Martha Brotherton

[_Lemmie]

one new forum should be created for bandwidth devouring messages...

i don't think repeating - word by word - dozen times the same spittle is not the main goal of this site

I assume you are referring to mentalgymnast? His handler apparently put him to bed so things should settle down.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

[quote="mentalgymnast]

You may have the last word.

Regards,
MG[/quote]

Like a lamb to the slaughter. So Christlike and humble
..

[_Lemmie]

You may have the last word.

Regards,
MG

Like a lamb to the slaughter. So Christlike and humble
..

The "lamb" has a fetish for victimhood porn. He trolls hard to get himself into these positions in threads.

[Guest]

Hopefully Grindael sees this because I'm curious about it.

Is there a source that verifies or confirms that one of Joseph Smith's former counselors in the first presidency flat out stated the death oaths were put in place originally by Joseph Smith in an effort to make his multiple wives keep their temple sealings to him a secret.

- Doc

[_grindael]

Hopefully Grindael see this because I'm curious about it.

Is there a source that verifies or confirms that one of Joseph Smith's former counselors in the first presidency flat out stated the death oaths were put in place originally by Joseph Smith in an effort to make his multiple wives keep their temple sealings to him a secret.

- Doc

I think the death oaths came out of Masonry ritual. Joseph got a group of men together shortly after he went through the rituals and taught them concerning the "priesthood" on May 4-5, 1842. But Joseph was in the process of developing the sealing power in relation to baptism for the dead and perhaps had performed one of the first marriage sealings with Louisa Beaman the month before. The traditional date is a year earlier (Apr. 5, 1841) but I believe this is an error. Joseph was "marrying" other men's wives until the Bennett scandal which was blowing up around this time. What the May instructions were, I think, was something like what he did in Kirtland, with added material from Masonry with the promise of more to come: "the fullness of the priesthood". I think Joseph thought the Temple would be completed much earlier than it was. Then a year later, in May 1843 he incorporates the sealing doctrine into the Endowment and that's when he sealed himself to Emma and gave the real Endowments we know of today. Joseph didn't write an ETERNAL marriage ceremony/revelation until July, 1842 when he "married" Sarah Ann Whitney. That is why I am skeptical about the Louisa Beaman timeline. I spoke to Don Bradley about all this and he's presenting something on Beaman at John Whitmer that I'm looking forward to hearing. I'll be presenting on Emma Smith and her claimed involvement in Joseph's "marriages".

I'm not sure if there is a statement by Rigdon or Law about that, I don't think so and if there was, they were wrong. Remember the Baptism for the Dead "revelation" wasn't written until the fall of '42. To claim there were eternal sealings before the late Spring/early Summer of '42 is ad hoc. Trying to place the full Endowment in May of '42 is also a mistake. Everything came to fruition in '43, and was crowned with the "revelation" on polygamy in July.

[_grindael]

When Baptism for the Dead was first taught by Smith it was his zenith doctrine, the way in which ALL would be "saved" and "sealed" together. But Joseph's initiation into Masonry changed all that. Baptism for the Dead took a backseat to eternal marriage sealings and the Endowment. This was branched out into the Law of Adoption, sealing men to men to form the "chain" back to Adam. But since this could really be accomplished through families, that was discontinued. There is a progression here, that must be recognized to make sense of the CONTEMPORARY evidence, Spiritual Wifeism (Fanny Alger & Then Other Men's Wives or Polyandry)/Baptism for the Dead/Sealing Power/Early "Endowment"/Eternal Marriage-Spiritual Wifeism with only "virgins" or single women/Later "Endowment"/Second Anointing "Fullness of the Priesthood

This is how I see the evidence at any rate. I was looking around (to see if I could find anything on your question) and found this today which is very interesting...

JOSEPH SMITH 5/4/1842

I spent the day … instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessing which have been prepared for the Church of the Firstborn, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the eternal worlds. In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days.

HC 5:1-2

At least four of these men left accounts of this event: Heber C. Kimball, Brigham Young, Willard Richards, and George Miller. Ehat’s Thesis, 28-29; Joseph’s Quorum of Anointed, 7-9. None of these accounts add anything significant to the question at hand but it is interesting to note that Miller’s account informs us that these ordinances were performed after several of them returned from missions in England and inaccurately claims that Joseph “conferred on [them] Patriarchal Priesthood.” On July 1, 1855, a letter written by Miller was published in James J. Strang’s newspaper claiming that Mormons received “an endowment of patriarchal priesthood under the hands of the twelve apostles” in Nauvoo. Origins, 308. See also TPJS, 326. His failure to distinguish between the first and second endowments was apparently the source of his error.

Also of interest is an entry in the Millennial Star in 1847 where we are informed that apostles are all “presidents in all the world without other ordinations.” MS 9:324. With no further explanation from the historical record as to why these nine men were called “presidents,” the possibility that they had been ordained apostles is open to question. If they were so ordained, we here have further instances of secret ordinations because not all of these men were recognized as apostles at this time. If they were not so ordained, we must question what these men were presidents of – if not presidents of some quorum within the Church of the Firstborn.

9

HC 5:409. These were not proxy endowments for the dead. It may be that this second receipt of the first endowment may have been more complete or more perfect than the one they received on May 4, 1842.

10

JOSEPH SMITH 5/26/1843

I met in counsel in the upper room [Red Brick Store], with my Brother Hyrum, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Judge James Adams, Bishop Newel K. Whitney, and William Law, and gave them their endowments and also instructions in the priesthood on the new and everlasting covenant, &c. -HC 5:409; see also 412 https://www.mormonchronicle.com/notes-t ... 100-years/

The "highest order" of the M. Priesthood was the "fullness of the priesthood" which was not given until the fall of 1843 (as I recall). This first "Endowment" did not encompass the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" and was therefore a precursor to the Endowment given a year later.