An Open Debate concerning the Spiritual Wife Doctrine

Debate between Art Bulla and OneWhoIsWatching on the subject of the Spiritual Wife doctrine

Over a year ago an LDS fundamentalist by the name of Art Bulla agreed to debate me on the subject of the Spiritual Wife Doctrine. (actually, the original agreement may have had to do with debating whether or not Art is the “one mighty and strong” as mentioned in section 85 and Isaiah 28, however the debate has morphed into the spiritual wife doctrine since the falseness of that doctrine automatically proves that he would not be the one mighty and strong if that doctrine that he preaches if false)

He assured me that he had never lost a debate on this topic before and I felt that posting both of our arguments and challenges on my blog would be a good exercise in helping those interested in the topic to see two opposing sides of this historical and doctrinal issue.

Before we could begin the debate I got distracted while writing some posts and doing some searching into parts of LDS history that I was not as familiar with as I wanted to be. Those historical searches led me to the series I wrote regarding the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood at the special conference at the Morley Farm held in June of 1831.

I became obsessed with the doctrine and history relating to that study as it filled in the holes and provided further clarification pertaining to much of the doctrinal and historical study I had previously done.

I began to focus on the events of LDS church history relating to the 3 ½ year period beginning with the special conference held in June of 1831 and also became somewhat obsessed with writing a series of article pertaining thereto.

Sometime during or after that series, I found myself in an informal debate with another blogger who in my opinion, made an outstanding attempt to justify section 132 and the spiritual wife doctrine that surfaced during the Nauvoo period of LDS Church history.

Given the fact that he was not very knowledgeable about church history or the general topic to begin with and was simply attempting to defend his faith as a member of the LDS church, I felt he did a well as could be expected. Nevertheless, I personally felt that his arguments were inadequate in defending section 132 and the spiritual wife doctrine as credible doctrines consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

During this period of time I believe the above mentioned blogger attempted to invite someone else, who was more of an expert on the topic (and was probably a practicing fundamentalist) to debate me but for some reason that person apparently declined.

It has since occurred to me that I never gave Art Bulla the opportunity to defend the other side of the argument.

Since Art is a practicing polygamist who claims to receive direct revelation from God and he claims to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, and since he has been involved in LDS fundamentalist apologetics for many, many years, I feel that it is only fair to allow someone of his credentials to have the opportunity to defend section 132 and the spiritual wife doctrine.

I want to apologize to Art for leaving him in the lurch for so long, ironically, I feel the research I have done and the series I wrote pertaining to the Morley Farm has better prepared me to be more specific and precise in explaining and documenting why I must reject section 132 as a false revelation and the spiritual wife doctrine as a false doctrine and heresy that originated in Nauvoo, after the full-blown apostasy of the restored church.

Any and all other LDS fundamentalists are also invited to weigh in on this debate… the more the merrier.

This is the brief which lays out my contention that section 132 and the Spiritual Wife Doctrine that originated among the latter day saints in Nauvoo are false doctrines that contradict the fulness of the gospel that is taught in the scriptures.

I will post Arts preliminary response to my opening arguments and all other dialogue that the two of us have on this topic as well as any other intelligence and respectful comments anyone else wants to make.

Below you will find-

  1. a six point summary which clarifies and identifies critical historical events and doctrine that pertain to this argument.
  2. a brief explanation of why section 132 and the practice of the spiritual wife doctrine are false and out of harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the scriptures.
  3. lastly, please find links to articles I have previously written which document the six point summation.

Six Point Summary

1…THERE WERE THREE PRIESTHOODS RESTORED TO THE EARTH, NOT JUST TWO: During the 15 year ministry of Joseph Smith three divisions or levels of priesthood were restored to the earth. (Most Latter-day Saints erroneously believe and teach that there are only two priesthoods, the Aaronic and Melchizedek. Some LDS fundamentalists acknowledge three priesthoods but erroneously believe that the patriarchal (evangelical) priesthood is higher than the Melchizedek priesthood.)

John the Baptist restored the lesser priesthood which is sometimes referred to as the priesthood of Aaron. It holds the key of the ministering of angels and the right to administer the preparatory gospel and the law of carnal commandments.

Peter James and John restored the higher priesthood which is sometimes referred to as the priesthood of Abraham or patriarchal priesthood. It is also sometimes referred to as the “evangelical priesthood“.  That priesthood holds the keys to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel or in other words it holds the keys to administer the ordinances that contain the fulness of the Gospel. Since the patriarchal priesthood administers the saving ordinances of the gospel including baptism and confirmation, it therefore holds the “keys to the kingdom” because it is through the baptism of water, fire and the Holy Ghost that one enters into the kingdom and receives the fulness of the Melchizedek priesthood. It contains the power to seal on heaven and on earth. Righteous holders of the patriarchal priesthood may see the face of Christ.

The first two priesthoods were restored to the earth by angels and can be conferred from one mortal to another. They were both restored to the earth in 1829. Because of this, modern revelation informs us that the fulness of the gospel and the keys of the kingdom had been restored to the earth by the time the church was legally restored in 1830.

The highest priesthood which governs the first two priesthoods and all other powers beneath the celestial kingdom is sometimes called the priesthood of Melchizedek or the priesthood of Enoch.

The Mechizedek Priesthood was restored to the earth in June of 1831 at the special conference held at the Morley Farm. 23 people were CALLED to this priesthood by the voice of God out of heaven on that occasion.

According to the scriptures, people must be called to this highest priesthood according to the voice of God himself, not by mortals or angels. It is sometimes received by the righteous who are both CALLED and CHOSEN by God as a person is born again spiritually after the water baptism, (however, we are informed in scripture that the Lord sometimes CALLS those who are not CHOSEN to allow them to condemn themselves) This spiritual rebirth wherein the New and Everlasting Covenant is made between God and man is referred to as the baptism of the fire and the Holy Ghost.

Upon being called by the voice of God out of heaven, the candidate is ordained to the OFFICE of a high priest within the Melchizedek priesthood by Gods anointed servant(s). Those holding this priesthood that are worthy may have the heavens opened and see the father and the son or hear the voice of God bearing witness of his Son.

Those that hold the fullness of this highest priesthood can command the elements and have power over unclean spirits as Melchizedek and Enoch did as well as having the power and authority to establish ZION. (Those who seriously want to understand this priesthood and the fruits thereof would do well to read about the life and ministry of Enoch in the Pearl of Great Price and the life and  ministry of Melchizedek as contained in the inspired version of the Bible.)

The fact that the spiritual wife doctrine and the practice of polygamy were introduced AFTER the fulness of the gospel and the highest priesthood were rejected and the church was condemned, provides strong evidence that the spiritual wife doctrine is false and the practice of biblical polygamy was not required for the highest salvation and is at best a carnal commandment and a lesser law.

2… SHORTLY AFTER THE RESTORATION OF THE FIRST TWO PRIESTHOODS AND THE LEGAL ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH, THE SAINTS WERE COMMANDED TO GATHER TO OHIO TO RECEIVE THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL: the law of the gospel that they received in section 42 contained the law of consecration and the law of monogamy. The LAW of the GOSEPEL as given in section 43 was not a temporary law, it was to be lived until the Savior returns according to section 43.

The LAW of the GOSPEL in section 42 also required the translation and publishing of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible so that the content thereof could be part of the LAW by which Zion would be established. The Saints were commanded to obey these commandments… not only to say, but to do. This law of the gospel is also referred to as celestial law and the LAW OF ZION. It is the highest law of the gospel. Any other law that contradicts it, such as biblical polygamy or the spiritual wife doctrine would be a false law or a lesser law.

3… DURING A 3 ½ YEAR PERIOD THE SAINTS COLLECTIVELY REJECTED THE FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL AS PROPHECIED IN THE BOOK OF MORMON: Beginning at the special conference at the Morley Farm in June of 1831 and ending approximately 3 ½ years later in 1834, the Saints had the opportunity to comprehend and embrace the greater light of the fulness of the gospel and the New and Everlasting Covenant. During this highly revelatory time 90% of the revelations were received including the vision of the father and the Son contained in section 76, as well as sections 84, 88, etc. (the testimony given in section 76 is the LAST testimony of all of the great prophets and is the same testimony that is given in the 3rd watch (dispensation of the fulness of times). It appears to be the same testimony spoken of in Rev 11:7)

Unfortunately several of the original 23 high priests fell away during the 3 ½ year period of time while others began denying that the Melchizedek priesthood had been restored… others maintained that it was only the “office” of “High Priest” within the “higher” patriarchal (evangelical) priesthood restored by peter James and John that had been restored at the Morley Farm.

During this 3 1/2 year period of time many of the newly ordained high priests became discouraged, disenchanted and jealous of others when they failed to see the Face of God as is promised to high priests that are worthy.

During this three and half year period the Lord warned the Saints that if they did not consecrate, redeem Zion and live the higher law which mandates monogamy they were not his. By the end of the 3 ½ year period the saints had fled Jackson County, failed to live consecration in Kirtland and had been warned by the lord that they were under condemnation for taking the things they had been given lightly.

At the end of the 3 ½ year period the Lord gave an unpublished revelation telling the leaders and members of the church that they were condemned and that a repentance and reformation in all things would be required at some point in time.

Verily condemnation resteth upon you, who are appointed to lead my Church, and to be saviors of men; and also upon the church; And there must needs be a repentance and a reformation among you, in all things…” (December 5th 1834 Page 73 Unpublished Revelations)

That unpublished revelation is consistent with the Book of Mormon prophesy that the additional ancient records will not go forth in the third watch until after the gentiles repent: “For the Lord said unto me: They shall not go forth unto the Gentiles until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord.” Ether 4: 6

The fact that the saints were in a state of apostasy in 1834 and that modern revelation and the Book of Mormon testify that the gentiles will not repent until the additional records come forth in the 3rd watch, testifies against the practice of polygamy and the spiritual wife doctrine that began during the Nauvoo period, during a period of apostasy.

4…BY JULY OF 1837 ALL FLESH UPON THE EARTH HAD BECOME CORRUPT. In Sept of 1831 the Lord informed the Saints that Kirtland would only be a stronghold for five more years however the apostasy that followed the rejection of the fulness of the gospel continued to get worse. Shortly after that, the Lord revealed that SOMETHING NEW MUST BE DONE FOR THE SALVATION OF THE CHURCH which resulted in the restoration of the gospel of Abraham in 1836, just prior to the completion of the five year stronghold in Kirtland.

Shortly thereafter, in July of 1837, the Lord announced that “GROSS DARKNESS” covered the minds of “ALL PEOPLE” and that ‘ALL FLESH HAS BECOME CORRUPT” . Soon after that, the Saints fled Kirtland, then fled Far West and eventually established Nauvoo as the cornerstone of Zion where the Lord made the ominous announcement that the “fullness of the Priesthood” had been “LOST” and would need to be “RESTORED AGAIN“.

The Lord then warned the Saints that if the Nauvoo Temple and Nauvoo House were not built by the appointed time, the Saints would be rejected as a church with their dead. Neither the temple or the Nauvoo House were ever finished.

Sections 110, 112 and 124 testify that the Saints were in apostasy at the time that the spiritual wife doctrine was being introduced. The quorum of the 12 inparticular were under condemnation. In an unpublished revelation in Nov 1835 the Lord declared that the 12 were all under condemnation. (see unpublished rev page 79) It appears that they remained under condemnation until section 112 was given in July of `1837 and remained under this condemnation during their missionary assignments and right up until the martyrdom.

5…THE TERM NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT EXCLUSIVELY HAS TO DO WITH THE FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL WHICH RESULTS IN THE SPIRITUAL REBIRTH: the scriptures make it very clear that the terms “New and Everlasting Covenant” and “Fulness of the Gospel” are synonymous and that both had been restored to the earth by the time that the LAW OF ZION (which requires monogamy) was given in 1831. Hence, polygamy and the spiritual wife doctrine that were introduced secretly TEN YEARS LATER and publicly several years later in Utah under the direction of Brigham Young, were clearly not part of the LAW of Zion nor is it accurate to refer to polygamy or the spiritual wife doctrine as the new and everlasting covenant.

This provides additional evidence that the spiritual wife doctrine constitutes a false or lesser gospel.

6… SECTION 132 IS A FALSE REVELATION THAT IS NOT CONGRUENT WITH THE RELATED DOCTRINES TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE, BOOK OF MORMON OR THE REMAINING VERIFIABLE, UNALTERED REVELATIONS IN THE D&C. (see my article on that topic as referenced below)

Summary:

The restored church of Christ had rejected the fulness of the gospel by the end of 1834 just as the Book of Mormon foretold. Additionally, the new and everlasting covenant had been entered into and broken by the end of 1834 as prophesied by Isaiah.

The saints had fallen under condemnation instead of collectively receiving the greater light as documented in section 84.

As a result, they failed to redeem Zion on or before the appointed time of September 11 1836 which brought about a literal fulfillment of the bridegroom deciding to tarry as contained in the parable of the ten virgins.

The entire church and the whole world were in gross darkness and had become corrupt again by 1837. From that point on, the restored church was unable to endure sound doctrine

In 1841 The Lord announced that the fulness of the priesthood (which is sometimes named after Melchizedek) had been lost from the earth.

Section 113 clarifies the words of Isaiah to informs us that in the end times latter day Israel would again “put on the priesthood, which, she, Zion has a right to by lineage and to return to that power which she had lost“. That is clearly a future event and it further clarifies that the church is in a state of darkness and apostasy at the present time.

From the evidence contained above and the related documentation provided below, it is clearly demonstrated that section 132 is a false revelation with false doctrines in it.

Furthermore, the teaching and practicing of the spiritual wife doctrine entered into the church long after it had lost the fulness of the priesthood. It was introduced at a time when the church could no longer endure sound doctrine.

Documentation for the above thesis is contained in the articles provided below.

The Spirit of Whoredoms hath caused them to err

The Spiritual Wife Doctrine

Analysis of Section 132

The Spirit of Whoredoms

And Abraham Hearkened to the Voice of Sarai

Searching for the Holy Order Part 1

Searching for the Holy Order Part 2

Searching for the Holy Order Part 3

Searching for the Holy Order Part 4

Searching for the Holy Order Part 5

Searching for the Holy Order Part 6

Searching for the Holy Order Part 7

Searching for the Holy Order Part 8

Searching for the Holy Order Part 9

Searching for the Holy Order Part 10

Four Steps in Losing Your Innocence Part Six

The following graphic provides a prophetic time line illustrating how the restored church was legally organized in 1830, then had the light of the fulness of the gospel and the everlasting covenant begin to shine forth in June of 1831.

This greater light attempted to shine forth as the Saints attempted to establish Zion and live consecration for a period of 3 ½ years at which time the greater light went out as the fullness of the gospel and the law of consecration had been cumulatively rejected by the church.

God continued to labor with the church and gave them the opportunity to redeem themselves, complete the building of the Nauvoo Temple, restore the fullness of the priesthood and usher in the dispensation of the fullness of times during the Nauvoo period.

After failing to build the temple and usher in the fullness of times, the following generation began when Brigham Young was sustained as the President of the church in Dec 1947 and again in April of 1848. Exactly four generations (160 years) after the sustaining of Brigham Young brings us to the end of the 400 year prophesy contained in Genesis 15. (1607 -2007)

The 3 ½ year period inside the red circle identifies the time we are currently living in which is witnessing the collapse of the financial system and the going forth of the curse that Isaiah, Malachi and Moses prophesied of.

Prior to that, a 3 1/2 year period marked in red shows the period of time from June 1831 to the end of 1834 when the fulness of the gospel was being rejected by the gentiles.

The timeline graphic below testifies against the spiritual wife doctrine because the fulness of the gospel began to shine forth in June of 1831 and had been rejected by the gentile church nearly 10 years before the spiritual wife doctrine was revealed and practiced in Nauvoo. The latter day saints had cumulatively rejected the fulness of the gospel and broken the everlasting covenant by the end of 1834, long before the Spiritual Wife heresy surfaced in Nauvoo .

Lastly, here is a link to an article showing how the introduction of the spiritual wife wife doctrine in the last days was prophesied by ancient prophets and also explains why and how Joseph Smith got involved in it as an intercessor for an apostate people.

https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/four-steps-in-losing-your-innocence-part-6-3/

Advertisements

16 Responses to An Open Debate concerning the Spiritual Wife Doctrine

  1. Art, my friend, are you still preparing your response or have you lost interest in discussing this topic?

    Watcher

  2. Brand Nu says:

    May I give you a few things to think about? Davids great sin was not so much that he had to have one more wife as it was the total neglect of the other 300 or so. A absurd number for sure, never the less they were sealed to him and as such they were bound. As women are saved through child bearing they were in a tough situation not to mention the denial of a loveing husband, so what happened? This is were the whoredoms comes in, they tried to find fulfillment any way they could but if they were found to be with child they were in even a worse situation. So what should David had done? he should have sealed them to other men answerable to him and if they failed those women and their children would return to David. David had the keys and duty to perform this in righteousness. God only wants what is best for every one and that is the function of the priesthood. The priesthood counterpart to women is childbirth, I know you know this, many men will never magnify their priesthood while there is no such thing for a women to be partially withchild, either they are or are not. In the eternal worlds there will be an infinite number of relationships, all of which will be educational,these will be totally spirtual in nature, genitals will be worthless appendages. It is much more difficult to bind hearts together than it is to have sexual relations however it should be the beginning of the process. If Plural marriage if done corrcetly aspireing to only the highest ideals it is the gateway to binding hearts and gaining these keys. First and foremost is the responsiblity to raise up a righteous seed to the Lord if this is not done all bets are off, if a mans only desire is to acquire more sexuall partners all bets are off. It is emperative that men become spiritual giants to secure these blessings to themselves. Any how this is the gist of the whole thing I’m sure I left some things out please forgive. Remember out of the “BOOKS” we will be judged and plural marriage is in those books no one can deny that. I have already lived the principle in past lifetimes if you can receive it. Any how very soon seven women will hang on to a mans coat tail and ask for his new name, I have seen it in vision and every one is just fine with it especially the women, they have a completely diff. attitde, they are completely secre within themslves. Just don’t condemn it in your heart at this time.

  3. Brand-

    The kindest thing I can think of to say about your remarks is that they appear to have come from an uninformed and darkened mind.

    you apparently failed to read this particular blog before commenting.

    I am sorry to be so harsh, but you have simply rejected the overwhelming amount of evidence that I have provided on this topic. I find your comments utterly absurd. You are in total denial.

    You said-

    “Davids great sin was not so much that he had to have one more wife as it was the total neglect of the other 300 or so.”

    What an asinine statement Brand, how in the #%@! could anyone avoid neglecting 300+ wives? do you really think someone more attentive than David could have avoided neglecting that many wives?

    If he were to give each one an equal share of his time and still have a little personal time for his own sanity, each wife could spend one night per year with him.

    Sections 42 and 49 reveal to us that regardless of what David’s motives might have been, he definitely was not living celestial law. Celestial law requires monogamy.

    Brand, you said-

    “… never the less they were sealed to him and as such they were bound”

    No Brand, they were not sealed to him. In an attempt to limit the amount of false doctrine that people teach on this blog I ask you to please provide scriptural documentation for such statements. You did not provide scriptural documentation to prove that David’s 300+ wives were sealed because there is no such documentation. The Old Testament and the New Testament never state that David’s wives were sealed to him.

    Joseph Smith taught that true revelations NEVER contradict doctrine from previous true revelations. I have shown that section 132 clearly contradicts the New Testament and also section 42, 49 and the revelation on marriage by Cowdery. Additionally, there is not one shred of evidence in the remainder of the four standard works that supports the spiritual wife doctrine in section 132. Much of the content in section 132, including the spiritual wife doctrine is false doctrine because it contradicts that other scriptures.

    Section 124 informs us that only those priesthood holders who believed in the Book of Mormon AND the revelations that had been published and publicly taught up to January of 1841 were considered worthy to be stock holders in the Nauvoo House. It further warns that anything more or less that what had been revealed in the book of Mormon and the revelations up to that point in time “cometh of evil” and would be “attended with cursings and not blessings”!

    “And again, verily I say unto you, let no man pay stock to the quorum of the Nauvoo House unless he shall be a believer in the Book of Mormon, and the revelations I have given unto you, saith the Lord your God; For that which is more or less than this cometh of evil, and shall be attended with cursings and not blessings, saith the Lord your God. Even so. Amen.” (124:119-120)

    As you surely must know, the revelation currently known as 132 had not been publicly revealed when the above passages were given by the Lord and in fact it probably didn’t even exist until sometime AFTER the above warning was given by the Lord.

    Therefore, those living in Nauvoo at the time section 124 was given, as well as all of the rest of us born since that time, are bound by the doctrine of marriage taught in the Book of Mormon and the published revelations received by Joseph Smith up to that time.

    The two foundational revelations that the first laborers of the last kingdom copied by hand and took with them on their missionary journeys, were sections 20 and 42.

    Brand, what part of “Thou shalt love thy wife with ALL THY HEART, and shalt cleave to NONE ELSE” (42:22) don’t you understand?

    Section 124:119-120 was telling the saints that anyone who taught more or less than the celestial doctrine of monogamy would bring cursings upon themselves.

    It was telling the saints that those who rejected the law of monogamy as given in sections 42 and 49 by embracing the spiritual wife doctrine and polygamy, were rejecting the fulness of the gospel that had previously been restored in 1831.. according to the holy and infallible word of God, they are placing cursings rather blessings upon themselves.

    You simply cannot accept section 132 without rejecting the CELESTIAL LAW of the GOSPEL in sections 42, as well as section 49 and the Article on Marriage. All three of those revelations had been sustained as true revelations by common consent for over a decade before section 132 began to secretly be introduced among the apostate church in Nauvoo.. a church that had been previously condemned.

    Regardless of whether section 132 came through Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, or the Devil himself, it clearly contradicts and blasphemes against the true doctrine of marriage contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

    You cannot have it both ways.

    Do you accept gospel law?

    Do you accept section 42 which was given as the LAW shortly after the FULNESS of the PRIESTHOOD was given at the Morley FARM?

    Do you accept the holy and infallible word of God.

    Brand-

    Please do not make any other remarks about section 132, polygamy or the spiritual wife doctrine anywhere on this blog until you have responded to all six points that I have made in this particular blog post.

    I am embarrassed for you that you would make the above comments without even responding to the six items I have addressed. It is sad enough that not one fundamentalist has had the intestinal fortitude to accept my invitation to debate this topic without you making your highly speculative pontifications without even addressing the points I have made

    (my rant is now over… I am going to take my tranquilizers and go to bed)

  4. CS says:

    Watcher,
    Thank you for writing this summary. I have been copy & pasting, and writing notes until my hands hurt! This post is great to go through each scripture with. I have been reading everything on your blog for the last two weeks. WOW!

    I have spent the last 20 years(since I was a teenager) struggling with polygamy. I finally just decided to go with Jacob in the Book of Mormon, because that represented the God I worshiped, Sec 132 did not. Now you are showing me(through the scriptures, which is important) that I was right to go with what Jacob was teaching–Not B.Y!

    While I hope desperately that what you are showing is true, I am still a little hesitant. I have reached the point in my life that I just want the truth, even if I don’t like it. The thought that monogomy is the celestial law, would be one of my deepest hopes. But I am not foolish enough to believe it on that alone. Thank you for all of the research you have done on this. I am pondering and praying about all that you have written. This information about the real situation that we as the LDS church find ourselves in answers so many questions, and fills in so many holes. Thank you again fo all of your efforts to put this info together.

    CS

  5. CS says:

    Watcher,
    I forgot to ask you above, how do you see the prophesy in Isaiah, about 7 women and one lucky 🙂 man, coming about? Will it simply be a result of need after much destruction?
    CS

  6. “how do you see the prophesy in Isaiah, about 7 women and one lucky man, coming about? Will it simply be a result of need after much destruction?”

    That is a great question.

    Regarding the prophecy about seven women taking hold of one man in Isaiah chapter 4, here are a few observations.

    First of all, as you have already implied, the times being spoken of are obviously desperate times where the women are seeking protection. There is nothing in this prophecy that remotely refers to an eternal ordinance or type of celestial marriage, rather, it is during desperate times that women are looking for refuge and willing to be responsible for their own temporal maintenance.

    It is important to note that the Hebrew paragraph marker pertaining to the associated passage being addressed begins with verse nine of the previous chapter. The majority of the passages are making note of the apostasy of latter day Israel and the judgments they have brought upon themselves. Context is extremely important!

    Note how verses 16-24 make specific mention of the wickedness of the daughters of Zion… who are, in my opinion, undoubtedly among the same polygamous women spoken of later in chapter our verse one-

    16 ¶Moreover the Lord saith, Because the adaughters of Zion are haughty, and cwalk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

    17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts.

    18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their bround tires like the moon,

    19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,

    20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,

    21 The rings, and nose jewels,

    22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,

    23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

    24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

    Note also how verses 1 and 2 in chapter four both begin by saying, “in that day”.

    I believe that they are separating out and observing two separate and distinct groups of people and two separate and distinct events that are both taking place during this time of devastation.

    In my opinion, verse one speaks of the terrestrial, honorable people of the earth who have been deceived and who have not gathered and consecrated when the servants return. They did not enter into the bridal chamber of the Lord and therefore must live through very harsh times.

    Verse two on the other hand, speaks of the righteous elect who do gather out when the first invitation is extended, calling them the “ branch of the Lord” who are those who have escaped the destructions and have entered into the chambers.

    The good news is that both groups are ultimately cleansed and saved.

    The Daughters of Zion ultimately are cleansed by fire and have their filth purged by the spirit of burning. (see verse 4)

    Despite the overwhelming evidence provided that documents monogamy as the celestial law of marriage and polygamy as a cursing of a lesser law, I believe the strongest evidence against the spiritual wife doctrine is provided once a person understands what happened in June of 1831 at the Morley Farm.

    Once you realize that the gentiles of the restored church rejected the fulness of the Gospel prior to 1835, it becomes obvious that the heretical practices that infiltrated the church in the 1840’s were clearly out of harmony with the pure and simply gospel that was restored a decade earlier.

    Thank you for visiting and for your kind words CS.

    Watcher

  7. CS says:

    I agree watcher. If polygamy is a “higher” celestail law, why would the Lord give them a higher law(polygamy) when they had clearly rejected the first celestial law(consecration) He gave them. It just doesn’t fit the patterns of the Lord to do that.

    You know it amazes me that so many men of the LDS church will stand up and defend and “prove” that we will have to live polygamy again, and yet not a word is ever said about living the law of consecration again. And they are all so self-righteous about what a big sacrifice it will be. Thank the Lord I am not married to one of them!

    CS

  8. waiting says:

    Cs,
    I like how you said you have reached the point in your life where you just want the truth, even if you may not like it. I feel the same way. This is a tricky subject. After studying about it, reading scriptures about it (especially what Jacob wrote), and praying about it, I received personal revelation that I personally would not have to live it to receive salvation and exaltation. And it didn’t get any more detailed than that. I wasn’t told whether it is right or wrong, just that I didn’t need it. I tend to follow the watchers view on it. That it isn’t an exalting principle, yet God has allowed it from time to time throughout history. There is no denying that righteous men and prophets practiced it, yet they were not perfect men.

  9. 2robsmith says:

    Watcher,
    A friend referred your material to me about a week ago. Since then I’ve been avidly devouring everything I can find amidst a hectic schedule.

    This is the first post I’ve found that doesn’t match and amplify my current beliefs. I’m okay with that. This is the best defense I’ve seen of anti-plural marriage (or spiritual wifery if you prefer). Well written and good points.

    A question (asked in the spirit of desiring clarity not in the spirit of contention—I am a die-hard truth seeker): Is the receipt of the fullness of the priesthood equivalent to possessing all that God has? If not, of what is the gap in knowledge between God’s knowledge and the knowledge of one who has received the fullness of the priesthood composed? Is it not possible that there are higher laws available post-receipt of fullness of the priesthood?

    And, to intercept a point you made above, is it really true that higher law never contradicts lower law? I wrote a book on truth you might find interesting (free at my blog), but don’t feel pushed to check it out.

    Some counter examples that come to mind:
    -Jesus commanded to take an eye for an eye, but then commanded to forgive your enemies (see other examples from the sermon on the mount).
    -Jesus commanded not to kill, yet commanded Nephi to slay Laban.

    Obviously, scripture is of no private interpretation and requires the holy ghost in order to enlighten our understanding of the intended meaning. Recall, however, that it is possible to be very well-versed in verse while very far from the truth. Satan quoted scripture to challenge the Savior and the scribes, Pharisees, Sadduccees, and lawyers were artfully adept at showing the master’s “error” via scripture.

    Keep up the good work, my friend.

  10. “This is the first post I’ve found that doesn’t match and amplify my current beliefs. I’m okay with that. This is the best defense I’ve seen of anti-plural marriage (or spiritual wifery if you prefer). Well written and good points.”

    I appreciate very much your willingness to temporarily suspend years of belief to weigh the evidence on an issue that is very difficult to reverse an opinion on once a person is heavily invested in it.

    One can become heavily invested in it by acquiring additional wives and offspring OR by simply believing section 132 with all one’s heart.

    The “I’m ok with that” speaks volumes about the largeness and humility of your soul brother.

    “A question (asked in the spirit of desiring clarity not in the spirit of contention—I am a die-hard truth seeker): Is the receipt of the fullness of the priesthood equivalent to possessing all that God has? If not, of what is the gap in knowledge between God’s knowledge and the knowledge of one who has received the fullness of the priesthood composed? Is it not possible that there are higher laws available post-receipt of fullness of the priesthood?”

    That is such a great question/observation.

    In my opinion, the term fulness of the priesthood is one of those terms that is somewhat of a moving target because I believe it has multiple definitions and can be used in different ways, similar to how the word “love” actually is applied to four different and distinct words in the Greek, with variable definitions, as per the New Testament.

    Another example would be how the word “soul” is used in one canon of scripture synonymously with “Spirit” and in another canon of scripture to mean “physical tabernacle” that the spirit resides in.

    We are informed in section 124 that the fulness of the priesthood had been lost from the earth. That seems to imply that Joseph, Sidney and perhaps others actually possessed it for a season, and yet, as I read about Enoch and Melchizedek, the fulness of priesthood power that they had and their ability to command the elements, I am not convinced that Joseph and Sidney ever attained that aspect of priesthood fulness with regard to priesthood power.

    I really appreciate your question about “higher laws” pertaining to possession of all that God has.

    I believe the fundamentalist mindset is geared towards “higher laws” necessary to continue progressing in knowledge, however, I have come to believe that it is not so much the concept of “higher laws” but rather a simple endowment from God.

    I believe the modern church has completely lost sight of the mystical aspect of biblical Christianity and the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, and how that is the key to getting into the strait gate and being infused with the fulness of the father. (have you read the post on the fulness of the father yet? )

    With regard to knowledge as opposed to power, I would remind you of Moses’ experience when he was filled with the spirit of God and comprehended the “world upon which he was created” and “all the children of men”.

    We are informed that when Moses was infused with the spirit of the Lord he “beheld the earth, even all of it” discerning it by the spirit of God”.

    There was not a “particle” of it that he did not behold and comprehend.

    It was not necessary for him to go through additional ordinances or esoteric rituals with robes, aprons and secret handshakes, he simply needed the spiritual endowment from God to be mystically downloaded into his spirit.

    According to the testimony of Joseph and Sidney in section 76, they were “in the spirit” and by the “power of the spirit” the eyes of their understanding were enlightened so as to understand the “things of God”.

    What exactly does it mean to understand the things of God?

    They claim that after seeing the Son on the right hand of the father they “received of his fulness”.

    What exactly does it mean to receive of the fulness?

    Is that the point in time when Joseph and Sidney actually received the fulness of the priesthood as opposed to when they obtained the ordination thereto at the Morley Farm?

    I don’t pretend to know all of the answers to these questions.

    I love conversing with people like you because you are pondering these same questions that I am pondering.

    “And, to intercept a point you made above, is it really true that higher law never contradicts lower law? I wrote a book on truth you might find interesting (free at my blog), but don’t feel pushed to check it out.”

    I look forward to reading your book. Thank you for telling me about it.

    I actually said this:

    “Any other law that contradicts it, such as biblical polygamy or the spiritual wife doctrine would be a false law or a lesser law.”

    It is possible for a higher law to be different than a lesser law. The children of Israel were given a lesser law as a cursing. Polygamy was a huge cursing to them just as it has been to the Latter day Saints.

    “Jesus commanded not to kill, yet commanded Nephi to slay Laban”

    I would suggest that the commandment to not kill has to do with man’s personal agency and personal decision making ability.

    Man is commanded to not decide to kill another person using their own decision making abilities and agency to act on it.

    In the case of Nephi and Laban, Nephi did not take it upon himself to kill Laban, rather, Nephi was given a commandment from God to act as God’s right arm of judgment.

    Nephi was simply following orders.

    God is responsible for the murder of Laban, not Nephi.

    That is why Nephi was in such anguish over the decision to do the act, because it went contrary to everything he had been taught and he would never have made that decision on his own.

    “Obviously, scripture is of no private interpretation and requires the holy ghost in order to enlighten our understanding of the intended meaning. Recall, however, that it is possible to be very well-versed in verse while very far from the truth. Satan quoted scripture to challenge the Savior and the scribes, Pharisees, Sadduccees, and lawyers were artfully adept at showing the master’s “error” via scripture.”

    Absolutely.

    I agree.

    That is why I invite you to show me the errors of my ways.

    Since Art Bulla ended up being a “no show” I invite you to debate me in the spirit of learning and brotherly love.

    Bring it on my friend.

    Lets have a lively, but Christlike discussion on this topic to see if I have been deceived.

    All I ask is that you first read all of the posts I have done on the topic so that you are fully prepared and don’t get blindsided with information that you have not previously considered.

    Thank you so much for visiting my blog and for the charitable and non caustic way you have engaged me in these most important topics.

  11. 2robsmith says:

    Thanks for your reply. Good points. I have not yet read your post on the fullness. I am drinking from the fire hose.

    I will kindly avoid accepting your debate invitation. As for right now, my position is that if plural marriage is a celestial principle (I believe it is but do not know it is), my study and prayers have led me to believe it is one that is not authorized until the individual is either authorized by the “one who holds the keys” to that practice (who is not the president of the LDS church or any of the offshoots for reasons I won’t get into here), or by God himself. I believe in either case this comes as a modular dispensation of the fullness of the priesthood. (I believe the fullness can come at once but usually comes modularly, e.g. Moses being commissioned by God to have power over the waters, Noah over living creatures, but not vice versa, etc.) In other words, I shelf this as a topic I need not know more about until and unless God reveals it to me. Until one is given the answer from heaven, I’m not sure there is enough information to be conclusive in either direction.

    Still, your assessment is a breath of fresh air in a landscape filled with folks who have only bothered to read one book and yet feel it necessary to proclaim the impossibility of Joseph’s polygamy.

  12. Just to clarify, I am totally open to the possibility of Joseph’s polygamy. He may very well have been living “biblical polygamy” and may even have been justified in doing so, per the “gospel of Abraham”.

    I am open on that possibility.

    My problem is with the spiritual wife doctrine as contained in section 132 and various other Brigham Young, LDS fundamentalist teachings.

    My contention is that the spiritual wife heresy that teaches that the sealing of multiple wives is a mandatory, higher law (higher than the higher law of marital monogamy given in section 42) necessary to recieve the highest salvation in the celestial kingdom is completely without merit in the word of God.

    If you back out section 132 which is problematic in multiple layers having to do with history and doctrine, you have silch on the spiritual wife doctrine in the rest of the standard works.

  13. 2robsmith says:

    The following are certainly not evidences for righteous plural marriage, but are given simply as contrary evidence to the “zilch” comment:

    -We have Abraham. I just read the post about “Abraham hearkend unto Sarai.” Interesting points. However, it is interesting that there is no condemnation in the scriptures for Abraham taking a concubine at least and wive(s) at most. (no mention of multiple wives outside of 132 does not imply no multiple wives. We also do not have mention of Abraham going to the bathroom, but we know that happened 🙂 )

    -We have the Savior’s parable of the virgins. Again, not conclusive, but interesting that he would chat about a bridegroom taking up to 10 virgins at once without implying that was such an odd thing.

    -We have the Jacob scripture. Note the use of the word many. The question (that I can’t answer) is whether the verse would still have been true had the word “several” been used rather than many.

    We have no commandment for plural marriage outside of 132, this is true. There is mention of it, however. Again, we don’t go around baptizing for the dead just because Paul mentions it in passing. The only power is in obeying God’s word, not surmising his commands.

    Lastly, and most importantly, 132 is very clear that only those who are authorized to practice it can do so. So, even if 132 is true, there is no authority I am aware of from God to practice plural marriage today, so I think it is a moot point.

    However, I view plural marriage as a nice “line in the sand” test. I believe that we are all damned to the degree we are unwilling to obey God, even on silly things that “can’t possibly be true” like, say, the request to sacrifice your only son. As Joseph said, those who set up stakes for God are not going to make it. So, my position is still, “I don’t know, but if God tells me to, I do it.” I believe it is good to make the Holy Ghost the supreme arbiter in all things, so as not to trust in the arm of flesh, whether the trust in our own arm or someone else’s.

  14. “The following are certainly not evidences for righteous plural marriage, but are given simply as contrary evidence to the “zilch” comment:”

    The zilch comment had nothing to do with righteous plural marriage. It was referring to any shred of doctrine found in the standard works postulating that a sealing to multiple wives was a requisite for the highest salvation.

    Two completely different points and topics.

    Show me anywhere in the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon or the D&C endorsed by God in section 124, wherein there is even the slightest suggestion that the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ incorporates a doctrine and/or ordinance requiring the spiritual sealing of mulple wives to be exalted.

  15. This is why I try to emphisize in some of my posts that there is a HUGE difference between “Biblical Polygamy” and the “Spiritual Wife Doctrine”.

    They are not the same.

    The spiritual wife doctrine incorporates the practice of polygamy but biblical poligamy never had anything to do with sealing spiritual wives to a person. That aberation grew out of the apostasy of latter day Israel after they rejected the fulness of the gospel.

    One needs to understand that, before they can progress in understanding these issues.

    The church and virtually all of the books written on these topics assume that biblical polygamy wherein the ancient patriarchs raised up seed, incorporated the belief that their seed bearing partners were sealed to them for eternity.

    This is simply not the case.

    There is no evidence to support that belief.

    When Abraham decided on the advice of his wife to have children through another conduit, it had nothing to do with living a higher law or qualifying for the celestial kingdom. It had to do with having a posterity and raising up seed.

    Period.

    Nevertheless, Mormons have been brainwashed to not be able to distinguish between the two doctrines.

    If the law of consecration, being a necessary part of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ shows up so clearly in the Book of Mormon, New Testament, the JST Old Testament and probably as many as 25% of the revelations to Joseph Smith, wouldn’t you think that the same would be true with the doctrine of multiple celestial wives if it were a true doctrine?

    Take the four standard works mentioned above and show me where the doctrine of multiple spiritual wives is documented even just once besides the corruptions that BY added to the altered D&C.

    May I suggest that if you have not read the following post, you may want to ponder some of the concepts in it pertaining to the reason that one man and one woman need to be sealed to each other.

    Then build your foundation of learning about the eternal nature of the genders from the sound doctrine that has been given from the creation story onward.

    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/celibacy-the-doctrine-of-marriage-the-shaker-connection/

  16. 2robsmith says:

    ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying. Got it and agreed.

%d bloggers like this: