Joseph Told the Truth.

Do you have 2 hours and 13 minutes to spare? Because if you do, Karen Hyatt made a documentary that skillfully goes wife-by-wife and dismantles our traditional narrative about Joseph Smith and polygamy.

I, for one, will never accept the testimony of traitors over that of Joseph, Emma, and Hyrum. All three of these founding members of Mormonism fought polygamy, and were either murdered or defamed by those who took the mainstream church west. 

As time and evidence move forward, it is becoming more clear just how strong, resilient, and trustworthy the Smiths were. They were good people who were betrayed by a cult who had essentially become Cochranites, and who therein laid hold upon the doctrines and tradition of Lamech. 

The Words of Christ Negate Section 132.

There are a lot of problems with Section 132. But not all of them have to do with its questionable provenance and unauthorized inclusion (by common consent) in LDS scripture.

On the theological level, the commandments of Jesus Christ (as contained in the scriptural canon) present a major problem for the logic and rationale of Section 132. This post will focus on verse 61 of that section.

To contextualize this verse, we must examine the commandment in place concerning adultery. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus updated the Mosaic law concerning the sin of adultery with a commandment that was far more holistic and complete on the matter of being chaste before God and having fidelity towards one's spouse. 

From Matthew 5:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This update expands upon the law to include lust for any woman. For a man who is married, this clearly means any woman other than his wife.

The old law (the seventh commandment of the Decalogue found in Exodus 20) made the act itself forbidden, but did not explicitly address the extramarital lust involved with such a sin. A man could conceivably harbor lust for women other than his wife for his entire married life and still technically be found in compliance with the old law so long as he never commits the sexual act with said women.

The updated commandment cuts to the heart of the matter in a way that accounts for a man's desires and the thoughts that he allows to occupy his mind. This expansion of the law to include one's thoughts mirrors the admonition by King Benjamin in Mosiah 4:

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

This type of holistic consideration of righteousness that is exercised internally as well as externally is a Hallmark of Jesus' teachings. Some examples:

Matthew 6:

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

And Matthew 23:

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

We can see from these teachings that Jesus was far more concerned with the internal righteousness of his followers than he was with technical obedience to his commandments. 

Just as resolutely as he cleared the money changers from the temple, his New Testament teachings appear to be cleaning house with regards to the personal darkness, extortions, and excesses that sew sin and iniquity in anyone claiming to be his. Thus, these teachings represent a higher law than what was found in the Mosaic law.

With regards to the teaching above about chastity, apparently the new law was important enough to be repeated once for the Nephites at Bountiful, and then repeated twice more in 1831 for the saints in Kirtland. Both iterations, in section 42 and 63, also expanded upon the new law with further clarifications.

From Section 42:

22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.

23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

From Section 63:

16 And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.

Both of these sections were presented to the church for a confirming vote of consent in the August General Conference of 1835. Then they were published, along with the lectures on faith, in that year's edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Taken together with all the other iterations, I'm not sure if there is a way for the Lord to convey this commandment that would make the higher law any more plain. 

For those who support the idea of polygamy as a Godly principle, the comparison is often made that the commandment given to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or the commandment given to Nephi to slay Laban, constitute exceptions to the commandment to not kill that were meant to test the obedience of these men. 

Thereby, it is reasoned, these instances lay the groundwork wherein we are supposed to understand when to make exceptions to the old law for the sake of obeying the Lord.

The difference here is that we are talking about an updated law that has already been enhanced and clarified four times since Christ's ministry. We are not talking about a law given to Moses.

In addition to this, Section 49 adds the following:

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. 

Why is this important? Because there appears to be no room in Christ's law for a man to desire additional women. It is monogamous marriage that creates a call and response equilibrium with the Earth that was designated before the Earth was made. 

For married men to attempt to circumvent the "none else" part of Section 42 is to violate Christ's commandment as clarified. Our violation of these clarifications potentially changes the earth's response to our presence here. This should enhance our understanding of scriptures like Section 123:7, where it indicates that "the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity."

So, when we look at Section 132, we must scrutinize this document from the foundation laid by the words of Christ that preceded it:

61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

I've emphasized three parts of this verse which violate Christ's law, wherein there is no allowance for desiring to espouse another. Hence, there is no such thing as either the Lord or the first wife giving consent for or justifying an additional wife, much less justifying the desiring/seeking of one.

This assumption in the verse that desire is the qualification that causes either the Lord or the first wife to give an additional wife to a man is also preposterous, because it indicates that it is acceptable for any of the parties in question to ignore the "none else" part of the already updated law. 

Such logic can only be deployed by what the scriptures identify as the "carnal mind". It doesn't matter if the section also discusses Eternal Marriage if the path to such blessings is created by allowing men to ignore the "none else" part of the law, and to desire additional women in violation of the prior commandment.

In addition to this, the wording of this verse infers that extramarital desire by men constitutes some kind of perverse revelation from the divine. Such rationale is also steeped in carnality, and the effect of such is to deprive the man in question of having the Spirit to be with him.

Long before the reiterations in Kirtland, the Lord delivered a similar sermon in 3 Nephi. Included with that delivery to the Nephites was an additional warning in chapter 12:

29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart;

30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.

The ways in which polygamy destroys women are well documented. But this part of 3 Nephi underscores the way that both the practice and the expectation of practicing polygamy destroys men, by the allowing of such desires to enter their hearts. 

Certainly a heart that is accustomed to accommodating lust-dressed-as-piety receives a god. But it is not the god of Section 42. 

While allowing extramarital desire to enter into your heart is forbidden by Jesus, it does in fact follow the logic of an ancient tradition of false doctrines presented in scripture. Examine these two verses from Alma 30:

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime. 

-

53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.

Because the logic of Section 132 accommodates the natural man, it ultimately denies the faith by bringing the section into harmony with the doctrines of Korihor. Anything that pleases the carnal mind results in a great curse being brought upon those who believe the evil thing to be true, or righteous.

This Anti-Christ not only preached the principle of "the management of the creature" (that was all about serving the natural man), but also admitted in writing (after he was struck dumb) that he taught these false doctrines "because they were pleasing to the carnal mind". 

Ultimately, the result these unrighteous desires yield is the curse described in the clarification added in Section 63, that these men shall deny the faith and shall fear.

The arm of flesh cannot protect us from the Judgment. Under the leadership and tradition of prominent polygamists like Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, it is still common for LDS men to fully expect authorized polygamy to be an integral part of the establishment of Zion, and of life in the Celestial Kingdom. 

Attendant with this set of expectations is some kind of imaginary circumvention of Section 42:22 that allows men in the interim to desire any woman (single or married) as a potential prospect for a supposed time when "authorized" polygamy is eventually restored. 

A desire to be exempt from that verse, however, cannot be understood as being within the context of righteousness. Any subversion of His words can only serve the enemy of God identified in Mosiah 3:19, and pleases the carnal mind idealized by Korihor. 

The spiritual purity and authenticity of Section 132 is therefore negated by the words of Christ. 

Some point to Jacob 2:30 as if it constitutes a loophole for authorized polygamy, but Steve Reed has done a robust, logical study on that verse that indicates that this is not the case. 

In the meantime, this off-and-on openness to entertaining extramarital desire can undermine a man's relationships with God, with his wife, and with his children in all the ways described in Jacob 2:

35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

Harboring such desires can yield decades of of a man being kept at bay by the Spirit of God while he remains ensnared in a false tradition that was taught to him by churchmen, not by God. This awful state is brought about by trusting in the arm of flesh. Examine 2 Nephi 4:

34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

This is the acknowledgement of a prophet (Nephi) who is described as having had a long, proven revelatory relationship with the Lord. The poison being discussed here resides deep in the hearts of many men who view Section 132 as authentic scripture without having the type of relationship with God that Nephi had. This creates an awful crucible for men who have lived and died with these desires in their hearts, and are thus ensconced in this tradition. 

Verse 30 of 3 Nephi 12 (quoted above) underscores the gravity of the updated law, and has the potential to blindside entire generations of LDS men with destruction. 

One doesn't need to look very hard to find dead hearts, pierced with deep wounds in either 19th century polygamous Utah, or in modern polygamy. It is a practice that harms all involved.

For those of us that are now living, we have a limited probationary period to eliminate this tradition of subtle lechery from our hearts. We must take this fleeting opportunity to put off the natural man, to repent, and to follow the commandment to cleave unto our wives in monogamy and full fidelity so that we can be redeemed by the Atonement.

There is no way around Jesus' words. We cannot justify unrighteousness by pointing to an inauthentic document that Joseph Smith never canonized, that was never put up to be ratified by common consent, and that ultimately does not pass the basic litmus of Christ's law of chastity.

Surfing with Joseph Smith

Matt Lohmeier give a talk in June at a conference up in Stanley, Idaho for the group associated with Denver Snuffer. His talk can be found at the Restoration Archives website. It's a talk that concerns the historical context of the new Temple that they plan to build.

I'm not closely associated with that group, but that's true for my engagement with just about everyone since I had my records removed from the LDS Church. I have a very small social circle of people who have varied relationships with different iterations of Mormonism.

Nevertheless, I think their movement is the closest thing there is to what the original aim was for the Restoration initiated by Joseph Smith. They have sought out a Covenant from the Lord, and they claim to have received one. 

They have also endeavored to restore the scriptures as they were originally intended by publishing the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible without footnotes or appendices, and have just recently released a modern English version of the Book of Mormon. They have additional scriptures pertaining to their covenant and open canon, received by Denver Snuffer.

I have deep respect for what they are trying to do. I pay attention to what they are up to online, and I listen to their recorded talks when I can. 

Mr. Lohrimer's two-part talk caught my attention, as he shared journal entries from Wilford Woodruff's archives.

One of those journal entries concerned a dream Joseph Smith had, recorded by Woodruff on Feb 3, 1844:

-

I was standing on a peninsula in the midst of a vast body of water whare their appears to be a large harbor or a peer built out for boats to Come into. I was surrounded by my friends & while looking at this harbor I saw a Steem boat approaching the harbour. Their was bridges on the peer for persons to cross & there came up a wind & drove the steem boat under one of the bridges & upset it. I run up to the boat expecting the persons would all drowne. And wishing to do sumthing to assist them I put my hand against the side of the boat & with one surge I shoved it under the bridge & righted it up & then [I] told them to take care of themselves. But it was not long before I saw them starting out into the channel or main body of the water again. The storms were raging & the waters rough. I said to my friends that if they did not understand the signs of the times & the spirit of Prophecy they would be apted to be lost. It was but a few moments after when we saw the waves break over the boat & she soon founderd & went down with all on board & perished.

The storm & waters were still vary rough. Yet I told my friends around me that I believed I could stem those waves & storm & swim in the waters better than the steem boat did & at any rate I was determined to try it. But my friends laughed at me & told me I Could not stand the storm at all but should be drouned. The waters looked Clear & beautiful though exeeding rough, & I said I believed I could swim & I would try it anyhow. They said I would drown. I said I would have a frolic in the water first if I did & I dove of into the raging waves.

I had swum but a short distance when a towering wave overwhelmed me for a time but I soon found myself on the top of it & soon I met the second wave in the same way & for awhile I struggled hard to live in the midst of the storm & waves. But I soon found I gained upon evry wave & stemmed the torrent better & better & I soon had power to swim with my head out of water so the waves did not break over me at all & I found I had swam a great distance & in looking about me I saw Br Samuel by my side. I asked him how he liked it. He said first rate & I thought so to. I was soon enabled to swim with my head & Sholdiers out of water & I Could swim as fast as any steem Boat, & in a little time it becaim calm & I Could rush through the water & ownly go in to my loins & so[n?] I ownly went in to my knees & finally could tread on the top of the water & went almost with the speed of an arrow & I said to Samuel see how swift I can go & I thought it was great sport & pleasure to travel with such speed & I awoke.

What the interpetation of the foregoing dream was the spirit of God or time must determin.

-

I do not speak by the spirit of God. But it was immediately obvious to me that this dream was a reference to Asherah, the goddess known to Mormons as Heavenly Mother.

Asherah was known to ancient Israel as "the goddess who walked the sea". Just like Joseph, she was given a bad rap sheet by the churchmen and political leaders of the time. 

If you look up biblical scholar Margaret Barker and start reading her work, you will discover that El's wife in King Solomon's Temple was singular (not plural), was regularly worshiped as a female deity (which included ritual bread baking), was associated with weaving textiles, and  (until 623 BC) had her own set of sacred implements in the Holy of Holies. 

Barker's research provides crucial context to the miracle that Jesus performed on the Sea of Galilee. 

Demonstrating the power of faith to Peter and the other apostles on the boat is a worthy subplot. But if you zoom out to view Christ's miracles in the context of Israel's history leading up to his ministry, it becomes clear on a symbolic level that this miracle was likely also about legitimizing Her.

This symbolism is inextricably tied to the power of creation because of water's role from the very beginning in the creation of the earth, the creation of children, and the way it bookends the ministry and life of Jesus Christ. 

Everything he did (from his baptism, the miracle at the marriage at Cana, the bread he feeds the masses with, and his final wound on the cross) is wrapped up in associations with Asherah. The Atonement itself is an homage in toto to her delegation of creative power to both God the Father and to her daughters. 

The original temple was all about creation, and that Jesus would identify people as temples simply underscores a fact of Heaven that is inescapable when pondering temple theology: 

Without Her, no one else wields that power. So it follows that without Her, there is no temple to speak of.

The relationship that exists between this dream of Joseph Smith's and a new, authentic temple has the potential to legitimize the Restoration in a way that that goes all the way back to temple worship as practiced in the First Temple. 

Mr. Lohmeier may not have mentioned Asherah by name in his presentation. But he most certainly referenced her reputation indirectly with the remitting of this dream. 

Anyone who commonly equates this group of people with the Brighamite tradition is not paying adequate attention.

Phoebe Woodruff on the DL

From the 132 Problems podcast:

In 1878 George Q Cannon organized a women's meeting to answer challenges from the Anti-Polygamy Society, a group of non Mormon Utah women who actively fought against the  practice of polygamy after the beginning of John Taylor's presidency. This society had just held an anti-polygamy rally in the city.

Phebe Woodruff (Wilford's first wife) gave a talk in favor of the practice. (12:40 to 17:05 in the above video).

A few days later a friend asked why she had done a complete reversal on her well known views of polygamy. This was her reported response: (18:15)

"I have not changed. I loathe the unclean thing with all the strength of my nature, but sister I have suffered all that a woman can endure. I am old and helpless and I would rather stand up anywhere and say anything commanded of me than be turned out of my home in my old age, which I should most assuredly be if I refused to obey counsel."

So my questions begin with this: Why would a prominent LDS woman insist that she would "assuredly" be kicked out of her own house if she refused to obey? With "obey(ing) counsel" in this case meaning that she preach contrary to her true feelings on polygamy, she follows that public testimonial with a private description of polygamy as an "unclean thing" that she "loathes".

This comment says a lot about what Salt Lake City was when Mrs. Woodruff was alive. This was not a free city, typical of the United States at the time. It was not necessarily a place where women could run to local authorities should they experience domestic violence, or even a place where they could find shelter if they were turned out of their homes. SLC, in 1878, was something closer to what Hilldale was under Warren Jeffs in 2002. 

Underscoring the seriousness of this comment was the fact that Brigham Young had died the year before. So even with Brigham out of the picture, the fact of these circumstances for women in the church remained just as harsh should they do something as disobedient as refusing to lie publicly to sustain the status quo.

Next question: If the clear threat was that even a woman in old age would assuredly be turned out of her home, then what does that say about the autonomy of LDS women when testifying on behalf of the hierarchy in support of polygamy? If Phoebe wasn't free in 1878, then who was free to speak the truth when Section 132 was canonized in the Doctrine & Covenants two years earlier in 1876? Or even later on during the Temple Lot case from 1891-1896? 

It should be remembered that all of the women who testified about Joseph and Hyrum at the Temple Lot case were similarly up in age, by that time 47+ years removed from Nauvoo. Mrs. Woodruff's comment should be part of the context from which we read and understand those testimonies.

Close to the Vest

 

Before we get all caught up in the discovery of the photograph of Joseph Smith, let's consider the rationale of the person who didn't let on to the LDS historians who questioned her that it even existed: Joseph's wife, Emma.

It tracks well that she would not have handed this picture over to those who followed Brigham Young to the Uintah Basin. Young defamed and condemned her from the pulpit in General Conference because she always refuted the LDS claim that Joseph practiced polygamy, and because she refused to hand over Joseph's manuscript of the JST Bible, and also because she refused to come to Utah in support of the Brighamite sect.

Being a source of deep embarrassment to Young, Emma's disapproval of his successful bid to take leadership of the larger portion of the LDS movement bugged him for the duration of his presidency. His response to this refutation and disapproval was to nurture a very bitter grudge.

So of course Emma kept it hidden. She likely also instructed its inheritors to keep it thus. Why allow an authentic image of Joseph to be cross-branded ad nauseum with all of the lies foisted upon his reputation? Why trust any sect after a schism with anything that is real?

For anyone who finds that they are still in agreement with Young on the matter of Joseph beginning the practice of polygamy (and that Emma, therefore, should be considered a liar), Denver Snuffer skillfully dissected volume 9 of the Joseph Smith Papers in September of 2020 for you as if it were a damned frog: 

http://denversnufferpodcast.com/transcripts/124_The-Foolish-and-the-Wise_Transcript.pdf

For myself, I do not consider Emma a liar (or a capitulator, or a poisoner) at all. I think anyone who insists as much should read Snuffer's examination of the Institution's own presentation of the "Nancy Rigdon letter" in their continued miscarriage of their own history. 

The Church botching the record of events has become almost ritualistic at this point, which makes perfect sense when you remember that Jesus insisted that we "cannot serve two masters". In choosing to honor Brigham Young and their post-Joseph hierarchy, the institution indeed has thrown Joseph, Emma, Hyrum, and the entire Smith family under the bus.

It is no surprise that Emma would not follow them, serve them, or share with them. Our admiration of her should only increase if the daguerreotype is deemed to be real.

She Who Walks on the Sea

Encyclopedia Brittanica’s opening paragraph for the goddess Asherah reads:

“Asherah, ancient West Semitic goddess, consort of the supreme god. Her principal epithet was probably “She Who Walks on the Sea.” She was occasionally called Elath (Elat), “the Goddess,” and may have also been called Qudshu, “Holiness.” According to texts from Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria), Asherah’s consort was El, and by him she was the mother of 70 gods. As mother goddess she was widely worshiped throughout Syria and Palestine, although she was frequently paired with Baal, who often took the place of El; as Baal’s consort, Asherah was usually given the name Baalat. Inscriptions from two locations in southern Palestine seem to indicate that she was also worshiped as the consort of Yahweh.“

The second sentence strikes me as significantly profound. The Semitic people of Jesus’ time were familiar with Asherah, even though she had been evicted from temple worship and expunged from their scriptures 640 years before Jesus lived by King Josiah and the Deuteronomist priests.

The history of the worship of this goddess, and her rejection by those in authority, can be read about in the book The Mother of the Lord by Margaret Barker. Barker lays out how plain it is that Enoch's insistence that the Deuteronomists rejection of Asherah (abandoning Wisdom) was the likely reason why the Book of Enoch was not canonized, and why the Deuteronomists did everything in their power to erase both that book's existence.

This attempted erasure of The Lady (and of Enoch) has been largely successful. Christians largely ignore her. And Mormons, who supposedly embrace the idea of “Heavenly Mother”, for the most part follow suit. 

There are certainly some small pockets of LDS and post-LDS people (mostly women) who will speak/write of her openly, but the original effort to blot her out of our minds and our discussions is pretty much still respected and upheld by those who profess to desire the Kingdom of God on the earth.

But imagine trying to understand the meaning of Jesus walking on water without considering Heavenly Mother’s reputation as “she who walks on the sea”. It won't be difficult to imagine at all, because almost no one associates that miracle with her.

We have misunderstood Jesus for so many years. He wasn’t merely performing a miracle for the sake of his disciples. He was paying homage to her in a way that his disciples would have understood as a serious rebuke of those who had removed her from the Holy of Holies. 

She used to be prominent there. Not only was she worshipped in peoples homes, but the most sacred part of the temple contained implements that represented her.

King Josiah took them from the temple and burned them. If you ever get perplexed at the idea of Nephi associating Mary and the baby Jesus with the Tree of Life, consider the fact (pointed out by Barker) that there was a living tree representing Asherah in the Holy of Holies in the first temple, and that Josiah removed it and had it burned.

The scribes and Pharisees that Jesus reasoned to silence were enthusiastic descendants of those authorized editors to this rejection of Wisdom from Israel.

By walking on water, Jesus sent this message of her legitimacy as a Goddess into those who could see... like a wordless lightning bolt straight from Heaven. 

So now, two millennia later, what is it exactly that we want from Her if we don’t even apprehend Jesus’ basic messages concerning her? 

Perhaps Mormons of every stripe are a little too comfortable in what Carol Lynn Pearson once called “the motherless house”.