Personal Studies

Personal Studies
By Ted Séré-Couteight
1
Table of Contents
1- Is the church financing terrorism? 3
2- Was polygamy really revealed to Joseph Smith? 12
3- Did Joseph Smith really receive Elijah’s and Moses’ keys? 25
4- The Nauvoo Expositor 35
2
1. Is the church financing terrorism?
September 2016
Lately, my attention was attracted by some NGO’s financed by the church. I sadly realised that the
church had some very bad ‘friends’, and was giving her help for some very wrong projects. For me, the use of
sacred funds such as tithing and others sacred donations from church members, which were made with great
sacrifices for the very purpose of relieving people who had more need than them, but ends up in financing
terrorism is a great fault the church should never have made. This study is in order to compile the evidence of
the church financing such activities. We will study only 3 NGO in order to understand how the church works,
but there is many more like that financed by the church that we will not study.
International Islamic Relief Organisation (IIRO)
In an article published in the Deseret news, dated December 8th, 2015, we can read the following,
written with pride: ‘’The LDS Church also is a long time partner with Muslim charitable organizations like
International Islamic Relief Organisation 1.’’ In another article, there is a reference made that the church
distributed for 2 millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, using the same organisation, in 2006 in the conflict
between Israel and Lebanon2.
3
In ‘The Official Journal of the European Union’, commission regulation (EC) No 580/2008 of June 18th,
2008, addressing ‘’imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities
associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban3’’, the IIRO is specifically named twice
for having financed terror activities from its Philippine branch for terrorists attacks that occurred in 2004 and
2005, and for being actively implicated in the financing and recruiting of terrorist activities 3.
Next, on August 3rd, 2006, The U.S Department of the Treasury published that the IIRO ‘facilitating fundraising
for al Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups 4’’.
In May 2003, The Wall Street Journal published that the IIRO ‘’ having "extremist connections,"
including to the Palestinian group Hamas, Algerian radicals, and the Egyptian precursor to al Qaeda, Al-
Gamaat Al-Islamiya. "The IIRO is affiliated with the Muslim World League, a major international organization
largely financed by the government of Saudi Arabia," the report states, connecting the IIRO to al Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden and convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef. "The former head of the IIRO office in the Philippines,
Muhammad Jamal Khalifa, has been linked to Manila-based plots to target the pope and U.S. airlines; his
brother-in-law is Usama bin Ladin," the report states, using alternate spellings of Mr. bin Laden's names. In
addition, "another high-ranking [IIRO] official in the Philippines leads Hamas meetings, and the majority of
Hamas members in the Philippines are employed by the organization." Finally, it says, "the IIRO helps fund six
militant training camps in Afghanistan, according to a clandestine source." Saudi officials say they have
cracked down on their charities, although the IIRO remains in operation 5.’’
On July 26th, 2007, the Wall Street Journal published ‘’ U.S. intelligence has alleged connections
between al Qaeda and the IIRO since 1996, and the Treasury Department now alleges the IIRO has been deeply
penetrated by al Qaeda6’’. The rest of the article informs us of some facts about the IRRO.
On June 19th, 2008, Fox News published that the UNICEF concluded a deal with the IRRO, and repeat
that ‘’ The U.S. Treasury Department has designated the IIRO’s branches in the Philippines and Indonesia as
terrorist entities for funding and supporting terrorist groups that have killed hundreds in East Asia 7’’.
On April 16th, 2007, the journal ‘Le Monde’ reminds us that ‘’ the IIRO’s office appear on the official list
of organism financing terrorism of the U.S Treasury Department8’’.
4
Now, it is clear that the IIRO is a bad NGO, and that the church officially do business with them. On one
side the LDS leaders ask us to promulgate peace, and in the other, the finance and associate themselves with
NGO’s financing terrorism...
Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) and Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA)
Now, there are two others NGO’s. The first is ‘Islamic Relief Worldwide’ (IRW) and the second ‘Islamic
Relief USA’ (IRUSA). On the website of the IRUSA, we can learn that the IRW is the ‘mother’ NGO, and that the
IRUSA is a ‘daughter’ NGO of IRW9. On April 2nd, 2008, the Los Angeles Times published that ‘’ The Mormon
Church has become the biggest contributor to Buena Park-based Islamic Relief10’’. On the Facebook page of
‘LDS Charities’, the church proudly publishes (on July 10th, 2016) she works with the IRW11:
5
On October 6th, 2009, Church News published again proudly that she was working with the IRW and
that ‘’ Islamic Relief has developed a relationship of trust and friendship with the Church 11’’.
On July 29th, 2009, Mormon Newsroom talks about their affairs with the IRUSA13. Then, on August 1st,
2009, Deseret News talked about the same thing14. On February 28th, 2014, Mormon Newsroom published
some if the church partners, naming the IRUSA15. Then, still on their website, the IRUSA print too the Deseret
News’s article, where we can read ‘’the LDS Church and Islamic Relief have proven to be provident partners 16’’.
At this point, I think we can fairly say the church is largely involved with the IRW and IRUSA.
Now, what do we know about these two NGO’s? On November 29th, 2015, the Washington Times
published that the ‘’Islamic Relief Worldwide is a United Kingdom-based organization co-founded by
known Muslim Brotherhood leader Essam El-Haddad, currently jailed in Egypt. El-Haddad is also a former
Clinton Foundation employee17.’’ The article tells us that the ‘’Islamic Relief [USA] worked side by side with
Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation, a charity foundation tied to Laskar-e-taiba, the group responsible for the
Mumbai massacre. Also operating with Islamic Relief in the Earthquake response was the Alkhidmat
Foundation, a charitable organization of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Jamaat-e-Islami organization, known
to have financed Hamas17.’’
On May 29th, 2006, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs formally accused the IRW, specially its Gaza
branch, to support the Hamas and terorism18. On January 3rd, 2016, The Economic Times report that the HSBC
6
bank ‘’ had taken the decision to cut ties with Islamic Relief a year ago amid concerns that cash for aid could
end up with terrorist groups abroad19’’. And, like if it wasn’t enough, when we go read the list (2014) of
designated terrorist organisations by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the IRW is in it20! So, the IRW and the
IRUSA are well known for their terrorist activities and the church help them anyway...
Some members often tell me that to pay tithing is a commandment, and that what the leaders do with
it is not their problem. Among a handful of scriptures, I will share this one: «Yea, it shall come in a day when
there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and
deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this,
or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in
the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity. Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built
up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins 21».
We can clearly see how the church’s help to these terrorists groups contribute to murders, robbing,
deceiving, and all manners of abominations. Would the Lord vindicate such people in the last day? NO! Those
who make you believe that in giving your money, even if you call it ‘tithing’, you can’t hide from the
consequences of your choices and sins, are not speaking the Lord’s words...
In the beginning of 2017, my wife and I had a serious problem about paying tithing to the church,
because of that. At first, we went to our bishop. Our bishop set up a meeting with our stake president. Before
the meeting, I sent them the information we just saw. When the sake president saw the content, he canceled
our meeting, and didn’t want to talk about it. He sent the information the the area seventy, Brother Allard.
After several weeks, the area seventy didn’t wanted to talk about it either, and say that if it was bothering us,
we could write to the church’s headquarters. None of these leaders even bother to follow up with their
superior authority. They all saw it was disturbing enough to not want to talk about it, but none of them had
the courage and the integrity to ask their superiors. I knew exactly what kind of answer I would get from the
church, but I did anyway.
On March 5th, 2017, I sent the information to the Members of the first presidency and the twelve
apostles, Office of the First Presidency, 47 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150. The letter was
transferred to the Presiding Bishopric, then to the Director of Emergency response. Here is their answer:
7
8
So, as you would have notice, they don’t even talk about the worst of the mentioned NGOs, the IIRO.
Then, of you compare what they say with the publications we studied and their dates, they dare to lie about
it... Even if some of it was true, and that they stopped to work with some of them, what does it change? They
did for decades and they still do with many other NGOs! Anyway, they only made a ‘flowery’ letter, to say
basically we help anyone, and they tried to put that on race or on religion, which is not. The problem is not
about the race or the religion of those NGOs; the problem is that they are murderers, thieves, and much
more!
They try to hade partly in saying that they give humanitarian aid, and not necessarily money. Well, is that
supposed to be better? Let say some NGO has a 50 million budget. Most of that would have to be actual
humanitarian aid, in order to keep their NGO status, and continue to receive grants and donations. Let’s say
they divert about 7 million a year to finance terrorism. Then, let’s say the church gives them 5 millions in
humanitarian aid. That’s it; you just created a hole of 5 million to help them keep money to divert somewhere
else...
9
References :
1- Deseret News, december 8 2015, by Tad Walch, LDS Church Releases statement on religious freedom
as Donald Trump’s Muslim controversy Swirls. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865643265/LDS-
Church-releases-statement-on-religious-freedom-as-Donald-Trumps-Muslim-controversy-
swirls.html?pg=all)
2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Humanitarian_Services
3- Official Journal of the European Union, Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2008 of 18 June 2008.
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:161:0025:0027:EN:PDF)
4- U.S Department of the Treasury, Press Center, august 3, 2006. (https://www.treasury.gov/press-
center/press-releases/Pages/hp45.aspx)
5- Wall Street Journal, may 9, 2003, U.S Officials knew of Ties Between Terror, Charities.
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10524385762417300)
6- Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2007, U.S Tracks Saudi Bank Favored by Extremists.
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118530038250476405)
7- Fox News, June 19, 2008, UNICEF Partners With Islamic Charity Linked to Terror Groups.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/06/19/unicef-partners-with-islamic-charity-linked-to-terror-
groups.html)
8- Le Monde, 16 Avril 2007, 11 Septembre 2001: Les Français en savent long.
(http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2007/04/16/ce-que-les-services-francais-savaient-de-ben-
laden-en-2000_896448_3224.html)
9- http://irusa.org/frequently-asked-questions/
10- Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2008, U.S Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons.
(http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/02/local/me-morlims2)
11- https://www.facebook.com/LDSCharities/videos/1708784339384449/
12- Church News, October 6, 2009, Church and Islamic Relief send aid to Samoan Island to aid earthquake
and tsunami victims. (http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/58041/Church-and-Islamic-
Relief-send-aid-to-Samoan-islands-to-aid-earthquake-and-tsunami-victims.html)
13- Mormon Newsroom, July 29, 2009, Mormon, Islamic Leaders Share Relief Efforts.
(http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon,-islamic-leaders-share-relief-efforts)
14- Deseret News, August 1, 2009, LDS, Islamic Leaders Share Relief Efforts.
(http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705319492/LDS-Islamic-leaders-share-relief-
efforts.html?linkTrack=rss-30)
15- Mormon Newsroom, 28 février 2014, Mormon Representatives Discuss Church Humanitarian Efforts at
the United Nations. (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-representatives-united-
nations-discussion)
16- http://irusa.org/lds-islamic-leaders-share-relief-efforts/
17- Washington Times, November 29, 2015, Funding Terrorists.
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/29/kyle-shideler-funding-terrorists-must-end/)
10
18- Israel Ministry of Foreing Affairs, 29 may 2006, British national arrested for assisting Hamas.
(http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/british%20national%20arreste
d%20for%20assisting%20hamas%2029-may-2006.aspx)
19- The Economic Times, 3 janvier 2016, HSBC cuts ties with UK Islamic Charity over ‘terror’ fears.
(http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/hsbc-cuts-ties-with-uk-islamic-
charity-over-terror-fears/articleshow/50427438.cms)
20- List of groups designated terrorist organisations by the UAE, 16 Novembre 2014,
http://www.thenational.ae/uae/government/list-of-groups-designated-terrorist-organisations-by-the-
uae
21- Mormon 8:31-32
11
2. Was polygamy really reveale
To Joseph smith?
September 2016
If there is a ‘gospel’ principle in the church that disturbs a lot of members, it is polygamy. There is
absolutely nobody that can tell us why this principle would be necessary either on earth or in heaven. Nobody
can explain why so many atrocities were made in the process of applying this so-called divine law, like
polyandry, just to name one.
During all my life, I was taught and I believed that this principle was revealed by God to Joseph smith,
and that it was a celestial principle leading to some covenants leading to the exaltation. I remember reading
all my youth that it wasn’t possible to be exalted without entering in a plural marriage covenant, ether on
earth on in haven. There were many questions in my mind, but like everyone, I taught I would learn more in
the other side, and that everything would then make sense! But I am not dead, and I learned more, more of
what I didn’t expected. As I continued to read our church history, I came across several documents that
started to make me understand what I had been taught was not how it really happened.
So, in this study, we will go through the evidence of showing Joseph never was a polygamist, and that
he never taught this principle. I know, it is almost impossible to believe. Even the anti-mormon agrees that
Joseph was and brought up polygamy to the Church. It is not even a subject of dispute among anyone! But
here we are. We will study the mains sources in this document. We will not be able to go through everything,
because il will literally take several book. So I did choose among many documents, and I encourage any of
those who read my words to go to the footnotes, and go through everything. Brigham Young, John Taylor,
Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruff completely made up that story about polygamy and, with their
accomplices, made up documents, change the church history, and put the ‘blame’ on Joseph’s back. So here
we go.
Let’s start with the source of the polygamy: D & C 132, revelation on plural marriage. According to the
church, that revelation was written under Joseph supervising on July 12, 1843. The church says that even if
Joseph had the revelation written on that date, it is clear he knew about that principle as early as 1831 (keep
in mind the dates, it will become very helpful later on). If we go read in the institute book 1 on this passage, we
can read in the history context in the beginning, at the church’s ‘gravy’... Here is a summary (for all the details,
see History of the Church vol5: XXXii and following): On July 12, 1843, Joseph was discussing that revelation
12
with his brother Hyrum, in the presence of brother William Clayton. Hyrum told Joseph to write down the
revelation and that he (Hyrum) would go present it to Emma, being confident to convince her. Joseph asked
William to write down what he would say, and that gave the original copy of the D & C 132 revelation. During
the writing of the revelation, bishop Newel K. Whitney arrived in the room, and learned of what was going on.
I was very impressed, and asked Joseph if he could make a copy of the revelation once Hyrum would be done
with it. Joseph agreed, and Hyrum went to see Emma with the original copy. It didn’t go has he taught, and
Emma was very upset. Hyrum gave back the original copy to Joseph, and Joseph gave it to Bishop Whitney.
The Bishop had the copy of the original made the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury. So, at this point, we
have an original document, and a copy if the original. Then, Joseph kept the original, and Bishop Whitney, the
copy. Later on, Joseph had an argument about it with Emma, and according to the church, she took the
original document and threw it into the fire. By then, the only document remaining was the copy Bishop
Whitney had. It is from this very copy the church says they base themselves to do our current D & C 132. So,
here is what the church teaches concerning the provenance of that ‘revelation’.
Plural marriage was taught in the church as an ordinance in a covenant giving access to the exaltation:
«for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.[...] and if ye abide not that covenant,
then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory2». According
to D & C 132 and the Scriptures Guide, plural marriage belongs to the ‘New and Everlasting Covenant’,
covenant being the fullness of the gospel3. So, it is clear this principle is taught as a celestial law, a gospel
principle that we need to accept in order to be exalted. It wasn’t a simple circumstantial practice (as many
love to believe, citing Jacob 2:30). I could give a handful of quotes from prophets and apostles, given during
general conferences and others official meetings, teaching that plural marriage was a necessary covenant to
take in order to be exalter. I was taught to be as much necessary as the baptism or the gift of the Holy Ghost. I
will not do it because, as I have stated earlier, the subject of polygamy is not the subject I want to study here. I
just wanted to show how it was viewed in the church officially, as being necessary in order to be exalted.
Imagine yourself living at that time in the church. You trust your leaders. You probably feel confuse
with this new doctrine. But you really want to follow God and to go back in his presence. You submit to this
law, either in taking many wives, either in accepting your husband do. You don’t really have a choice: you
comply or you don’t go back to God anyway, and you will be damned. Even in our days, where we do not
practice polygamy, many are tortured about this dilemma, thinking they will eventually have to make that
choice. I can remember having several discussions with my wife, my sisters and others women, realising they
were probably not fit for the exaltation, because of that very principle. It lead people to think of themselves in
the impossibility to reach what the Father prepare for them, and why? Because they don’t feel it. They
actually feel it is wrong! What sadness....
13
Now, let us start with the counterarguments. In 1893, the RLDS (the group who left the church with
Emma and Joseph’s son, Joseph Smith III, who became eventually their leader) and the Church of Christ (a
group of members who left the church in Brigham’s time, lead by Granville Hedrick) went to court in order to
gain the temple lot of Independence, Missouri. The court decided to determine which group was the closest to
what Joseph organised, and that this one would have the temple lot. The RLDS being against polygamy and the
Church of Christ being polygamist, the court spent a lot of time on that subject to understand if that practice
started with Joseph or not, and that would set for them a good start.
Understanding that, the Church of Christ took a deal with the LDS church, so their leaders would come
testify for them about the origin of the polygamy in the early church. So, the LDS church was not directly
implicated in the case, but their leaders went to testify under oath on the bench, so it is very interesting. What
is the most important I believe, is that this court report is not the propriety of the church, so none of the
involved party can modify it to accommodate its history. In this U.S court, there are key personages who came
to testify, such as John Taylor (not the prophet, but the president of the seventy in Joseph’s time), Wilford
Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, James Whitehead (secretary of Joseph), Joseph C. Kingsbury (the one who transcribe
the copy of the original D & C 132 revelation), and many others interesting people, such as plural wives of
Joseph Smith.
The court report is more than 600 pages, so I was very selective about what I would share, and we will
not be able to talk about all the witnesses presented. Again, go to the footnotes (there is a link to get the full
U.S court report), and see for yourself.
Let’s start with James Whitehead, secretary of Joseph. He wrote himself many of the revelations Joseph
received. He was probably one of the few people who spend a good deal of time around Joseph, even
recording the personal diaries of Joseph. He would have been aware of about any taught of Joseph and ‘off
book’ conversations he had. During the court, Brother Whitehead testifies that « I never heard anything about
the doctrine of polygamy until after the time Joseph Smith was killed 4», and that «I do not know anything
about the doctrine of polygamy ever having been taught in the church by Joseph Smith, at any time prior to his
death5». He explained that the doctrine of sealing was taught around 1842 or 1843, but not polygamy. He also
reported to have seen in 1848 the copy of the original document, the one Bishop Whitney had: «the one
published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants by the Utah Church was not the one that Bishop Whitney
showed me at Winter Quaters. It was not the same at all. It was entirely changed. It was so changed that it
sanctioned polygamy [...]. There was nothing about polygamy or plural marriage in the revelation that Whitney
showed me6». He also testified that: «There was never any woman who came to me, or Joseph Smith in my
presence, during the time of my employment as his private secretary, for any money, claiming that she was the
wife of Joseph Smith, except his wife Emma. There was no entry of that kind ever made on the books, of money
paid by me or by him to any woman claiming to be his wife, except Emma 7». We will come back later on some
others declarations he made. But for now, it is enough to know his position, which is that in the lifetime of
Joseph, there never was anything about polygamy, but about sealing, yes.
14
Before going any further, it is important to set something capital: in the 1835 edition of D & C that
Joseph published (which is not the same we have now), section 101 was the section on marriage. It was then
written: «In asmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy:
we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in
case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again8».
So, there was then a section in the scriptures book, teaching polygamy was not right and not taught by
the church. You will understand that later on, the section 101 was removed, to be replaced by our current
section 132, on plural marriage. On this issue, Wilford Woodruff was interrogated by the procurer. Here is a
section of the dialogue9 between the procurer (P) and Wilford Woodruff (W.W):
15
P: Why the church of which you are President in the publication of the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants in the edition of 1876,eliminated from that edition the section on marriage as found in the
1835 edition, and in all of the editions of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants published up to 1876, and
inserted in lieu of that section on marriage the revelation on polygamy, dated July 12, 1843.
W.W: I do not know why it was done.
P: Was it not done because one was in conflict with the other?
W.W: I do not know that I can state why it was done.
Until now, brother Woodruff try the ‘card’ that he doesn’t know why it happened. Then, the procurer
thy another approach, reminding him of the baptismal covenant, and its link with the marriage covenant, and
reminding him that when the church arrived into the Salt Lake valley, they all got baptized again once the
change from monogamy to polygamy was made into the scripture10:
P: Now I want to read for the purpose of refreshing your recollection section 47 of Exhibit E, 1835
edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, revelation given 1830, in April:
«Behold I say unto you. that all old covenants have I caused to be done sway in this thing, and
this is a new and an everlasting covenant: even that which was from the beginning, —
wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times, it availeth him nothing: for
you cannot enter in at the straight gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works, for it is
because of your dead works, that I have caused this last covenant, and this church to be built up
unto me; even as in days of old. Wherefore enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and
seek not to counsel your God. Amen.»
Now you recognize that as teaching that the gospel covenant was the new covenant?
W.W: Yes, sir.
P: Were you baptized after that revelation and into this new covenant at first?
W.W: Yes, sir.
P: Now, When you went to Salt Lake, had you broken that covenant?
16
W.W: No sir, not that I know of. But let me say that there is no commandment that I know of, nor any
lay which say that a man shall not be rebaptized. After we came to Salt Lake, we were all rebaptized as
pioneers. [...]
P: Now, is not this revelation on the question of marriage introduced into the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants in the place of the original section on marriage, called a new covenant?
W.W: It may be called that. [...] it is called a new and everlasting covenant in that case, because of
the law of marriage under which it was given.
P: And for that reason you were rebaptized when you came to Salt Lake; is that not true?
W.W: No, sir, not with regard to that covenant. We were baptized because we felt like doing it.
From that moment, Wilford starts to be confused regarding the line of questions of the procurer made,
showing the church got rebaptized, what a coincidence, just after the leaders took off D & C 101 (on
monogamy) to replace it for D & C 132 (on polygamy). Several times, Wilford refused to answer the
questions... About their rebaptism, he argued that when they got to the Salt Lake valley, they had a desire to
‘renew their covenants’. It lives you to wonder if they understood anything about the sacrament... Lorenzo
Snow and others were asked about the same thing, and they all answer about the same thing as Wilford. You
will be able to read it in the court report.
Then, it was Lorenzo Snow to testify. His testimony is particularly interesting, because according to the
church, his sister Elisa R. Snow was one of the plural wives of Joseph. Lorenzo said: «And a man that violated
this law in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the
church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes, sir, he would have been cut off from
the church. I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married
more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would
have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the State, too 11». Later on, the procurer
(P) wants to make sure he understood correctly what he (S) said:
P : That is you state that if a person had been married or sealed by this revelation, according to your
understanding, that is, if they had been married according to the provisions of this polygamous
revelation prior to the year 1843, they would have violated the laws of the church and been guilty of
adultery?
S: Yes, sir.
17
P: You state now that Joseph Smith was sealed or married to your sister in April, 1843, and this so-
called revelation was given in July, 1843? [...] what kind of a position did it put your sister and Joseph
Smith in?
Oops! If Lorenzo had any integrity at all, he would have stick with his first and correct assessment, and
would have said the fact, according to his story, that Joseph had an adulterous relation with his sister. But no,
he didn’t... He preferred to throw everything he said away, and answered: «It put them in a first-rate, splendid
condition for time and eternity13». What a hypocrite...Then, to push the nail further, the procurer ask his if he
knew his sister denied she was married to Joseph13:
P : will ask you, Mr. Snow, if you ever saw the letter of your sister, Mrs. Snow, to Mr. Daniel Munns, of
Kansas, stating that she never was the wife of Joseph Smith?
S: I am not aware of that.
He then proceeds to acknowledge he too never saw the revelation on plural marriage, and that he
didn’t care. He said he would believe what the church leaders would tell him to believe.
Then, there is the testimony of Joseph C. Kingsbury, which is very very interesting. He starts his turn
refusing to take the oath to «tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 14». Its starts quite well...
as of a reminder, Joseph Kingsbury is the one who made the copy of the original manuscript of the alleged D &
C 132, being asked by Bishop Whitehead. In the beginning, he doesn’t want to answer clearly any questions,
pretending not to remember anything. Then, little by little, the procurer finds a way to settle on some basic
points related to the transcription of the document he made. He admitted that the transcription didn’t took
him more than 1 hour to make, and not less than half an hour, and that he was able to transcript the whole
thing on a sheet of paper (both sides) of what they called ‘foolscape’15 format. Once they arrived to set these
parameters, the procurer (who did his tests) tells him: «: «Now, don't you know that you could not copy that
revelation, section 132 of Exhibit A on one sheet of paper, and that you could not copy it on twenty sheets of
paper, foolscap or any other kind of ordinary writing paper? Don't you know that you could not copy it in three
hours15? »
After that, Kingsbury lost control, and starts again with his ‘I don’t remember’, and finishes in saying he
doesn’t even remember a single sentence he copied, and that he doesn’t even remember if it had the word
polygamy or not... he just got busted, and there was no way for him to get out of it. But if you ask me, I would
tell you I do believe him. You will tell me ‘WHAT???’, but yes, I do believe him. If we compare what he said
with the others testimonies, particularly the one of Joseph’s secretary, brother Whitehead 16, we understand
that what really happened that day was not a revelation on polygamy, but on sealing. We understand that the
18
revelation was changed and altered to a point it is what we have now, about polygamy. Then, I do believe that
in the beginning, the revelation could have really fit on the 2 sides of a sheet of paper that would have not
taken him more than an hour to copy. But today, with the D & C 132 section as we have it, it is impossible to
make it fit in the parameters Kingsbury and others described. Kingsbury, knowing that, played the card of
‘doesn’t remembering’ in order to protect the church, and even started by not taking the oath in his
questioning. All that, of course, if there really was anything revelled on that day in July 1843. I have my doubts
on that, because the copy that the secretary of Joseph saw had William Clayton’s handwriting on it 17. As we
have seen, brother Clayton made the original manuscript (according to the church story), which was
apparently burned by Emma18...
I want to precise that the person Joseph asked to write the revelation, William Clayton, was a former
secretary of Joseph, but that he was fired for theft: «William Clayton was there in the office before I was, but
was not there all the time after I came. He was removed from his position as private secretary, by Joseph Smith
and the committee- - the temple committee—about the time I was appointed, because there was something
took place in connection with Clayton's work that gave dissatisfaction; there was some money disappeared
and he was blamed for it, and for that reason he was removed from that office, that occurred in 1843, in the
beginning of the year19». The official story of the church regarding that event is very doubtful. Why in hell
would Joseph ask someone he didn’t trust, to write such an important revelation, that he (according to the
church) wanted to keep secret? Doesn’t really make any sense...
Now, during the entire time, the LDS witness testified that the polygamy practice was preached and
lived secretly during Joseph’s life. Be it from the mouth of Wilford Woodruff: «Joseph Smith taught us
privately, or taught some of the members of the church privately the Abrahamic principle of marriage or the
patriarchal system of marriage20», or of Lorenzo Snow: « There was some talk in Nauvoo among the officers of
the church about the practice of plural marriage There was considerable talk. It was not public talk. I have no
recollection of the practice being talked of publicly21», or of about anyone who testified in favor of polygamy,
all were saying it was a secret practice in Joseph’s time.
It is possible... but if it is the case, we are confronted on another problem: if it was really the case,
Joseph Smith, Emma, and each and every other leaders of the church were all damn layers! In fact, in 1842,
there was a bit of a situation in the church. A member, former general authority of the church, John C. Bennett
started to practice polygamy with others in secret. When it became known, he said it was a secret practice of
the church (exactly what the church teaches now!). To put an end to it, especially to make sure the doctrine of
the church was crystal clear on it, Joseph asked the Relief Society leaders and the members and the Quorum
of the Twelve to produce official statements regarding that matter. They published:
19
«We the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and
residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families, do hereby certify and declare that
we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book
of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's
"secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this
place nor never did22».
And: « We the undersigned members of the Ladies' Relief Society, and married females
do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practiced in the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C.
Bennett's "secret wife system'' is a disclosure of his own make 22».
These statements are signed, among many, by Wilford Woodruff, Emma Smith, Eliza Snow, John Taylor,
and many others latter LDS leaders in Brigham’s time. All those nice leaders signed these statements, and at
the same time (according the the church), they were all into polygamy! What honesty... There was another
statement made November 15th, 1844, that reads: «The law of the land and the rules of the church do not
allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once, but if any man's wife die, he has a right to marry
another, and to be sealed to both for eternity; to the living and the dead! There is no law of God against it! This
is all the spiritual wife system that ever was tolerated in the church, and they know it 23». In it, we can clearly
see the line made between polygamy and sealing. This publication was made few months after Joseph’s death,
and he died having around 30 plural wives (according to the church)...
Now, we have to make a choice. We have to choose if Joseph was an honest man, a prophet, and if the
people who stayed faithful to him were or not. As for myself, I believe that yes, they were. As an example,
Emma, Joseph’s wife, said even on her death bed, that Joseph never taught or practiced polygamy, and it is
even acknowledge in the official LDS liturgy 24. John Taylor (of the seventy) said: «There was another man by
the name of Durfy who went to La Harpe, Illinois, and he told the people that he thought (1842) the time would
come when they would practice polygamy, or the same doctrine with reference to plural wives that David and
Solomon did. That was what Durfy taught. That was reported to Hyrum Smith, and Hyrum Smith sat on a well
curb and wrote a notice to him that such a doctrine was not to be taught in the church. I saw that letter, and it
was a severe rebuke25». Why, why, whyyyyy Hyrum would have done that? If they were really practicing
polygamy in secret, it would render them a great service: it conditioned the people to accommodate to this
principle. But, he did not let it go...
Another element that affirms my judgment is the fact that in the court, the judge, who was not an LDS
of course, admits the following, after having received the story and the proofs from both sides: polygamists
and non-polygamists:
20
«It is charged by the Respondents, as an echo of the Utah Church, that Joseph Smith,
"the Martyr," secretly taught and practiced polygamy; and the Utah contingent
furnishes the evidence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would be
uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their
connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances
surrounding the alleged intercourse, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most
they were but sports in "nest hiding". In view of the contention of the Salt Lake party,
that polygamy obtained at Nauvoo as early as 1841, it must be a little embarrassing to
President Woodruff of that organization when he is confronted, as he was in the
evidence in this case, with a published card in the church organ [paper] at Nauvoo in
October, 1843, certifying that he knew of no other rule or system of marriage than the
one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and that the "secret wife
system," charged against the church, was a creature of invention by one Dr. Bennett,
and that they knew of no such society. That certificate was signed by the leading
members of the church, including John Taylor, the former President of the Utah Church.
And a similar certificate was published by the Ladies' Relief Society of the same place,
signed by Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith, and Phoebe Woodruff, wife of the present
President Woodruff. No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church,
and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was
in the full vigor of young manhood, and his wife, Emma, was giving birth to healthy
children in regular order, and was enciente [pregnant] at the time of Joseph's death 25.»
Sidey Rigdon accused the Twelve to have created polygamy after the death of Joseph: «It is a fact, so
well known, that the Twelve and their adherents have endeavored to carry on this spiritual wife business in
secret ... and have gone to the most shameful and desperate lengths, to keep it from the public.... How often
have these men and their accomplices stood up before the congregation, and called God and all the holy
Angels to witness, that there was no such doctrine taught in the church ; and it has now come to light, by
testimony which cannot be gainsaid, that at the time they thus dared heaven and insulted the world, they were
living in the practice of these enormities; and there were multitudes of their followers in the congregation at
the time who knew it26».
Another clue that this story is fiction is one of Joseph Diary, which we can look at in one of the church’s
website. In it, we can see that the church took the liberty to alter the text, in order to avoid discrepancies and
contradictions on the church doctrine. In that passage, one of Joseph secretary record what Joseph asked him
to write, a discussion they had that day. We can clearly see another handwriting on the side with the note ‘’to
be revised’’, and then, we see that some of the original text was crossed and a revision made in between the
paragraphs. The end work is completely the contrary to the original paragraph. Here is the original text:
«Evening at home and walked up and down the street with my scribe. Gave Instruction to try those who were
preaching teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives. On this Law. Joseph forbids it. And the
practice there of— No man shall have but one wife27». And the revised one: « Evening at home and walked up
and down the street with my scribe. Gave instruction to try those who were preaching teaching or practicing
the doctrine of plurality of wives. on this law for according to the law I hold the keys of this power in the last
days, for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power? and the keys are conferred and I have
continually said Joseph forbids it. and the practice there of No man shall have but one wife at a time unless
the Lord directs otherwise27» (In red, the additions, and in crossed, suppressions).
21
The question is now the following: If Joseph really did teach polygamy, why take the time to counterfeit that
document (and others)? We should be able to find quite a lot of document in the personal files of Joseph
about it, from where the church could pick. But the fact that the church took the liberty to modify such
document tells us otherwise... and ho! Yes! By a total chance, the modifications on this very example were
made among few people, by Wilford Woodruff himself!
22
Joseph taught himself that: «Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in
the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed 28».Once again, why would he teach
that, if he knew eventually he would have to say the truth about polygamy, and that the church should stop
monogamy?
Another counterfeit I suspect the church made is concerning Official Declaration #1, ‘revealing’ the end
of the practice of the polygamy in the church. In the court report, Lucy W. Kimball was questioned by the
procurer, Lucy having been sent by the church as one of Joseph’s wives (and a LDS leader). During the
interrogation, the procurer asked her about the Manifesto the following: «How is it that the Church went back
on it (polygamy) and said that the Lord did not command it at all29». At first, when you read him, you tell
yourself he didn’t understand something, because it is not what the Manifesto say at all (our present one
anyway...). But when we read the answer of Sister Kimball, we realise with disgust that he understood very
well, and that she doesn’t refute it at all: «Well, the church see the day when it will apologize for that. Yes sir, I
did consent to the Manifesto with the rest of the church to President Woodruff, much to my regret, but I am
not going to acknowledge it again 29». She doesn’t deny at all that the manifesto was saying just that, but she
even says that the church would eventually apologize for that! What is even more revealing is that none of the
LDS leaders present said anything, which they did often during the interrogation of their members, to rectify
or even to tell them to stop answering... For me, it is another proof that the church proceeds regularly to
modify its doctrine, even its scriptures in order to keep the control over its people, and to make them believe
it was always like so.
We could continue on that for a very long time, but I think the basic was said. I think it is inevitable for
the one who truly want to understand and verify the truth to read the entire documentation, in order to verify
the contexts, the accuracy of the quotes, and else. I recommend too another study named ‘Joseph’s
monogamy’, that can be found in the following link:
http://downloads.miridiatech.com.s3.amazonaws.com/remnant/JosephSmithsMonogamy.pdf).
I can’t stop thinking about Joseph trying to stop polygamy all his life. I can’t stop thinking about all the
false witnesses the church made in order to put that ‘doctrine’ on his back, to justify their abominations. I
can’t stop thinking about Emma and her children, knowing all that, having to go through all those lies about
her husband and their father. I can understand now why she left the church, with most of Joseph’s relatives.
This most have been most painful for all of them. And all in the name of God the almighty, who restored his
gospel all about family forever...
23
References:
1 Institut Doctrine & Covenant, Student manual, Section 132

2 D & C 132 : 3-4
3 D & C 66 :2
4 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, James Whitehead, p.33
(https://books.google.com/books?id=qi5OAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summ
ary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)
6 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, James Whitehead, p.475-476
8 Doctrine & Covenants 101, 1835 edition. Aussi: Joseph Smith papers :
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-
1835#!/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835&p=259
9 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, Wilford Woodruff, p.309
10 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, Wilford Woodruff, p.310-311
11 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, Lorenzo Snow, p.320
14 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, Joseph C. Kingsbury, P.333
15 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, Joseph C. Kingsbury, P.342
18 Hystory of the Church, Volume 5, p. XXXIII
20 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, Wilford Woodruff, p.304
22 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, p.303
23 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, p.307-308
24 Institut Doctrine & Covenants, Student Manual, Section 132 :50-56
25 Decision of John F. Philips, Judge in Temple Lot Case , p 42
26 Sidney Rigdon, Messenger and Advocate 1, October 15, 1844, p.14
27 http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-draft-1-march-31-december-
1843&p=144#!/paperSummary/history-draft-1-march-31-december-1843&p=143
28 Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.308
29 Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C, Lucy W. Kimball, p.375
24
3. Did Joseph Smith really receive
Elijah’s and Moses’ keys?
March 2017
Before starting on the subject, let’s set some reference points on the subject. In the LDS church, the
event recorded in D & C 110 is the cornerstone of the authority they claim to have in the temples, giving them
the power to seal families together forever, giving them the power to baptize the dead, and performing
endowments ordinances. It gives as well the church the authority to do missionary work, in order to gather
Israel in the gospel in latter days. The event recorded in D & C 110 is reported to have taken place April 3rd,
1836, in the Kirtland temple.
As we start to understand the origin of that even, it is primordial to understand that D & C 110 is the
ONLY and SOLE document referring or reporting that event. No one recorded having heard of that event (not
even those present...), no talk was ever given in Joseph’s time, nor until way after his death (first time the
story appeared was in the 1850’s), nor anywhere else. The claim of the church on having these keys is based
on that very only document. I challenge anyone to find any other document referring to that event. There is
just none.
When we read the introduction paragraph of that section, when are referred back to History of the
Church, volume 2, p. 435-436. Of course, what is recorded in History of the Church is not the original
document of that ‘revelation’. To have the original handwritten copy1 of that event, we have to go to the
church’s website Josephsmithpapers.org, where the document was scanned and display. When we start to
read this original copy, the first thing that strike the eye, it that it is not the same thing written in our current
Doctrine and Covenants scriptures book. In our current scripture book, it is written like if Joseph himself was
reporting the event, it is written in the first person narrative. But in the original, it is written in the third
person... The event wasn’t recorded by Joseph or Oliver Cowdery, who was supposed to be next to Joseph
when it happened.
As for an example, we read in D & C: «The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our
understanding were opened2. » But in the original, we read: «The veil was taken from their minds and the eyes
of their understandings were opened3». The entire document is like that.
25
To see a more detailed and readable print, see the footnote1
So, the problem is the following: Joseph and Oliver were the only ones present it this event, but it
wasn’t them who reported of it... Joseph could have asked a third-party to transcribe the event for him, as he
was reporting it. In fact, it is exactly what the church says happened. At first, the church attributed the
handwriting of the text to Willard Richard, and later on, to Warren Cowdery. That original document is found
in one of the personal diaries of Joseph. Sometimes, Joseph wrote himself in it, and most of the time, he was
asking his secretaries to do it for him. On this, the church say: «Unlike Warren Parrish and other scribes in this
journal, who referred to themselves in the third person and JS in the first, Warren Cowdery referred to JS in the
third person4». The only problem with that claim is that when we go see the documents Warren Cowdery
wrote5, we discover two things: First, like any other secretary, he was indeed writing in the third person
narrative when he was reporting the minutes in a meeting (ex: brother ‘xyz’ said so, and Joseph decided so
and so...). But secondly, when Warren was writing revelations or had to write for Joseph, or anyone, he was
usually writing it as the speaker would say it. I say usually, because I haven’t taken the time to read all of
Warren’s writings, but after having verified most of them, I would absolutely not agree with the church in
saying that Warren had the habit of writing in the third-person when writing for Joseph... In the contrary, the
records of his writings5 show quite a different habit...
26
Following, the church continue saying: «This account of the vision was later recast in first person as
part of the history JS began in 1838, and in that form it was incorporated into the published Latter-day Saint
canon (D&C 110) in 18766». So... when you read that, what do you understand of it? What you understand is
that in 1838, Joseph started to revised his personal entries, changing himself third-party unto first person
narrative, and that the current D & C 110, first published in 1876 (Joseph was long dead...) format we have
was taken from the very revision Joseph did himself. It might be what you understand, and it is the purpose in
formulating such a sentence, but it is not what they actually say! All they say is that in 1838, Joseph started to
revise some of his personal entries, changing third-party to first person narrative, and that is it. You assumed,
because it was said in this context, that he had in hand the original document, and that he made the changes,
proving he was aware of it. There is NO document where we can see a change made by Joseph, of even that
he was aware that he actually had this experience! This sentence was place to lead you to believe Joseph
knew of it. We call that deception.
Now, you will tell me that all that may be suspicious, but it is too far fetch to actually draw any strong
conclusion on the subject. And if it was only that, I would agree with you, and I would never have brought up
the subject. But, it is not all. The better (or the worst...) is to come. As I was saying in the beginning, during
Joseph’s life, no one, ever ever (not even he) mentioned that event. NO ONE. Imagine you were Oliver, or a
Twelve, or Joseph’s wife, or anybody that would have been close enough to Joseph and Oliver to be trusted
with that information, and that you learned the authority was back on earth, and that you will soon be able to
be sealed with your family, to do the ‘saving’ ordinances for your ancestors, ect, what would you have done?
Being a compulsory diary keeper (like almost any of them!), you would be soooo joyful about it and write that
joy in your journal, and your feeling about It. But no. Not one person did that, which is very unusual,
comparing to other thing reported by them which were way less impressive. In the other hand, Joseph did
talk, many times about Elijah and his keys, after 1836. Would you guess what he said? Let see some examples:
October 5th, 1840, more than 4 years after the alleged 1836 event, Joseph said: «Elijah was the last
Prophet that held the keys of the Priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority
and deliver the keys of the Preisthood 7». So here, is the first of many times where Joseph ether is saying the
truth, or is deliberately lying to the people. If he really had these keys given in 1836, and wanted to keep it
secret, there would be no need to talk about it. He could just have shut is mouth, and never say a word. But he
didn’t, he always said he hadn’t the keys.
October 2nd, 1841, more than 5 years after allegedly having received Elijah’s keys, Joseph said: «The
dispensation of the fullness of the times will bring to light the things that have been revealed in all former
dispensations; also other things that have not been before revealed. He shall send Elijah, the Prophet, &c., and
restore all things in Christ8».
27
August 27th, 1843, more than 7 years after the event mentioned in D & C 110, he said: «How shall God
come to the rescue of this generation? He will send Elijah the prophet. [...] Elijah shall reveal the covenants to
seal the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. [...] Go to and finish the [Nauvoo]
temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this preisthood 9».
On January 21st, 1844, only 5 month before his death, he said: «The keys are to be delivered, the spirit
of Elijah is to come, the Gospel to be established, the Saints of God gathered, Zion built up, and the Saints to
come up as saviors on Mount Zion. [...] My only trouble at the present time is concerning ourselves, that the
Saints will be divided, broken up, and scattered, before we get our salvation secure 10». This declaration
couldn’t be more specific: he says without ambiguity he doesn’t have the keys... Keep in mind his fear and the
end of the paragraph, because we will come back to it.
On March 10, 1844, only 3 month before his death, Joseph taught: «The spirit of Elias is first, Elijah
second, and Messiah last. Elias is a forerunner to prepare the way, and the spirit and power of Elijah is to come
after, holding the keys of power, building the [Nauvoo] temple to the capstone, placing the seals of the
Melchisedec Priesthood upon the house of Israel, and making all things ready; then Messiah comes to His
Temple, which is last of all11». Once more, Joseph is cristal clear on the subject. Keep in mind what he said
about the temple, we will come back to it as well.
At this point, you may start to ask yourself what is going on. And you should. Before going any further, I
would like to ask a question. I will set a context first: In the church, we teach the fullness of the gospel was
restored by Joseph Smith, and that through him, we have the fullness of the priesthood, which was fully
restored April 3rd, 1836 in the Kirtland temple, with the last keys of the priesthood bestowed to Joseph by
Elijah and Moses. Now, on October 27th, 1838, more than 2 years after the 1836 Kirtland event, Joseph
received a revelation, giving instructions about the construction of the Nauvoo temple, which was going too
slow for the Almighty: « [...] and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwelltherein. For there is not
a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath
taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood12.» In theses verses, the Lord say that one of the reason he
wants them to built the Nauvoo temple is to ‘restore again the fullness of the priesthood’. So, here is my
question: if Elijah and Moses really did come April 3rd, 1836, and gave their keys to Joseph, what was missing
in the priesthood in order for the church to have its fullness in 1838? Since 1836, was there anything restored
or revealed pertaining to the fullness of the priesthood? Ask yourselves theses questions honestly...
You could search all your life for an answer to these two questions, and you will find nothing. The 1836
event is the last archived in the LDS history or teachings, where the church received any priesthood key. And
strangely, in 1838, the Lord wanted to restore the fullness of the priesthood. He must have forgotten he did it
28
in 1836... So, what are we missing? Here is what I think: The 1836 event never happened. This document was
made up by the church, after Joseph’s death, in order to justify its existence. As the words of Joseph Smith
testify of it, he was still waiting for those keys, up to his death. So I am convinced that in D & C 124, the Lord
was talking about these very keys. We have to note that the original manuscript of D & C 110 in found in the
two last pages of one of Joseph’s journals. Anybody could have written that at the end. It is to be noted that
after that, there is a gap of 2 wholes years where Joseph wrote nothing.
So, what happened? Let’s go back to D & C 124. In this section, the Lord promise 3 blessings to the
church if they built the Nauvoo temple in time. First, to restore the fullness of the priesthood, second, to
consecrate that spot [temple] that it shall be made holy, and third, they [the saints] shall not be moves out of
their place13. Now, I ask you, how many of these blessings did the saints received. Go and read the church’s
history. None. Joseph was murdered as the temple was about half built, nothing was restored in the
priesthood after 1836 according to the church history and the saints were cast out of their land. Finally, the
temple was completely destroyed by a fire, and after a tornado. Yes, a tornado. Thank you God for the
consecration of that holy spot! Think a little bit about it, on these 3 blessings, none were given by God. Why?
To understand what happened, we will need to read more of D & C 124. The Lord made some
promises, but he made some very serious warnings as well: «... I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a
house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me. But behold, at the end of this
appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at
the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God14.» Do you
start to understand what happened? Joseph had the authority to make temple ordinances. But he had not the
keys. The authority being that God ask of someone to do something, and according to verse 31, it is clear that
Joseph was given such authority to do temple ordinances outside of a temple, for a time. So, Joseph had the
authority. But the keys are not the authority. The keys are to have the power to transmit that authority. That
is what Joseph was waiting for! Here is an example easy to understand for someone in the church. Let say you
are a dad, and you have one of your children who can receive the Aaronic priesthood. You have the
Melchisedec priesthood. Can you do it all by yourself, even if you have the authority to do it? No. You have to
go to the one who have the keys of the Aaronic priesthood in your ward in order to perform that ordinance.
You go to your bishop, and he will validate if you can do it or not. Why? Because he is suppose to have the
keys (we will not go into the line of the questioning if he really has it or not... this is just an example). This is
why it is John the Baptist who came to give the Aaronic priesthood to Joseph and Oliver, and not prophet
Samuel of old, or anyone else. This is why it is Peter, James and John who came to give the Apostleship and
the Last dispensation keys to them as well, and not some other prophets. Because THEY had the keys.
On October 2nd, 1841, as Joseph was teaching that Elijah was still to come, he taught: «There shall be
no more baptisms for the dead, until the ordinance can be attended to in the Lord’s House; [...] For thus saith
29
the Lord! 15». This was the first warning that the temple construction wasn’t going fast enough. God took away
his permission to performed temple ordinances outside the temple, until they could be done in it, permission
that he gave because «I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me16». On November 21st, 1841,
Joseph with some other leaders set up a room in the basement of the temple in order to perform baptismal
for the deads17. The temple was not dedicated, and Elijah had not yet come, for Joseph continued up until
1844 to preach is future coming. In doing so, Joseph obeyed to the Lord, in doing baptismal of the dead only in
temple ground, even if it wasn’t dedicated yet.
On September 6th, 1842, Joseph wrote a letter to the church, which is now our D & C 128 section. In
this section, it talks almost entirely about baptism for the dead and about the sealing power. Joseph made
many comments about Elijah, citing the scripture stating his comming18. At some point, Joseph names all the
personages that appeared to him, and those who gave his priesthood keys 19. But strangely, he doesn’t
mention Elijah or Moses... Maybe because he didn’t...
We should ask the question: did the Lord judged the church wasn’t doing enough to build the temple,
and forsake it, as He warned them20, and doing so, didn’t sent Elijah? Is there any scriptures suggesting that
possibility? In 3 Nephi 16, Christ taught something very incredible to the Nephites he was visiting. To have a
little context, Jesus appeared to the Nephites after His resurrection. He teaches them that in the latter days,
the fullness of his gospel would be restored among the gentiles21. Then, he proceeds in giving a warning to
theses gentiles who received the fullness of His gospel in the latter days: « And thus commandeth the Father
that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the
fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the
people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all
manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they
shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the
fulness of my gospel from among them.21» Here, in this passage, the Lord is talking about the LDS, the gentiles
who received the fullness of his gospel in the latter days. In reading my others notes, it is easy to see that the
church is guilty of each and every one if these things mentioned in this verse. After that, the Lord explained
that as he will withdraw his gospel from the gentiles, he will renew his covenant with the house of Israel, and
that the gentiles who want to repent would have to go through the covenant he renewed with Israel 23.
Many, when they will be reading that passage will argue that when we become LDS, we are brought
into the House of Israel. Well, yes, and no! In his revealed dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland temple, Joseph
said: «... commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles24». We are truly
the gentiles Christ’s talked about, who received the fullness of the gospel. Those in Joseph time anyway...
30
Mormon, when he testified he saw all and everyone up until the end, said, speaking of the latter days:
« For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches,
more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted. O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers,
who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God?25» Mormon was
himself very clear about the fact the leaders of the church of God in the latter days would polluted it.
On July 23rd, 1837, the Lord gave that revelation to Joseph: «Verily, verily, I say unto
you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has
become corrupt before my face. Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of
wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind
it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. And upon my house shall it begin, and from my
house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to
know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the
Lord26». Many will argue that this passage refers to the House of Israel, the Israelites. How many people do
you know, as Israelites, who profess to know the Lord (Christ) and accept Him? Nope. This passage is
addressed specifically to a Lord’s people, the Lord being Christ, in the latter days. And the only people in the
latter days that answer these criteria’s are the early LDS. Again, difficult to be more accurate...
If you study the scriptures diligently, having in mid that possibility, it is very easy to find such passages,
where the Lord prophesy he will reject latter days gentiles who received his gospel. If you read carefully the
Jacob’s allegory of the tame and wild olive trees27 (citing Zenos), it is easy to understand that prophesy.
On January 14th, 1833, Joseph warned the church in these words: «If Zion will not purify herself, so as
to be approved in all things, in His [God] sight, He will seek another people; for His work will go on until Israel is
gathered, and they who will not hear His voice, must expect to feel His wrath 28».
The last scripture passage I want to share is one of the best, in my opinion. In D & C 101, Joseph gives
«a parable, that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion29». It is at that time that some of
the early saints were sent to the Missouri state, in order to try to start building the city of Zion. The hope was
that the church would become Zion, which is the kingdom of god on earth. That kingdom would have been
geographically in Missouri. Here it goes: « A certain nobleman had a spot of land, very choice; and he said unto
his servants: Go ye unto my vineyard, even upon this very choice piece of land, and plant twelve olive trees;
And set watchmen round about them, and build a tower, that one may overlook the land round about, to be a
watchman upon the tower, that mine olive trees may not be broken down when the enemy shall come to spoil
and take upon themselves the fruit of my vineyard. Now, the servants of the nobleman went and did as their
lord commanded them, and planted the olive trees, and built a hedge round about, and set watchmen, and
31
began to build a tower. And while they were yet laying the foundation thereof, they began to say among
themselves: And what need hath my lord of this tower? And consulted for a long time, saying among
themselves: What need hath my lord of this tower, seeing this is a time of peace? Might not this money be
given to the exchangers? For there is no need of these things. And while they were at variance one with
another they became very slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord. And the
enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were
affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive trees. Now, behold, the
nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of
this great evil? Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard,
and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set
a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should
come upon you? And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar
off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved
my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer. And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go and
gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my
young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house,
save those only whom I have appointed to tarry; And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and
redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money. Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land;
break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen. And inasmuch as
they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of
mine house and possess the land. And the servant said unto his lord: When shall these things be? And he said
unto his servant: When I will; go ye straightway, and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you; 29».
Dou you understand what a magnificent prophesy it is? The nobleman is the Lord, the spot of land, the
vineyard is Zion (the church), the servants of the nobleman are the church leaders and the enemy, well it is
the enemy! When the nobleman comes back, tell me, who is in charge of the vineyard? The enemy, not the
servants! The slothful servants fled! In D & C 102, the Lord is tempting to give the chance to the church to save
it, and call for the Zion camp to go and take back their lands in Missouri. Joseph is called the servant of the D &
C 101 prophesy, that would liberate the vineyard. But what the lord asked was not given by the church, and
the Zion camp didn’t make it, they went back after having been severely chastened by God, even by death. So,
that prophesy is still to be fulfill, and as D & C 101 teaches, the servant asked: « When shall these things be?
And he said unto his servant: When I will30». It will happen it the Lord’s time.
So! Let’s do a wrap-up on D & C 110:
- There is no document that indicates that Joseph or anyone else ever was aware of that
event recorded in that section.
32
- Joseph taught up until his death that he had not the keys, and that they were still to be
given.
- The only document mentioning that event (D & C 110) is not reliable considering all we have
seen before.
Now, let me ask you a question: Imagine people were saying some very disturbing things about Joseph,
let’s say... that he was homosexual! And let’s say to proove their claim, these people would use some obscure
last page of Joseph’s journal, not with his handwriting, and with all the same problems we have seen around
the D & C 110 section. Let’s say they had a document with the very same attributes of section 110. Would you
believe that claim? No! You would call that ‘proof’ an absolute idiotic logic, and that would go against all
Joseph stood for. So, why do we put that much ‘faith’ in D & C 110? Only because the leaders of the Church
are telling us so. Only because if that is not true, you wouldn’t know what to think, and it would probably
destroy your ‘testimony’. It would destroy your bad judgment, and it would enlighten you and teach you a
great lesson on getting a TRUE testimony.
Think about it, your entire ‘faith’ is based on that principle. It is time to wake up, and to really submit
to God, and to discover His true will...
33
Références
1 http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/visions-3-april-1836-dc-110/1
2 D & C 110 :1
3 http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/visions-3-april-1836-dc-110/1
4 See: Editorial Notes : http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-
1836/194#historical-intro
5 http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/warren-a-cowdery
6 See : Editorial Notes : http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-
1836/194#historical-intro
7 History of the Church 4 :211
8 History Of the Church 4 :426
12 D & C 124 :27-28
13 D & C 124 :28, 44, 45
14 D & C 124 :31-32
16 D & C 124 :31
18 D & C 128 :17
19 D & C 128 :21
20 D & C 124 :32
21 3 Nephi 16 :5-9
22 3 Nephi 16 :10
23 3 Nephi 16 :11-20
24 D & C 109 :60
25 Mormon 8 :37-38
26 D & C 112 : 23-26
27 Jacob 5
29 D & C 101 43-60
30 D & C 101 :59-60
34
4. The Nauvoo Expositor
April 2017
When we are taught about the death of Joseph Smith, we are presented a long series of event,
eventually leading to his death. But, in observing closer the later events of his life, we discover that there is
a particular event that ‘set the fire’, leading to his death, and that the church completely misinform us
about it.
When Joseph died, he was imprisoned in Cartage’s prison. He was there for a very precise reason: as
Nauvoo mayor, he gave the order to destroy a printing press, the Nauvoo Expositor. Its editor was William
Law, former first counsellor in the First Presidency. When we go read what the church tell us about
Joseph’s decision on this matter, we are always taught the same thing:
«In an attempt to inflame the public against the Prophet and the Church, these men used this
newspaper to slander Joseph Smith and other Church leaders 1».
« […] Nauvoo Expositor published lies about the Prophet and other Church leaders 2.»
The only problem is that when we go see what this paper actually published, we can see that it was
publishing accusations over now well accepted church doctrine... So, we have two ways at looking at this
situation: ether Joseph was completely crazy and a liar, who destroyed the private propriety of others in order
to protect his wrongdoing, abusing his authority as mayor. Or, this journal really did published lies, in which
case, the church today has some very wrong false doctrines.
Let’s take a closer look at what the Nauvoo expositor published. In that edition, William Law and his
associates expressed 15 points against some church’s practices. Most of these points were regarding the
church administration, like how the church should handle its finances and by who, or how the church leaders
should repent in case of sin, or expressing their disagreement on church officials running for political positions
(in the context of Joseph running for U.S president), and so on3. Most of these demands are not lies or
calumnies, but represent the thoughts of theses mans on how the church should work. I think that Joseph saw
worst that that... On the other hand, the editors also touch about 3 doctrinal points, one being very sensible,
35
Joseph being often imprisoned, judged then cleared of these accusations, up until the next time. The fact that
some former very high ranking leaders of the church made those accusations regarding Joseph and the Church
was very disturbing, and put the entire community at risk.
We can read in that journal: « […] they [Joseph and the apostles] have introduced false and damnable
doctrine into the Church, such as a plurality of gods above the God of this universe and his ability to fall with all
his creations; the plurality of wives, for the time and eternity; the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to
eternal life, against all crimes except that of shedding innocent blood 4».
So, to sum up, they said that the church had introduced the following false doctrines:
1- Plurality of Gods,
2- Polygamy,
3- Calling and election made sure.
So, the question has to be asked: which of these doctrines is not accepted by the church today? ... ... ...
None! They are all fully taught as being part of the gospel. It is not necessary for the 3 of these doctrines to be
false in order for Joseph to take action. It only takes one. And that is what I think. Nobody cares outside the
church that the LDS believe in more than one God. Nobody cares that the LDS believe they can get the
promise of their exaltation. It doesn’t change anything in nobodies live outside the church. But polygamy,
people have a problem with it, especially when it involves some of their family members. As I stated earlier,
Joseph went many time in prison for that accusation. He had to defend himself several times in court about it,
and provide evidence of his innocence, and each time, he was cleared.
In that publication, they didn’t only disagreed about polygamy, but they explained how it was
practiced, how some church leaders were taking advantage of newly arrived immigrants converts, who lost
everything in the process of their conversion and in their immigration, and most of the time, these females
couldn’t go back, because they were rejected by their families following their conversion. They were
describing how these women arrived with nothing, were in need of everything, and were approached by
church leaders to convince them to become their plural wives, being promised to be taking care of by their
new husband, and a warm spot in the celestial kingdom, or a burning place in hell if they refused...
36
Not only the current church recognize polygamy as being a gospel principle pertaining to the celestial
kingdom and the exaltation, but the history of the church corroborate theses practices, which often are
difficult to discern from sexual slavery...
These publications were even more destructive for the cause that William Law had in the past testified
in favor of Joseph (as his first counsellor) saying he had nothing to do with polygamy. And here I hear you say:
«But Joseph was polygamy! » Then he was wrong and evil all the way down... But it is not the case, and in
order to understand it, please read the other study on polygamy5.
So, according to the church, Joseph would have died all for things that are accepted as doctrine in the
church today, but were not in his time... you will find in the footnotes 6 a link to consult the Nauvoo Expositor
only printed edition.
Références :
1- Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual, Religion 225, p.114

2- Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide, (2005), 153-156
3- Nauvoo Expositor, Nauvoo, Illinois, June 7, 1844
4- Nauvoo Expositor, Nauvoo, Illinois, June 7, 1844
5- Was polygamy really revealed to Joseph Smith?, p.12
6- http://signaturebookslibrary.org/nauvoo-expositor/
37

Personal Studies

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Personal Studies

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Personal Studies

1- Is the church financing terrorism? 3

2- Was polygamy really revealed to Joseph Smith? 12

3- Did Joseph Smith really receive Elijah’s and Moses’ keys? 25

4- The Nauvoo Expositor 35

International Islamic Relief Organisation (IIRO)

Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) and Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA)

W.W: I do not know why it was done.

W.W: I do not know that I can state why it was done.

W.W: Yes, sir.

W.W: Yes, sir.

S: I am not aware of that.

1 Institut Doctrine & Covenant, Student manual, Section 132

So! Let’s do a wrap-up on D & C 110:

1- Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual, Religion 225, p.114

Potrebbero piacerti anche