Sorting IT Out

Denver Snuffer: 
“ Plural wives is as unpleasant a topic as you encounter in our religion. However, its unpleasantness does not detract from the importance of sorting it out. Given the various conflicting charges and countercharges, it is a relief to just accept a superficial account and hope it is true. That applies to both sides. Both those who reject the practice, as well as those who welcome it, need to be willing to sort through it and reach the correct conclusion.”
 
Catch that? BOTH camps need to be willing to reach the CORRECT CONCLUSION.
 
Snuffer had formerly discussed plurality and was writing as if he was in the 'for it'(Joseph and his close friends/family was involved in Nauvoo) camp prior to 2014. He stated it is possible in two rare instances and explained (mainly in June 2012 blog posts and in PTHG ch. 6) how it was allowed or commanded. Post summer-2014 he started to say things differently. Exactly one week ago he stated that the image of God is one male and one female. Add both of his ideas together. If they are both accurate, then the only conclusion left is staring us in the face of why God allowed some of HIS PEOPLE to live it and for what purpose.


The D&C, the Bible and the Book Of Mormon all contain history and talk about plural marriage. Cain's son Lamech may have been the first recorded person to live it in the bible (and also a murderer), but that alone does not make it abominable. Denver stated more than once that Joseph Smith was commanded to live it and merited his Calling and Election. God in fact commanded Abraham and Sarah to live it. His grandson's Jacob/Israel(raised 12 sons of Israel with 4 wives at the same time) and Esau both lived it. King David was asked why he committed adultery and caused the death of Uriah, and essentially says I gave you all your wives (had 300) and I would have given you more, why do this? Take another man's wife and causing his death is enough to lose your station. King Saul and Solomon are recorded as having wives as well many others in the Old Testament.

Snuffer stated that Joseph Smith obtained his calling and election promises for being obedient to obeying the command to practice it. Along with Snuffer's pre-2014 pro-plurality talk, there is also a ton of church history, court documents, affidavits, newspapers(do actually read the Nauvoo Expositor), journals, history of the church, misunderstandings of other members close to Joseph who were vaguely hearing about Joseph's living of it, and more that backs up the fact that plural marriage was being lived by Joseph, William Clayton, Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, Hyrum Smith and others in Nauvoo. William Clayton in fact had a son with a plural wife in Nauvoo and was worried about the church members finding out. Joseph simply says don't worry about it, if they find out, he would cut him off publicly and then bring him right back (paraphrasing). There is too much evidence to simply brush it off as some grand dishonest scheme put together by Brigham Young and friends after that time. Before anyone can even think to closely judge the matter right, you must first read all the scriptures that discuss the topic. Then read the books: Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed by Anderson/Bergera and An Intimate Chronicle-The Journals of William Clayton. Denver also stated that Brian Hale's work is the most exhaustive, so his three volumes of Joseph Smith's Polygamy are a must read as well. Feel free to even contact Hales on facebook or via his website: www.JosephSmithsPolygamy.com


Denver has stated that the image of a God is one man with one woman. This is obviously the final end state of being. This single statement seems to contradict the possibility of polygany, and the anti-PM-in-Nauvoo supporters shout yes, we were right! If this statement is true, then the “proxy for time only wives” of Joseph will not ever be in eternity with him? Is it for time concubinage? They become adopted daughters in his family whom he will never create as a God with in eternity, or??? Joseph told women in his proposals that they would be eternally blessed, and they thought they would be with him forever. Seems odd God would give plural wives for time, and even if more than one wife becomes eternal quality in the end, that only one perfect match would remain his. Those women’s hopes and expectations to be with Joseph are broken in the end? Was Joseph, as connected as he was, not working with the fuller vision of it all? The Lord stated at the end of D&C 132 that He would give more on the matter... but was Joseph too busy with everything on his plate and didn't inquire more? But this is serious stuff! Would not the Lord say, “oh by the way, your view on PM is a little skewed, before getting too carried away with it, here is the rest of the story...”.  Joseph said ALL that the Lord gives him he can take with him. Isn’t that a part of what sealing power is for?

Compare with the following two quotes:

 ---

 Faithful member Mary Elizabeth Lighner publicy stated:

"Much has come and gone from me through the powers and vicissitudes of this Church. I have been in almost every mob. I have been driven about and told I would be shot and had a gun pointed at me, but I stayed with the Church until it was driven from Nauvoo. The words of the Prophet that had been revealed to him always have been with me from the beginning to the end of the gospel. Every principle that has been given in the Church by the prophet is true. I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expect to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah, it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him."

"Well," said I, "don't you think it was an angel of the devil that told you these things?" Said he, "No, it was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of light and Satan's angels. The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me. "But," said he, "they called me a false and fallen prophet but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before. I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie; all that he gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me."

SOURCE: Testimony of Sister Mary Lightner, Address to Brigham Young University, April 14th, 1905, BYU Archives and Manuscripts, see also http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm

---

From copies in archives at the Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah:

A Revelation to Newell K. Whitney, 27 July 1842, and Joseph Smith Elizabeth Ann Whitney, and Sarah Ann Whitney:

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N[ewel]. K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your Family [his plural marriage to Sarah Ann Whitney] and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old & young because of the lineage of my Preast Hood saith the Lord it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the Holy promise which I now make unto you saith the Lord."

"These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your Daughter Sarah Ann. Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say 'You both mutually agree," calling them by name, '"to be each other's companion so long as you both shall live preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout all eternity reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal Authority in times passed.' If you both agree to covenant and do this then I give you Sarah Ann Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my Holy Progenitors, by the right of birth which is of Preast Hood, vested in my by revelation and commandment and promise of the living. God obtained by the Holy Melchisedeck Jethro and other of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those Powers to concentrate in you and through to your posterity forever. All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life henceforth be sealed upon your heads forever and ever. Amen."

LOCATION: Nauvoo, IL. SOURCE: Original manuscript of Kirtland Revelation Book, Church Historical Department, Ms f 490 # 2, also The Historical Record 6:222 (1887 edition.), also In Sacred Lonliness, p. 348-349

----

 What is the next eternal state of all the sealed plural wives(who endure to the end and retain their standing) of the righteous patriarchs and men of old, like Abraham and Jacob(bore 12 sons through his 4 wives at the same time)? I am sure there are blessings for the plural mothers being so faithful and serving God's Sons so that they too inherit greater things in their life to come. But they can never truly lay a hold of expectations to have their husband (if only one goes with him in the end) in eternity? The children she raises on earth for her polygamist husband can be eternal with him, but not the children's earthly mothers who bore them (they would then be considered the righteous seed of her husband and the one wife he brings into eternity)?

Confusion and Contention in the Awaking LDS Remnant

Some sought to avoid discussing the matter. Some voiced their opinions here and there, and then shouted a mental or verbal hallelleua when DS started saying things about it in the negative tone since mid-2014. Some went so far as to alienate themselves either mentally, physically or both, from other community members who trusted the scriptures, Joseph's history and who agreed with Denver's numerous writings and clarifications on the topic prior to 2014. Some went so far to falsely assume and then share wild stories about those who anxiously were engaged in getting to the bottom of it all. My side of the camp apparantly did not have the full story on the topic, but our belief that PM occurred in Nauvoo lines up with Snuffer's. We layed on the other side of the spectrum, while others want to think that PM was an apostate (which amounts to adultery I might add) experiment by righteous Patriarchs and Prophets or think that Joseph never lived it and it was all fabricated by a mass congregation of lying mormons (under Brigham) and false accusers of Joseph Smith.

DS in June 2012 stated we need to both meet in the middle and come to the correct conclusion. Denver had stated some things, both on his blog and privately, that went against my understanding one week ago. I had to contact Denver after this comment and ask him why the flip-flopping. What is he actually trying to say, and why not just publicly declare the truth and settle the matter. He did reply. He made more statements, some which were a little vague, which had me take it to the Lord. An answer came the next day. I wanted to dismiss it. I thought myself deceived somehow. Then I studied the scriptures I mentioned above, and words pop out like confirmations of what I was told. I still find it hard to believe this is it. There has to be more on the subject still. Would love for the Lord or anyone to come and tell me that I am now incorrect. Me being right or wrong is not the matter, the truth matters. The truth is all I ever wanted seeing so much confusion and disorder and division among many groups of mormons (since 2008 when i started "waking up").

The Correct View Left To Conclude?

Consider all the comments and quotes by Denver Snuffer found in the next section below. Then come back to this point.

Read these scriptures in this order:

Jacob 2:30
D&C 132: 30-31, 34, 37, 48, 55, 63
D&C 132: 31, 37-40, 45-46, 58-59, 64-66

What is the stated reason PM is lived? 
Why is it allowed or commanded?
To whom are God's people?

See a promise of eternal wives anywhere?

Notice in 132:48 the words: "whatsoever you give on earth, and to whomsoever you give any one on earth". The only eternal thing mentioned is: "shall be without condemnation on earth and in heaven".

Notice: "I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives..." in verse 55.

Notice the words "Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins".

Read Jacob 2:30 again.

The first portion of 132 talks about a man being eternal with A wife. The rest deals with an order of family building possible on earth, and only allowed for God's servants (who obviously have surpassed the telestial hearken to a man though he be a messenger level... for they hearken to the King direct).

Now consider Denver's pre-2014 many comments on this matter and compare to his public recent statements and the statement that the Image of God is one man with one woman. This would be a final state of being in eternity. We are not close to that and could take nearly worlds without end for some to get there. 

These things (eternal marriage and the issue of plural wives in time) are a part of the law of the priesthood of the Sons of God (those who actually have Abrahamic promises, those who are "of Abraham, who have eternal promises from the Lord; or those who are close thereto"). If people are not there yet, or still wonder if they really are there, then as Jacob in 2:30 states, and as Denver Snuffer states... they should hearken to the public teachings of God's servants. The un-authorized practices of it needs to end.

Is this the final answer? Plurality can take place in mortality, but not in Eternity? A more complete way to view this topic??? I still have issues and contradictions if so.

  Former Statements by Snuffer:

Denver has stated in his blog and in Passing the Heavenly Gift: PM was only justifiable in some very narrow and rare situations (allowed or commanded by God). If people live that without proper authorization, it is an abomination. He has also stated Joseph was not an adulter. Which I agree. The authorized living of plurality is not adulter, as D&C 132 states. Post 2014, Denver has since seemed to label it all an abomination and said it needs to come to an end and that he doesn’t believe in it. I am awaiting a more clear response on why he said one thing for years and has since changed his teachings.

All of the following statements by Denver Snuffer are published here: 

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012_06_01_archive.html

Denver Snuffer:

"
That having been said, the revelation is rather clear about the conditions for taking plural wives. The first requirement is that the Lord must command it in order to raise up seed. This requirement is not found in Section 132, but is in Jacob 2: 30. This is where the underlying reason is stated for the Lord to give the command. Before you presume you understand this underlying doctrine, I would like to pose a few questions to consider:

-If the foundation for giving the command is found in the Lord wanting to "raise up seed unto Himself" then what is to "raise up seed unto the Lord"?
-Are you certain this is childbearing alone?
-Does having children ever "raise up seed unto the Lord?"
-Was Joseph Smith commanded?
-Did Joseph Smith "raise up seed to the Lord?"
-Why did Joseph Smith only father children with Emma Smith?
-Does the commandment to Joseph mean something other than breeding children with multiple women?
-Can a man "raise up seed unto the Lord" as Joseph Smith did, never fathering a child with any other woman than his wife, Emma?
-Who are the "seed" which Joseph "raised up unto the Lord?"
-How were they made Joseph's seed?

Section 132 gives two conditions for taking plural wives:

-If the Lord commands. (As in 132: 35 where Abraham was commanded.)
-If a man having the correct authority asks and obtains permission. (As in 132: 39 where David asked and the Lord, through Nathan, gave him these wives.)
-If additional wives are taken without the Lord wanting to "raise up seed unto Himself" thereby opening the way, and one of the two foregoing conditions being met, then taking additional wives is an abomination. (As in 132: 38.)

Further, in order to take an additional wife, someone (either the recipient or an officiator) must have the necessary keys to seal the marriage. This is complicated by the fact that there is never but "one man at a time" who holds this authority. (132: 7.) So if Warren Jeffs has these keys, Thomas Monson cannot. But if Owen Allred has the keys, then neither Warren Jeffs nor Thomas Monson can have them. And, of course, if Alex Joseph has them, then that deprives Allred, Jeffs and Thomas Monson.

The problem is, that if you are wrong in guessing which of the groups actually have the keys (because there's only one, mind you), then you are guilty of an abominable practice and you are condemned. You not only will fail to preserve your marriage, you forfeit your exaltation and condemn yourself.

Though I do not often make disclosures of this sort, one of the reasons I am writing this series is because I have asked, and the Lord has told me Warren Jeffs does not hold these keys. Those who follow him thinking he is leading to a better condition in the afterlife have been deceived. I would advise them to abandon that group and repent. Has not his recent behavior taught you he is in error? Has not his last declaration about who can father children made plain the man does not speak for God? Have you not eaten husks long enough? Is it not yet time to return and repent?

Now, if you are of the view that you need to live polygamy, then you need to take every precaution to first know:

-The Lord has, in fact, commanded you; or
-You are in possession of the correct authority and you have asked God and been given His permission; and
-You are capable of "raising up seed unto the Lord" (which means that in the resurrection, you have the ability to take them with you in the ascent through the heavens, passing the sentinels who stand guard along the way, leading your company by the knowledge you have to endure that fiery ascent back to the Throne of God.)

If there is any part of that you do not understand, then you are utterly incapable of satisfying the conditions and you should run from this idea because you are not capable of living the conditions. If you understand and think you have authority to go forward, then I would further caution you that this is not something men take on themselves, but something which God or His ministering angels alone supervise. Do not trust some sentimental feeling, or "burning in the loins." These are serious matters, not to be trifled with by the foolish and aspiring - and NEVER an invitation to the carnal

....

Before proceeding further, it is important to recognize that this is not an inconsequential matter. If someone guesses they can have plural wives and they are wrong, they have gone too far. They are taking a dangerous step. They risk eternity. Therefore this topic should not be approached casually, or because someone "thinks" this is proper. Either they know because God has instructed them by commandment, exclusively for the limited reasons it is allowed to be practiced, or they are involved in a serious, grievous sin.

In Section 132, words like "he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery" are included for those who proceed absent the Lord's command. (D&C 132: 43.) Those who go too far can "fall from his exaltation" when these things are done in violation of God's will. (D&C 132: 39.)

In Jacob, the improper taking of an additional wife is called "whoredoms and an abomination" by the Lord. (Jacob 2: 28.)

Those who proceed in our dispensation in the absence of the Lord's direct command to them are included among those the Lord described as gentiles filled with "whoredoms, and of secret abominations." (3 Ne. 16: 10.) If you are engaged in the practice, and recognize it is an abomination, and you will "repent and return unto [God's ways], saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel." (3 Ne. 16: 13.)

None but fools will trifle with this topic.

.....

The explanation for multiple wives begins after the explanation of what is required for exaltation. These verses permit two exceptions to the prior, mandatory requirement that marriage is limited to a man and a woman who are sealed by God, through His word, by the Holy Spirit of Promise. These two exceptions will be considered next.

To reaffirm the point of this post: If you guess wrong by taking multiple wives, your mistake is called "whoredoms" and "an abomination" and will condemn you.

....

Through Joseph Smith we have two scriptural sources dealing with plural wives. Jacob 2, in the Book of Mormon condemns the practice as "an abomination," but leaves it open to be practiced if the Lord commands. The reason the Lord would command is to "raise up seed unto [Him]."Section 132, beginning at verse 29, discusses why earlier prophets took more than one wife. It "permits" taking more than one wife under two conditions. But Section 132 should be read in light of what Jacob taught regarding the limitations and purpose of having more than one wife.

....

in other words, whatever happened between 1829 and 1843 is bound to be extremely difficult to accurately recreate. Those involved were trying to cover it up, and make it difficult and hopefully impossible to know it took place. They did not want it public.

Moreover, not everyone who was taken into confidence by Joseph was trustworthy, or honorable.

....

Some of what Bennett wrote was true (i.e., private taking of multiple wives) and some of it was sensational, untrue,...

...

In addition to Bennett, others also knew of the private taking of additional wives.

...

, it becomes apparent that whatever Section 132 permits or does not permit, the principle can be abused

...

Plural wives is as unpleasant a topic as you encounter in our religion. However, its unpleasantness does not detract from the importance of sorting it out. Given the various conflicting charges and countercharges, it is a relief to just accept a superficial account and hope it is true. That applies to BOTH sides. BOTH those who reject the practice, as well as those who welcome it, need to be willing to sort through it and reach the correct conclusion.

---

Did Joseph Receive A Revelation?

Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants is not universally accepted as a revelation received by Joseph Smith. When the discussion cannot proceed beyond whether this originated from Joseph Smith, by revelation, the discussion goes nowhere. Therefore, the first step must be to resolve whether the revelation came through Joseph Smith, or was a later fabrication of Brigham Young and his inner circle of polygamists.
The following information persuades me Section 132 came through Joseph Smith and was reduced to writing on July 12, 1843:

The Nauvoo Diaries of William Clayton were written chronologically and have the following entries (exactly as in original):

July 11, 1843: At noon rode out to farm with Margt. P.M. J & family rode out in the carriage.

July 12, 1843: This A.M. I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives & concubines. After it was wrote Prests. Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to E. who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. J told me to Deed all the unincumbered lots to E & the children. He appears much troubled about E.

July 13: 1843: This A.M. J sent for me & when I arrived he called me up into his private room with E. and there stated an agreement they had mutually entered into. they both stated their feelings on many subjects & wept considerable. O may the Lord soften her heart that she may be willing to keep and abide his Holy Law.

July 15, 1843: Made Deed for 1/2 S. B. Iowa from J. to Emma. Also a Deed to E. for over 60 city lots.

July 16, 1843: A.M. at home writing bro. Kimballs lecture. P.M. went to the Grove and heard Pres. J. preach on the law of the priesthood. He stated that Hyrum held the office of prophet to the church by birthright & he was going to have a reformation and the saints must regard Hyrum for he has authority. He showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next. He said that he could not reveal the fulness of these things untill the Temple is completed &c.

July 17, 1843: A.M. at the Temple & at Prest. J's. conversed with J. & Hyrum on the priesthood.

In addition to the foregoing, I checked surrounding public events, and the diary is consistent with other records of those days. For example, the event on July 16th is recorded as having taken place "At Stand in Grove, West of Temple" and appears in a letter of Willard Richards to Brigham Young, the Joseph Smith diary kept by Willard Richards, the Levi Richards Diary and the Willard Richards Diary. The afternoon of the 16th also records a public meeting on the "Temple Stand" in the Franklin Richards, William Clayton, and Levi Richards diaries and in the Letter of Willard Richards to Brigham Young, as well as in the Joseph Smith diary kept by Willard Richards.

Disputes after Joseph's death also confirm a disagreement between Emma and the church over ownership in the Steamboat the Maid of Iowa.

These entries seem credible, and therefore I believe they show Section 132 was recorded on July 12, 1843 and originated from Joseph Smith. In addition, the August 12, 1843 meeting of the Nauvoo High Council records there was "teaching by Hyrum Smith" which four witnesses later confirmed included reading Section 132. These witnesses were Austin Cowles (who rejected the doctrine and left the church), David Fulmer, Thomas Grover, James Allred and Aaron Johnson. Hosea Stout was absent when Hyrum read the document, but was later told about the revelation. When Section 132 became public, Hosea Stout confirmed it "corresponded to what" he was told about the reading in August 1843.

It is possible to believe it a fabrication of Brigham Young. It was not made public until the 1850's, and the public disclosure was on Brigham Young's watch. But the document came into existence while Joseph was church president, and came through him. As much as a person may wish the document did not originate with Joseph Smith, the evidence appears to be more than adequate to show it did. It came from Joseph and was reduced to written form in July 1843.

"

--------------------End of Snuffer statements on PM.

Also see chapter 6 of Passing the Heavenly Gift, and the Marriage and Family chapter in Preserving The Restoration.

Before you can rightly judge the history in Nauvoo on this subject, you must read:
"Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed", 3 Volume set of Brian Hale's exhaustive work "Joseph Smiths Polygamy" and "An Intimate Chronicle-The Journals Of William Clayton"

More info on the MANY who lived PM in the bible: http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/

So, is this the correct view, the middle road that both camps needed to come to conclude or not? Is there more to the story still?



Have you researched everything on this topic, and talked with God on the matter? What do you see?