DiscussMormonism.com

Your search for "Law of Sarah" has returned 0 results in All Church Content. (using search feature of LDS.org)

Using this 'law of sarah' which appears to threaten women who won't agree to let their husband have another wife is just a bully tactic. Consent or not, the man can get all the babes he wants. If they don't consent it doesn't matter. They are condemned and he goes away pollinating at his pleasure.

Where in the revelations of Joseph Smith is this 'Law of Sarah' written? Is it only a short mention in D&C132 or did Joseph have more on it?

Nope. That's all there is to it. What you read in 132 is what you get.

What is most interesting is that the woman who the "law" is named after didn't even use it. So, why is the so-called law named for her?

Sarah was the one who offered Hagar to Abraham. She did not have faith that the Lord would keep the promise of posterity that had been made. It was not God's idea. It was not Abraham's idea.

We all see how disfunctional and messed up the family dynamics were. This is not a family to emulate. It is a situation to be avoided.

The so-called Law od Sarah is not a law. It does not empower women. It is spiritual and mental abuse.

I dunno. Given the scriptures, I think the Law of Sarah might have more to do with being the head(first) wife and being able to select and approve additional wives. Hagar, for example.

So if Emma does not believe and administer as D&C 132:65 says, then Joseph is free to select on his own.

Just a hypothesis. Not doctrine.

Joseph wrote:Your search for "Law of Sarah" has returned 0 results in All Church Content. (using search feature of LDS.org)

Using this 'law of sarah' which appears to threaten women who won't agree to let their husband have another wife is just a bully tactic. Consent or not, the man can get all the babes he wants. If they don't consent it doesn't matter. They are condemned and he goes away pollinating at his pleasure.

Where in the revelations of Joseph Smith is this 'Law of Sarah' written? Is it only a short mention in D&C132 or did Joseph have more on it?

The account of Abraham and Sarah clearly manifests many points of law. Some of them are more obvious than others. Some of the most important ones are not very obvious.

Sarah was a faithful and honorable wife to Abraham and regarded him as her Lord. When it came to the matter of plural marriage she honorably was given the place of head wife and in that role she had say in both who comes in and in who goes out.

The rest of your slurring insinuations revealing what a spiritual clod you are do not merit any comment.

just me wrote:Nope. That's all there is to it. What you read in 132 is what you get.

What is most interesting is that the woman who the "law" is named after didn't even use it. So, why is the so-called law named for her?

Sarah was the one who offered Hagar to Abraham. She did not have faith that the Lord would keep the promise of posterity that had been made. It was not God's idea. It was not Abraham's idea.

We all see how disfunctional and messed up the family dynamics were. This is not a family to emulate. It is a situation to be avoided.

The so-called Law od Sarah is not a law. It does not empower women. It is spiritual and mental abuse.

What is clear here is your agenda is the progressivism of today that thinks they are empowering women that looks upon the great patriarch Abraham as a stooge we should not emulate. I spurn your philosophies of men.

I choose to follow the Lord in these matters.

D&C 132
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

My Savior Jesus Christ admonished me to emulate him, and so I shall.

So progressivism begets presentism? I agree.

j-bug wrote:

just me wrote:Nope. That's all there is to it. What you read in 132 is what you get.

What is most interesting is that the woman who the "law" is named after didn't even use it. So, why is the so-called law named for her?

Sarah was the one who offered Hagar to Abraham. She did not have faith that the Lord would keep the promise of posterity that had been made. It was not God's idea. It was not Abraham's idea.

We all see how disfunctional and messed up the family dynamics were. This is not a family to emulate. It is a situation to be avoided.

The so-called Law od Sarah is not a law. It does not empower women. It is spiritual and mental abuse.

What is clear here is your agenda is the progressivism of today that thinks they are empowering women that looks upon the great patriarch Abraham as a stooge we should not emulate. I spurn your philosophies of men.

I choose to follow the Lord in these matters.

D&C 132
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

My Savior Jesus Christ admonished me to emulate him, and so I shall.

Do you have slaves and concubines, yet? Have you kicked any of your concubines outta the house, yet? Do you have your own little empire? Have you personally circumsized all the men in your stewardship?

by the way, D&C 132 claims that Abraham has already gained his exaltation. The judgement hasn't even happened, yet. The promise made to Abraham has yet to be fulfilled. This is just another contradiction among the many. I am forced to reject D&C 132 because it does not measure up to the standard works that came before it.

132:29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

This also contradicts the Old Testament where is states that it was Sarah who suggested Hagar NOT the Lord.

just me wrote:Do you have slaves and concubines, yet? Have you kicked any of your concubines outta the house, yet? Do you have your own little empire? Have you personally circumsized all the men in your stewardship?

No. No. No. No.

just me wrote:by the way, D&C 132 claims that Abraham has already gained his exaltation. The judgement hasn't even happened, yet.

Who says the judgment hasn't yet started?

When you demonstrate the ability to intelligently speak of the resurrection, which precedes the judgment, and how the judgment also takes place, then perhaps I'll consider your word above that which I know to be a valid oracle from Jesus Christ.

just me wrote:The promise made to Abraham has yet to be fulfilled. This is just another contradiction among the many. I am forced to reject D&C 132 because it does not measure up to the standard works that came before it.

I see no contradiction at all with any previous revelations. What I hold in question is what your interpretation of those previous revelations are. I'll more than gladly provide audience to your concerns.

just me wrote:

132:29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

This also contradicts the Old Testament where is states that it was Sarah who suggested Hagar NOT the Lord.

I'm really going to have to work to remain polite in my response to this. Forgive me if I slip more than I should.

What malady of mind do you have to suppose because a wife brings forward a suggestion to her husband that he is then subsequently barred from going to his Lord in the matter and seeking revelation and confirmation of it?

Your presumption here is that Abraham was some kind of a nit-wit that was obligated to act upon the authority of a suggestion from his wife and that if she spoke there was no need for him to get his direction from the Lord.

This is likely your fantasy marriage. Fortunate for you there likely are plenty of such nit-wits out there willing to give it a try. Good luck because what you marry will not be something your soul shall respect. You will feel unsafe and exposed with such a man and it will drive your inner self nuts.

jbug wrote:I'm really going to have to work to remain polite in my response to this. Forgive me if I slip more than I should.

What malady of mind do you have to suppose because a wife brings forward a suggestion to her husband that he is then subsequently barred from going to his Lord in the matter and seeking revelation and confirmation of it?

Your presumption here is that Abraham was some kind of a nit-wit that was obligated to act upon the authority of a suggestion from his wife and that if she spoke there was no need for him to get his direction from the Lord.

This is likely your fantasy marriage. Fortunate for you there likely are plenty of such nit-wits out there willing to give it a try. Good luck because what you marry will not be something your soul shall respect. You will feel unsafe and exposed with such a man and it will drive your inner self nuts.

jbug--do you talk like this in the real world? I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm having a hard time taking any of your comments seriously--are you for real? If you are comfortable answering, I'd love to know if you consider yourself a true TBM and if so, what calling to you have in your ward?

I agree with just me:

The so-called Law od Sarah is not a law. It does not empower women. It is spiritual and mental abuse.

jbug, why are you having a difficult time being polite? We are simply discussing issues. I have not personally attacked you in any way. You are the one who is projecting things like "nit-wit" and doodoohead or whatever into the conversation (all the threads I've seen you on). Such is completely unnecessary.

The fact that you feel compelled to attack me personally tells me that you really have nothing to bring to the table.

God made a promise to Abraham. The promise has not been fulfilled yet. But you are telling me that you believe Abraham has been judged, resurrected and given his inheritance already. He is off producing spirit babies with Sarah and Hagar on another planet where he has been, or will be, an "Adam, Savior and Father." I guess he will be absent from the conference at Adam-ondi-Ahman. Or do you believe in the gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman? There are really so many different beliefs to choose from.

According to scripture (which often contains contradiction) there must be some sort of "pre-sort" or prejudgement because there is a "first resurrection" and a "second resurrection." According to scripture, the first resurrection has started but has not ended. Do you interpret that as being 2 judgements?