Anti-Mormon Mockery of Family Proclamation Begins to Circulate

Anti-Mormon Mockery of Family Proclamation Begins to Circulate January 17, 2019

This past weekend a document formatted to appear like The Family: A Proclamation to the World was distributed in chapels of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in and around Herriman, Utah.

The document is titled “Male and Female” and claims that the Church’s teachings on gender equality are incorrect. It addresses recent changes that make temple language more egalitarian and appears to largely be a response to that. It has clearly been formatted in such a way to evoke confusion, and clumsily attempts to duplicate the type of language used in The Family Proclamation.

The document is anonymous, and no authors have identified themselves.

The document asserts “at the heart of righteousness lies the humble submission,” and claims this doctrine should apply to women submitting to their husbands. It labels any efforts to teach gender equality, as the Church long has, as giving in to “politically ‘correct’ falsehoods.”

The document makes the odd claim out of line with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ that God has multiple wives.

Finally, the document claims that the Church promotes gender equality to “placat[e]” those who pay tithing to the Church. And concludes that they will withhold tithing funds and only follow the prophet if he stops teaching gender equality.

Why this Crosses the Line

As Latter-day Saints we allow all people to worship God “according to the dictates of [their] own conscience.”

So as repulsive as we may find these regressive ideas, and as diligently as we may work to persuade those who hold them to the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, ultimately in a religiously pluralistic society, people have the right to hold them.

And naturally, those who believe women must submit to men are no theological friends of Latter-day Saints, so we would expect disagreements between us and those who wrote the document.

So then what’s the matter?

Well, a few things.

  1. It is never appropriate to enter someone’s home or church for the purpose of ridiculing their faith. While I am happy to discuss whether men and women are equal in the public square, people should not need to fight off attacks in their own spaces. There’s a reason missionaries knock on the door first.
  2. It mimics the look of official Church proclamations. This can serve to both confuse people, who might pick it up initially because of its appearance. It also lessens the effect of actual church proclamations by confusing them with undoctrinal rants like this.
  3. It claims the cooperation of general authorities. Either this is inaccurate, which would be wildly inappropriate to pose as religious leaders. Or it is accurate, in which case these leaders need to identify themselves so they can be removed from positions of influence and possibly excommunicated for apostasy.
  4. It is anonymous. This puts the document in a precarious place where it could by an imposter simply trying to embarrass the Church by attempting to tie it closely to the actual church. Critics have been all too anxious to accept it as genuine.
  5. The document misrepresents the doctrine of the Church in significant ways and passes it off as shared ground. Those outside the church who might report on the document could be misled by these claims.

What Can Be Done

Local church leadership in Herriman and other wards in the greater Salt Lake City, Utah area should be on the lookout for the documents to remove them from chapels.

But otherwise not much. Until the authors identify themselves and their motivations there is little else we can do except move on as quickly as possible

What is ultimately so frustrating about these claims is they attempt to put a sexist doctrine that has been unaccepted in the Church in my lifetime up for debate again. People reading this will conclude that “conservative” or “orthodox” members of the church hold these beliefs. But they don’t, they follow the prophet.

It also suggests that the temple previously taught these doctrines, which it never has.

As Latter-day Saints, we have a rich heritage of advocacy for women’s rights and equality. I’m not trying to suggest there’s no space for continued discussion on the nature of that legacy today and how to continue to grow. But, we should speak up and not allow apostates to hijack our message.

 

 

 

"Yes. I am certain that, had Alabama denied a Christian minister, the Court would have ..."

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Religious ..."
"These same things hold true for victims of physical abuse as well as sexual abuse. ..."

Learning to Respond Better to Sexual ..."
"You're already part of a cult that worships a sexual pervert con man.. that man ..."

Perez Hilton Comes Out as Anti-Mormon
"we just need to outlaw executions. as much as our primitive instincts may compel us ..."

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Religious ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Mormon
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • LaneWolfley

    Chris, thanks for this interesting article. First, I’d like to say that I am a life-long Mormon, though I wouldn’t say I am a believer. I suppose I’m what they call a cultural Mormon; though active, my participation is based upon family, cultural and friendship. My interest in study is for understanding, not any illusion that this or any religion is in any sense true.

    Having said that, you state or imply that it isn’t Church doctrine that God has many wives, whereas I have always thought that it was fundamental Church doctrine that God lives the Celestial order of marriage, i.e., multiple wives. Indeed, it has always been my understanding that God created us by and through his wives, etc. In the Glory of Mormonism (1963), John Stewart states in a summation at page 86, “…plural marriage is the patriarchal order of marriage lived by God and others who reign in the Celestial Kingdom.” I would scarcely think that such a statement would raise an eyebrow among any group of Mormons, but , if I understand, you think differently, which I find utterly fascinating. If you get a chance, I’d appreciate your thoughts on this. I have no interest in defending any position or point of doctrine, but am sort of exploring what people are thinking these days. Among my friends, family and certainly my wife, I think it is an accepted understanding that God has a bundle of wives. Thanks for your thoughts and this fine blog.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Yes, not only does God have a multitude of wives, it entirely Mormon Doctrine that nobody can reach the highest levels of godhood without participating in polygamy. The doctrine began to change after the US government outlawed polygamy. That the church no longer emphasizes this doctrine is not surprising. Isaiah said these things would happen, so it’s really a matter of watching prophecy unfold.

  • LaneWolfley

    Adam, well that is certainly what I was taught growing up. I just assumed everyone in the Church believed that. It’s kinda the whole point of the temple, and men still can be sealed to multiple women so that they may enjoy plural marriage in the next life, etc. BTW, when you say Isaiah said these things would happen, what’s that all about?! The poor Israelites had a lot on their plates over the centuries when Isaiah was composed; it seems strange they’d take up space talking about our times.

  • Stewart

    I had a different interpretation of that document. It seems to me that it was written by sincere people who believe the church leaders are leading the church astray. I know there are people out there who feel like that. I believe they are responsible for the growth of the Remnant movement. They see the church reaching out in love to LGBT people, and misunderstand it as giving in to societal pressures to accept sin. I believe they are sincere, but ultimately misguided. The Lord is not liberal or conservative, he doesn’t get his talking points from Sean Hannity. I think we need to trust that the Lord is leading his church. And as far as God having multiple wives: It is my understanding of our doctrine that he may or may not have multiple wives. Some exhaulted men do, some do not. I trust his plan for me either way.

  • PrincessLeiaRocks

    “So as repulsive as we may find these regressive ideas,”

    “And naturally, those who believe women must submit to men are no theological friends of Latter-day Saints,” I think Brigham Young would disagree with you.

    “It also suggests that the temple previously taught these doctrines, which it never has.” Do some research, especially look at the pre-1990 ceremony language and covenants. Study the history of the Relief Society, and examine the sermons and lectures given by Eliza Snow about the curse of Eve.

    You mean the regressive ideas that were taught in the temple about women hearkening to men that were taught until 2-3 weeks ago? That men stand in place of the Lord for their wives? The regressive ideas that women have been pleading to change for decades? I’m pretty sure those regressive ideas have had the stamp of approval from the General Authorities for the past 180ish years.

  • Jack

    That document looks like a good example of taking the Lord’s name in vain.

  • TomMars

    The Church seems to have room for differences of opinion right now. While I do not agree with the content or method of this document, I understand the concern or fear felt by those who published it. We live in an age of constantly changing values and morals. The desire to have some solid ground to stand on is certainly a very understandable desire when one is caught in a flash flood of social change. If everything at least appears to be up for change, revisions, and being placed in the disposable can, then we get what we have got–conflict. It is not always easy to see which parts of doctrine and ordinances are able to be adapted to culture and time and which parts cannot be. Sometimes it is hard to know if the Lord is taking away a greater blessing and law because we have not accepted it or lived it, or if He is replacing a lesser law with a greater law. If we like the new we presume the latter, if we like the previous we presume the first. We are in the process of finding out what the core of the ordinances and doctrines really are.

  • The Last Danite

    > it entirely Mormon Doctrine that nobody can reach the highest levels of godhood without participating in polygamy.

    Source?

  • The Last Danite

    >We believe in modern revelation and living prophets!
    >How dare the prophet change things! This is an outrage!

    No wonder Smith was so frustrated by any attempt to introduce new teachings to the saints:

    “I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen”

  • Kiwi57

    I know exactly what the pre-1990 Endowment ceremony said about this subject. And that included nothing at all about “submission.” Sorry.

    PLR: “You mean the regressive ideas that were taught in the temple about women hearkening to men that were taught until 2-3 weeks ago?”

    Oh yes, what a horribly “regressive” idea, that any woman should ever have to “hearken” to a man (ugh!)

    Why do I rather strongly suspect that you have not the slightest objection to the constantly reiterated teaching that men should hearken to their wives?

  • agkcrbs

    This journal writer’s telling Church leaders whom to excommunicate and which doctrines to exclude from the realm of tolerance is as much of an apostasy as the promulgation of “repulsive” New Testament scriptures advising marital submission. Cunningham may hold whatever views he pleases, and he grants the same to the document’s authors, but would he appreciate people calling for his expulsion from the Church? Church leaders now have two headaches: not only from the calls for repentance in the document, but from the enraged backlash of other members provoking further schismatism.

  • Kiwi57

    The document, being anonymous, has no standing of any kind. It cannot be other than mischievous. If it was produced by Church members, it was clearly an act of apostasy.

  • agkcrbs

    Surely you don’t believe the reactionary smear here, that its intentional similarity in style and form to other Church publications — though betrayed by several clear admissions of independence — is an attempt at confusion. What collection of fools do we have for members, who can read something stating several times that it is not FROM, but TO Church leaders, and still think, ‘Oh, but look at the style! It must actually be from the leaders!’ If Church members can really not comprehend the document in the first place, they can also not be led astray by it.

    Truth, anyhow, is not mischievous, and the letter contained at least the truth I alluded to, that the gospel teaches (…taught?) wives to be in subjection to their godly husbands, and husbands to give honour to their faithful wives. Sure, a change of ordinance does not change the external doctrine… unless we ask the feminists celebrating said change.

    Apostasy, I agree: Church members are not to steady the ark. But as I said, isn’t Cunningham trying to steady it in the opposite direction with his calls for excommunication? That’s not his job.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    If you are genuinely interested in knowing the truth, do the research. For those of us that have been members for 50+ years heard it preached from the leaders over and over and over again… it was standard mormon doctrine.

  • The Last Danite

    So are you able to produce a source or is deflection your go to when you get pressed?

  • LaneWolfley

    The Last Danite, what Adam is referring to will require you to visit the Journal of Discourses and 0ther 19th Century resources. The General Authorities explicitly taught from the pulpit that Celestial Marriage meant plural marriage, and the highest exaltation couldn’t be achieved without entering into plural marriage. I was born in 1952, and as a youngster, I remember being told that, as well. By that time, however the last of the old-timer polygamists were dying off, and Celestial Marriage had taken on the current meaning we have today. The last polygamist president of the Church, Heber J. Grant died in 1945. I see all this as adaptation to new circumstances, but the more faithful naturally mine the old records for a “deeper” understanding and faith. These continual changes guarantee a long future for the Church as a functioning, viable organ within the larger society while making it a fertile ground for more and more schismatic movements. At least, that’s my take on it at the moment.

  • Kiwi57

    I see no “smear.”

    He’s not calling for excommunication. He’s calling for the anonymous authors of that bit of tomfoolery to identify themselves so that they can be dealt with. The two things are not the same.

    “Truth, anyhow, is not mischievous” – cute, but irrelevant. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have the authority to issue proclamations. Random members with a bee in their bonnet? Not so much.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    That’s funny… I simply answered your question. If you want more information, put in the effort yourself. I’m not your personal search engine!

  • Kiwi57

    I’ve been a member for over 50 years. I’ve never heard it preached by any leaders. Not even once.

    Did any of this alleged teaching find its way into any Conference talks, for example?

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Research the conference talks and see if you can find something there. Journal of Discourses might be another good place to look. Let us know if you find something.

  • The Last Danite

    Another dodge? It should be simple to provide a source for your claim yet you refuse to even supply one example.

  • The Last Danite

    Can you provide me with a source? Adam refuses to under the guile of “not my job”.

  • Kiwi57

    1. I know all about the Journal of Discourses. No part of it was written in my lifetime or yours.
    2. You are the one who claimed that this was taught, by Church leaders, from the pulpit; therefore, the burden of supporting that claim rests with you. If you can’t meet that burden, then by all means try to shift it; just don’t expect it to work, ‘kay?

  • LaneWolfley

    Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part–and is good so far as it goes–and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith … [common background on Joseph Smith, skipped here] … he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.
    Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 – p.29, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

    The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.
    Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 – p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866

    Brigham Young, the second President of the Mormon Church made these statements:
    Now if any of you will DENY THE PLURALITY OF WIVES and continue to do so, I promise that you will be DAMNED; and I will go still further, and say that this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord had given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that YOU WILL BE DAMNED.
    Deseret News Nov. 14, 1855

    This just a small smattering of quotes on this subject. You can mine a hundred more. This is where Mormon fundamentalists are able to find sufficient inducement to adopt this lifestyle. I’m not by my library now, but there are a few books on Polygamy where many of these quotes are found together.

  • The Last Danite

    Your first JoD quote is not contradicting modern practice at all. Your second quote is removed from its context which clarifies what he was talking about.

    https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Brigham_Young_said_that_the_only_men_who_become_gods_are_those_that_practice_polygamy

    Your third quote is Young simply stating if you reject the doctrine of polygamy you are putting your exaltation at risk. IE: Heed the prophets counsel.

    Not even sure why quote mining (especially out of context) dead prophets is applicable to our day.

  • LaneWolfley

    I quite agree. There are hundreds of sources such as these that tend to get people riled up one way or the other. If you are interested in followiing up on this topic, there are numerous resources. It’s not really my thing, but you had asked me about it so I was just trying to oblige.

  • The Last Danite

    Fair enough

  • Adam N. Godwin

    The bible and other scriptures were not written in your lifetime or mine- what could that possibly have to do with anything? Try to stay on topic. If you look at LaneWolfley’s post above, you will see that he and I have both testified of the same thing- the leaders of the church taught it- there you have it- by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. There’s your reference. Both LaneWolfley and I have direct, personal, first-hand knowledge of it. If you want to find the resources yourself, then take the time and effort and do it yourself. I have no burden to prove anything to you or anyone else. I’m not your personal search engine either. If you genuinely wanted to know the truth, and you don’t believe the standard of 2 or 3 witnesses with first person knowledge, then you figure it out. There, now the burden is back on you… neener, neener, neener!

  • Adam N. Godwin

    See my reply to Kiwi57 above. Same applies to you.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Hey LaneWolfley, I replied to you earlier today, but my comment was deleted- apparently too much truth. So let’s just say that Isaiah is THE BOOK on end times events. So much so that the Savior made it a commandment to read / understand it when he was in America.

  • Kiwi57

    ANG: “The bible and other scriptures were not written in your lifetime or mine- what could that possibly have to do with anything? ”

    It has to do with the fact that you claimed that it was taught in the last 50 years. The JoD is not a record of what was taught in the last 50 years. You are deflecting.

    ANG: “There, now the burden is back on you… neener, neener, neener!”

    How very mature. Or something.

    But it didn’t work. Again.

    There are no Conference talks in the last fifty years teaching what you assert.

    You are making it up.

    And your refusal to even try to support your claim proves that you know you can’t do it.

  • Chris365

    Some interesting analysis, but wrong conclusions. I think the authors have more loyalty to their notions of who and what constitutes the enemy, rather than a loyalty to God and his servants first.

    The goal of the church is not for women to eternally submit to their husbands. Even if you assume that it was related to Eve’s disobedience, it’s entirely possible within the fundamentalist framework, to say that the time has come for that consequence to no longer apply to the daughters of Eve. Society has both ripened in iniquity and also righteousness, to allow both women and men maximum freedom to work together as equal partners.

    Or I think a faithful fundamentalist could make this work, just as easily as they can make the idea of (failed) New Jerusalem, or blacks and the priesthood work.

    But they refuse to, again, because their true heart loves hating their (misperceived) enemies more than God.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    My reference to something that is irrelevant is simply mocking you for your irrelevant comment. The BIG difference is that I KNOW my comment is irrelevant.

    If LaneWolfley and I both testify independently of the same event, that is evidence that any court in the land would consider to be the truth- even church courts would believe it. Why you can’t accept the truth is a curious thing.

    However the fact that you’re too lazy to put in the effort to do the research is not surprising at all. You’re delusional if you believe that I or anyone else who knows something you don’t know OWES it to you to PROVE it to you.

    “10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” ~ 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.

    You won’t believe the 2 or 3 witnesses required to establish the truth and you’re too lazy to do the research yourself and choose instead to demand I enlighten you when you’ve already rejected the truth offered. According to the versus above, you’re not a lover of the truth and it is GOD who causes you to BELIEVE A LIE- TO YOUR OWN DAMNATION!

    Truly a sad situation for you, but you can take comfort that you’re the “rule” rather than the exception. At least you will have “The Last Danite” to commiserate with.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    See my latest reply to Kiwi57 above- applies to you as well.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    It is safe to say now that trying to convince someone with the simple truth of your own (and mine) personal experiences and first hand knowledge concerning this matter is about as successful as attempting to raise the sea level by spitting in it. I think if you take a look at the scriptural quote of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 above in response to Kiwi57 will shed some light on all their negativity and insistence that we MUST provide them with a plethora of IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE to something we already know and experienced. It’s rather pathetic that one can find related information simply by doing the research, but apparently that’s too much effort.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    This is where comprehension skills are so useful. Try to focus… LaneWolfley and I are trying to help you wrap your brain around the FACT that CHURCH LEADERS used to preach that polygamy was essential for salvation. Obviously, many of those said church leaders ARE DEAD. Apparently you are too lazy to consider doing the RESEARCH (quote mining or other) to see what ANY PREVIOUS LEADERS, dead or alive, have said concerning the topic. Dead PROPHETS and other LEADERS are ESSENTIAL to the topic at hand! Good Grief!

  • The Last Danite

    > FACT that CHURCH LEADERS used to preach that polygamy was essential for salvation

    But nothing Young stated in the quotes ever stated polygamy was essential for exaltation. You still haven’t supplied a source for your claim.

    > Apparently you are too lazy to consider doing the RESEARCH (quote mining or other)

    Then help me out by providing a source.

    >Dead PROPHETS and other LEADERS are ESSENTIAL to the topic at hand!

    Yes and no. If you are discussing what they said than sure. If you are discussing modern teachings than no. A living prophet is more valuable than a dead one.

  • LaneWolfley

    Adam, I got your response in my inbox. It was very appreciated in helping me understand your unusual take on Isaiah. It must have been deleted, though for the life of me, I don’t know why. It was completely respectful and benign. Thanks.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Brigham Young is just one of many PREVIOUS church leaders. Again, comprehension is beneficial… CHURCH LEADERS is not limited to Brigham Young or necessarily prophets- either dead or alive.

    The information exists for those who want to put forth the effort to find it. I witnessed it- saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, therefore, my testimony is based upon real, physical events. I could give you other written resources, but at this juncture, I don’t care whether you ever figure it out and learn the truth or not.

    Why do you keep muddying the waters?! The whole conversation had to do with the fact that 50 years(ish) ago, it was a common teaching of church leaders that polygamy was essential for salvation in the highest degree. OBVIOUSLY, the modern day church leaders do not teach that any longer, so why would you even bring them up?!

    The issue IS NOT what someone said recently and it’s validity or relevance to what what said 50 years ago- the issue has to do with whether some church leader(s) actually said something in particular 50 years ago. I personally saw / heard it as did LaneWolfley. By all civil and ecclesiastical laws, that establishes the truth. If you want more than than, then the information is there- all you have to do is put forth the effort.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Yes, my take is very much “unusual” and that should pique your interest if you are truly a seeker of the truth and not simply a blind follower. All scripture is written to “the church” or “the saints” throughout time. It was never written to the pagans. The pagans have never once gone into apostasy- ever. It’s always a cycle of apostasy WITH THE CHURCH.

    The scriptures were written with the intent that the church members could identify their own faults- not those of the Catholics or protestants. For example, the Rameumptom is not to be found in another religion- it’s the pulpit at the front of the chapel. The people who reject truth are the members, etc.

    If you read the scriptural references I included with my comments, you will quickly see that the cycle continues and right now, most members are numbered with “the church” unless and until they figure out what Isaiah and the other prophets are conveying within their words, and then take the appropriate measures / actions to align with the truth.

    I presume that you are a life long member. When you were taught the plan of salvation and the battle in the pre-mortal world, what were you taught was Satan’s plan to take away our free agency?

  • Kiwi57

    ANG: “If LaneWolfley and I both testify independently of the same event, that is evidence that any court in the land would consider to be the truth- even church courts would believe it. Why you can’t accept the truth is a curious thing.”

    But the two of you haven’t testified to the same event. You’ve “testified” to hearing the same sort of thing at some unspecified time and place.

    You said “Church leaders” were saying these things. Well, there are no Conference talks in the last 60 years that I can find that assert that polygamy is essential to exaltation. So, are you two witnesses, or two outliers?

    And what’s your definition of a “Church leader?” You and I both know that it’s just vague enough to include just about any active adult member. I don’t doubt that some old codgers, indulging in did-Adam-have-a-navel type doctrinal talk-fests, might have said something or other about Plural Marriage being restored. I do recall some chatter about “seven women,” etc., a rather energetic (but popular) misinterpretation of Isaiah 4:1.

    But I didn’t hear it from any apostles or prophets, and I didn’t hear it across the pulpit at any General Conference.

    And given your rather aggressive refusal to support your claims, I conclude that you didn’t, either.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    You can conclude whatever you want. I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you. The facts are out there just waiting to be found, but if you are too lazy to do the research, there’s not much I can help you with.

    You state that apparently as some sort of evidence against my experiences that YOU didn’t personally hear it from any apostles or prophets or at any general conference. Did you personally hear about the Adam-God theory from any apostles or prophets while you were watching General conference?! Just because YOU didn’t personally hear about anything in particular at the time it was said, is really a pathetic and baseless argument. Unless you’re nearly 200 years old, you would not have heard all that was preached / taught going back to the time of polygamy and up to modern times!

    Now, concerning my refusal to support my claim, I still can’t figure out why you can’t believe the two witnesses, like the law requires. The fact of the matter is that I simply don’t like stupid and/or lazy people, and I’m not going to be your personal search engine. I was a witness to it- I know it’s true- why would I let you manipulate me into feeling any obligation of proving anything?!

    Rather then haranguing me to provide you with information, why do you refuse to simply put forth ANY effort! Two independent people from different backgrounds with church membership as the only common thread have said the same thing in a “matter of fact” way, because it was so common.

    Maybe you should do a survey of a thousand old time members and ask them if they ever heard it taught. There are many things you could do, yet you choose to do nothing productive to gain the knowledge for yourself.

    At this juncture it appears fairly obvious that your main desire is NOT to find knowledge, but rather to argue whether my (and another’s) actual experiences are real. That’s quite a fantasy that you have- to attempt to discredit the personal experiences of two people you know nothing about… with nothing more to disprove it than your own doubt. Your efforts are nothing more than self-aggrandizing, because you’re evidently under the delusion that if you’ve never personally experienced it, it could never have happened.

    Who does that?! The fact of the matter is that you don’t even know what you don’t know. And at this juncture, I would never help you figure it out, based simply on principle.

  • Kiwi57

    If you don’t like stupid or lazy people, you must find it hard to live with yourself. The fact remains that the last sixty years of Conference addresses don’t support your claim. No authoritative doctrinal teaching can come from any other source than the prophets and apostles. You said it was taught in the last 50 years. You won’t support that claim for the very good and sufficient reason that you cannot.

    And thus it is.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Who was it who taught the Adam-God Theory, and was it doctrinal?

  • Kiwi57

    Nobody in the last sixty years.

    And the Adam spoken of didn’t have the last name “Godwin.” Either in real life or on the internet.

    Bottom line: When you make an assertion, you shoulder the burden of supporting it. If you can’t, or won’t, then nobody has to accept it.

    Sorry.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” I don’t see a sixty (or any other number) year time expiration.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Actually, I’ve had a change of heart, because others who may be reading this might want to know. It was the Apostle Bruce R. McConkie who taught it.

    Now go and do your due diligence, put forth the effort and see what you can find. Once you figure it out, come back and share it with the others.

  • Kiwi57

    “For those of us that have been members for 50+ years heard it preached from the leaders over and over and over again… it was standard mormon doctrine.” – Adam N. Godwin.

  • Kiwi57

    “It’ being what? The so-called “Adam-God Theory,” which he explicitly denounced, or polygamy as a requirement for exaltation, which I find mentioned in none of his Conference talks?

    So much for it having been “preached from the leaders over and over and over again.” Who knew that “over and over and over again” actually meant “never?”

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Set the Adam-God theory aside for a moment. That was denounced by his successors just about as soon as Brigham’s body was in the ground.

    BTW, I never said that polygamy was a requirement for SALVATION- everybody knows it’s not a requirement. Rather, I did say is that it was “entirely Mormon Doctrine that nobody can reach the highest levels of godhood without participating in polygamy.” There may be others who were recorded as having taught it as well, but the sure source is the Apostle Bruce R. McConkie.

    Why are you so insistent that I’m making all of this up and that it never happened? Just because you have no personal knowledge of it simply means that you were never made aware of it and your search is incomplete.

    I gave a big clue in my original post- even “spelled it out” for anyone interested in doing the research. Then I provided the sure source in my most recent post. Surely you can figure it out- try harder.

  • Kiwi57

    Oh, you mean “Mormon Doctrine?” The book that was not written by any apostle? The one that was reviewed by senior apostles and found wanting in many areas? The one that underwent hundreds of corrections between editions? The one that Bruce R. McConkie explicitly took responsibility for? That “Mormon Doctrine?”

    Who knew that “heard it preached from the leaders over and over and over again” actually meant “read it in a book that the highest leaders regarded as problematic and error-prone?”

    Please note that when someone writes a book and several years later becomes an apostle, that is something entirely different from when an apostle writes a book. Anti-Mormons and other shameless liars deliberately conflate the two. I enjoy correcting them.

    Are we clear?

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Did I claim anywhere that McConkie WAS an apostle when he wrote the book?! I didn’t make any reference to the author- just that it was MORMON DOCTRINE! He was an apostle and he also wrote the book. He was in the presidency of the seventy when he wrote it. He wrote it in 1958 and it wasn’t re-written until 1966… 8 years later. So, during those eight years, it was in fact MORMON DOCTRINE in every sense of the word. That is exactly what I said in my original comment.

    I’m really getting tired of you accusing my of being a liar when you keep altering the conversation and injecting details that are only relevant in your delusional mind that I never said. You are so intellectually dishonest, that having any kind of a conversation with you is an exercise in futility.

    It really is irrelevant to my comment as to when the book was written and when he became an apostle. Anyone with even half a brain could look at my comments, make the connection to a General Authority’s book that validates what I said and understand that it was in fact MORMON DOCTRINE… at least for those 8 years.

    It boggles my mind that you have so little comprehension of the words which I have written and how you’ve manipulated and twisted them in some sort of psycho babble fashion into something entirely different and then have the gall to call me a liar.

    The bottom line is that any sane and rational person who comes along later and reads all the comments will see clearly that what I said was and is, in fact, absolutely 100% true. Concerning the matter of Polygamy being necessary to attain the highest levels of godhood, as being MORMON DOCTRINE 50+ years ago as I stated is irrefutably and absolutely 100% accurate. Whatever other elements you and your deluded mind added in a pathetic attempt to alter the debate, whether true or not, are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to my original comment- end of story!

    I have no desire to debate your feeble minded attempts to muddy the waters with the irrelevance of your version of reality… but thanks for playing.

    Please note that when someone has zero intellectual honesty in a debate- especially one of a spiritual nature and seeks to manipulate the truth is a deceiver. Lazy, ignorant Mormons and shameless fraudsters / deceivers don’t really care about the truth. I enjoy correcting them.

  • Kiwi57

    ANG: “Did I claim anywhere that McConkie WAS an apostle when he wrote the book?!”

    Oh, how innocent!

    You previously wrote: “but the sure source is the Apostle Bruce R. McConkie.”

    What apostle is that?

    He didn’t write the book when he was an apostle.

    Do you know what doesn’t happen when someone is called as an apostle?

    You clearly don’t, so I’ll tell you. Their previous publications don’t gain authoritative, doctrinal status. That’s what.

    ANG: “I’m really getting tired of you accusing my of being a liar when you keep altering the conversation and injecting details that are only relevant in your delusional mind that I never said. ”

    Let’s see.

    Who said that polygamy was a requirement for exaltation – not salvation, but exaltation – and that that “those of us that have been members for 50+ years heard it preached from the leaders over and over and over again?”

    You did. That’s who.

    ANG: “Anyone with even half a brain could look at my comments, make the connection to a General Authority’s book that validates what I said and understand that it was in fact MORMON DOCTRINE… at least for those 8 years.”

    Maybe that is what anyone with half a brain would think. You seem to think so, so that supports your assertion. But someone with a fully functioning brain, and actual information, knows that McConkie’s book was “Mormon Doctrine” in only one sense: namely, that that was its title.

    It never – ever – had authoritative status. It was very handy as a reference work. But it was riddled with errors from the beginning.

    Incidentally, President McKay, President Romney, Elder Mark E. Petersen and others were as unhappy about the title of the book as they were about some of its contents.

    ANG: “Lazy, ignorant Mormons and shameless fraudsters / deceivers don’t really care about the truth.”

    I know. You demonstrate that every time you post.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    It doesn’t really matter what defenses you present, because you cannot change the FACT that It was in fact MORMON DOCTRINE- even the title of the book says so.

    There is a legal precedence that states that when there is a duty or obligation to speak up and a person remains silent, it is equated with FRAUD. So you’re saying that the prophet, nor any apostles and all the other general authorities never had a chance to review the book before publication, and even after publication, every last one of them remained publicly silent (either in agreement or in perpetuating the fraud) for eight years?!

    So during those eight years none of the “Brethren” ever called him out on it, never publicly denounced it! Instead, after eight years (thousands of days, 16ish general conferences, etc.) they simply altered the text a little, but kept it in print. There was no denouncing it, no recall of it, no refunding members for their purchases. Nope, just on to version 2.0!

    And what do you do with a guy who is so clearly wrong about the doctrine- you move him from a lowly member of the presidency of the seventy and make him an Apostle, with apparently EVEN MORE doctrinal authority. Yep, this guy is an idiot when it comes to doctrine, so what shall we do with him… I know, we’ll make him an Apostle and give him even more credibility.

    So due tell, where and at what time (and please provide the source) did Bruce actually denounce all the lies and idiotic statements he made in his original book. Because if it was never denounced publicly and published to the world, it remains as it was printed- even though an altered version was later printed. And the later altered version sure does not refute the previous version. Obviously, that was never the intent of McConkie or the church.

    It really makes no difference what status you believe it had or didn’t have. That does not change the fact that it was in fact MORMON DOCTRINE for at least eight years and the only thing from the leaders was… yes… wait for it… crickets! Silence is equated with fraud- it’s a matter of law… or at the very least is equated with acquiescence.

    You can continue to mount all kinds of irrelevant claims and statements and excuses all day long, but you can NEVER change the fact that it was MORMON DOCTRINE! NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE THAT- EVER! And the fact that you keep trying to disprove something that is clearly 100% disprovable really brings into question your motive and perhaps your mental health.

    I’m beginning to see some anger issues in your comments. This often happens to people when they have an inferior position in the debate- as you clearly do. So, rather than taking it so personally, maybe you should step back for a moment, take a deep, cleansing breath, and realize it’s simply a debate. There are much bigger fish to fry than this. Learn what you can from it and move on.

    However, if you are going to respond again, please try to stick to the original comment- the point of the original debate. And that is that I said it is”…entirely Mormon Doctrine that nobody can reach the highest levels of godhood without participating in polygamy.”

    Throw out all the other distractions and other elements you’ve dragged into the conversation- stick to the original point. There is absolutely NO WAY to disprove it- it is in fact MORMON DOCTRINE, plain and simple. My comment is 100% correct based on factual evidence… end of story!

  • Bro. B.

    Section 132 is the most obvious source. Although maybe not openly, because nothing about polygamy was in the open, pre-manifesto it was interpreted as a condition for the highest degree. Post-manifesto, the highest degree is interpreted to apply to monogamous celestial marriage.

  • Kiwi57

    ANGer: “It doesn’t really matter what defenses you present, because you cannot change the FACT that It was in fact MORMON DOCTRINE- even the title of the book says so.”

    No. It was not.

    What something aspires to be and what it actually is are not necessarily the same thing.

    The Church did not publish McConkie’s book. McConkie himself explicitly stated that he alone was responsible for its contents.

    People who aren’t real bright might see the title and foolishly assume “that It was in fact MORMON DOCTRINE,” but it was not.

    Even the most stubbornly dishonest anti-Mormons eventually give up trying to claim authority for it that it did not have. Why can’t you?

    Please read the following:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

    And then accept the FACT that “Mormon Doctrine” is not an authoritative source.

    And never was.

    Deal with it.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    It doesn’t matter what you think of McConkie, it was published and never refuted by the church… simply changed up a bit. Whether you personally taught or heard it taught as mormon doctrine or heard it preached as mormon doctrine in conference has no relevance to the FACT that it was published and taught as MORMON DOCTRINE- plain and simple. There is absolutely nothing you can say, or argument you can raise to prove otherwise.

    The copyright page of the original printing states: “MORMON DOCTRINE BY BRUCE R. MCCONKIE OF THE FIRST COUNCIL OF THE SEVENTY CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS”

    I’d say McConkie was using the full weight of the church, his position, etc. in publishing his book of Mormon Doctrine. And all those eight years, nobody ever denounced it or called him out on it. Yet even after the “Leaders” required changes to it, it was never denounced… and yes… wait for it… was still published as MORMON DOCTRINE… but instead of a lowly member of the first council of the Seventy, he was promoted to an Apostle.

    Here’s a quote from the wikipedia source you use… “t was intended primarily for a Latter-day Saint audience and IS OFTEN USED AS A REFERENCE BOOK BY CHURCH MEMBERS because of its comprehensive nature. It has never been an official publication of the church, and it has been BOTH HEAVILY CRITICIZED by some church leaders and members and WELL REGARDED BY OTHERS.” So there you have it- some leaders and members liked it and some didn’t. And what do you know- it was often used as a reference book- something for TEACHING!

    Yes, your ANGer continues to escalate- all you do with your responses is demonstrate your aggressive nature and inability to see the truth and make very simple connections in order to come to a simple conclusion. I’m thinking you might want to see a mental health expert, because you are clearly not demonstrating a good grasp on reality and basic comprehension skills… and you seen to becoming more angry with each new post.

    POLYGAMY AS BEING NECESSARY FOR THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GODHOOD WAS AT ONE TIME MORMON DOCTRINE- NOTHING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE CAN SAY OR DO WILL EVER CHANGE THAT FACT… NOTHING… EVER! Your delusional mind has nothing to do with that fact and the truth!

  • Kiwi57

    1. It’s unfortunate that your mother never got around to teaching you any manners. Please note that writing in all caps is equivalent to SHOUTING. It is rude and boorish to shout at people. Stop it.

    2. Yes, I know perfectly well that the title of McConkie’s book was “Mormon Doctrine.” Intelligent people don’t judge a book by its cover; far less do they judge it by its title. If someone wrote a book called “Adam N. Godwin Is An Idiot,” would that settle the question for all time?

    Or perhaps not?

    3. I would invite you to do some more reading, but it is as plain as day that you do not read for comprehension, but see only what you want to see. Clearly, then, asking you to read something is a waste of time. The clear fact is that, despite all your SHOUTING, McConkie’s book had no official standing. It was a handy reference, and many people used it as such. But it was never an authoritative source.

    4. And finally, the claim that entering into Plural Marriage was a requirement for exaltation that “those of us that have been members for 50+ years heard it preached from the leaders over and over and over again” is false.

    Now I realise that you have a desperate emotional need to have the last word on everything, so I will leave you to it.

    “For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility. Salt Lake City, Utah. June 1, 1958. Bruce R. McConkie.”

  • Adam N. Godwin

    POLYGAMY AS BEING NECESSARY FOR THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GODHOOD WAS AT ONE TIME MORMON DOCTRINE- NOTHING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE CAN SAY OR DO WILL EVER CHANGE THAT FACT… NOTHING… EVER! Your delusional mind has nothing to do with that fact and the truth!

  • researchwithpatience

    Actually, what was said by old leaders was not necessarily true. We know that, and it has been repeated by a few authorities also over the past few years. Leaders and members, they misunderstood a lot of things in the days of BY as without the information we have access to today and tainted by their own childhoods. Sure BY was a good leader, but he was not one to be trusted always, as are all people raising their opinions raised from his best judgement at the time. He was coloured by his circumstances, his upbringing and so on. And so many at that stage misunderstood D&C 132. These days it is understood that Section 132 refers to two distinct areas. One being married in an everlasting covenant as a requisite for higher laws and another and distinctly different but still related topic, that of polygamy if it were required as we know it was for a period in those rough days. Many made mistakes and the church was then as it is now, but to a lesser degree the last few years, marked by opinions spreading and demanding to be heard, often opinions that were never presented in the scriptures. Wildly guesses and rumours not founded in the gospel have hurt the spreading of the gospel and damaged reputation and further understanding for too long. Time those that do not understand the gospel are not given so much credit and time to look at what is really meant.

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Thanks for the input, but irrespective of who said what, when, where, and why, the debate in which I commented had to do specifically with the fact that many years ago polygamy as being essential to the highest levels of godhood was mormon doctrine. It really had nothing to do specifically with Brigham Young or D&C 132, but rather Bruce R. McConkie and his book, “Mormon Doctrine” which specifically taught it.

    I agree with you that speculation, conjecture, guesses, opinions, and rumors are worthless without something substantial to support them. However, in saying that, when a General Authority / Church Leader uses their credentials and/or professes it to be the gospel / doctrine, then that person is held to the same standards pertaining to and included in the known gospel / scriptures.

    I also agree that most people- mormons and all others- don’t understand the scriptures enough to save their souls. Unfortunately, those people always have the loudest opinions. I have found over my many years on the planet that there are VERY few people interested in hearing the TRUTH. Most people- especially mormons- simply want to discuss things and agree to things that support their existing narrative. So much so that I can’t speak much of the truth on any of these blogs because the truth will get censored and marked as spam.

    At the end of the day, mormons don’t want to know the truth, they just want to be reassured that what they’ve been taught to believe is all that matters- don’t think for yourself, and “Follow The Prophet.” That and $3.99 will get you a rainbow slurpee at the 7-11.

  • agkcrbs

    The disagreement on LDS doctrine is helpfully approached by distinguishing between “doctrine” in a broad sense, meaning anything taught, of whatever merit (including all scriptures, everything in the JoD and Mormon Doctrine, and everything coming from every local pulpit and teacher), and “official/canonical doctrine”, strictly institutionally defined and controlled by the united top quorums, assumed to include all material from the sources previously mentioned but excluding specific elements at will, accruing enough “genetic mutations” over time to ultimately change it into a new species of church. These may also be thought of in terms of the historical LDS Church versus the living LDS Church.

    Clearly, the doctrines of some degree of necessity of plural marriage, and the plurality of Heavenly Mothers, exist in the Church; I favour the former myself, and accepted the latter as soon as I read it, years ago, as an inevitable corollary of other doctrine; but can anybody point out the apostolic source of multiple divine wives?

  • Adam N. Godwin

    Excellent points. If we take the “doctrine” to a more literal level, then we have to consider the words of the Savior that, “38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, WHETHER BY MINE OWN VOICE OR BY THE VOICE OF MY SERVANTS, IT IS THE SAME.” ~ D&C 1:38 [my emphasis added].

    And then you have to ask, who qualifies as a servant? If you do a word search on lds.org in the scriptures for “servants” you will get lots and lots of results. If you look specifically in D&C you will see that it includes a lot of people in a long list of callings / positions / titles. It is so broad in some senses that it includes “30 And they shall bring forth their rich treasures unto the children of Ephraim, MY SERVANTS. 32 And there shall they fall down and be crowned with glory, even in Zion, by the hands of THE SERVANTS of the Lord, even the children of Ephraim.” ~ D&C 133:30,32 [my emphasis added]. And this is just one of many, many quotes I grabbed for example.

    After reviewing all the instances of “servants” in the scriptures, one could make a very convincing and solid argument that anyone who is in the service of God, in whatever capacity is in fact a servant.

    So then you have to ask whether the person making any comments, claims, etc. as being doctrinal- i.e. of God- is actually a servant as the word is used by the Gods. And if that person is a servant, then as GOD states in Section 1:38, then it is the same as if God himself had said it.

    As in the case of McConkie and his “Mormon Doctrine” he was in the presidency of the Quorum of the Seventy. I would suggest that anyone who stood up in the middle of General Conference and shouted that the members of the presidency of the Quorum of the Seventy were not God’s servants would quickly be condemned by the other General Authorities, other members in attendance, and branded as a heretic. But in spite of the claims in his book that others complain about, his claims were never refuted or redacted by any of his superiors. Instead a new book was printed with the wording simply changed and he was elevated to the office of Apostle- CLEARLY and unarguably an Apostle is a SERVANT of God.

    The problem with most people, including mormons is that they are very quick to speak their opinions without considering all the facts. That is mostly to do with the fact that most people, including mormons are not experts on most topics, so they end up debating from a position of weakness that can be quickly refuted by anyone who is an expert on the subject- or at least knows more than they. And then to exacerbate the situation, quite often when their argument begins to crumble under the weight of truth, they resort to name calling and denial. It’s actually quite sad, because they clearly are not lovers of the truth, which results in God deluding them so that they believe lies and are damned (see 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). Whatever truth they may have once had is taken away until they have nothing.

    A big part of the problem is that most mormons have blind faith and simply wait to be told what to believe and then they hold on to that at peril of their lives, believing that if they think for themselves, they have offended God, when just the opposite is true.

    An example of this is that a few years ago in Stake Conference, the Stake President taught that “having free agency does not give you the choice to choose wrong.” No Joke! I would have thought that by the time you become a Stake President that you know the basics of the gospel and know that that’s exactly what agency GUARANTEES- that you get to choose good or bad. Anyway, it was if the entire stake was instantly brainwashed into believing that they could no longer choose anything bad- it was incredibly bizarre as all the meetings for the next couple of months contained an element of this heretical doctrine taught by the Stake President.

    Unfortunately for all but a few mormons, they will never know what the future holds for them, because they don’t do as God commands and learn / live by all the covenants.

  • Bro. B.

    Joseph F. Smith, though not saying it explicitly, hints at at in JoD:
    “Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife sealed to him by authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false…it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory, or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful.”

  • Rebecca Ariana Brooks

    mormons the church of jesuschrist of latterdaysaints force their ideas down your throat and if you dont listion they curse you thats what joesph smith said, they talk about you having free agency for everyone but thats all shit. its true when i think about it now how can u be happy FOREVER when you have you have no choice but to do their ideas AND YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO THINK FOR YOURSELF. CAUSE THATS HOW THIER GOD WORKS.,HE SAYS THAT YOU WILL BE HAPPY.and you have to shut up not complain about your lot in life and pretend to be happy becuse thats what he says you will be and just except it, like lucifer had to and his army of devils. who are apparently force to do his will as @t mother was an abusive mormon when i was growing up i watched her bash up my brothers growing up and then expect them to bow down and WORSHIP and honer her and faith growing up as adults. none of them are really mormons now.Because god is saying he is worst then lucifer. is what i understand.some people will happy to live like that, but you have do what god says or get shitted on.cause thats what i understand from the church of jesus christ of latterday saints.