Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_Yoda]

Why is the truth of private matters between people who are long since dead any of your business?

It is my business because as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, according to the teachings of the LDS prophets (Joseph Smith, being the first of the LDS modern prophets), plural marriage is an eternal law.

Our ultimate goal in this life is to be Christ-like and live worthy to enter into the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom so that we can be exalted, live with our families forever, and become like God, being Gods and Goddesses in our own right.

That, as I understand it, is the crux of the plan of salvation, is it not?

However, when I made covenants in the temple with my husband, they were covenants between me, my husband, and God. We were to form a partnership and a family.

I still cannot wrap my head or my heart around how I could be involved in a complete, holy, God-like marriage that involves another woman.

The only way I can gain some glimpse into what that lifestyle might be like is to look to past examples. And, frankly, these examples are troubling, to say the least.

That's where I'm at with all of this.

I'm not trying to lead anyone down an evil path. I'm not trying to demonize Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or anyone else. I'm honestly trying to understand how to rectify the concepts of goodness and Christ that I hold dear, and have grown up with, with this concept of plural marriage, which is an eternal law, and a supposed requirement for the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited to add---And, yes, since I will be separated from my family if I am "assigned" any other kingdom, that is where I would prefer to be. I don't care how gold paved the streets are. Living without your family for eternity in any other setting would be a living hell.

I'm sorry, Charity, I just don't buy the concept that living a plural marriage lifestyle will be some type of utopia. I don't see myself as being able to do that. And, I'm not alone.

[_Runtu]

[MODERATOR INPUT: Folks, this is the Celestial Forum, not the Terrestrial. Please only address the actual point of a person's words. Please do not comment upon A) the person him/herself, or B) the quality of the person's words.

If you agree with a premise, state your reasons for such. If you disagree with a premise, likewise state your reasons for such.

Therefore, phrases such as "once you turn away from the church, there's no coming back" should be avoided altogether (since they have nothing to do with dynastic sealings). Similarly, phrases such as "you're engaging in baseless speculation" could be replaced with "I disagree with that paragraph because I don't believe there's enough evidence in the historical record to bear it out."

When discussing things in the Celestial Forum, always picture yourself having the conversation with your favorite grandmother.]

All right. I'll change my statement from "baseless speculation" to "I don't believe there's any evidence in the historical record to bear it out." I apologize for making this at all personal.

[_Jason Bourne]

The history of plural marriage in Christianity is a long one. The first recorded instance is Abraham, who had two wives simulataneously.

He had one wife and a concubine. God did not give him his concubine nor command he take her. Sarah, his wife gave him her concubine because Sarah was barren.

Then his grandson Jacob had 4 wives.

Jacob wanted one wife and was tricked by his FIL in marrying the other. The concubines were given by his wives to him in their competition for children. God did not command this nor require it.

David was given wives by the prophet Nathan.

This is the only verse that makes a case that it might have been directed by God. Yet the Book of Mormon says David's wives were an abomination. Seems that the two conflict.

In the time of Jesus plural marriage was still an accepted practice. It was not universally practiced, but it was accepted.

I do not think you are correct and the New Testament direction is ONE WIFE Only.

I fail to see why anyone would deny the latter day revelation on plural marriage as being an affront to Christian principles.

It seems that the polygamy was a practice and culture of the day. God or God's leaders seemed to accept it and turn a blind eye to it. There is nowhere in scripture where it is commanded as a requirement for the best reward in heaven save in D&C 132 and by LDS prophets of the 19th century. This is the major distinction. Nor is polyandry anywhere sanctioned by God that I know of.

[_Jason Bourne]

Please do as Liz has asked: find any instance in the Old Testament where GOD commands plural marriage (good luck. There aren't any, but by all means, try).

It has been the argument here that Joseph Smith did not act "properly" and either was not ever a prophet, or became a fallen prophet because he instituted plural marriage. That plural marriage is only a product of male lust, it victimizes women, is immoral, breaks God's law agaisnt adultery, and is not one of God's laws.

I don't think these ideas can be upheld with either the Old Testament or the New Testament.

If it is not of God, is immoral, is merely lustful, then God's prophets (Abraham and Jacob and Moses) are immoral and lustful, but evidently can still be prophets with God's approval. But remember, God cannot look upon the least degree of sin. And wouldn't you say men who consort with concubines, take 4 plural wives, or even 2 are committing a little bit more than the "least degree of sin?" So you have to admit, that they were not committing grievous sins.

2. Or, if God has, at various times instituted plural marriage, or has at the least, approved of it, why can't it be instituted now?

For me I think Joseph Smith could have been a prophet up to plural marriage and even in spite of the plural marriage issue. I think he got that wrong though and wonder if God allowed that to lead to his untimely death. I do not think God commanded it though.

[_Yoda]

For me I think Joseph Smith could have been a prophet up to plural marriage and even in spite of the plural marriage issue. I think he got that wrong though and wonder if God allowed that to lead to his untimely death. I do not think God commanded it though.

So how do you resolve that with the plan of salvation? Just that Joseph Smith got it wrong on that issue, and the plural marriage doesn't factor in?

[_Jason Bourne]

Since there is absolutely no evidence at all that any of the so-called polyandrous sealings were in any degree "marriages" I think that is the more sensible interpretation

Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs was married to Joseph Smith in a polyandrous relationship. After his death she was sealed to BY for time and too Joseph Smith for eternity (didn't the first time work or was it not a sealing while Joseph Smith was alive. Oddly her then living husband stood by while the ceremony took place. She continued for a time to live with Henry Jacobs till BY told him to go off on a mission, that he was JSs heir and all of JSs property was his (Zina was property I guess) He was told to find another of his own level or class. Henry went off on his mission and found that Zina had moved in with BY. Zina later gave birth to a child of BYs.

So yes there is evidence that these were more then simply sealings. But as I have said her before, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

[_charity]

The question is, if another man behaved in the exact same manner as Joseph Smith and claimed God commanded him to do so, would he get a free pass as well? Or would you hold him accountable for his actions?

This question assumes that the claim that God commanded plural marriage could not be true. "Free pass" indicates that a person has done something wrong and needs excusing. I do believe that other men have behaved in the same manner as Joseph Smith, commanded by God, and there is no reason to require a free pass. And I am not responsible for anyone else's actions, but my own. God is the one we are accountable to. Oh, yes, those other men would include Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball . . . . .

2. This is a fact. There are a lot of people who are making unwarranted assumptions and judgements about the practice of plural marriage, but Joseph and by others. These people are willing to make judgements based on third hand accounts, out of time accounts, and biased accounts.

What unwarranted assumptions and judgements are you talking about? Please document what "third hand accounts" have been discussed. My impressions is that most apologists and others have a pretty clear picture based on many, many reliable documents of what occurred. Not every little detail but enough of a picture to know what happened to a great extent.

3. I also believe that no one has the right to condemn what God approves. And anyone who questions whether or not something is approved of God has to be dang sure they are correct before they make the statement that God didn't approve it.

And, of course everyone has a different idea of what God does and does not approve. Some folks believed God wanted them to fly a plane into the Twin Towers, other folks believed God wanted them to slaughter children babies and whole communities. The "God said" excuse is overused in my opinion. Seem folks the world over believe they are hearing from God, the HG. or spirit who seems pretty unreliable to me.

4. I also believe that the so-called "I just want the truth" is a cop out. The truth about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet? Even if you "prove" he had sexual realtionship with all 33, including already married women and Helen Mar Kimball, you haven't proven that he was doing anything that God hadn't told him to do. So where are you?

This is the crux of your problem in my opinion. It seems you are unable or unwilling to understand that most critics of Joseph Smith DO just want the truth. Why this is a problem for some to grasp I do not know.

You get to the heart of the matter here. Rather than deny Joseph Smith behaved in the manner he did, the REAL issues is, did God tell Joseph Smith to behave in such a manner or not.

Joseph Smith's behavior toward women is similar to many other cult and religious leaders with power. He is not the first man to claim God told him to have many girls and women. He is not the first man to tell women and girls God wanted them to be his. You seem to believe Joseph Smith but not the other men. Critics OTOH, do not make an exception for Joseph Smith.

5. The purpose of this life is not to learn facts, and use logic to make faillible judgements. It is to learn the things of God. These kinds of titllating exercises appealing to base natures accomplish nothing.

While this discussion may appeal to YOUR base nature as a titillating exercise, I do not think this is true for anyone else.

For most non-believers, the decency, integrity, honest, and behaviors of a man (or woman), play a part in deciding if said person can be trusted and believed. It is quite appropriate to discuss the behavior, beliefs, actions, and interactions of anyone who claims to be the mouthpiece of God, who claims to be the one to restore the true church on earth, who claims to be in direct communication with Jesus Christ. Can you not understand this?

If you were going to participate with an investment company would the honesty and integrity of its CEO and managers be important? If so, then can you not see that the integrity and honesty of one who claims to have the one and only way to God be important? I'm seriously interested to know if you understand this point?

One of the posters said, "This isn't a war."

Oh, yes it is. It is a war for the souls of men. Anyone who believes a lie about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and who lets that lie keep them from accepting the Gospel is a casualty of that war. It is very serious business.

I think it is sad to go through life as if you are in a war. I seriously do. I wonder about a God who would set up a world where people live feeling like they are in a war... always fighting, always in battle, always on alert for the enemy, always in fear.

I do not think it is a healthy or holy way to live.

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

1. There have been assumptions about what I believe. To set you all straight, I believe that plural marriage was commanded by God. Joseph Smith was living the law as understood it. I believe he had a number of plural wives, with consummated relationships. It was moral behavior. Approved by God.

Ok. We already know you believe God commanded Joseph Smith to do this. I disagree.

2. This is a fact. There are a lot of people who are making unwarranted assumptions and judgements about the practice of plural marriage, but Joseph and by others. These people are willing to make judgements based on third hand accounts, out of time accounts, and biased accounts.

Are you concluding that this was of God on any better evidence? If so please produce it.

3. I also believe that no one has the right to condemn what God approves. And anyone who questions whether or not something is approved of God has to be dang sure they are correct before they make the statement that God didn't approve it.

Anyone who thinks behavior that God would normally condemn and that was condemned in the most correct book should be dang sure they are correct before saying God approved it.

4. I also believe that the so-called "I just want the truth" is a cop out. The truth about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet? Even if you "prove" he had sexual realtionship with all 33, including already married women and Helen Mar Kimball, you haven't proven that he was doing anything that God hadn't told him to do. So where are you?

I also believe that people who operate on a priori assumptions can make naïve and erroneous conclusions.

5. The purpose of this life is not to learn facts, and use logic to make faillible judgements. It is to learn the things of God. These kinds of titllating exercises appealing to base natures accomplish nothing.

THe old everyone is talking about this because it is titillating canard again? Boring! Too bad something that could be titillating in even a potential issue for the LDS Church.

[_Jason Bourne]

I am not denying anything. I am saying we don't know. Let me spell it out for you.

1. We don't know every revelation given to Joseph Smith by the Lord regarding plural marriage.
2. We don't know the timing of all the revelations.
3. We don't know the intimate details of all the sealings.
4. We don't know who to trust in writing about the sealings well after Joseph Smith's death.
5. We don't know the motives for all those involved who made statements.

Is that enough to let you know just how much we don't know about this topic?

Wow

You say we Don't know a lot but yet you KNOW THIS WAS APPROVED OF GOD???? How's that?

[_Jason Bourne]

For me I think Joseph Smith could have been a prophet up to plural marriage and even in spite of the plural marriage issue. I think he got that wrong though and wonder if God allowed that to lead to his untimely death. I do not think God commanded it though.

So how do you resolve that with the plan of salvation? Just that Joseph Smith got it wrong on that issue, and the plural marriage doesn't factor in?

Liz

I am not sure I understand the question.