Some people have asked if I was the same person as “The Zang Family” in comments on Denver Snuffer’s blog. I am, and I often identified myself there by my first name, Brian.
In one of the many tangents in the comments on Denver’s blog back when he had comments active, I took what I thought was a magnanimous approach to try to mediate a hypothetical solution to all the mishmash of polygamy teachings from Joseph Smith’s day until present.
Speaking of afterlife implementations of polygamy, in an effort to support the plausibility of my hypothetical stance, I said:
“…privileges may indeed come as an exalted man and exalted woman together find out just what Gods have the freedom to do” (see comments here).
This took the hypothetical too far. Denver’s recent post here spells out the teachings that I wholeheartedly agree with, and his paper supporting the view that Joseph was more than likely monogamous only, available for download here, is what I am persuaded to now.
I don’t know anything about the gods from any special revelation, but to even suggest a different order than what we have revealed in the scriptures of one Eternal Father married to one Eternal Mother (Gen. 1:27), is to contradict God’s commandment to cleave unto one wife (D&C 42:22) and to entertain all sorts of devilish thoughts. I can only say I have made the same error that Moses’ brother Aaron did in the wilderness while Moses was up on Mount Sinai, in letting my weak will bend to the ideas and the people whose lusts desired idolatry and adultery, and metaphorically consented to the building of a golden calf (see Exodus 32).
At the time I wrote it, I couldn’t let go of the LDS Mormon tradition that, although they condemned practicing polygamy anymore, they secretly (or openly) hoped for it to be a part of the afterlife. Hypotheticals are still ideas that have powerful implications. What else is idolatry, anyway, but a bunch of hypotheticals that are believed in? For running with such a depraved hypothetical, I am sorry to my God, and to others for my bad example. I reject that false Mormon tradition, and champion the standard of one man with one wife as a revealed condition for exaltation. I shouldn’t have tried to defend the “polygamy in the afterlife” line of reasoning for other’s sakes, or even for my own sake, being a believer in that false tradition in the past. If I understand the plain meaning of scripture correctly, according to Jesus, it is wrong (Mark 12:18-27).
As things got heated in the conversation between polygamists, non-polygamists, and everyone in-between, the bitterness towards my online persona and attitude started to come out. In response, I foolishly mounted a weak defense with things similar to this:
“…but I’m here by invitation and both parties who have insisted I keep commenting have asked to remain Anonymous” (see comments here).
Someone wrote, anonymously: “So… two fellow-posters, anonymous ones, invited Zang to post here? Unless Denver invited you to post, don’t say you were invited. Do you see how that makes no sense? What if I invite you not to post? Who cares, right?” (see comments here).
And they were right. I took liberties with Denver and Stephanie’s willingness to let people post their thoughts as if it were a personal invitation. I turned it into a personal soapbox at times and I was probably one of the reasons why comments were stopped (see here). For that, I am sorry to everyone in the blogosphere who was affected by my bad choices, and to Denver and Stephanie Snuffer. A lot of the posting got off tangent from the original posts’ intent, and I contributed to that a lot.
There are always those who will disagree with you, and some who will be rude no matter what, but I bristled at the opposition and childishly sought to bolster my legitimacy by suggesting I was personally invited to post on the blog when, in fact, all were welcome. Such is the weakness of human nature when you’re angry and you let your mind get clouded to good judgment.
Another paper that has surfaced about Joseph Smith’s Monogamy that I look forward to reading more in depth is attached.