LDS worship

[HonoraDominum]

There are two things going on through this section.

Joseph Smith was, naturally, confused about the fact that these men were apparently justified before God, despite entering into a practise that all religious teachers he had contact with taught vehemently against. The Lord explains that their wives were given from Him, and were given for the express purpose of fulfilling the promise made to Abraham; and that Abraham was counted as righteous because he abode in the law he was given.

The Lord reveals a new covenant to Joseph Smith; specifically described as new. Joseph is not told to enter into the same covenant as Abraham, but is told that the new (and everlasting) covenant brings the same promises as made to Abraham.
Nowhere does the section make any connection that claims polygamy is essential. It states that living by the laws God gives to us is what is essential. God gave commandment to Abraham and others to take a plurality of wives, to fulfil His purposes for His children here on earth.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

“God” reveals a new covenant, that he then says is the same covenant as he made with Abraham. Then “God” lays out that covenant that he made, that Abraham is to have multiple wives. Then “God” says take the same covenant as Abraham. Then “God” says specifically that taking multiple wives is not sinful.

And this is interpreted as temple marrage?! No!

In D&C 132:4, it states:

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; 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 glory.

…

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the** fulness of my glory**; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

Then Brigham Young states:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269)

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266)

Also, on LDS.org, it states that on July 12, 1835 that “Joseph Smith received D&C 132, a revelation about the eternal marriage covenant, while in the presence of his brother Hyrum Smith and William Clayton, recorder. (History of the Church, 5:500–7)” What LDS.org does not do is directly quote History of the Church Vol. 5, pp. 500-501: ““Wednesday, 12 – I received the following revelation… Revelation on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including the Plurality of Wives. Given through Joseph, the Seer, in Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, July 12, 1843.””

The official church doctrine also neglected to publish this little bit of conversation, in the introduction to Volume 5:

“On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843; Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office…** They were talking on the subject of plural marriage**. Hyrum said to Joseph, ‘If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.’ Joseph smiled and remarked, ‘You do not know Emma as well as I do.’ … Joseph then said, ‘Well I will write the revelation and we will see.’…

“Hyrum then took the revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back, Joseph asked him how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied that he had never received a more severe talking to in his life, that Emma was very bitter and full of resentment and anger.

“Joseph quietly remarked, ‘I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did.’ Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket, and they both left the office.

"The revelation was read to several of the authorities during the day. Towards evening Bishop Newel K. Whitney asked Joseph if he had any objections to his taking a copy of the revelation; Joseph replied that he had not and handed it to him. It was carefully copied the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury. Two or three days after the revelation was written Joseph related to me and several others that Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it, that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he told her she might destroy it and she had done so, but he had consented to her wish in this matter to pacify her, realizing that he knew the revelation perfectly, and could rewrite it at any time if necessary.”

• History of the Church, Introduction to v. 5, pp. XXXII-XXXIII

Emma Smith apparently did not like the idea of plural marriage, and Joseph Smith told her she could destroy the revelation about it. However, as we can see, that clearly did not make a difference as one of Smith’s disciples had already conveniently made a copy. Also? That was kind of a sneaky thing for Joseph Smith the husband to do. But I digress.

Every evidence found in the early discourses of the church point that D&C 132 referred to the “new and everlasting covenant” being about plural marriage. Period, end of story. Any change to this doctrine is whitewashing the truth, lying about what is plainly spelled out for all to see in history journals and even canon scripture.

 

[TheExorcist]

Then Brigham Young states:

Quote:
The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.*
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269)

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266)

You know what Mormons will say about that. “The Journal of Discourses isn’t doctrine” etc etc

The official church doctrine also neglected to publish this little bit of conversation, in the introduction to Volume 5:

Quote:
“On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843; Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office… They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, ‘If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.’ Joseph smiled and remarked, ‘You do not know Emma as well as I do.’ … Joseph then said, ‘Well I will write the revelation and we will see.’…

“Hyrum then took the revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back, Joseph asked him how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied that he had never received a more severe talking to in his life, that Emma was very bitter and full of resentment and anger.*

“Joseph quietly remarked, ‘I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did.’ Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket, and they both left the office.

"The revelation was read to several of the authorities during the day. Towards evening Bishop Newel K. Whitney asked Joseph if he had any objections to his taking a copy of the revelation; Joseph replied that he had not and handed it to him. It was carefully copied the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury. Two or three days after the revelation was written Joseph related to me and several others that Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it, that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he told her she might destroy it and she had done so, but he had consented to her wish in this matter to pacify her, realizing that he knew the revelation perfectly, and could rewrite it at any time if necessary.”

• History of the Church, Introduction to v. 5, pp. XXXII-XXXIII

I find it interesting that JS talks about “writing” the revelation after “talking” with Hyrum. Makes the “revelation” process sound someone bogus

 

[HonoraDominum]

I find it interesting that JS talks about “writing” the revelation after “talking” with Hyrum. Makes the “revelation” process sound someone bogus

You caught that too, huh?

It’s just unbelievable how the Mormon mind games can twist things that are so blatantly obvious. “This shirt is black.” “No, it’s white, see here is a picture of a white shirt.” “But that’s not this shirt, this shirt is black.” “No it’s not, it’s a white shirt, I’ve seen lots of white shirts, I know what a white shirt looks like, that’s a white shirt.” “No it’s not, it’s a black shirt. See here, on the label, it says, ‘Black Shirt’.” “Labels can be deceiving, that could have been sewn in after the shirt left the manufacturer. Plus, from what I know about white shirts, this is a white shirt. See, here’s a collar, and buttons, and sleeves. All white shirts have these.” “Okay, first, not all white shirts have collars or buttons or sleeves. But this does not change the fact that this is, in fact, a black shirt. See, in the catalog where I bought it, it says Black Shirt. And the salesperson on the phone told me that he guaranteed that I would get the color I ordered, which is black.” “Oh, but just because it’s in the catalog like that doesn’t mean that it’s a ‘real’ black shirt. Besides, I bear witness to you that it has been shown to me by my white-shirted brethren that this is a white shirt.” “They’re all wearing black shirts, too!” “Well, at one time they may have been called Black Shirts, but now we believe them to be white shirts.” “This is a white shirt!” “No it’s not.” “Why not?” “It’s just not.”

:banghead:

You get the idea.

 

[Jerusha]

No, they don’t get the point. That is the problem, as your analogy shows.

Mormonism is a bait-and-switch. The BoM presents a conventional American Protestant theology, but the accruals since the BoM was written are non-Christian. The missionaries present the milk, but do not practice full disclosure. Once converts get caught up in the LDS community, many don’t want to admit that they have been conned. They are afraid of accepting the truth, which requires true humility.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

“God” reveals a new covenant, that he then says is the same covenant as he made with Abraham. Then “God” lays out that covenant that he made, that Abraham is to have multiple wives. Then “God” says take the same covenant as Abraham. Then “God” says specifically that taking multiple wives is not sinful.

Go back and read it again, because it doesn’t say this.
God reveals a NEW covenant
God explains that this new covenant brings with it the same promises and blessings as the one with Abraham
God explains that Abraham and others were justified in their having multiple wives because it was commanded by Him - justified because of obedience
God tells Joseph Smith to be obedient to the new covenant and new commands.

The new covenant is Temple Sealing.

But let me point out what your argument is actually doing.
You take some scripture related to the issue, then interpret it in a different manner and claim it proves your point.
So let me have a go at this:
Let’s examine some scripture related to “The Trinity”.
Jesus prayed that His disciples could be one with each other and with Him even as He and The Father are one (John 17:21-22). The obvious meaning of even as is that it means in exactly the same manner. Clearly we are not one in substance with each other, or with Christ: so he could not possibly have meant this.
Chist is described as being “the express image of [God’s] person” (Hebrews 1:3), clearly indicating a physical resemblance, which would obviously require God the Father to have a physical form.
Christ Himself explained that “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), so evidently the statement of the Athanasian Creed “None is greater or less than Another” cannot be correct.
It is evident that the doctrine surrounding the concept of “The Trinity” is flawed.

Obviously you won’t agree with my interpretations above, but what I’ve done to your doctrine is absolutely no different to what you attempt to do to mine.

 

[HonoraDominum]

Obviously you won’t agree with my interpretations above, but what I’ve done to your doctrine is absolutely no different to what you attempt to do to mine.

Okay, so let’s throw out scripture and go by history. How do you explain the story in “History of the Church”? How do you explain Emma getting so mad at Temple Marriage? If she believed her husband and this grand concept, don’t you think she’d at least have asked to pray about it? Or ask, as Mary did when she was told by the Angel Gabriel that she was to bear a son, “How can this be?” Or maybe when the notes say that Hyrum asked Emma about the revalation about plural marriage that he, in fact, asked Emma about the revalation of plural marriage. And that is what made her hopping mad? How do you explain the fact that it was described in “History of the Church” as the revelation about Plural Marriage? If it was just opinion would the church reference the compilation on their own site? Or maybe the compilation was in fact true and credible? If it is a credible historical source, how can Emma’s reaction be explained in any other way than Hyrum went to Emma to tell her about the revelation? And how do you explain how Emma was so angry about it that she begged to tear it up for weeks?

How do you explain how the prophet of the church, Brigham Young, lied when he said that “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” This does not sound like an opinion statement. “I don’t think we ever taught that” is an opinion statement. This is most definitely not one. How do you explain that he lied again when he said “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned”?

Your argument is that Brigham Young’s phrases are opinions. But if this was his opinion, I guess these quotes were opinion as well?

I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . .
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).

I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).

I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom…I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95).

So I circle back to my original argument, which you have yet to prove as wrong. D&C 132 is about plural marriage. This doctrine was taught as essential for salvation by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other early members of the church. This doctrine ceased to be required not by the hand of God, but by the US Government when they wanted to annex Utah as a state.

And now the Mormon church has its members so deluded as to think that in fact it was never taught as essential for salvation. Even though D&C 132 clearly makes the argument that not only is plural marriage acceptable, it is required for salvation, Mormons are now taught that no, it actually doesn’t say that at all.

God be with you, and you and all others who are deluded by the lies of the Mormon church will be in my prayers.

 

[zaffiroborant]

So, let me get this straight.

A mormon prophet preaches something from the pulpit, and it doesn’t have to be doctrrine? If it isn’t doctrinal, isn’t it heresy?

BY preached about blacks not getting the priesthood, yet according to many mormons, it was never considered doctrine. So he was preaching a heresy? Can any mormon show where it was brought of for ratification, or a sustaining vote and turned down?

If he was preaching a heresy, why was it recorded, and kept in the journal of discourses? Is it to teach heresy, or is it to teach doctrine? If it is neither, why isn’t it just recorded in the churches history, and left at that?

**At what point did the mormon church decide that things a mormon prophet says/preaches have to be ratified, or receive a sustaining vote?

I don’t think JS had a sustatining vote on polygamy. If it was, can you show me where it was put before the elders/pew members and “sustained”.**

You can’t have it both ways you know.

Just point us to a source that shows when the policy/procedure of “sustaining” a teaching came about, and how it applies to teachings prior to that time.

I don’t think it can be done. No mormon has been able to provide that before, and I have asked the question multiple times.

Apparently you’re right it can’t be done.

 

[twopekinguys]

Apparently you’re right it can’t be done.

LOL, it does appear nobody is willing to answer doesn’t it. I am not surprised.

 

[twopekinguys]

That makes no sense and isn’t what I said at all. And you know it.

No it doesn’t. It just means that his opinion was that it wasn’t an opinion. Without formal acceptance by the general leadership of the church, his statements are no more doctrine than anyone else’s.

The slightest wrong word, and that completely ruins any leader’s credibility? And clearly an outright lie is worse.
I’d watch out with your argument, as you’re putting the entire Catholic church on shaky ground too with this one. Or would you like to claim that Peter didn’t lie and deny he knew Jesus Christ when asked directly? And three times too!
And while I’m sure you don’t revere him as a prophet, he certainly did make claim to receive revelations: unclean food, and the preaching of the gospel to Gentiles.

I’d check your story. Jonah disobeyed God when he tried to run away from Ninevah, but God had told him to preach against the city. Jonah 3:10 clearly says that because the people changed their ways, God chose not to do the ‘evil that he had said that he would do into them’.
Clearly, then, by your yardstick Jonah was a false prophet because the thing he prophecied about never happened.

He wasn’t.
But the point is that the arguments being aimed against him would also cause prophets throughout the Bible to be rejected if the same standard were applied.

No, but it is an opinion. Even if the individual doesn’t think it is, even if they believe they are entirely correct and justified in saying it, and even if they are the prophet of the Lord, a statement not formally ratified by the general church leadership does not constitute an official doctrine of the church. In your language it ‘isn’t binding’.

Show me an accepted doctrine that was repealed by a later leader?

Certainly Brigham Young claimed it to be essential, and I have no doubt that he believed what he was saying, but he was mistaken, and I can see how he could be.
The scriptures you quote relate not to plural marriage directly, but to the temple sealing ceremony. (In the US this ceremony is the only wedding that LDS generally have, because it is accepted by the state as lawful, elsewhere we must have a legal marriage first, then enter the temple to be sealed for time and all eternity). It is this sealing ordinance that is essential to salvation in the highest degree of Glory we can attain. The very same ordinance can be performed to seal more than one woman to a man, according to the word of God as in the scriptures you quote. This, I suspect, is where the confusion lies because the ordinance is essential, but only essential the first time.

Can you answer my questions posed in post 315?

 

[twopekinguys]

Nope. What I said was that a solitary statement by any individual, whether myself or a prophet, doesn’t make anything doctrine. Until/Unless it is formally ratified by the other members of the church leadership, it remains a statement of opinion.

Please answer the questions in post 315. If you can that is.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Just simple feelings and listening to The Spirit are very different.
It takes time to learn to understand The Spirits whispered promptings; after all, God is not in the wind, earthquake or fire - even Elijah had to learn that.

So, you’re saying the Mormons in Young’s time didn’t understand supernatural promptings, but you do?

Please show us where “Elijah has to learn that”.

 

[Lochias]

So, you’re saying the Mormons in Young’s time didn’t understand supernatural promptings, but you do?

Please show us where “Elijah has to learn that”.

+1 for me. I would like to hear the answers to these two questions, very much indeed.

 

[NewSeeker]

What I said was that a solitary statement by any individual, whether myself or a prophet, doesn’t make anything doctrine.

So prophets learn line upon line, precept upon precept, just like you. There’s no revelation, no direct communication from God, nothing at all that a prophet experiences apart from spiritual promptings that must be vetted against the canon and the consensus of the other members of church leadership before they’re accepted as doctrine. In other words, the prophet isn’t really a prophet who talks to God. He’s just an ordinary church member with a calling, whose promptings *might * have universal jurisdiction if his colleagues approve. My how the prophets have fallen.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

Okay, so let’s throw out scripture and go by history. How do you explain the story in “History of the Church”? How do you explain Emma getting so mad at Temple Marriage? If she believed her husband and this grand concept, don’t you think she’d at least have asked to pray about it? Or ask, as Mary did when she was told by the Angel Gabriel that she was to bear a son, “How can this be?” Or maybe when the notes say that Hyrum asked Emma about the revalation about plural marriage that he, in fact, asked Emma about the revalation of plural marriage. And that is what made her hopping mad? How do you explain the fact that it was described in “History of the Church” as the revelation about Plural Marriage? If it was just opinion would the church reference the compilation on their own site? Or maybe the compilation was in fact true and credible? If it is a credible historical source, how can Emma’s reaction be explained in any other way than Hyrum went to Emma to tell her about the revelation? And how do you explain how Emma was so angry about it that she begged to tear it up for weeks?

In amongst that, I think you have two questions:

• If the revelation only referred to Temple Sealing, why would Emma get so upset/angry over it
• Why is it still referenced as Plural Marriage in official church sources

The second is the simplest answer: the revelation was received when Joseph Smith queried the apparent contradiction between Old Testament patriarchs’ multiple wives, and them still being revered as extremely righteous men before God. The revelation does explain the position regarding plural marriages, in addition the Temple Sealing ordinance is not limited to sealing only one woman and one man; when God’s purposes require, it can be repeated to seal further women to the same man.

Regarding Emma; why is the fact that she didn’t like it any indication of its validity? Jonah didn’t like the Lord’s command to visit Ninevah; Moses was concerned when the Lord first told him to go to Pharaoh; Naaman wasn’s impressed with the Prophet’s instruction to wash in the river Jordan. People are imperfect, and not everybody is as meek and humble as Mary to accept so readily. Without knowing more details, we can’t really know as we don’t have full transcripts of everything that was said between Joseph Smith and his wife. Perhaps she, in the same way you have, saw only Plural Marriage in the revelation; perhaps she accepted the revelation for what it is, but Joseph had explained to her the implications and what the Lord’s commands to him were. Whatever her issue, it has no bearing on the revelation.

How do you explain how the prophet of the church, Brigham Young, lied when he said that “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” This does not sound like an opinion statement. “I don’t think we ever taught that” is an opinion statement. This is most definitely not one. How do you explain that he lied again when he said “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned”?

Just because he was convinced he was right, doesn’t man he was. And believing he was right means his statement was not a lie, but that he was mistaken.

So I circle back to my original argument, which you have yet to prove as wrong. D&C 132 is about plural marriage. This doctrine was taught as essential for salvation by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other early members of the church.

The section, as I have shown, regards both Temple Marriage, and an explanation about Plural Marriage. Just because some individuals whatever their place within the church taught something, doesn’t mean its right. The new and everlasting covenant of marriage (Temple Sealing), as comtained in D&C 132 is absolutely essential to our salvation in the worlds to come.

Please show us where “Elijah has to learn that”.

That was why the Lord sent the wind, earthquake and fire: to show Elijah that God does not work by brute force and heavy-handedness, although He is entirely capable of producing powerful forces, but by a still small voice and small and simple things.

 

[Patavium]

MormonCultist,

So, let me get this straight.

A mormon prophet preaches something from the pulpit, and it doesn’t have to be doctrrine? If it isn’t doctrinal, isn’t it heresy?

BY preached about blacks not getting the priesthood, yet according to many mormons, it was never considered doctrine. So he was preaching a heresy? Can any mormon show where it was brought of for ratification, or a sustaining vote and turned down?

If he was preaching a heresy, why was it recorded, and kept in the journal of discourses? Is it to teach heresy, or is it to teach doctrine? If it is neither, why isn’t it just recorded in the churches history, and left at that?

**At what point did the mormon church decide that things a mormon prophet says/preaches have to be ratified, or receive a sustaining vote? **

I don’t think JS had a sustatining vote on polygamy. If it was, can you show me where it was put before the elders/pew members and “sustained”.

You can’t have it both ways you know.

Just point us to a source that shows when the policy/procedure of “sustaining” a teaching came about, and how it applies to teachings prior to that time.

I don’t think it can be done. No mormon has been able to provide that before, and I have asked the question multiple times.

 

[TexanKnight]

Nope. What I said was that a solitary statement by any individual, whether myself or a prophet, doesn’t make anything doctrine. Until/Unless it is formally ratified by the other members of the church leadership, it remains a statement of opinion.

Ah…so what God says has to be VOTED on!..Do you think God knows His words mean nothing until put to a vote?

But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it! You are deliberately diverting from the actual issue in attempt to prove your point. The point here is when a prophet says something is doctrine, but it is unclear if the source is from God, or from the individual’s personal understanding/opinion. And without formal ratification or further clarification the only reasonable conclusion is that the statement was opinion.

Nope. I am saying that BY Young said it was doctrine …he was, according to you, a prophet. Now, either he is a liar or he is not. You have called him, in effect, a liar.

So every time any person says something incorrect it is always a lie? You’ve never been mistaken, you were always intentionally lying?

Nice try. But, as always, your analogy is faulty. If I make a mistake, it is a lie. But BY did not say something that could be mistaken. He said it was doctrine. He was emphatic. No room for mistake. It is either true or false.

 

[rainman10]

Verses 18-27 talk about temple marriage, and that’s all fine and good, so let’s just skip ahead to the good stuff, shall we?

Okay, so let’s break this down:

• God gave Abraham commandments.
• God gave Abraham commandments about his “seed”.
• Joseph is to have these same commandments.
• God told Sarah to give Abraham another wife.
• In taking another wife, Abraham did not sin because taking another wife was the law.
• Follow the law of Abraham or you cannot enter heaven.
• David and Isaac and Jacob and Solomon and Moses all followed this commandment and they were exalted.
• “God” tells Joseph to “restore all things.”

How, pray tell, can this mean ANYTHING other than Joseph is to restore polygamy and that polygamy, not simply temple marriage, is the “new and everlasting” covenant? How can this be interpreted as anything but polygamy is a requirement for the highest level of heaven?!?!

It could very well be that God was just giving His opinion at that time and it wasn’t really doctrine.

Seriously, though, how can a “prophet” teach opinion to his people, knowing full well that, as their leader, many or most would believe what he teaching? Wouldn’t a true prophet know what God’s true teachings are and do everything in his power to teach only God’s teachings? Wouldn’t it be awful if we had to stop and ask ourselves “Now I wonder if Jesus is just giving His opinion or is he teaching truth”?

 

[Lochias]

Just because he was convinced he was right, doesn’t man he was. And believing he was right means his statement was not a lie, but that he was mistaken.

Do you admit that you could be mistaken about your views, too, even though you are convinced you are right? Or are you intrinsically better and more wise, somehow, than BY?

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

At what point did the mormon church decide that things a mormon prophet says/preaches have to be ratified, or receive a sustaining vote?

Since the remaining 11 of Christ’s original apostles prayed and voted when they chose Matthias to replace Judas.

Nope. I am saying that BY Young said it was doctrine …he was, according to you, a prophet. Now, either he is a liar or he is not. You have called him, in effect, a liar.

Nope, I have called him wrong.
A lie is something stated with intent to deceive. So to decide if he was lying, you need to show that he knew that what he said incorrect, and said it anyway. As Brigham Young clearly believed what he said, and was confident it was correct, what he said was not a lie, it was just incorrect.

 

[twopekinguys]

Since the remaining 11 of Christ’s original apostles prayed and voted when they chose Matthias to replace Judas.

Also included in that set of questions was one about JS having the idea of plural marriage sustained?

Is there a reference for that?

How about the institution of temple ceremonies?