Secret Acts Revealed, Iniquities spoken upon the housetops

 . . .  all things which are hid must be revealed upon the house-tops

Book of Mormon | Mormon 5:8

And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.

Doctrine and Covenants | Section 1:3

 

Today I watched an overwhelming documentary about the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. I had heard theories similar to some of what was in the documentary, but some of it I had not heard. I was blown away.

The man is thorough. He is convincing. He does not hate the LDS Church, but he puts truth above their threats.

This was at the very end of the documentary:

I won't give away spoilers, as I know there are people who don't like them. I will say, though, that I believe this man is part of the prophecy given in the scriptures I quoted at the beginning of this post.

The documentary is here (parental warning: there are blood and realistic wounds here. Also there are images of fake skulls filled with red liquid being blown apart):

Who Killed Joseph Smith - Vimeo

My Testimony of Joseph Smith

I belong to a forum whose posts are open for anyone to read so I see no harm in quoting a post someone made there (they did not use their real name and I know nothing about who they really are). It was an opening post and included questions. I am quoting it and I am quoting my reply (which took two posts, then I added a postscript comment).

I view my reply as my testimony of truth. Because of that, I am making a blog post out of it.

1smartdog wrote:
From time to time I will hear or read about someone who claims to know all the dirty church history and yet believes. Frankly I do not know what to make of these people. Sometimes I think they really do not know everything, maybe some superficial stuff, but they have not explored it all. It is one thing to gloss over the BofA or polygamy, but when you dive deep you realize the very foundational stories you were taught all your life are suspect at best or more likely complete fabrications.

How does one stare so directly into the light and yet ignore it at the same time. For me and I think most people when they find the truth it takes but a short time to realize it is all a big lie. But there seems to be those few who can compartmentalize it enough to believe in spite of it all. What gives with this? Are they so vested in belief that nothing to the contrary can be contemplated? I just can not get my head around this approach.

I can accept that if you are ignorant of the facts you can believe. We all did at one point. But when faced with the evidence and you still choose to defend the church I wonder what scrambled thought processes you must endure.

My reply:
I can't say I know it all. I don't think anyone does. What I have seen, in my studies, is that people can lie about others even in the 1800s. I look at the evidence and make my own decisions. Some of what people on NOM accept as true witnesses, I do not.

However, I think one thing that is different about me is that my hopes and salvation are not hung up on Joseph Smith or any other leader of the Church. No one is perfect and it's the most damning lie we are taught - that Joseph and every president after him were perfect and that the Church is perfect. A lie equal to that is that it is ALL true or it is ALL false.

When one believes the leaders not only are perfect, but have to be perfect (except in very minor things), then they have to compartmentalize some of the things, say, Brigham, taught. In fact, for years, I denied he ever taught the Adam-God theory.

I read much of the CES letter. When I looked at the examples of the funerary pictures (facsimiles?) that were being compared with the one about Abraham we have in the Pearl of Great Price, I noticed that the funerary pictures had dead people who were acting like proper dead people, but the one of Abraham was the only dead person I'd seen or heard of who was kicking and hitting. Apparently, he didn't know how to act like a proper corpse.

As far as masonry and the temple, I see it this way: Joseph was a mason. He had seen into heaven. He knew he was going to die soon. The people weren't finishing the temple and he knew they'd receive the promised curses (being scattered, for one thing). He wanted to give them some clues to hold on to in regards to what he had been trying to get through their collective heads. (That they were each to see the Lord for themselves and not rely on him so much.)

I believe that he saw, in masonry, signs and tokens that could be used as clues if the people could figure it out. I'm not so sure he intended such an air of fear and secrecy to accompany the temple ordinances, though.

Here are some examples, and I hope I'm not telling too much. First sign. Casting out the devil so he cannot answer your prayers to God. (There is an example of this in the temple film.) Second sign. Keeping the devil at bay and coming to God as a beggar. Third sign. Even after Jesus has cast Satan/Lucifer under your feet (via the atonement and you accepting it), you are still a beggar before God. Fourth. You approach the throne of God, speaking to Him three times to signify that you are in the lowest realm (telestial, terrestrial, celestial).

Translating the Book of Mormon. I don't care that he used a hat and a stone. Sometimes I wonder why he didn't translate like I was taught, but perhaps his gift was not intended to be manifest in a typical way. What I do is look at the finished product.

Now, there is a lie, by inference, going around. That lie is that Joseph translated the book perfectly and it needed no editing. Not one stitch. Well, I've been reading the 1830 version of the book and sometimes his grammar makes me cringe. And, when they "fixed" it in later versions, they changed some things that I wonder if they ought to have - like changing "Mary the mother of God" to "Mary the mother of the Son of God."

Because of stuff like that, I figure I have a right to look at the book as if it was a typical book by a typical author. Errors in the first edition. It doesn't have to be perfect. Not really.

I find the book useful. I find that I get closer to God by studying it. I have stopped studying it with a Mormon paradigm. I search to see what the book, itself, is saying.

For example, it comes down hard on the Gentiles. Moroni says, "I've seen you." Then he says, "Why have you polluted the holy church of God?"

We are taught that these references are to the Catholic church. Why would he say that to a church that was polluted a thousand years before the people he saw and knew would read the book.

The book damns us, the followers of Joseph Smith's religions. Reading that book with the idea that most of the references to gentiles mean us is a real eye-opener and fits what we have been and what we have become. It even gave a special warning about polygamy.

Part Two -

I believe that Joseph didn't have sex with all of those women he was accused of having sex with. If he did sealings at all, I think it had nothing to do with marriage and marital relations. I think there are a lot of holes in the women's testimonies. They gave one witness while Joseph was alive and another witness after he was dead and they had something to lose by not lying for the Lord for Brigham.

I believe Bennet accused Joseph to cover up his own sins.

The precedent had already been set for altering scriptures when a committee embellished the Book of Commandments when they wrote the Doctrine and Covenants - and I believe that some of D&C 132 was altered by the man who claimed to have written it for Joseph originally, because he was loyal to Brigham - and they had to prove to Joseph's sons that Joseph had had lots of sex with lots of wives - and to keep polygamy, they had to convince the gov't that it had been practiced since Joseph's time so they could keep it under the clause of freedom of religion. (Apparently, if it was an innovation by BY, the courts would have rejected it. They did anyway, but that's beside the point.)

Now, I don't expect you guys to believe me or to accept my point of view. I'm not interested in debating your evidences against mine. I'm no scholar and I'm not into debate. I only replied because the op was wondering something and I thought I would give a reply because I fit somewhat into the paradigm he was addressing.

But I don't fit into the paradigm completely, because I hold the opinion that only Joseph was a prophet, that he didn't have to be anywhere near perfect to be so, that the books he translated did not have to be perfect. I hold that the reason Joseph came was to share the revelations and books, and to tell us that we, too, could connect directly with heaven. In fact, that it was vital for us to be able to bear the Lord's presence in the flesh. Otherwise, there could be no Zion. And without Zion, the whole earth would be utterly destroyed because no one would be able to stand in the Lord's presence without sizzling.

I believe that a formally organized church was not intended by God, but was pushed by Sidney Rigdon and others. I believe that one can be baptized and accept the Book of Mormon without ever becoming a member of one of the offshoots descending from Joseph Smith.

I think Baptists can stay Baptist. Catholics can stay Catholic. And so forth. They may have to change some of their thinking to accept the new stuff, but there is no need to leave their own formal religion. I think God wants no formal religion, with hierarchies and "holy men" who boss people around and tell them what underwear to wear.

I think religion is deeply personal and no person has a right to tell you what to believe, how to approach God, or make a set of rules (no tats, wear white shirts, pay money to attend temples, follow a man or be kicked out, and so forth).

I know that most everyone here disagrees with my beliefs. I also know that we share some beliefs. I don't have a problem with you not believing me. I'm fine with you choosing your own path and accepting what makes sense to you. That's the way it should be.

*steps down from soapbox*

Quote:
I hold the opinion that only Joseph was a prophet,

This means that I don't think BY down to and including TSM are true prophets. These men may have held the title, but they were not and are not the real thing.
#

End

Milk versus Meat

I had an interesting thought (to me, anyway). In the scriptures, we read of babies drinking milk and, when they get old enough, they eat meat. And we talk on and on about how we've got to be careful not to feed people meat (hard to digest and all that).

But, I think we forget that the word translated as "meat" in the KJV of the Bible simply means "food". "He sat at meat," means, "He ate a meal." If there is no more information, we don't know what he ate. It could have been barley bread and cheese.

So, the conflict is between a baby who is still suckling at the breasts and a two-year-old who can chew and eat most foods or a seven-year-old who can chew and eat all foods, not between a baby and a thirty-year-old or eighty-five-year-old.

You really don't have to be very old to be able to eat solid foods. All you need are enough teeth to chew the food without choking . . . and enough sense to take the time to chew thoroughly.

Read what Joseph Smith said are the first principles of the gospel (when speaking to his people).

Thoughts

These are thoughts, not doctrine. I have no special line to truth. I do not expect anything I write on my blog to be accepted blindly. It is the responsibility of each person to find truth for him/herself. Besides that, I am still processing the following ideas. They may not be true at all.

So, I've been listening to the lecture on priesthood (given in Orem, Utah) – and have been listening to the lecture on Christ earlier (given in Ephraim, Utah), as well as conversing with others about the latter. Just now, listening to the priesthood lecture, it hit me, almost as a realization.

This is hell. For real. Literally. The devils reside here, thus it is hell. D&C 76 gives a whole list of types of people who will dwell in hell for their reward. Somewhere (in the D&C, I think; perhaps even in section 76) it is said or written that those of a higher kingdom can go to the lower kingdoms (but not vice versa). It does not say that those in the lower kingdoms will know or realize that there are residents of a higher kingdom dwelling among them and helping them.

Alma 13 seems to speak of God's eternal rounds as being earths. We go to an earth, learn and become all we can, then go to our rewards – climbing up over and over until we become someone God can trust. What struck me was this: The reward of the lowest kingdom is to go for another go-round on a planet like this. None of us initially know if we are in this hell as a punishment for past misdeeds. We can only know it if Gods or angels tell us.

You see, those of a higher kingdom (Jesus, many of the prophets) have condescended to come here even though they have already successfully passed this level of things (see “The First Three Words” by Denver Snuffer).

What I am not saying: I am not saying we return to this earth over and over again. The scriptures (Alma 13) say that it was before the foundation of the world that certain people were proven by their faith and good works. One round seems to consist of a plan to create a planet, creating the planet, putting an Adam and Eve upon it, having a fall, then all of God's children who have that planet as a reward or who are assigned to it as helpers are then born onto it over the course of several thousands of years. The planet may also include those who have never experienced being on a telestial hell-planet before.

At the end of that, there is a reaping and a putting of people into where they belong. Then those who qualify for hell get the opportunity to try again on another hell-planet. This fits in with the scriptures that say this life is the time to prepare and after it no man can work. Were it a coming back to this earth on this round over and over again, that scripture (and others like it) would be lying to us.

Those who reap a higher reward may, according to scriptures and to my understanding, condescend to go to a telestial hell-world to help save souls, the most obvious example being Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith said we needed to follow Christ, apparently even to the point of reaching the highest rung on the heavenly ladder, then going to a hell-earth as a sinless sacrifice and to resurrect those who cannot resurrect themselves. (See his last general conference talk in 1844.)

How resurrection and bodies fit into this, I do not know. I cannot see how a physical body, forever united to a spirit can separate from it to gain a fresh body at the birth of another body. Unless, these are different dimensions and there are millions of kinds of bodies to be had.

I wonder if a terrestrial planet would be like this one, sans the devils and their influences.

But, then, why the statement by Joseph Smith that we would kill ourselves to get to the telestial kingdom (hell) if we are already here? And I promise you: this life is not worth killing oneself to get into.

-----------------------------------------

Just a note: This is what D&C 76 says in regards to those who go to hell. I do find it a bit confusing in light of what I think I am learning. Like I said, I am still processing this, still trying to figure it out:

 89: And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;
 

 98-106: And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world; For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas. These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch; But received not the gospel [what is "the gospel"?], neither the testimony of Jesus [the testimony that Jesus has of you/them?], neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant. [Received, not "followed." Following seems to be frowned upon in this scripture.]

Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud. These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth. These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

Question: When is the "fulness of times"? When is it that all enemies are subdued and the work is perfected? Is it at the end of the 1,000 years of peace (Millennium)? Or is it at the end of the whole mess, at the end of the perhaps thousands of cycles it will take to get people to finally "get it" and stop hurting each other? Is that when the "glory" of the telestial world will come forth and there will be no more hell-earths to inhabit for this particular group of Father's children?

True Messengers

Tim Malone said this:

I declare unto you, in all words of soberness, in words revealed unto me by the Lord, that He has sent a prophet to us within the last few years from outside the hierarchy of the Church, with a mission to teach us, to warn us, and to lead us to the Lord. I have spent hundreds of hours studying his published words. I have listened to his recorded teachings over this past year and have found truth in what he has shared. I have sat in his presence recently to test his spirit. I found no fault and have had my witness reaffirmed.

I declare unto you this prophet is acting as an Elias, or a John the Baptist, with the mission to prepare us to receive the Lord. More importantly, he is as Moses in striving to show us the way to the Lord, that we may enter into His presence in this life, to be prepared to be caught up to meet the inhabitants of the City of Enoch at the coming of the Lord. That event will be accompanied by great destructions. This is well known. Not as well-known is just how soon those destructions will begin to be poured out upon us.

He said it here - http://latterdaycommentary.com/2014/07/05/the-doctrine-of-additional-prophets/

And he apparently got a tremendous amount of flack for it.

I am lucky - or blessed - or something. Hardly anyone knows of my blog. Even at its most active, I don't have much traffic in comparison with Tim, Rock, and others whose blogs I read with interest.

I have moved, there is confusion about what ward I belong in, so I have decided to go to whatever ward is closest to walk to.

In other words, they can't get me because I'm a nobody (so no one will complain) and am in no ward. And I have been wondering: If I post what I really think will there be any consequences? I doubt it. I've posted what I've thought before with no repercussions.

So I am going to do an experiment, to prove to myself that I really am a nothing and a nobody (my family and friends, with the exception of one similar-minded friend, don't read this - have probably forgotten this blog even exists, if they knew it in the first place). I am going to write plainly and freely.

Tim's comments above are spot on. He said it much better than I could have.

God's voice is once again heard among us after a silence created after the death of Joseph Smith (not that many listened to what he was really trying to get at while he was alive - and he let them go their merry ways, creating a church after the desires of their own hearts).

I do not comprehend how anyone can fail to recognize the voice of the Master in the words He speaks through his latest servant. How can it fail to resonate? How can it not be familiar? As familiar as one's own parent?

Some say that they don't “feel good” when the servant speaks. The Spirit doesn't make you “feel good,” especially if you are in a deep sleep, a drunken stupor. The Spirit gives you information. What emotions come up as a result of the information is not under the Spirit's jurisdiction.

Some rage on about the messenger - either defending him or attempting to splice, dice, or silence him. They are offended at the message the Lord told him to deliver, so they are going to shoot the messenger. Some might even be delighted at the message so they praise the messenger.

So Denver is a true prophet of God. You know, the kind that actually sees God and tells people what God told him to say. Great. End of subject.

Let's continue on to the message, without which we would be damned because we are too dense to figure it out ourselves through our own prayers and study. And, more and more, we study general conference talks instead of the Book of Mormon.

Let's digress to the Book of Mormon. I'd recommend the 1830 version because, you see, I was taught in more Sunday School classes than I can count (when I was a child we had Sunday School on Sunday and Primary was after school) that Joseph Smith translated the book so incredibly. He picked up where he left off each time he began again. Nothing was crossed out. He made no mistakes. So, if that's true, then the best version is the 1830 version.

Except. It was one long run-on sentence. So, go here to download a version without punctuation (sorry - it was too time-prohibitive to go through and remove/replace all of the capital letters). Let the Spirit tell you what the book really says.

The Book of Commandments had revelations given to and through Joseph Smith (though I understand that some in either that book or the Doctrine and Covenants - or both - may have come through someone else, even though Joseph is credited with them). Good book to read.

If you read the Doctrine and Covenants, I would recommend the first edition. It contains the Lectures on Faith. Joseph spent serious effort editing those to get them right. He let a committee deal with the “covenants” section of the book. Guess what? They did some “free-lancing” - They embellished parts, made them sound more like what they thought God would say. Don't believe me? Read the Book of Commandments, then read the same revelations as written in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

When I was a child, I was taught in church that “we know more than the pioneers did.” We knew more than Joseph did. You see, the church had evolved and we understood a whole lot more. I continued being taught that as I grew up. And I believed it.

When I read in the Lectures on Faith (when I was around 18 or 20 years old) that there were only two persons in the Godhead and that the Holy Spirit wasn't even a person, I believed the footnote that explained that Joseph hadn't figured it out yet. Yet a part of me wondered how he could have gotten it wrong, seeing as he had seen God and all that.

Well, it was only recently that I saw something clearly: We are the ones who haven't figured it out. No president of the church has had the visions Joseph had. The few we believe had visions of Jesus were never delivered over the pulpit, thus are suspect. And the recent deliveries (from apostles) have been couched in poetic phrases, never coming right out and plainly saying, “I know Jesus lives, because I have seen Him. I have touched Him. I have talked to Him. He wants me to tell you …” That smacks of deception to me. That smacks of lies to me. Intentionally.

A “special witness” of Christ is one who is a witness of His suffering in Gethsemane, crucifixion, death, and resurrection - most likely in vision (definitely so today). It is not a fancy title, and most certainly is not a fancy title meaning, “I get to boss you around. I get to tell you how to dress, how to decorate your bodies, what you can say and to whom. I get to demand your respect and veneration. You are to honor and obey me above all and, most especially, if the Holy Ghost tells you something - or the scriptures do - and it goes against my opinions or sermon or the latest policy, I take precedence over scriptures and your Holy Ghost. Follow me and you will get to heaven. Obey my voice and it is impossible for you to be led astray.”

Which brings me to the idea of prophets, because we consider our “special witnesses” to all be prophets. Look in the scriptures. The Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” according to Joseph Smith (note that he did not say it was completely correct. There could be errors in it), and the book says that the Bible is a huge stumbling block, so it would be safest to search the pages of the Book of Mormon.

I want you to look in that book and find me one prophet of God – just one – who says, “Follow me!” Find one who says, “I cannot lead you astray. It isn't in the program. It isn't possible for me to say anything false or contrary to the will of God.”

And I want you to look in that book and find how many prophets point to Christ and say, “Follow Christ.”

And I want you to look in that book and find out how many prophets heap laud and honor upon their listeners for being so awesome. Ditto for any, “To my grandchildren, who are so dear and precious to my heart, and while we're at it, here is a video or some photograph(s) to boost my pride in my progeny.”

I want you to look in that book and find where it says that it is okay to practice polygamy because David and Solomon did it. (Heck, look at D&C 132 if you want, which I believe to have been altered by - maybe even created by - Joseph's secretary, William Clayton, who was conveniently working for Brigham Young when BY felt the need to find something of Joseph's to “prove” that Joseph was lying every time he said he didn't have more than one wife, as in a sexual partner, which is what it seems to mean to everyone, anyway. It points out that Isaac practiced polygamy. Oops. Bit of a boo boo, WC. Strange that BY and those who followed him in the presidency all said and believed the same thing about polygamy: it was to have lots and lots of children. If that is what Joseph taught them, where are the lots and lots of children Joseph was supposed to have had?) I want you to consider that God was, just maybe, talking about spiritual seed when He said, “raise up seed to me.” Just maybe.

And I want it to be known that my greatest desire is for all to escape the chains of hell. I desire spiritual darkness to have no power over anyone who has even the tiniest bit of desire to escape it. I desire all who follow men or women to wake up and follow the one Man who is the only one worthy of following, the only one worthy of emulation.

I do not hate the religion I was born into. I appreciate that it gave me the Book of Mormon. I appreciate that it gave me baptism. I appreciate the truths that it did teach me (I am still in the process of separating the truth from the error). I do not look at my ancestors with distaste or disdain (I am certainly no better than they, and am probably worse). What I do see in us today is a blindness. I see a belief that we are somehow smarter and more learned than those in the past. I see that we believe if we follow men, fallible humans, then we will be saved. No need for the Book of Mormon. Conference talks suffice.

I see true messengers from God despised, rejected, reviled, cast out, mocked, derided, accused of being a devil or having a devil or following a devil. I am not concerned about the messengers. They are in God's hands. He will do with them what He will. My concern is for those who despise the messengers. My concern is for the physical and spiritual destruction of those who profess to know and have the truth, yet fight against God. My prayers are intense for them, as well as for those who have recognized the need to follow only Christ and are willing to sacrifice all things to follow Him. Many of the latter group receive persecution in their own homes or among their friends and peers, or are sorely tempted to do something that would ruin what they are desiring to acquire and accomplish.

Yet, it must be so. Life must be. We must be presented with choices. We must allow those who oppose to oppose. We must allow those who insist upon fear to have that fear. And it must be that there are those who think I am “apostate” even though I am actually a heretic, and who think I have joined the forces of darkness (that is if they ever notice what I believe).

And, once we have been taught from on high, I expect it is our responsibility to teach what we have learned. But only if moved upon by the Holy Ghost or directed to do so by our Lord.

I want you (anyone who happens to read this) to know that I am a bumbling fool. Heaven has taken notice of me on occasion, just as it probably has for you (whether you recognize it as such or not). Heaven has bestowed blessings on me. Heaven has given me gifts. I suspect it has done the same for you.

We should be in a fight against darkness, not against those who do not toe the line of appropriate Brethren-worship (adoration, fidelity, whatever you are pleased to call it). We have a common enemy and it is not “the Brethren” nor is it true messengers. The common enemy seeks to destroy our souls and will use all it can to sink us.

The way to combat darkness is to turn and face the Light. We need no “parlor tricks”. We need not concentrate on darkness, nor school ourselves in the ranks of devils nor their tools. We need only to face Christ with full purpose of heart, with true humility, and with an intense desire to know only that which is true no matter how close to or far from our paradigms it may be (or from that which tickles our fancy).

Just to be plain: True messengers are not here to usurp control over the LDS church, nor to create another institution/corporation or church. They are no threat to the First Presidency's authority over the Church, though they might be a threat to the First Presidency's income, pride, and power simply by virtue of teaching truth - and teaching what a true messenger is and is not.

The Man Who Finds Fault with the Church - In Context

Joseph Smith said: “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; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” 1  

This famous statement, made by the prophet on 2 July 1839, is often quoted to members who are critical of you [general authorities] as a warning that criticism can lead to apostasy. But this twists the original meaning and purpose of the statement. 

Joseph Smith did not say these words to church members who were critical of their leaders. He said them to church leaders - to apostles and seventies - who were critical of church members. 

He warned leaders of the church not to put themselves above others, not to condemn others, not to find fault with the church, not to say that members are out of the way while leaders are righteous.

The whole article is worth reading: Dialogue: A Plea to the Leaders of the Church, by Paul Toscano

Oh that I were an angel and could have the wish of my heart.

New Order Mormon is full of people whose shelves have broken. Their eyes have been opened, and they are right about so many things.

I wish I could help them. I wish I could help them understand that not everything negative they read "proves" the Book of Mormon false, that Joseph Smith Jr was a lecher, and so forth. I wish I could open up their eyes to the incredible information in the Book of Mormon. I wish I had more knowledge - and the power of convincing people to believe and know the truth. Below is one of my recent attempts to share.

[name of poster]: Why would any loving personal god allow truth to be mixed up with lies and pollution to the extent that "his children aren't even aware and have no method of waking up" except randomly a few may wake up?  That is an unreasonable definition of a "loving god" at least for me. 

How exactly are we supposed to discover mysteries for ourselves if we can't tell truth from the lies we are swimming in?  How do we wake up?  Are we supposed to rely on god's special messengers?  If so why aren't we all special messengers so we don't have to be confused by special messengers who are murderers in their hearts?  In your assertions (in my unlearned opinion) the result is god is either a trickster who mixes truth and error for fun, an absentee watchmaker, or not at home.  But maybe I am too blinded by the error I am swimming in to see another alternative.

You have a lot of good questions.

I think we are given inklings that things are not right, but we ignore them because we think the church is right and we are wrong.

I think if we read the BofM, doing all we can to ignore everything we have been taught it says and means, that we will probably understand God better.

Some things that come to mind:

Lehi was not a "special messenger" even though we are taught at church that he was a duly appointed prophet of God, legally put into the hierarchy of his day. In fact, he was an apostate (which is probably why two of his sons kept wanting to kill him). The people at Jerusalem were righteous, according to Laman and Lemuel. "Our father hath judged them."

I see a parallel to us. The LDS people are righteous. The NOMs have judged them.

"Why have you polluted the holy church of God?" Moroni asks us who believe the book (e.g. "Mormons"). He calls us wicked, perverse, and stiffnecked, and asks, "Why have ye built up churches to yourselves to get gain?" "Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls?"

He says we walk in the pride of our hearts. Mentions very fine apparel, envying, strifes, malice, persecutions - that every one of our churches have become polluted because of the pride of our hearts.

I have been quoting from Mormon 8, and in verse 35, Moroni tells us he's speaking to us as if we were present because he has seen us. Us. Mormons. Us. All of the offshoots that hold the BofM to be a sacred book.

If we read that as it says, we see that our church is polluted, greedy, and changing God's words. We, according to the book as I read it, are about to lose the gospel because we have rejected the truth, we have rejected the fulness.

It is a scathing rebuke. So is some of what Nephi says when he notes that in our day people will say, "All is well in Zion. ... Zion prospereth." He knew full well it wouldn't be Zion, but that we would consider ourselves as such. (2 Nephi 28)

I honestly believe that the answers to your questions lie in the book that tells us (all who are offshoots of JS) we are not as good as we think we are, and answers lie in realizing that there is no middle-man between you and God. False prophets in sheep's clothing, even if they think they are not, are never going to give us true answers. They don't know the true answers - or feel threatened by the true answers.

And, in regards to the sanitized idea that God will never speak to a man outside the duly organized hierarchy: Jesus was considered apostate. Samuel the Lamanite was a total outsider. Abinadi was not part of the religious hierarchy. Abraham looks to me like he started his own church. Joseph Smith was outside that church (the last "duly authorized" one being what became the Catholic church, near as I can discover, and all other Christian religions being offshoots of that church).

Anyway, the answers are inside of us, if we can cut out the jibber-jabber. We each are connected to God, and it doesn't matter if someone disagrees with our path.

The actual right each person possesses is the right to live and believe as they think God (however they determine who or what s/he is) would have them live and believe, and no more. I should not be telling you what to think or be. Neither should a church - or any individual or entity be telling you that. The idea that there is a man who has all the answers has caused a tremendous amount of damage, both physical and spiritual/emotional.

I don't know if I have answered your questions, but that is the best I can do.

Joseph Smith and Polygamy

So, as I understand it, Joseph had the sealing power given him by God, a priesthood that cannot be passed down.¹This enabled him to save those who were sealed to him², by the power that he held (which type of sealing cannot be passed down from man to man). Thus, it seems to me³, especially in light of what I have read here, that Joseph was sealed to women, not as a sexual partner but as a power to raise up seed unto the Lord, meaning souls who could be saved through being sealed to Joseph. It was no more sexual than when he had sons sealed to him. Thus, Joseph could honestly say he had only one wife and was not practicing polygamy because he understood others to mean having sexual relations with other women, when that was not the case. But through the years, the doctrine was misunderstood and changed.

This would explain why there are no physical descendents of Joseph except through Emma - a woman sealed to Joseph might consider him the father all of her children, even though her “legal and lawful” husband provided the actual seed. She might even confide in her child/ren that Joseph was their father.

And we cannot really know how many women were sealed to Joseph in his lifetime, with his presence and consent. By the time plural marriages became well-known, there was a stake in “proving” that Joseph had practiced plural marriage. Those who testified that they had been Joseph's wives, may have been sealed to him (in a nonsexual relationship), or they may have been “lying for the Lord”.

There were also people sealed to him as his children. I have a great-grandfather back some generations who was sealed to Joseph as his son (but the sealing wasn't done until the pioneers were in Utah - unless it was redone then). But Joseph didn't treat them as children, I expect. For example, they didn't have to worry about a whipping if they did wrong (the common punishment of children in those days).

Anyway, this is my latest understanding of the idea of Joseph and plural marriage.

1 JST 14 27. And thus, having been approved of God, he [Melchizedek] was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,

28. It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;

29. And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto us many as believed on his name.

2 I cannot find the exact words I seek, but I understand it to be what Joseph preached. Here is an example of something he said that may refer to that: I will walk through the gate of heaven and Claim what I seal & those that follow me & my Council - Wilford Woodruff Diary 10 March 1844 (Sunday). At Temple. (Words of Joseph Smith)

3 “Joseph's practices were carefully guarded, hidden from public view, and so discrete that still today there are those who think he never had plural wives. If this were something for public display and advocacy, then Joseph would have done so. He did not. To the contrary, he also delighted in the chastity of women and condemned adultery and fornication.

...

“It is my view that the question of taking plural wives arises with Joseph Smith, and was through a revelation to him when he inquired about the topic. He treated it as a limited, carefully curtailed, private matter. His implementation of the practice was limited to sealing his own plural wives, and one other man to two wives.

“With Brigham Young, however, taking more women became not only public, but it also became a topic used to prove his own v[i]rility.”