The Book of Mormon on the Law of Moses "Avails Nothing": A Follow up to Expiation of Sectarian Dogma & The Seeding of The Mormon People

This a follow up to The Expiation of Sectarian Dogma & The Seeding of The Mormon People.

The Book of Mormon describes Jews receiving Christian salvation before Christ is even born. It explains that the Mosaic Law and the Israelite temple rituals like animal sacrifices were merely "signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows." Hence we read:

Mosiah 3:13-16 (emphasis added):

And the Lord God has sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them.

Yet the Lord God saw that his people were a stiffnecked people, and he appointed unto them a law, even the law of Moses. And many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spoke unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses avails nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood.

I would argue that we therefore have scriptural precedent for interpreting the Nauvoo temple ritual as "signs, and types, and shadows" that showed unto the Nineteenth century Mormons concerning the coming secret doctrine of God, soon to be fully revealed and known among God's People by 1900; and yet many hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Nauvoo [plural marriage law] avails nothing except it were a type and shadow, a method of expiating the abominable Creeds from the consciousness of the Saints, and revealing God's real body. In other words, just as the Law of Moses availed nothing, the Law of Plural Marriage (see D&C 132: 3, 5-7, 11, 17-18, 24) availed nothing except as a sign and type and shadow of God's bodily nature and sociality of the Gods, i.e. the true knowledge of God the Father having a body of flesh and bones and the same sociality that exists here, exists there. For that Law was about knowing God as an "eternal life" in bodily form. As we read in D&C 132: 24 (emphasis added):

This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.

Note that Joseph Smith renders the passage in the gospel of John as "eternal lives." Joseph Smith explains this in The King Follett Discourse (emphasis added):

Have any of you seen him, heard him, communed with him [God]? Here is the question, perhaps, that will from this time forth occupy your attention. The apostle [John] says, "This is life eternal"--to know God and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent. If any man, not knowing what kind of a being God is, inquires to know if the declaration of the apostle is true--and searches diligently his own heart--he will admit that he has not eternal life; for there can be no eternal life on any other principle.

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and if I should be the man to comprehend him and to explain or convey his principles to your hearts so that the spirit seals it upon you, let every man and woman henceforth put his hand on his mouth and never say anything against the man of God again. But if I fail, it becomes my duty to renounce all my pretensions to revelations and inspirations. And if all [religious teachers] pretend to know God, they will be as bad off as I am, at any rate. … I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. And if I can bring you to him, all persecutions against me will cease; you will know that I am his servant, for I speak as one having authority. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear all ye ends of the earth; for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and I am going to tell you the designs of God for the human race and why he interferes with the affairs of man.

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret.

… When we begin to learn in this way, we begin to learn the only true God and what kind of a being we have got to worship. When we know how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us and tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.

Source: http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

So D&C 132: 24 can be read thus with my words in brackets, and combining the teachings of the King Follet Discourse:

This is eternal lives [the lives of divine men and women with tangible bodies of flesh and bone (composed of spirit matter)]—to know the only wise and true God [who is a man in form just like us], and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law [so you can learn the great secret that God the Father is a man who progressed in power in His bodily form; so that to know God is know a full life in the body rather than asceticism. Thus you "have got to learn to be Gods yourselves" through the type and shadow of this Law (plural marriage) in order to learn bodily affirmation as the way of the Gods].

In other words, the point of plural marriage was not for Heavenly Parents to birth heavenly children but instead the soul of man was always eternal and celestially unbirthed and uncreated. As The Joseph Smith Papers: Documents Volume 14, puts it:

[Joseph Smith] sought to comfort the survivors by teaching about the nature of God—specifically, that God had the form of a man and that God had once been a man and had incrementally advanced to godhood. [Joseph Smith] also stated that men and women must similarly learn to become gods. He argued that God had organized the world from existing eternal elements rather than creating it ex nihilo. Likewise, [Joseph Smith] declared that “intelligences”—or “the intelligent part” of the “mind of man”—are self-existent and have no beginning or end. Furthermore, God gave these intelligences laws to help them progress to become like him. (page 313).

As Joseph goes on to explain:

… The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself--that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary to save the world of spirits. I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life that are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life; I know it is good.

The Creeds had rendered man docile and ascetic and engaged in "body despising" as Nietzche rightly condemns. When one reads Parley Pratt's An appeal to the inhabitants of the State of New York : letter to Queen Victoria, it's very clear that Pratt, under Smith's theo-philosophical guidance, is very critical of the puritanical mindset and shaming tactics of Protestantism, as well as the lack of vitality in the clergy and their docile unambitious nature. Thus, we can read the King Follet Discourse as basically saying that God "instituted the temporary law of plural marriage, whereby spirits could have the privilege of advancing like God himself--that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory." In other words, Smith was restoring the original Hebrew attitude of acsending Davidic Kings and Adam-and-Eve made in the royal image of the Royal Divine Council (see the Biblical scholarship of Michael Heiser for more details). As even Paul said Christians would judge angels or lower divine beings (1 Cor. 6:3). The spirits could not advance like God Himself toward exalted enthronement by believing in the sectarian Creed, that God was a mere vapor without body or parts and the ultimate aim of life was despising the body, lacking ambition and status, and discarding the body as the aim of life; and in the Protestant concept of heaven there was no expansion of love and kingly dominion but mere groveling before an invisible bodiless Nothing. So it was important to gain the secret knowledge of God's form as a man in order to affirm the body and advance in knowledge and power on earth in imitation of the powerfully royal Gods. 

Thus Joseph says (emphasis added, with my words added in brackets):

… Knowledge saves a man, and in the world of spirits a man cannot be exalted except by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments [the main commandment then in 1844 was the Law of plural marriage], he must abide without salvation [he can't be "saved" by the secret knowledge of God's bodily form revealed in the plural marriage temple ritual]. A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner [when he believes in the sectarian Creeds and despises his body]. Hence the saying, "They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone." The torment of the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. So is the torment of [sectarian] man.

Source: http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

Joseph was thus presenting the saving knowledge of God's true bodily nature and that God is "more liberal in his views" (as he explains to Nancy Rigdon) through the experiential knowledge gained through plural marriage. The Creeds caused man to torment himself and thus Joseph was seeking to liberate the Saints by temporarily having them practice the law of plural marriage as a type and shadow of the royal status of the liberated state of the embodied Gods that are not burdened by the body despising sectarian Creeds, which body-denying Creed the Gods consider an abomination.

We even find some support for this interpretation among traditional LDS apologists, as one writes:

The earliest justification mentioned by the Prophet for the reestablishment of Old Testament polygamy was as a part of the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:19–21: 

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (italics added). 

This need for a restoration is mentioned in [D&C] Section 132: “I am the Lord thy God. . . . I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things” (v. 40; see also 45).

Another reason for the establishment of plural marriage is that it brought trials to practicing Saints that provided opportunities for spiritual growth, to be “proven” (D&C 132:51). …

…. Apostle John Taylor summarized:

"Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy?” and then he [Joseph Smith] answered: “It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood."[8]

Source: https://debunking-cesletter.com/polygamy-polyandry-1/reasons-for-polygamy/

Note that the "cross" is a symbol of expiation and transformation; and the word proven means "Tried; evinced; experienced" in the 1828 Dictionary. In other words, plural marriage was a temporary "cross to bear" in order to be proven, that is experienced in the saving knowledge that God is "more liberal in his views" and God is in the "form of a man"; and thus the early Mormons were to be "changed within [transformed] by a new way of thinking [or changing the way you think; the renewing of your mind]" (Romans 12: 2 EXB); and thus the early Mormons in the 1800s changed their thinking to no longer see God as a bodiless, passionless, nothingness but instead as a sensual being of flesh and bone and status and power; and that the aim of life was not to discard the body and despise the body but to affirm the flesh and the earth as spirit matter; and that ambition, status, and strength are good in imitation of God Himself. As the 1835 Lectures on Faith, which was the original Doctrine portion of the Doctrine and Covenants, make clear (see below).

For God is the ultimate Source of Power-to-Dominion, of unfolding life and creativity, which divine power we are to embody and partake of to be holy and saved (delivered from death and cultural decay and conquer and prosper). The Lectures on Faith explain this below. Note emphasis added, and the words in brackets are my own:

Lecture 1:15:

… the principle of power, which existed in the bosom of God, by which the worlds were framed, was faith; and that it is by reason of this principle of power, existing in the Deity, that all created things exist—so that all things in heaven, on earth, or under the earth, exist by reason of faith, as it existed in HIM.

Lecture 2: 4, 34:

4 … we are sensible, that after a revelation of Jesus Christ, the works of creation, throughout their vast forms and varieties, clearly exhibit his eternal power …. Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: even his eternal power …

34 The reason why we have been thus particular on this part of our subject, is, that this class may see … what it was that stirred up the faith of multitudes to feel after him; to search after a knowledge of his character, perfections and attributes, until they became extensively acquainted with him; and not only commune with him, and behold his glory, but be partakers of his power, and stand in his presence.

Lecture 7: 2, 9:

2 As we have seen in our former lectures, that faith was the principle of action and of power [unfolding in effects] …

9 … if we should continue our interrogation, and ask how it is that he [Christ] is saved, the answer would be, because he is a just and holy [set-apart] being; and if he were any thing different from what he is he would not be saved; for his salvation depends on his being precisely what he is and nothing else; for if it were possible for him to change in the least degree, so sure he would fail of salvation and lose all his dominion, power, authority and glory, which constitutes salvation; for salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses, and in nothing else; and no being can possess it but himself or one like him …

10 …  and if they are not holy [set-apart and lawful not lawless], as he is holy, and perfect [healed and whole] as he is perfect [healed and whole], they cannot be like him; for no being can enjoy his glory without possessing his perfections [wholeness/completeness] and holiness [set-apartness], no more than they could reign in his kingdom without his power.

18 … having power by faith [as a principle of action] to obtain the knowledge of God [his Design Laws], they could with it obtain all other things which pertain to life [growth/abundance, see John 10:10] and godliness.

*This* is the Gospel!

In the Book of Mormon, Christ says in 3 Nephi 27: 13-14, 16 (emphasis added): 

“This is the gospel . . . that I came into the world . . . that I might be lifted up upon the cross . . . that I might draw all men unto me …. whoso shall be filled …" 

The gospel is Christ died so God would manifest as a pneumatic fluid filling Christians with divine-DNA, thus replacing physical religion with the seed of Christ planted in hearts and minds through the Iron Rod (Word of God) that grows the true vine (1 Nephi 15:15; Alma 16:17).

John 12:24 (Expanded Bible):

24 ·I tell you the truth [L Truly, truly I say to you], a grain of wheat must fall to the ground and die to make ·many seeds [L much fruit]. But if it never dies, it remains only a single ·seed [grain].

That's the "good news": that for Gentiles, God doesn't command 600+ policies, purity codes, and dietary restrictions, etc., nor is God worshiped only in one spatial location (the Jerusalem temple); but like the wind God can be worshiped anywhere.

The Restoration was meant to correct the errors and abominations in the Creeds, in particular the disembodiment of God the Father, and restore the primitive church model; as the sixth Article of Faith puts it: “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.” With prophets, seers, and revelators there is not a closed Canon and fixed dogma. This is what is meant by “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” Seers see and translate new scripture which is then sent forth by the Mormon apostles (sent-forth-ones), pastors, teachers, and evangelists.

Mathew 23: Those Who Sit in Moses' Seat in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)

 I found it interesting that in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of Matthew 23, Joseph Smith clarifies the often misunderstood section by emphasizing that those who "sit in Moses' seat" are "ministers of the Law Code (i.e. Scriptures)." So Joseph Smith himself interprets this passage correctly by pointing out that it is only when those in that day sat in Moses' seat as interpreters of The Scriptures that one should observe and do what they say only because it aligned with the Law/Scriptures. But Jesus then says to basically not blindly obey their works (behaviour) as it does not align with the Law/Scriptures; for the chapter explains that they say one thing but do another as religious fakes, mere play actors, and charlatans (translated "hypocrites" in most translations). 

Here is the JST below. Note that the words in bold are the words added by Joseph Smith and the strike through words are words he omitted from his translation. I provided the corresponding verses in the KJV in brackets.

Mathew 23:1-3 JST:

1 [KJV verses 1–2] Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 2 [KJV verse 3] All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that they will make you observe and do; for they are ministers of the law, and they make themselves your judges. But do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.

3 [KJV 4] For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne and lay them on men’s shoulders, and they are grievous to be borne; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

It is also interesting that while leaving most of the next verses in chapter 23 as they stand in the KJV, Joseph changed the KJV verse 31 to the JST verse 28 adding these words in bold in JST Mathew 23: 28:

28 Wherefore, ye you be are witnesses unto yourselves that of your own wickedness; …

This is important to note, for the later McConkey Era Tradition/Lens began to interpret "wickedness" as mostly sexual activity and failure to blindly obey the Brethren; but here in the JST, wickedness is used to describe religious leaders who are fake and pious: who outwardly appear "pure" (or so-called "worthy" in the Brighamite language) but are inwardly egotistical, vain, and "controlling" by heavily burdening their religious followers with man-made rules not found in the actual Scriptures!

The Source New Testament refers to these religious "hypocrites" (controlling fakers) in Mathew 23 as the overly critical, hair splitting, pedantic, relgious (legalistic) types. I would argue that fixating on avoiding the consumption of coffee and tea and what type of underwear you wear (and for how long) or what type of activities are allowed on Sunday, etc. etc., are all examples of overly critical, hair splitting, pedantic, relgious (legalistic) type man-made rules.

Comparing Jesus' Words in Mathew 15 & 23 in The Remedy to Brethrenism

 In previous posts in my blog series on Brethrenism versus Scripture-focused Mormonism, I discussed several times how the Brighamite sect's Brethren/Elders (at Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City), that is Brighamite Church Presidents, Apostles, and Theologians (like James Talmage and Bruce McConkie, etc.) have added to the original LDS Scriptures their own traditions. So when I began reading the 2nd Edition of Dr. Timothy R. Jennings’, The Remedy New Testament Expanded Paraphrase In Everyday English, I was amazed at how clear the English paraphrase made clear that Jesus was opposing the very same kinds of "traditions" I was opposing in my blog series. For example, consider all of the added Brighamite Traditions in the 1900s not contained in the original LDS Scriptures: like banning coffee by constraint by withholding a temple recommend, requiring religious garments be worn a certain way for a certain time period; The First Presidency defining oral sex as an impure and unholy practice and at one time encouraging Bishops to pry into the private lives of marriage partners to determine if they were engaged in oral sex, etc. And the list goes on. Compare those traditions that added to the original commandments and revelations (LDS Scripture) with how Jesus dealt with the Religious Leaders of his religion (who also added burdensome traditions not in the Scriptures of his day). 

Here is Mathew 15 from The Remedy (the links are my own for explication of words and concepts):

1 Then some of the lawyers and theologians from church headquarters in Jerusalem came to challenge Jesus. They asked, 2 “Why don’t your disciples follow the rules the elders established and undergo ceremonial cleansing before they eat?”

3 Jesus, not being intimidated, replied: “Why do you break God’s own design and law for the sake of your own man-made traditions? 4 For God designed us to love, and said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’and ‘Anyone who curses their parents must be put to death.’5 Yet you teach people to tell their parents, ‘Whatever resources I have are dedicated to the church, and therefore won’t be available to help you.’6 They are instructed by you not to honor their parents with their resources, thus you nullify God’s word and replace his design of love with your own selfish tradition. [Compare "Tithing" in the Brighamite sect] 7 You are hypocrites! It is you who Isaiah was describing when he said: 

Mt 15: 8 “‘These people proclaim their love for me with their mouths, but their hearts are as far away from love for me and my methods as they can get. 9 Their worship is useless, and their teachings are nothing but man-made rules.’” 

Mt 15: 10 Jesus turned to the crowd, called them to himself, and said: 

“Listen and understand what really matters: 

11 What goes in a person’s mouth doesn’t change their character, so it cannot make them ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of their mouth is an expression of their character and is what makes them ‘unclean.’”

Mt 15: 12 His disciples came to him later and said, “Don’t you realize that you are upsetting the church leaders by saying such things?” 13 Jesus replied, “Understand this clearly: Every tree that was not planted by my Father will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Don’t worry about them. They are blind to the reality of my Father’s kingdom, yet they try to guide others to it. But you know that when a blind person leads another blind person, they both fall into the same pit.”

Mt 15: 15 Peter said, “Will you explain this parable to us?” 16 Looking at them, Jesus answered: “Are you really so steeped in tradition that you don’t understand? 17 Don’t you realize that what enters the body through the mouth goes into the stomach, passes through and then leaves the body? 18 But what comes out of the mouth is an expression of what is in the heart—an expression of the character; and what is evil in the character makes a person ‘unclean.’ 19 For evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual perversity, dishonesty, theft, deceit, gossip—they all come out of the heart. 20 It is selfishness in the heart, manifested in words and deeds that makes a person ‘unclean;’ but eating with hands not ceremonially washed doesn’t have any impact on character and thus doesn’t make one ‘unclean.’”

Compare this to the Brighamite sect that determines if a Mormon is deemed worthy/"clean" by the Elders based on what goes into their body like coffee, tea, or wine. 

The Remedy, Mathew 23 (words in brackets my own):

1 Then Jesus said to the people and to his disciples: 

2 “The theology professors, church lawyers and pastors [comparable to The First Presidency & Brethren at the pulpit] sit in the instructor’s seat, like Moses, and know the history [of the Torah/Jewish Scriptures of Jesus' day], 3 so listen carefully to all they teach [from the Scriptures]. But think for yourselves and don’t follow their example, for they don’t understand the true meaning of what they teach [from the Scriptures], as evidenced by their failure to live in harmony with it. 4 They create man-made rules that discourage, exhaust, and weigh people down with religious rituals, fear, and guilt. They control people this way and refuse to relieve these false burdens. 

Mt 23: 5 “All their actions are designed for effect—to be seen—and they yearn to create a sense of admiration and respect for themselves: They make prayer beads and carry them for display, and wear special clothing meant to mark them as distinct; 6 they love to be recognized and honored wherever they go, and especially they seek the highest exaltation in church. 7 They also love any attention they can get when people stop them in the shops or restaurants and call them Professor, Doctor, or Pastor [in the Brighamite sect it would be Bishop, Stake President, Prophet, or Apostle]. 8 “But don’t let people idolize you, for you are all equals—learning the truth from the same Teacher [Christ]. 9 And be sure you don’t surrender your thinking to religious leaders—like young children do to their fathers—for you have one Father in heaven and you must surrender yourselves only to him. 10 Nor are you to claim to be the final authority on truth—determining what is right and wrong—like teachers are to their students, for you have the One true Teacher, the Messiah. 11 So those who are truly the greatest will give the most of themselves in helping others. 12 For whoever promotes self will destroy self, but whoever humbles self will experience healing and exaltation.

23: 13 “Misery is yours, you who teach a legal religion, you penal theologians, you counterfeits! Your false teachings obstruct people from being healed and entering God’s kingdom of love. You certainly are not healed and do not enter into salvation, but worse still, you actively work to prevent others, who want to be saved, from being healed. 14 Misery is yours, you who teach a legal religion, you penal theologians, you counterfeits! You con widows from their homes, yet you make public displays of praying long prayers. Unhealed you choose to remain! Your suffering will be most severe. 15 “Misery is yours, you who teach a legal religion, you penal theologians, you counterfeits! You go around the world trying to convert one person, and when you do, you indoctrinate them so deeply into your false penal system that they become twice as much the child of lies and selfishness as you are. …

… Mt 23: 23 “Misery is yours, you who teach a legal religion, you penal theologians, you counterfeits! You keep rules, such as proudly paying a pre-tax tithe and even giving a tenth of the herbs in your garden, but you fail to do what actually matters—to live in harmony with God’s Law which is his design for life. You fail to ‘do what is right because it is right.’ You are not merciful but judgmental and critical, and you cannot be trusted to protect those struggling with sin. You should have lived lives of love for others, without neglecting the simple instructions of God. 24 You are truly irrational and unthinking teachers! You are so focused on keeping the rules—such as dietary laws—that you fail to understand that their purpose is to promote health. You’re so confused that you actually think it would be a virtue to die of starvation rather than eat something not on the ‘approved’ list. 

25 “Misery is yours, you who teach a legal religion, you penal theologians, you counterfeits! You work so hard to make yourselves look good on the outside, but the inside—the heart—is full of selfishness, arrogance, and greed. 26 You truly don’t understand anything about God’s kingdom! The mind, the character, the heart—they all must be cleansed first, and then the outside will also be clean. …

… Mt 23: 33 “You slippery serpents! You brood of venomous vipers! You think you can cure yourselves with your own snake oil? 34 It’s because of your false remedy—your penal legal trickery—that I am sending my spokespersons, instructors and Bible scholars, some of whom you will attack, kill, and crucify; others you will beat—some physically, some verbally—right in church, running them out of town with beatings and the most vicious gossip. … 36 But the sad truth is that this generation will reject all this evidence.

Compare this to the dietary laws and 600+ added Brighamite Traditions that heavily burden LDS members; and how those who vocally question or criticize the Brethren and their Traditions (not found in LDS Scripture) are often treated in the Brighamite sect: with often slanderous gossip, disfellowship, excommunication and/or loss of church employment, etc.

Summary On Scripture-focused Mormonism That Is At Odds with Brethrenism

 Here are 3 brief bullet points demonstrating how original Scripture-focused Mormonism is it odds with the Traditions of the Brighamite sect and Brethrenism:

• The Lectures on Faith were the original Doctrine portion of what the Brighamite sect calls The Doctrine and Covenants. In other words, Brighamite leaders removed scripture from scripture by removing the Doctrine portion of the original Doctrine and Covenants. This short video by Uncorrelated Mormonism explains the history of this removal. As far as the video's discussion of D&C 130 and the Godhead and how the fifth Lecture can be harmonized with the later teachings on the Godhead in the Nauvoo era, see the excellent slideshare Metaphysics: LDS Cosmology 2, Module 2: Differentiating Holy Ghost & Holy Spirit.

This demonstrates that the original process of forming Scripture by common consent and adhering to said scripture formed by Joseph Smith was not fully respected by the later formed Brighamite sect. While I do not belong to nor support everything taught by the Remnant Fellowship, they have formed their own version of LDS Scripture; and retained the original Lectures on Faith in their publication titled: Teachings & Commandments (Restoration Edition).

• The Word of Wisdom revelation says clearly in D&C 89:2, that the health advice therein was "not by commandment or constraint," but was only a word of wise advice or "word of wisdom …" Joseph Smith drank wine just before he died. Yet when the later Brighamite leaders became influenced by the temperance movement they decided to contradict original Scripture and ban all forms of alcohol use from the sacrament and for use in moderation if one so chose. I personally do not drink alcohol so this is not a personal thing for me but it does prove that the original Scripture did not command nor constrain Mormons to avoid any form of alcohol or coffee. So the Brighmite leaders have imposed their own culture-induced man-made traditions, their own Tradition of the Elders onto the Body of Christ which should have the freedom to choose for themselves without risking their membership or ability to attend the temple.

In their book, The Apostasy of the LDS Church was Prophesied, But the End is Not Yet: A Letter to Our Family and Other Believers in the Restoration Through Joseph Smith, authors

Nelson Whiting and Lacey Whiting write on pages 67-69:

… every scriptural usage of sacrament uses wine (D&C 20:29; Moroni 5:2; 3 Nephi 18:8).  Doing more or less for this ordinance constitutes building upon a foundation other than Christ (3 Nephi 18:11-13).  The Church has never received a revelation to replace wine with water.  D&C 27 is used to justify a removal of wine for the sacrament.  However, the revelation from the angel to avoid purchasing wine from enemies as it could be poisonous, does not say to use water instead of wine.  Further, immediately after Joseph received this revelation we read in the Church history the following: 

“In obedience to the above commandment, we prepared some wine of our own making, and held our meeting, consisting only of five, viz., Newel Knight and his wife, myself and my wife, and John Whitmer. We partook together of the Sacrament, after which we confirmed these two sisters into the Church, and spent the evening in a glorious manner. The Spirit of the Lord was poured out upon us, we praised the Lord God, and rejoiced exceedingly" (HC 1:108). 

Three years later the Lord gave the Church the “word of wisdom” to remind us that wine should be used for sacrament: 

“That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grapes of the vine, of your own make. (D&C 89:5-6 Feb. 27, 1833) 

So while our Savior used his priesthood to turn water into wine, the Brethren use their priesthood to turn wine back into water! 

… Christ was accused of being a wine bibber, he turned water to wine.  He drank alcoholic wine at the Last Supper for Passover in April.  It could not have been grape juice because they did not practice pasteurization or refrigeration of their wine at the time, which meant their crop from the previous harvest (6 months earlier) would have necessarily been fermented and thus alcoholic.  Drunkenness is not a good thing anywhere in the scriptures, but wine that maketh a joyful heart is, and it is the commandment.  You can't crush grapes and get grape juice naturally.  It immediately starts fermenting and turning alcoholic.  Through our modern processes we've learned to reverse that, but it is not what Christ wanted when He commanded that we drink wine for sacrament (3 Nephi 18).  So, ironically, as we take the sacrament and covenant to “keep his commandments,” we are in that moment breaking his commandment to use wine for this sacred ordinance.  Ordinances cannot be changed.  D&C 58:8 also reiterates that it must be alcoholic wine because of the "wine on the lees well refined" phrase which means the lees (dead yeast) has settled at the bottom and signals the completion of the fermentation process. 

The early Brethren partook of wine for sacrament well into the early 1900’s, until Heber J. Grant stopped the practice. …

[Note: the Brethren gave instructions for the Saints to stop partaking of wine in local congregations, yet they continued for years to partake of wine in their weekly meetings in the temple.  This is akin to the Catholic Church ceasing to offer wine to the members, but reserved it separately for the priests to take before Mass].

Thus again we see a removal of the original meaning of Scripture, which clearly allowed for the use of wine in the sacrament.

• The original revelations and temple ritual in Nauvoo was clearly meant to liberate Mormons from puritanical Augustinian oppression and the sectarian dogma of a god "without parts and passions," which led to a "despising of the body" among the Protestant converts to Mormonism. As I have documented in The Secret Doctrine of God: Moving Toward A Theology of the Body, original Mormonism was a liberating theology and the original intention of the Nauvoo Temple ritual was the sealings of plural marriages on an altar: symbolizing the intent to expiate Augustinianism from their consciousness so they would no longer despise their body and worship a god without parts and passions; but see that God has a body of flesh and bones and sensual joy and happiness is the object and design of our existence. Brighamite Church’s leaders, beginning in the 1900s have rejected the original ritual intent of the temple and the teachings of Nauvoo through the Smith-Pratt Paradigm and have instead added their own man-made puritanical traditions: like married couples should not to engage in oral sex and garments must be worn all the time to be "worthy" to re-enter the temple (none of this can be found in Scripture as the revelations and commandments).  

So again, we have the original Mormon Scriptures in the Nauvoo era presenting a pro-body sensual theology of a God of parts and passions whom we are to imitate and learn how to be sensual gods ourselves; while modern day Brighamite Church Presidents and Apostles have turned around and contradicted the original Smith-Pratt Teachings with the inventions produced through the Brigham-McConkie Lens; that have distorted the origional Smith-Pratt Lens. For example, original Mormonism presented a positive affirmation of sensuality as we see in Pratt's 1844 "Letter to Queen Victoria". Just compare that body affirming document by Pratt to the Augustinian mindset, misinformation, and shaming teachings in Boyd K. Packer's "My Little Factory" and The Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball. 

So we see that the Brighamite leaders removed the original doctrine bound in scripture (called the Lectures on Faith) and reinterpreted the original meaning of the Scriptures on the Word of Wisdom and the use of wine in the sacrament, and turned against the Smith-Pratt theology by turning to the puritanical culture of the West during the 1900s and began to imitate Protestant Purity Culture: leading to the systematic shaming of LDS members through the invention of the Worthy versus Unworthy demarcation as a man-made grace-denying Purity System, mimicing the Pharasaical System Jesus opposed; with their invention of so-called "Worthiness interviews" emphasizing self-merited perfectionism (at odds with 2 Nephi 31:19 and Moroni 6:4) while acting as "gatekeepers" to the Lord (which goes against 2 Nephi 9:41): causing unhealthy perfectionism and scrupulosity in susceptible members. None of these Traditions of the Brighamite Elders can be found in the Scriptures and in fact contradict original Mormon Scripture.

These are just three short bullet points, but they're powerful evidence of how the Brighamite sect (and Brethrenism) is at odds with origional Mormon Scripture and the Smith-Pratt Paradigm; as blind obedience to the Traditions of the Brethren has led to Brighamite members (as a collective body) allowing for the Brethren to remove scripture, clearly misinterprete scripture, and go against the original concept of God taught by Joseph Smith: which was a God that does not despise the body or shame sensuality among consenting adults. So these three bullet points clearly demonstrate the problem in the Brighamite sect and their dismissal of scripture and removal of scripture and abandoning the original liberating Theology of the Body in scripture.