teachings. The topic of polygamy remains a historical aspect of the church's early years, highlighting the complexities and diversity of beliefs within the Mormon faith during Joseph Smith's time.

Secret Marriages

Joseph Smith kept many polygamous marriages a secret and did not always disclose them to his wives. This secrecy surrounding polygamy was due to a combination of factors, including the controversial nature of the practice and the legal and societal challenges it presented.

The church leadership did not openly discuss or acknowledge polygamy during Joseph Smith's lifetime. Joseph Smith kept the practice private, only sharing it with a few trusted individuals. Joseph Smith and other church leaders kept the practice of polygamy a secret to protect the church and its members from legal repercussions and societal backlash.

Furthermore, the nature of Joseph Smith's marriages varied, and not all of his wives were aware of the extent of his polygamous relationships. Joseph Smith informed some of his wives about his other marriages while he kept others in the dark. This lack of transparency created a complex and sometimes challenging dynamic within these relationships.

The understanding and practice of polygamy during Joseph Smith's time differed from contemporary norms and expectations. Religious leaders framed the concept of polygamy as a divine commandment and necessary for exaltation. However, the secrecy surrounding these marriages has been scrutinized and debated among historians and scholars.

It is crucial to approach this aspect of Joseph Smith's life and his polygamous marriages with historical context and an understanding of the complexities involved. The secrecy surrounding these unions reflects the challenges and controversies associated with polygamy during that time and the personal and relational dynamics within Joseph Smith's own experiences.

Discover the core tenets of Mormonism by visiting churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist or whatdomormonsbelieve.org. Topics include Joseph Smith wives, blacks in Mormonism, and women in Mormonism.

[dailycdev]

Emma Smith The Child Of Hell

There are some deep dark secrets that the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints do not want people to know. One of them is how Emma Smith was called by Brigham Young to be the child of hell and the most wicked woman on earth. This was all because she was against plural marriage or polygamy and did not agree with Joseph Smith’s new-found revelation about the need for more wives. You see,…

[osarothomprince]

How Joseph F. Smith cemented in place Brigham’s Black ban

Fifty years ago this spring, Lester Bush published a groundbreaking article in “Dialogue” that carefully reviewed how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first came to ban Black people from holding the priesthood and entering the temple. In short, he found no evidence the policy was instituted by founding prophet Joseph Smith. The…How Joseph F. Smith cemented in place Brigham’s Black…

[marchenkonig]

I’ve been thinking a lot about religion lately, and my relationship with it. I am not a religious person, but I was raised in a very religious household. My parents, their parents, and my parents parents were all members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Mormons. Pretty much all the way back to when Joseph smith came up with his first get rich quick scheme my family has been part of and supporting the Mormon church. This has lead to my relationship with the religion to be super complicated in so many different ways, and has left a profound mark on me I will never shake. I’m not special in that regard, everyone who’s left can say the exact same thing. I’ve been really pondering on that lately, which has lead me to the discovery I’m posting about today.

I just want to make this clear right up front: I’m not here to insult or make fun of anybody. I felt the need to make this post when I found the Queerstake tag here on tumblr. It’s a group that profoundly saddens me. I’ve never seen a group so deeply in denial before in my life. The king and short of it is that they’re mormons who are also queer. If you know anything about mormons, you might see some conflicting beliefs in that statement. This group made me so sad, reading through their posts. So clearly so many of them hate being in the church, but have never lived a life where there were any alternatives. Posts begging the church leadership to not make them choose between their sexuality and their faith. Posts complaining about how every 6 months the leadership stands up in front of every mormon on earth in a broadcast that is mandatory to view, and condemns them and their lifestyle. Posts that start asking deep questions if the church, ones that really scrutinize it, that get so close to understanding the truth, and then miss the mark at the last second.

It really hurt me to read this because I remember being in a similar place. Trying my best to love myself in a world I felt like not only did I not belong, but also hated me. Praying to god every day to please help me understand only to be met with silence. Crying myself to sleep at night, feeling just so guilty about being who I am. Talking to people I trust only to be met with the mantra “doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith” as if I wasn’t riddled with enough self doubt at the time. Tricking myself into believing in the church because knowing god had a plan for me was much less scary than accepting that I had to figure it out myself.

And it wasn’t all bad. A sense of community I that I almost fit into, a set of rules to follow. It was even good at times. Rituals are good for anxiety, and what is prayer but meditation. Sometimes, I felt the “”spirit”” too (which is insidious for its own reasons. We’re taught that good feelings or that feeling of making the right choice is not our selves but god/the Holy Ghost telling us that feeling is correct, and not a conclusion we came to by ourselves) but of course this wasn’t the divine doing of god, it was just… people. My friends, my family, myself. It wasn’t god it was people. I get the same feelings hanging out with my friends as I did on church sanctioned camping trips. Bearing my heart out to people I love late at night is the same as bearing my testimony. Breathing exercises when I’m panicking are the same as the prayers I reflexively said any time i got nervous. And now I’m aloud to love myself and make my own decisions and know I’m the one making them instead of some outside force! And the best part of all of this? It comes without all the negative downsides and baggage the same experiences in the church gave me!

At the end of the day, I don’t know if there’s a god or not. I don’t really think about it, but I do know this. If there’s a loving being out there, all they would want is for you to be a good person. God wouldn’t care if you followed a checklist of arbitrary rules, just that you tried your god damn best to be a kind and positive force in the world, and if that’s not comforting I don’t know what is. Everything else is just arbitrary bullshit. Be who you are, you don’t need the church. I love all of you struggling with what I struggled with. You will find your people, I promise. You don’t need the church.

[rucbarthatbowtiesarecooldw]

Saturday Morning Session

President Russell M Nelson

Unusual times can bring unusual rewards

Opened ground for 20 new temples in 2020

     David A Bednar

 Periodic tests are essential

Prove, Examine, and Try

1 Preparation

We are commanded to prepare every needful thing

If we are prepared, we shall not fear

These scriptures provide a framework^

D&C109:8 D&C132:8

Wise and Foolish virgins

Effective and timely preparation succeed successful proving

2 Pressing Forward

God knows the reasons and timing of everything

Press forward and will be blessed with eternal vision

Faithfulness is not foolishness or fanaticism. Rather, it is placing our trust in Jesus Christ

Choices have to be made, not making a choice is a choice – learn to choose now – Elder Holland

We cannot have one foot in the gospel and one foot in the world.

As we follow 1 & 2 we will all be with Heavenly Father

Elder Scott D. Whiting – Seventy

We constantly choose the path of least resistance, burning less calories of change

The problem isn’t always outright wickedness, but complacency

We extoll but seldom emulate the Savior – Neal A Maxwell

I may not soon make it to the top, but I can make this next step right now.

The first step of emulating the Savior is to have the desire to become like Jesus Christ

We need to yearn to transform ourselves

Need to know what he is, learn of his character and attributes.

Even friends and family, as loving as they would like to be, can see imperfectly. HE has a perfect view of us (1 Sam. 16:7)

The choice of Redemption

Self-evaluate – He will lovingly show us our weakness

Preparation before and endurance and diligence during

Our entire mortal progression is about trying, failing, and succeeding . . You are good enough, you are loved, but that does not mean you are yet complete.

The commandment to be like him is not intended to make you feel unworthy or unloved.

Sister Michelle D. Craig – YW Presidency

The more you understand your eternal identity the better you will understand how the Lord sees you

You can pray for the Lord to open your eyes and see things you do not normally see.

What am I doing that I should stop doing, and what am I not doing that I should start doing?

I see you have a cat – awwwwwww

It is so hard to be seen – even by God. (When He Sees Me from Waitress is how a feel a lot of the time haha)

Press on with faith in Christ, despite the circumstances.

See ourselves and others as He does

We will see deeply

 Come Ye Children of the Lord

 Quentin L. Cook

We are all children of our father in heaven

Unity is strengthened when people are treated with respect and dignity, even though they are different in outward characteristics

Committed to achieve righteousness and unity

Lift and bless society as a WHOLE

Unity and diversity are not opposites. We can achieve greater unity as we foster an atmosphere of inclusion and diversity.

Race is not identified on membership records

ALL are alike unto God.

All races and colors are children of God

It is not right for any man to be in bondage one to another

We can be united by our love of and faith in Jesus Christ

Oneness with the Savior make them one with each other

Ronald A. Rasband

Attending the temple increases our understanding of the gospel

HE sets the standards by which we enter as His guests

“I want to go Recommended to the Lord”

 A recommend is not a checklist, a hall pass, or a ticket for better seating

Bedrock principals of a life of Jesus Christ in His Church

Having a recommend is an invaluable step in preparation of meeting the Lord

Body is a temple for your spirit and should be treated with reverence.

Need a temple recommend, to stay firmly on the covenant path.

Even when you can’t go to the temple and can’t present the recommend there – you can present them to the Lord

Persevere in our attention to our temple covenants

 Have I Done Any Good

 President Dallin H. Oaks

As followers of Christ we must forgo the anger and hatred that are typical in political settings

Love thy neighbor. Love your enemies, pray for them that hate you, help those who despitefully use you

Love the Lord thy God and love thy neighbor as thyself.

How do we keep eternal laws and laws of the land?

How do we follow God to our eternal destination

Do not contend with Anger – tis of the devil

Anger is the way to division and enmity

Seek to understand the power of love

Joseph smith taught love begets love

World would benefit greatly if everyone everywhere would use the pure love of Christ

Keep the laws of the countries (render to ceaser what is ceasers etc.)

If you keep the laws of God you have no need to break the laws of the land

Obey the current law and use peaceful ways to change it.

Do not join in anger and hate if election doesn’t go the way you would prefer

As latter-day Saints we must work to root out racism

This nations history of racism is not a happy one, and we must do better

Protest peacefully.

We have no eternal allies or perpetual enemies

Seek unity in diversity

Rise above prejudice and racism

It is possible to obey and seek to improve this nations laws and love our enemies – it is not easy but with His help we can do it.

 Love One Another

[mindfulldsliving]

Responding to Paul Gee: Understanding the New Jerusalem and Joseph Smith’s Teachings

Paul Gee’s critiques of Joseph Smith’s teachings on the New Jerusalem raise important questions for Latter-day Saints and curious readers alike. He claims that Joseph Smith’s prophecies about building the New Jerusalem are false. But does this argument hold up under scrutiny? Mormons claim that they will build the New Jerusalem. This was taught by Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, it is a false…

[nerdygaymormon]

So I went to my Bishop with my concerns about the new policies (figuring, hey, if I lose Bishop roullette and get my temple recommend taken away for criticizing the Church, it might as well be worth it), and he showed me a really interesting verse. In D&C 74, it's talking about the early Church being conflicted about children of mixed member/non-member (aka Christian and Jewish, basically) marriages, and how they were considered unclean by the Jews since they were no longer circumcised. Anyway, long story short, the Lord reveals the following:

"Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them"

The key to this verse is that Peter gave a commandment that was not of the Lord. We tend to attribute a lot of infallibility to our leaders in the Church, but this verse plainly says that here was the head of the Church, a prophet of God, giving a commandment of himself in order to solve what he saw as a problem for the Church.

I see this as a direct rebuke of the doctrine of prophetic infallibility, and a reassurance that the Lord lets his prophets have agency, for better or for worse. As my Bishop said, "The Lord allows agency at all levels of the Church." We also chatted about the Plan of Salvation, and how there's a plan for everyone, even if the Church doesn't acknowledge one currently. It was an incredible talk with an ecclesiastical leader, and it showed me that there is hope that the Church can and will change over time, especially as we strive to live the Two Great Commandments of God.

You've been a huge help to my testimony when it's been weak, and I hope this helps you as much as it helped me. Much love from Colorado!

Thank you for that kind note. Also, I recognize the courage it took for you to speak with your bishop.

Your bishop gave great insight, that here we have being taught in our scriptures that sometimes apostles teach their own opinions as commandments when they are actually in opposition to the Lord.

I think it's insightful to see that the Lord's way was more liberal and inclusive than the apostle thought, which reminds me of Joseph Smith's teaching that "Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive."

The LDS Church teaches that prophets and apostles are capable of error, despite being called of God and receiving revelation, which makes sense because these are imperfect men so it seems obvious they may make mistakes. If it weren't this way it would be unique in the history of the world.

However, in practice Latter-day Saints often teach that the prophet of the church literally cannot lead church members astray or teach false doctrine, as a way of emphasizing the importance of following the prophet.

I think holding up our apostles and prophets as infallible is unfair to them as it puts them in an impossible situation, it doesn't allow them to grow, it makes them less likely to correct previous errors and therefore prolongs the time we live under the incorrect teachings & policies, and it may make them cautious to act.

I agree with your bishop that there's a plan for everyone, even if the Church doesn't acknowledge this. I have said something similar, that I believe I'm included in God's plan even if I'm not in the church's version of that plan.

I think your bishop gave some wise insight and underlines my belief that the things which are right about the church can fix the things which are wrong.

Also, I think it's useful to think of the two great commandments and use that as a filter to determine if these teachings from our leaders are more or less likely to be the Lord's will .

Thanks so much for sharing!💖

[hannahlady]

Please explain the radical radical thing? I’m not religious but are Mormons using pizza and Mountain Dew for communion now????

LMAOOO sure I'll give it my best shot

So the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is already more lenient about how they do sacrament bread and water than i imagine older churches are. For example, we use water instead of wine or juice, and I've seen all sorts of homemade and store bought bread

"For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins" (Doctrine and Covenants 27:2)

It's also important to note that Latter-day Saints don't view the sacrament bread and water to be the literal bread and body of Christ, it's all symbolic for us. Maybe that's why we're more lenient with the content.

"It mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament" gives a lot of permission to use whatever we have on hand. It's a large part of why, as a church, we switched from wine to water.

[Image description: a comment on a blog post about the sacrament. An underlined portion reads, "The water does not actually constitute the sacrament in some places in the world as well since Joseph Smith stated that you can use whatever is available to you Nevada it's the ordinance that counts not the substance. For example we once had fruit juice for our sacrament liquid since the tap water in our chapel had been contaminated." End description]

As for pizza and mountain dew, i think this is more anecdotal.... You're not going to walk into a Sunday service and see the young men passing around shots of mountain dew. But that doesn't mean they COULDN'T. Again, it's the remembrance of Christ that is important, not the substance you use.

While not as common, there have been instances of the bread being replaced as well, such as this instance in Switzerland:

[Image description: paragraph from Wikipedia, "Occasionally, a lack of access to bread will result in the use of food other than bread in the sacrament. For instance, after the Second World War, members in Switzerland, under heavy food rationing, 'were so anxious to partake of the sacrament that they purchased some potato peelings which cost fifty dollars and used these in place of bread.'" End description]

So i mean. Yeah. Sprite and saltines could be sacrament. Mountain dew and pizza could be sacrament. Lunchables could be sacrament. Milk and potatoes could be sacrament.

[howwelldoyouknowyourmoon]

Can the Mormons talk honestly about polygamy?

▲ The Unification Church bought this church in Washington, DC, from the Mormons.

Can the Mormons talk honestly about polygamy? A new book could help. The unknowns about eternal polygamy are ‘answered with speculation and myths, creating undue fear and angst,’ says the author of a new book.

Religion News Service July 29, 2021 By Emily W. Jensen

https://religionnews.com/2021/07/29/can-the-lds-talk-honestly-about-polygamy-a-new-book-could-help/

Ten years ago, as I finished up teaching a Relief Society lesson, in which I discussed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ history of polygamy, my local Relief Society president came up to me and whispered, “You know, the Holy Spirit left the room the moment you said the ‘p’ word.”

The idea that a word could cause the Holy Spirit to flee in terror still makes me stammer — which is just what I did that day in response to the Relief Society president.

Oh, how things have changed. Today most of us own that polygamy was practiced by church members before it was outlawed in Utah in 1890. We should also be able to admit that its theological framework is still found in the church in many places. Talking about it shouldn’t be discouraged.

The church seems to agree, at least so far as to publish through Deseret Book a new tome called “Let’s Talk About Polygamy” by LDS church historian Brittany Chapman Nash. At a slim 134 pages, this little book delves deeper into the practice than its size lets on, hitting the points that every church member should know.

But they generally don’t. Even with the church-sponsored Gospel Topics essays on the subject and various historic works, including those in the church-sponsored Joseph Smith Papers, far too many members still believe that polygamy is an unspeakable word or maintain that Smith never practiced it.

Nash’s little book fills that informational void nicely. At its very beginning, she defines the practice, explaining that what went on among early LDS leaders’ families was actually polygyny (the taking of multiple wives), not polygamy (the taking of multiple spouses), but that polygamy is the more common term.

The book relates the history of the practice in the early church and its messy untethering process at the dawn of the 20th century. Nash wonderfully includes many women’s voices of the time in describing their reasons for embracing polygamy or rejecting it, and she explains the polygamous sealing process, which today’s temple sealing ceremony obviously echoes, even though the sealings are now done monogamously.

She also makes plain why so many early members felt they had to ascribe to the practice: Brigham Young, among others, taught that those men who were to be elevated to the highest degree of heaven and become Gods were those who entered into polygamy. Later, Wilford Woodruff, the LDS president who ended it, tried to soften Young’s dictum by explaining that men only needed to marry one other woman, not many multiples of women like so many high church leaders were doing at the time.

The book busts the myth that not many Mormons practiced polygamy, explaining that although the numbers aren’t exact because existing records are incomplete, taking Manti, Utah, as an example, at its height, just over 40% of its population was in polygamous households.

I appreciate that Nash trusts me as a reader and gives the age of Joseph Smith’s youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball, as 14, not, as the Gospel Topics essay does, “sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday.”

In her final chapter, Nash asks, “What does polygamy mean to saints today?” She goes head-on at the idea that many members are uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy as it was practiced then and worry that it will be practiced in the hereafter. Clearly, we are still haunted by our polygamist past.

As perhaps we should be: Nash explains that the revelation has “never been denounced” by the church. This means that while men can be sealed to multiple women eternally — if their wife dies or they are divorced and granted a clearance, say — women are painfully and misogynistically not afforded the same sealing promise.

The unknowns about eternal polygamy, Nash notes, are unfortunately “answered with speculation and myths, creating undue fear and angst within some Saints.”

Nash cites President Dallin Oaks, who in 2019 began his general conference talk describing a letter from a woman who was afraid of having to live in the same eternal home with her husband and his first deceased wife. The remark was greeted with laughter from the audience and a smile from Oaks.

I noted on Twitter then that you should never make fun of women afraid of eternal polygamy. Or, as another writer has said: “We haven’t really engaged with the issues, either institutionally or culturally. And by refusing to engage with the problems, we’re essentially telling our sisters and brothers who face them that we don’t care about their situation, because all is well with us.”

After all, Doctrine & Covenants 132, Smith’s revelation on eternal and plural marriage, which we are studying in this year’s Sunday school curriculum, is still canonized.

Overall, I do think this book will shake some members’ faith. That’s because many members still see polygamy as a “p” word, not to be uttered. But I’m grateful for the deft historical hand Nash wields in constructing a small but powerful work on polygamy. Let’s do talk about it. Emily Jensen She is the web editor for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and co-editor of “A Book of Mormons: Latter-day Saints on a Modern-Day Zion.”

(The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

_______________________________________

Can the Moonies talk honestly about polygamy?

VIDEO: Hyung Jin Moon admits his father had sex with six Marys

[thats-a-lot-of-cortisol]

I’ve been seeing (and sharing) some things about certain prophets and scriptures and such. So I’m going to share my unsolicited opinion about this. I’ll preface by saying that I’m not Black and don’t pretend to know the full extent of the harm from the racism in the Church. I’m coming at this from what I’ve heard and learned and studied; if I say something inaccurate, please let me know!

 I’ll make it as organized as I can. It’s gonna be long so it’ll be under the cut.

First of all, I know that we’re told to listen to the prophet’s voice. D&C 21:4-5 says:

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed to all of [Joseph Smith’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

(Brackets added by me).

This says that we need to heed the voices of the leaders of the Church because they’re mouthpieces of the Lord. It also says that we need to have patience and faith. To me, this means that sometimes they’ll say things we disagree with. This is often looked at as “oh you need to pray and learn to be okay with the doctrine”, which is the case sometimes! But sometimes, to me, this also means “you need to pray and figure things out for yourself, keeping the faith when your leaders decide to spread their opinions instead of or alongside doctrine”. It’s odd to me that we say that our leaders are imperfect but then refuse to truly admit when a previous leader (you know the one, though there were plenty more) were, in a word, wrong. Brigham Young was an imperfect person who supported slavery and took away Black mens’ rights to hold the priesthood. He did some awful things! And guess what? He was wrong. Ezra Taft Benson said that Martin Luther King was a communist. Guess what? He was wrong. Saying that someone was a prophet and brought forth doctrine and saying that they had wrong/harmful opinions are not mutually exclusive. We readily criticize Joseph Smith for being bad at money but we have a hard time criticizing Brigham Young for being racist and pro-slavery. Honestly, I consider Young to be worse in that regard, so I’m not sure why we’ve refused to acknowledge it for so long. A couple other people who are held up as religious leaders who did the Lord’s work include:

-Martin Luther, who was antisemitic for a large part of his life and died holding those views.

-Paul, who was sexist. (I’m not going to get into the debate about whether or not the verses in question were actually his words because I’m not very knowledgeable on the topic, but they are attributed to him as of when I’m writing this so that’s what I’m going with).

Paul is well loved and respected by Christians, at least from what I’ve seen. Martin Luther was a crucial part of the Reformation. We say that those views are outdated and harmful despite the fact that those men were “a product of their time”. In the secular sphere, we say this about Confederate generals and slaveholders. We recognize the culture they grew up around but critique their views anyway because we know better now. On top of that, cultures are never monolithic, so not everyone’s going to have the same views. Heck, Martin Luther wasn’t antisemitic at first. “Their time” included people who weren’t sexist or racist or antisemitic or any other bad “-ist”. Their time period isn’t an excuse.

So why are we allowing it to be an excuse with our leaders? Joseph Smith, the first prophet of the Lord’s Church in the latter-days, was anti-slavery! He appointed Black men to the priesthood! Some examples: Elijah Abel was the first Black man to be called to the Seventy. He went on three missions. He was ordained to the priesthood! Joseph T. Ball was a branch president! He was also ordained to the priesthood. I said it earlier and I’ll say it again: Brigham Young took the blessings of holding the priesthood away from Black men. This goes directly against what Joseph Smith, one of the first to hold the priesthood in the Restored Church, did. And this stance was held up by other racist leaders until 1978.

Our leaders through the years have claimed to have been praying for an answer about this, and I’m sure they were, but they didn’t receive the go-ahead to lift the ban. I commonly hear people justifying this by saying that such a radical stance would have killed the Church because the world wasn’t ready for it. But there were plenty of anti-slavery churches who actively helped and protected slaves and free Black people at that time and afterwards. So to me, the logic doesn’t add up, and it’s never sat right with me.

But here’s the thing: we know that the Restoration is a process. We know that we learn and grow “line by line, precept by precept” as we are willing to apply what we are taught. You can pray for whatever you want, but if you’re not truly open to the answer you won’t get it. I’m sure many of us have had those times where we say that we’re open to whatever the answer is but we aren’t yet; I know I have. I, personally, think that that’s what happened. The apostles and prophets weren’t truly ready. And guess what it took? It took them realizing that a community of Saints in Brazil (if I remember correctly) who wouldn’t be able to go into the temple being built in their area raised money to build it anyway. 

In a similar vein, we know that some of the teachings used to justify those views are false.

-”Mark of Cain”: used to say that Black people were unworthy of temple covenants because they’re descendants of Cain. This is false and dehumanizing.

-”Valor in Heaven”: this is the belief that people who aren’t white are that way because they were “less than faithful” during the war in heaven. This is false. A lot of things have grey areas, but I feel like this is pretty straight forward: either you ended up on the Savior’s side in the pre-existence or you didn’t. Everyone reading this in a physical body ended up on the Savior’s side. I, personally, don’t think Heavenly Father would quantify it, either. Is someone who joined the Church later in life any less qualified for the Celestial Kingdom? What about someone who doesn’t accept the gospel until the afterlife, but gets all of the saving ordinances by proxy? Do they get stuck in a Kingdom lower than what they actually should get? “Valor in Heaven” flies in the face of our teachings and is dehumanizing.

-The Lamanites’ curse: this was a specific situation that applied to a specific group of people. Quick note: I’m wrestling with these verses myself, but this is where I’m at with them right now. This is definitely “gospel according to Jean” territory, partly because I’m not sure how often recent leaders have discussed it: we’ve been avoiding the topic all together for a while now.

It didn’t make their culture monolithic. Both they and the Nephites went through phases of righteousness and unrighteousness. The main issue was that the Nephites (who started out righteous) were actively being killed by the Lamanites. The curse was a way to tell them apart, yes, but it would have been the same whether it was “the Lamanites will have blonde hair” or “the Nephites will be dark” (to use the terminology in the Book of Mormon). Also, what does Jacob tell the Nephites in Jacob 3? One, to “revile against them no more because of the darkness of their skins” (verse 9) and two, that they were more righteous than the Nephites were at that time. Jacob gives a couple reasons for this: firstly, they loved their wives and didn’t cheat on them or participate in polygamy that wasn’t given the go-ahead by the Lord (this is what the Nephites were doing). Secondly, the hatred they felt towards the Nephites was passed down by their fathers. Their fathers were Laman and Lemuel, who actively tried to murder their brothers and even their father, and taught their children to do the same to their cousins. The Lamanites hated the Nephites because they were taught that Nephi stole the brass plates (which held genealogy and doctrine) and tried to take the right to rule from his older brothers. I, at least, can understand the logic of that, even if it’s not really what happened according to the Book of Mormon. They were acting on what they knew. It was a lasting blood feud between family, not “oh one group is Not White so they’re bad”. This, besides the fact that the Lehites hailed from Jerusalem. So, Middle Eastern. Also, “filthiness”, from what I can tell, was used as another way to say “unrighteousness”. It’s not that they were literally “dirtier”, as I think many people take it to mean.

When one group was righteous and the other one wasn’t, the righteous group sent missionaries to the other. We use it to justify racism and slavery. There’s also the fact that sometimes the scriptures say that the Lord caused something to happen when really it was more that He let it happen. He didn’t actually harden the Pharaoh’s heart, He just didn’t violate the Pharaoh’s agency to un-harden it. I wonder if the “curse” was something similar.

So all that to say: we should absolutely hold Brigham Young, Ezra Taft Benson, and the others accountable for the harm they did. They were human! And humans are never just good. It’s okay to say “we recognize that these men furthered the Restoration, but they also did and said awful things that are not acceptable.” That’s not disrespecting their roles as prophets, seers, and revelators, it’s ensuring that we don’t conflate their opinions with doctrine. Is it so hard to apologize? To not ignore the pain this caused? But until us and our leaders both start actively working to undo the racism inherent in the system, we’re not going to get anywhere.