Kates Discussion of Wilford Woodruff’s notes on Joseph Smith’s July 2, 1839 discourse

There is one key mentioned in a Joseph Smith discourse that has concerned me for some time past. As it is written here in our TPJS:
“A Key to Mysteries
I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy” –TPJS p.156

It comes from a discourse made in Commerce, now Nauvoo, Ill. July 2, 1839. The trouble is alone as it stands it is hard to not use the key to condemn Lehi, Abinadi, Amos, Jerimiah, and a great myriad of Prophets who at sundry times throughout the ages of the world, with no special standing in the church, not being the High Priest at their times, but often condemning them, rose up and were commanded by God to call the people to repentance for gross sins they themselves were not guilty of. 

These men cannot come under this condemnation, yet they did something very much like what is written here. Condemning them would be an improper use of this key. 

Now I can see how the Key may be used to discern and properly aid us in revealing the hearts of the children of men. When Elder Holland rose up and in conference condemned Peter saying he was a foolish new apostle and out of the way, while he himself, had been an apostle for years and knew much better, If I had a proper confidence in that quote I could have said, he has accused Peter, Peter who appeared to Adam in our Endowment, Peter who administered the keys of the apostleship to Joseph Smith, Peter who was called and ordained to be a living Witness to the life and resurrection of Christ from before the foundation of the world, he mocked Peter for being ‘inexperienced’ while calling himself righteous and affirming his longer time spent in the ministry. Surely then, even back then, Elder Holland was on a high road to apostacy, and has apostatized far more fully revealing a desire to change the temple ordinances, the covenants, and fill the house of the lord with the lovers of sodom, indulging their delirium to the point of “sealing” them. But we could have known him from that moment back in 2012 or so if we were using this key properly. 

So the Key has a correct use, but as it stands, the way it is written now, it is more confusing than helpful. The way it is recorded is more likely to injure the reader and be used to condemn Lehi and sustain Holland than not.

So 4 years ago I looked for the source of the discourse. I wanted to find another account of the “key” to get a better idea of Joseph’s exact words at the time, as they were obviously too muddled in the version I grew up with to be useful. The text was not clear enough to discern between the two cases above alluded to. 

I went to the JSP website and found that the only account they then had available was written by Willian Clayton. This was more confusing than ever to me. William Clayton was an English saint, and did not set foot on the shores of America or meet the Prophet Joseph Smith until 1840 and we do not have recordings of discourses from him until he moved to Nauvoo in 1842. He could not have recorded the discourse. It was certainly his handwriting and his book, but he must have gotten a copy from someone else. Where then were the original notes and who wrote them?

Finally this year, while transcribing the discourses I ran into another account and found the ending much preferable. It did not have the “key” paragraph at all, but I thought the way it ended was much more likely to lead a person right. Here is the ending of each:

“O ye Twelve and all saints, profit by this important Key [key doodle] that in all your trials, troubles, & temptations, affictions bonds imprisionment & death see to it that you do not betray heaven, that you do not betray Jesus Christ, that you do not betray your Brethren, & that you do not betray the revelations of God whether in the bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine & Covenants or any of the word of God. yea in all your kicking & floundering see to it that you do not this thing lest innocent blood be found in your skirts & you go down to hell. We may ever know by this sign that there is danger of our being led to a fall & aposticy, when we give way to the devil so as to neglect the first known duty but whatever you do do not betray your Friend)” –Wilford Woodruff’s journal, 2 July, 1839

“O ye Twelve & all Saints profit by this important Key [key doodle] that in all your trials troubles, temptations, afflictions, bonds, imprisionments, & death see to it that you do not betray heaven, that you do not betray Jesus Christ, that you do not betray your Brethren, that you do not betray the Revelations of God, whether in the Bible Book of Mormon or Doctrine & Covenants or any others that ever was or ever will be given & revealed unto man in this world or that which is to come, yea in all your kickings & floundering see to it that you do not this thing lest innocent Blood be found in your skirts & you go down to hell. all other sins are not to be compared to sining against the Holy Ghost & proving a traitor to thy brethen (A final [key doodle] key delivered from Joseph in the following language) I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom It is an Eternal principle that has existed with God from all eternity that that man who rises up to condemn others finding fault with the Church saying that they are out of the way while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is in the high road to apostacy & if he does not repent will apostitize as God live, the principle is as correct as the one that Jesus put forth in saying that [crossed out: that person] he who seeketh after a sign is an adulterous person & that princaple is <eternaly> undeviating & firm as the pillars of heaven for whenever you see a man seeking after a sign you may set it down that he is an adulterous man.” –Wilford Woodruff’s Book of Revelations, 1839

 

I learned these notes that I prefered were direct from Wilford Woodruff’s journal and were the only notes taken at the time of the discourse. Where then did this “key” come from? It seemed to appear out of nowhere. I learned it was written as an altered ending to the discourse some time afterwards in a separate book by Wilford Woodruff. It was long enough afterwards that he had forgotten the proper date of the discourse, Sometime between a week and a month afterwards. This solved the mystery for why the wording was so off, and why it is a broken and confussing key as it stands, it was penned by memory loong after it was heard and I am afraid crammed imperfectly at the end, losing something else that was more accurately worded and precious. He took that book with him to England and there Willard Richards and William Clayton read his “Book of Revelations” and were allowed to copy some items into their own journals. And so we have three versions of the “key” all exactly the same and two written by men who had never been to Commerce, Ill. in their lives.

There is no account of the key taken by anyone else at the time, so it is lost sadly. For if worded in a way to better convey the right idea, or if written with the precise original wording of Joseph at the time, it could be a powerful key indeed to help lead people right and discern when one of the Twelve or first presidency or anyone was about to have a great fall as spoken of in the discourse. As the text stands, it is not accurate enough a key to discern between Lehi and Thomas B. Marsh, both of whom prophesied loudly that their city was about to be destroyed because of the wickedness they had aloud inside it, and left before the calamity came, and in both cases calamity came. The actions are similar, but the Lord looketh on the secret heart of man and reveals it to his servants. This key was meant to reveal the hearts of the brethren to the saints who would heed it, but as it stands, it generally blinds people to wickedness in high places instead of revealing it. 

There is one more important difference that ought to be pointed out. In Wilford Woodruff’s notes, and in the notes of both men who copied from his the phrase of warning Joseph gives is “all other sins are not to be compared to sining against the Holy Ghost & proving a traitor to thy brethen,” however in our TPJS it reads, “All other sins are not to be compared to sinning against the Holy Ghost, and proving a traitor to the brethren.” In other words, although every account says, ‘thy brethren’ sometime in the next 100 years the text was changed. And the change is significant, for it directs the ‘incomparable sin’ to a transgression against a wholly different group of people. “Thy Brethren” being your friends, loved ones, and the body of the Church, whereas “The Brethren” implies the heads or leaders of the Church. Joseph was directing us to, as he urged at the end of his discourse, “whatever you do, do not betray your friend.” The original text actually gives a distinction between Lehi and Thomas B. Marsh. Lehi had seen destruction, and would not leave his friends to die without first warning them anxiously of the parrell. In fact, far from being a traitor himself, to his brethren, the body of the Church turned and rent him, seeking themselves to murder him and his family, he was no traitor, he was betrayed. Whereas Thomas B. Marsh, signed a statement vowing to a bunch of lies against Joseph Smith that he knew he himself made up and sent it in to testify against Joseph at trial in order to get him executed. He was a traitor to his friend. By changing the warning to ‘the brethren” it empowers and urges men to betray their brothers and their friends if told to, or in defence of the brethren. As in the early 1900’s where when the Church was splitting under pologmy the members where instructed to starve out their own family members and old friends, if they adhered to the principle by refusing as a community (in a dessert) to offer them work, to buy from them, or pay them, or sell to them even food, on instruction from “the brethren” They betrayed their brothers, they betrayed their friends, and innocent blood may be found on their skirts but they did not betray “the brethren”  

This is not the first time it appears that Joseph F. Smith felt liable to change the wording of a discourse in TPJS, as in the Elias, Elijah, Messiah discourse, TPJS changes “craftiness” to “wisdom” even none of the many different accounts of the discourse taken at the time it was given use the word “wisdom” and every one of them that notes the sentence spoken by the prophet down says he said to, “use a little craftiness and seal all we can.” I suppose Joseph Fielding Smith thought “craftiness” to wicked a word for the Prophet to use and replaced it with the much more polite “wisdom” we find in TPJS. 

Pay mind, I am not trying to accuse Joseph F. Smith over this, TPJS was for several decades one of the only ways of getting the words of the Prophet to the people and that book will be a blessing to him and not a cursing, even if he made so errors as Tindall did when he wrote “In the Beginning God,” when the Hebrew clearly wrote, “In the beginning the Gods (or the head one of the Gods” Tindall’s mind was too clouded by the traditions and lies he inherited from his fathers to have translated correctly at that time. The same goes for Wilford Woodruff and his discourses. He did not understand Joseph’s free thinking ideas, but laid back on ‘authority, authority’ and it reflects in all of his accounts of any discourse. 

 

I like his original notes far better. I think they could have protected people from doing the horrible acts that the members did do, without mercy, against the polygamists under Heber J. Grant, and could prevent any future reoccurances of such tyranny and forbidding of differences in religious belief or practice. In fact it could have protected us from ever removing polgomy for it says, “see to it that you do not betray any of the word of God” I prefer ‘word of God’ to “future revelation” as members in general get easily confused on this point. I do think it is too bad Wilford Woodruff actually did eventually exalt himself, forgetting the spirit of Elias, and putting his words above the Revelations of Jehovah to Joseph the Seer received through the oracles of God, and the Church stood with him, betrayed the former revelations, and we all had a great fall.

What is coveting?

I have children who have things that they genuinely love, or things that they would genuinely love to have. When I was reading accounts of Orderville, Utah in the 1800s, it seemed that those people had a very confused and very oppressive morality that was being taught. It seemed that they thought that they were supposed to learn to put aside every desire for things, more or less thinking that they were learning to be virtuous and please God by that means.

I do not believe in that morality. There is a genuine command from God to not covet, and one cannot neglect God’s commands without trouble.

What I told my own kids about the matter was that they ought to love what they love. There is nothing in the world wrong with that, nor it is wrong to desire things that they love but do not have. It is a natural thing for a human to have things that they love to pursue, to do, to create, to read, to learn about, etc… To quell those natural desires is not a right thing.

But if you find that it is vexing you that you do not have one thing or another that you desire, then that is coveting. That is what is wrong. If you want to go to God and ask for something because it would please you, he may grant it, but if you are going to let the lack of it vex your soul, then you may know that you are coveting.

Government scheming and false prophets of the past

We read in history repeatedly of men prophesying doom on a certain date. The prophesy fails & their followers abandon them. But until their prophesies failed their followers were inspired to intense acts of devotion. Governments have learned how to use this on people by design.

The protections God offered are necessary to hold tightly because the parable of the wheat and the chaff is true

We learn about the wheat and the tares as if it is a story without consequence. But it is terribly important. It means that everything within the church must be framed to protect the members from corrupt men in power.

If the wheat and the tares have to grow up together, then it is necessary when consecration is lived that consecration be framed to protect the members from oppression.

If the wheat and the tares have to grow up together, then it is necessary that the right of the members to marry as they please, even in plural marriages, be protected so that no man in power may either take away nor try to direct or control the plural marriages of the people. This was the doctrine that Joseph Smith revealed to Brigham Young in 1847, and again the doctrine revealed to John Taylor in 1882.

The parable of the wheat and the tares is terribly important, for it means that everything in the church must be framed in a way to protect the people from corrupt men in power, just as everything in the constitution is designed that way.

Joseph Smith was plain that the members had the right to revoke any leader at a conference of the church, and this may be one of the greatest reasons for a church to have guaranteed semi-annual conferences. This right, and the frequency of these meetings where the members are asked whether they are dissatisfied with any of their leaders is essential if the wheat and the tares are to grow up together.

The doctrine and covenants states that the first presidency (which includes the president of the church), are to be chosen (not merely sustained) by the body of the church. This doesn’t mean the members have the power to make a man a prophet, but rather that they will face disaster if they do not hearken to the wisdom the Lord gave in D&C 107, that they should chose a man who has all the gifts which God bestows upon the head of the church. If they choose a man who does not, then God will not honor their choice with revelation, because the saints have no power to make a man a prophet, for God is no respecter of persons and no man will obtain the gift of prophesy on different terms than any other man.

The revelations lay out the means to excommunicate the president of the church. This is necessary for the wheat and the chaff are growing up together, and not even the angels always know the difference.

There is more, far more, protection which the Lord offered his church members. But we have been beguiled out of it, always by being told that we know who the wheat are, and so we should give all trust into their hands, and discard the protections that God revealed for his people.

But God is wiser, and even the angels do not always know the wheat from the chaff, and so we must hold tight to the protections that God revealed, and not be dissuaded out of them merely in order to prove that we honor those with power in the church.

Joseph Smith always gave the saints their protections, even though he was the truest man this dispensation has seen, and one of the truest this earth has seen. That man who would take those protections proves that he is not worthy of your trust, for once those protections are gone in one generation, many generations will pass by without them.

Free to act in doctrine and in principal pertaining to futurity

We are not allowed to “teach for doctrines the commandments of men” and consequently each man must, according to the revelations, be free to ACT in doctrine and principal, unrestrained except by those things revealed.

The gospel is designed to have far more freedom than we can endure and still feel religious, because our feelings of religiousness are not the natural feelings of true religion. We don’t feel religious unless we have a creed and a tradition to bind us by. But true religion isn’t like that, and it wouldn’t feel at all religious to us, and so we would revolt against it. It is more free than we can endure, and still feel religious.

This was what God established in this nation:

D&C 101:78 That every man may act in doctrine and in principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

And we can endure it in the nation, but we have never learned to endure it within the church. We cannot endure “that every man may act in doctrine and in principle pertaining to futurity” within the church. I am not saying that iniquity should be allowed, but as Joseph Smith said, “What many people call sin is not sin”. God’s doctrine is that in his own church, we are not allowed to “teach for doctrines the commandments of men”, but we don’t even know how to feel religious without that happening.

Rule over them

The Lord said “these I will make my rulers” in Abraham 3, speaking of such grand men as Joseph Smith, Abraham, Enoch, and Moses. These men were not cruel oppressors. We have a good account of the life of Joseph Smith, and he was anything but a cruel oppressor. Yet he was set as a ruler by God, just as ancient Abraham was.

Many men in the past have read the commandments to Adam and Eve in the garden that stated that they were to rule over their wives. And in consequence of this they became cruel tyrants in their homes.

We see cruel tyrants in their own homes, and become afraid to stand by the words of God. For God said that the husband would rule, and yet we look about, and see men using those words to be cruel tyrants, and we do not want that.

We hear of the cruelty endured by slaves in the early united states, and become afraid to stand by Gods words concerning the seed of Cain and of Ham that they would be servants of servants. We do not like that cruel slavery, and don’t want to be associated with it. We know it is revolting.

But those who God chose to be his rulers on this earth were men like Adam, Abraham, Moses, Joseph Smith. These were the sort of men he made his rulers. And he said in D&C 132 that he would make such men rulers over many wives. Do we think they will be cruel tyrants over those wives. No, for we can see the sort of men who God makes his rulers.

Joseph Smith taught: “Righteousness is not that which men esteem holiness. That which the world call righteousness I have not any regard for. To be righteous is to be just and merciful. if a man fails in kindness justice and mercy he will be damned for many will say in that day Lord. have we not Prophesied in thy name and in thy name done many wonderful works but he will say unto them ye workers of iniquity etc.”

We should stand by the words of God, even if wicked men have abused them, wearing a garb of pretended righteousness and sanctimony as they did so. Let us not be afraid to stand by God’s word, whatever it is, and look to the sort of men who God would choose to be his rulers. They were men who would not fail in kindness, justice, or mercy.

D&C 87:3 is a prophesy of a race war to come (version solely covering vs 3)

Here is a prophesy that has been on my mind for a few months. I thought I would try laying it out as I came to better understand it.

D&C 87:3 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

It says “after many days”, and so that isn’t the american civil war. The american civil war was not a war of slaves rising up against their masters. The slaves were freed as a result of the war, but nobody describes the civil war as a war of slaves rising up against their masters. That is simply a wrong description of it. This verse is not a prophesy about the civil war.

Instead it is a prophesy of a war in which the black race rises up against the white race in the United States. When we look at what is going on around us that sounds very believable, and at the same time, the peculiar wording “slaves shall rise up against their masters” also seems like a strange description of what we see happening because the blacks are not slaves. Certainly, the black race claims they are still in bondage, but their present condition as a people is the result of their more whole heartedly embracing wickedness than the other races have. If, speaking as a people, they would cease to be full of immorality, lying, adultery, abandonment and abuse then their condition would begin to be altogether different.

But what of the peculiar wording then, why does it say that slaves will rise up against their masters, if the black race are no longer slaves? It is because God decreed they would be servants of servants, and Joseph Smith both stood by his decree and interpreted it as being about the black race. We have rejected the scriptural doctrine which Joseph Smith and Brigham Young stood by, which was that the black race are the descendents of Cain and of Ham, and were decreed by God to be servants of servants, and were denied the priesthood. If we had stood by that then when we read this prophesy, we would know that for the black race to rise up in rebellion was something terrifying.

The slavery that the united states subjected the blacks to was grotesque and cruel. But when they rise up in rebellion we will see unthinkable deeds committed by them. When those who God cursed to be servants of servants rise up, they will do horrifying and grotesque things. This is what it means when it says that they will vex the gentiles with a sore vexation.

I remember years ago reading about diamond mines in africa that had been taken by force, and those who took those mines were taking anyone they found nearby and mutilating them to warn people to stay away from the diamond mines. As I recall, the account stated that they cut the lips, breasts, and fingers off of any women they caught even in nearby settlements, leaving them to die or live life as a mutilated warning if they survived.

I don’t desire to stir up even more animosity between the races. Quite the contrary, we must hearken to Joseph Smith’s warning to have no feelings of enmity toward any son or daughter of Adam, as well as Joseph Smith’s warning words that if the saints have to defend themselves, they must not stain their hands in the blood of women and children. But we ought to understand the prophesy, for it will come.

Suffering the shame of the world, Moroni stated that blood has been shed

There are three great things that we cast off because we could not bear the shame of the world.

Polygamy was cast off because we could not bear the shame of the world.

We gave blacks the priesthood because we could not bear the shame of the world.

We are in the middle of embracing homosexuality because we cannot bear the shame of the world.

We have apparently shed blood behind the scenes to make sure that these things would happen.

Why do I say that? Because the scriptures more or less lay it out that way.

Mormon 8:38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies – because of the praise of the world?
39 Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?
40 Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?

This is written to our church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for no other church is “the holy church of God”. It is directed to those who have power in our church, for the lay member has no power over these things. And it says “why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause the widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?”

Do we think that Moroni was wrong? I don’t believe he was. I think he knew what he was talking about.

I think I can take that to the bank. I can say “I believe Moroni, and he said to those who have power in the holy Church of God that they were building up secret abominations to get gain, and causing that widows should mourn and orphans should mourn and that the blood of their fathers and husbands cries unto the Lord for vengeance upon them”. I don’t think it is wrong to believe Moroni.

We should not have been ashamed to take upon ourselves the name of Christ, and we knew more about what that meant than other churches who had not the revelations and the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and the words of Joseph Smith. We knew more, but we were ashamed of what we knew, and cast our knowledge from us, despising it, rather than to have to bear the shame of the world in order to take the name of Christ upon us.

And apparently, blood was shed to do it.

 

 

 

Ideas on divorce that are probably true, but could be horribly abused.

In the scriptures the Savior states that Moses, in the law, suffered the people to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
The meaning here is not that divorce is allowed, but shouldn’t be. Rather, the meaning is that divorce is necessary, but shouldn’t be.

Let me illustrate with a case: let us take a young girl that marries a man and soon discovers that he is actually a villain, that she has made a terrible mistake.
The Savior is not teaching that this girl must simply endure in that mistake and suffer her fate. We only inherited that interpretation from the old catholic church, but it is not correct. It is a cruel interpretation, I might add.

The Savior is saying that in the beginning, such things did not happen. However, Moses saw that there were hard hearted people who would do cruel things deceitfully. Moses saw that certainly there would be cases where innocent girls were taken captive by cruel men, deceived by them, and so Moses suffered the people to divorce. There are even occasional cases where there are men who marry a woman who is going to take him captive, rather than love him as a husband.

There are women who will try and beguile a man, and in the case of a polygamous relationship, will actually destroy all of his other marriages if he is not peculiarly wise.

I learned something about this from a situation I became acquainted with where a naive girl became intimate with a boy her age who seemed dangerous. The idea I had grown up with was that the gospel required that if she had become intimate with this boy, then the only right thing was for her to marry him. But others who were acquainted with the circumstances as well were certain that this girl needed to flee from this boy, and set herself right, so that she could marry a better one. That is not cruel. It is good doctrine, and you can tell that it is good.

Some condemn Benjamin Franklin, who in his Autobiography relates frankly the peculiar circumstances and situation in which he obtained his wife, who was first wed to another man. But I think that Benjamin Franklin and his wife acted righty and according to true doctrine, for the idea isn’t that a person must not divorce under any circumstance, but rather, that divorce exists for just such cases as a girl who realizes she has made a terrible mistake in her choice of husband. Benjamin Franklin’s wife’s case seems like a fine example, for we read of Bejamin Franklin’s wife’s first husband: “With him, however, she was never happy, and soon parted from him, refusing to cohabit with him or bear his name”.

We inherited the idea from the old catholic church that the Savior meant that divorce should never be allowed except in the case of fornication. But in a world where hard hearted men will beguile an innocent girl and take her into a cruel captivity, Moses saw that divorce was necessary.

Obviously, this is just the sort of truth that needs to be understood, but which is terribly abuseable by the wicked. It was obviously horribly abused by the Pharisees who asked the Savior:

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

The Pharisees were cruel husbands who thought they could get rid of their wife for any cause. The Savior’s answer to them, that it was only lawful to put away a woman for fornication was meant to answer their abuses, the question they had asked. And the Savior’s answer is for the case of a man divorcing his wife, and not the case of a girl who discovers that she has been beguiled.

A correct law may give people the capability to abuse it to their own destruction. Divorce is a fine example.

My disorganized musings about Celestial law and restoration

We do not know about real righteousness. The notions of righteousness that men entertain on this world are a trap of sorts. They are half-truths, which give those who desire to be righteous enough truth to satisfy them, but also enough error to stifle them. Living within those confines, and shaping their minds and hearts around it, learning their lessons from it as they age and gain experience, they generally become hardened and callous toward real righteousness.

For this reason celestial laws can only be restored on this earth very slowly.  

Celestial laws violate the traditions of the righteous, and seem like sin to them, and also appeal to the hearts of men who desire to abuse them, they are sort of a honeypot that attracts wicked men who desire to abuse them, and so you have to restore them slowly enough that the righteous don’t revolt, and the wicked don’t rush in and overwhelm the right practice of them.

Polygamy is just such a law. We do not have the whole law, only a part of it, and the revelation itself says so. If we had the whole law, it would include concubines. If we had the whole law, we would not look back at the acts of Samson or Judah and feel inclined to accuse them, for we would understand that they did no wrong. God did not justify those men in committing sin, for God is no respecter of persons. But until the revelation on marriage, we did not understand how their polygamy was justified, and until we know more, we will not understand how Samson visited a Harlot, and yet immediately afterwards the Holy Ghost came upon him so powerfully that he carried gate and the posts away with him when he left the city. The account is plain, it was the spirit that strengthened him to do so, as surely as it gave Nephi, and later Alma and Amulek power to break their bonds. 

If we understood the whole law it would seem like sin to us, and the righteous would reject it, while the wicked would rush in and take it up with zeal, remaking its actual practice after their own image.

We see this with the polygamous break-offs from the church, speaking broadly. Wicked men are inspired to join them, and before long take the group captive. There are sure to be some generally good men and women there, but they go into captivity, and the whole meaning of the law becomes something horrible instead of something lovely and wonderful, so that polygamy itself becomes doubly the hiss and a byword that it was before because of the way it is practiced by these people who claim to believe the revelation of God.

Wicked men rush in with a zeal for the law that the righteous do not understand, but feel enthused about, and by that they gain the confidence of those who should not trust them, and obtain power over the people, and abuse righteous laws to teach the people to actually become wicked.

The church would be destroyed by adulterous men. We know so little of real righteousness that we cannot even give a definition of what an adulterous man is that doesn’t accidentally include Judah, David, and Samson.

Even now, our members look back on John C Bennett and some cannot tell the difference between John C Bennett and his doctrine of “spiritual wives”, and the polygamy that Joseph Smith taught. We do not know the difference between the Devil and God.