DiscussMormonism.com

D&C 132 wrote:4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

Very clear, a man must accept multiple wives and woman must not insist on monogamy to enter into the elohim/jehovah's glory.

D&C 132 wrote:6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; ... .

Whoa there elohim/jehovah, did you say a man having multiple wives is to fulfill Your glory? You kind of left a few steps there in the logic blank. Those need to be filled in. Is this like what you said in the Book of Mormon about only when it is needed to raise up a righteous seed? elohim/jehovah, have you checked the children (JSJr's children by these extra women)?Sort of like, where's the beef?, I'm left wondering, where's the seed?

D&C 132 wrote:34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

What law is it were talking about that involved Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham to wife?

D&C 132 wrote:37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law;

Now, who was it that gave Abraham these concubines? Hang tight, fellow readers.

D&C 132 wrote: 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

What is received of you, elohim/jehovah?

D&C 132 wrote:39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets

So old Nate was prophet and handing out extra ladies to David. Nice.

D&C 132 wrote:41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

Whoa. It doesn't matter if the other man is married or not? He can't 'belong' to another woman to whom he is already married?

D&C 132 wrote:44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.

You Mormon men need to wait until a 'prophet' gives you extra ladies, then it's okay with elohim/jehovah. But now, don't go a selecting any on your own.

D&C 132 wrote:51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

Hey, wait a minute there. Emma's the one to whom JSJr promised in his marriage vows to forsake all others, Emma's the one--perhaps the only one--that bore children of JSJr, and without the need for polygyny, and yet she's going to get aced out of polyandry even though JSJr instituted that for other ladies of Nauvoo? What gives, elohim/jehovah? Why you dissin' on Emma? What'd she do?

D&C 132 wrote:52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph,
* * *
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else.

Now, elohim/jehovah, you have to rub Emma's nose in it by instructing her "to receive all those [extra Nauvoo ladies] that have been given unto" Emma's husband, JSJr? You just have it out for Emma, don't you?

D&C 132 wrote:But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

Damn. There's some of that Old Testament attitude, elohim/jehovah, that you had been so working hard on getting over in the New Testament times. I guess there's some backsliding going on.

D&C 132 wrote:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said;

All what things? Continue pretending she's the only one, like JSJr promised her as part of their wedding vows?

D&C 132 wrote:and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

So as long as JSJr might continue to make Emma think she's the only one, and portray that in Nauvoo public, you, elohim/jehovah are going to let JSJr have a whole bunch of extra ladies on the side and on the sly? Wow, the righteous seed must have been plenty.

D&C 132 wrote:56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses;

So elohim/jehovah did know about Fanny, and that Emma too was aware of Fanny. And let's not forget, elohim/jehovah is calling them trespasses. This is the grooviest repentance I've ever heard of--JSJr, you have trespassed with other ladies, so as your penitence, elohim/jehovah are going to require that you take extra ladies. It's kind of like, you are foregiven my son, now go forward and do it some more.

D&C 132 wrote:and then shall she [Emma] be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to brejoice.

What trespasses did Emma do that she's going to be forgiven if she nods and winks that its okay for JSJr to be with other Nauvoo ladies?

D&C 132 wrote:if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit dsin, and I will justify him.

Think about that little coup for JSJr. With Abraham, the law of Sarah was that the man could take another wife given to him by his first wife. With David, it was only okay with those ladies that Nathan picked out for David. But, JSJr, he gets to pick out his own extras; doesn't need Emma's permission; and the way he's lionized in Mormonism since his death, hell, it doesn't even matter that there was no righteous seed. Have you checked the children, elohim/jehovah?

D&C 132 wrote:61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

There's a new kicker, that virginity thing. But JSJr didn't limit himself in that way. He did some of those dynasty sealings with women already married to other men, whom JSJr had sent away to foreign lands, 'on a mission from god'. elohim/jehovah, have you checked JSJr's children?

Now, I have to take exception to you here, elohim/jehovah. This belongeth thing seems like a one-way street. I mean, did'New Testament JSJr belong to Emma just as surely from their wedding vows as Emma belonged to JSJr? Kind of sexist, right?And here's the funny part, she's the one that remained faithful to those vows, so she's the one threatened with death if she's not willing to accept JSJr's dalliances with yet more ladies? That law of yours, sure has some peculiar twists.

D&C 132 wrote:62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
Is that what Elton John was singing about in the Bitch is Back when he belted out, "I was justified when I was five"? Is that because at 5, Elton had only been with virgins? (I kind of think he's blown it since then.)
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth,

These other virgins are going to be destroyed if they shall be with another man? Hey, I thought the punishment for adultery would be forgiveness and instructing them to go be with yet more men? That sort of seems to be the penitence for JSJr's prior transgressions?

D&C 132 wrote:64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power,

Is that the power of the first wife to give or not more wives to the man, you remember, elohim/jehovah, the Law of Sarah, right? Your explanation for this whole revelation started out with the Law of Sarah, right? Then you made the distinction between David not sinning with the extra ladies that prophet Nathan gave David, but was sinning with those that caught David's eye directly. So, in both of these justifications, somebody other than the receiving man was doing the picking of the extra ladies.

D&C 132 wrote: and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

How many of you priesthood holders reading this have taught the law of elohim/jehovah's priesthood to your (first) wives, so that you can be saved and have eternal life with elohim/jehovah--remember section 4? If you have, how's that 'hope and change' working out for you?

D&C 132 wrote:65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.

Got it. As long as your priesthood holders ask the wife first if he can take Selma Hayek as an extra wife, even if your wife says now, party on with Selma. It seems that the Law of Sarah then is just sort of a formality. Ask, but it doesn't matter what your wife says.

It is truly a 'marvelous work and a wonder'!

But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

Instead of being destroyed didn't she get property and a carriage? Seems like Emma called someone's bluff.

Fence Sitter wrote:

But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

Instead of being destroyed didn't she get property and a carriage? Seems like Emma called someone's bluff.

Another's acquiescence sometimes comes at considerable cost. Didn't Kobe Bryant's wife get quite a diamond?

Its a bit off topic but speaking of bribes, but did you realize there was a break between Rigdon's speech and BY's speech at Nauvoo after Joseph Smith's death of about two and a half hours during which time Heber C. Kimbal paid Emma $1000.00 for her support of the Quorum of the Twelve?

Fence Sitter wrote:Its a bit off topic but speaking of bribes, but did you realize there was a break between Rigdon's speech and BY's speech at Nauvoo after Joseph Smith's death of about two and a half hours during which time Heber C. Kimbal paid Emma $1000.00 for her support of the Quorum of the Twelve?

No. Can you point me to some historical sources for that?

Since Emma ultimately did not follow the Young faction out West, did HCK try to get the $1,000 back? Did they justify taking things from Emma that she was the rightful heir of JSJr, to receive, as some sort of a rough 'offset'?

sock puppet wrote:No. Can you point me to some historical sources for that?

Since Emma ultimately did not follow the Young faction out West, did HCK try to get the $1,000 back? Did they justify taking things from Emma that she was the rightful heir of JSJr, to receive, as some sort of a rough 'offset'?

If you have "The Mormon Heirarchy" is is on page 164 toward the bottom. if not the footnote also references Kimbals, Clayton and Richard diaries for 8 Aug1844. I am trying to track those down to read atm.

Frankly I think they were happy to see her stay in Nauvoo. As far as taking things from Emma, its a very complicated mess as to who really owned what. What was "Church" property and what was personal property? And at the time why would BY have any more claim over "Church" property than say Rigdon, Whitmer or the Council of the 50?

Here is the quote from The Clayton journal. You know for a thousand dollars I think I could manage to be more humble and kind!

8 August 1844 Meeting in Nauvoo, Illinois

William Clayton recorded the following in his journal of the meeting held on 8 August 1844:

Thursday 8th. AM I went to council with the Twelve. Brother [Hebert C.] Kimball concluded to pay the $1000 to Emma [Smith]. I went home to get it & while there Brigham]. Young came & said they were going to have their conference this afternoon and wanted I should notify the brethren. I then went with brothers Kimball and [Willard] Richards to see Emma. Kimball]. paid her the $1000 and bore testimony to her of the good feelings of the Twelve towards her. She seemed humble and more kind. P.M. attended conference. The Church universally voted to sustain the Twelve in their calling as next in presidency and to sustain Er [Elder] Rigdon and A[masa] Lyman as councillors to the Twelve as they had been to the First Presidency. The ch[u]rch also voted to leave the regulation of all the church matters in the hands of the Twelve. There was a very good feeling prevailed except amongst a few who were disappointed. 30

At the 8 August 1844 conference "the question was put, 'all in favor of supporting the Twelve in their calling, (every quorum, man and woman,) signify it by the uplifted hand;' and the vote was unanimous, no hand being raised in the negative." 31 The Times and Seasons reported, "every saint could see that Elijah's mantle had truly fallen upon the 'Twelve,'..." 32