Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_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?

Liz

I am not sure I understand the question.

The plan of salvation encompasses plural marriage as being an eternal law. In order to attain the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom, you must, at a minimum, accept plural marriage as part of God's law. And, according to the early LDS prophets, only those who actually practiced plural marriage could achieve the highest level.

So, my question is, do you simply regard all of this as bunk?

[_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.

If you know some details, doesn't mean you know enough to make bold assertions that you know a lot more. The fact is that most of the women did not make any statements concerning their level of relationship with Joseph Smith, some made some statements which did not state that the realtionship was physical, and others made some statements which are ambiguous at best.

I repeat, a question, what right is it of anyone to pry into any one else's relationships?

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.

I think the "God said" excuse is overused, myself. But I think even more overused is the "you can't possible know if God said that" excuse. It is a problem for some people to know what God says. It is a problem for some people to know that God hasn't told them something when they think He has. That is the whole point of life. To figure it out. LIFE IS A TEST.

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.

I am completely able and willing to understand that most critics of Joseph Smith do want the truth. What is clear to me, but seems not to be clear to the critics is their motivation in wanting the truth. Truth because all truth is equally valuable? Then why not focus on some other "truth?" Or could it possibly be that they are wanting some "truth" to confirm in their own minds that Joseph Smith could not possibly have been a prophet, and they are thereby relieved of the responsbility to take anything he said seroiusly?

What is this search for truth going to prove to you? You already know from proof that Joseph Smith was sealed/married to 33 women. Some of those women were already married to other men. Some of those women were young. Is any search into the details of the personal life of Joseph and these women going to provide you with any truth about WHY he was married/sealed?

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.

The heart of the matter is exaclty that. I do not deny that Joseph practiced plural marriage. The real issue is did God tell him to or not? Nothing you are trying to discover is going to answer that question. So what do you want? More intimate details of the lives of people who have been dead for 150 years? What exactly will that tell you about God's commands?

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.

Is this your "quest for truth?" How does this exactly tell you what God said, or did not say to Joseph Smith?

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?

I understand that very well. But the source of information for whether or not he was a prophet does not come from him, does not come from any personal characteristics. It comes from God, Himself. We are not to trust in the arm of flesh. We are not to use our own puny powers of logic, deduction, interpretation, whatever you call it, to determine what is of God and what isn't. The Spirit tells us, and then we have sure knowledge.

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?

You are talking about a mortal matter in your investment company. You may gather a lot of information, make a well reasoned judgement and still get taken to the cleaners, because you do not have a infallible source for your information. We do have an infallible source of information on who is a prophet and authorized to speak for God, and who isn't.

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.

Search the scriptures for references to this, opposition in all things, if you are not for me you are against me, etc. You can deny it if you want.

Oh, yes, I am not always in fear. It's like a football game. If your team is ahead 40-7, you don't really have to worry about who is going to win, just as long as you keep playing.

[_rcrocket]

The strongest evidence that plural marriage was divinely sanctioned is found in 2 Samuel 12.

After the Bathsheba incident, the prophet Nathan came to David and gave him a parable of the ewe. A wealthy man saw an ewe he wanted and took it from a poor man, who had nourished the ewe as a member of his own family. Davids "anger was greatly kindled" and he told Nathan that he would want to do justice and put the wealthy man to death.

Whereupon, Nathan condemned David for taking Bathsheba and ordering the death of Uriah.

Nathan quotes the Lord "Thus Saith the Lord" and makes two points.

1. "I anointed thee king over Israel . . ." vs. 7.

2. "I gave the thy master's house, and they master's wives into thy bosom." vs. 12. And, it is indeed correct that David had succeeded to the husbandship of all of Saul's many wives.

This passage is significant because it is one of the few times that the Lord says "Thus Saith the Lord."

Biblical commentators skip over this quickly or have problems with it (Jamieson says that there is no evidence that David ever really married any of these women, but the use of the word "wives" certainly connotes a contrary conclusion), but Mathew Henry notes that this passage is significant. "God, by Nathan, reminds David of the great things he had done and designed for him ...." Henry, p. 342. It was Yahweh, not a mortal, who gave David's wives to David.

When God uses the term "gave thee" again, he tells David that "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto the neighbor." 2 Sam 12:11. When God threatens David with the punishment that will befall iim, the first specific thing he mentions is the loss of wives. God, thus, gives and takes "wives."

And then, with a little proof texting, one sees that the Lord declares David perfect in all things except in the case of Uriah. 1 Kings 15:5. Thus, although Jamieson concedes in his commentary that David really never married his "wives" but lived with them as "concubines" in a "harem" the distinction he wants to draw to avoid the implications of plural marriage is meaningless.

As to polyandry, my position remains the same. There was a difference between being married for eternity only and for time or time and eternity. Joseph and Brigham married some women for eternity who were married for time to other men, or the "time" marriages were not valid or became invalid by reason of the husband's faithlessness. Henry Jacobs is an example

[_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.

Charity, I reposted my earlier quote here because I would really like your take on this, and hope that you at least understand where I'm coming from. I appreciate you participating in this thread. I have a great amount of respect for you in doing so.

Thanks for hanging in! ;)

[_Yoda]

As to polyandry, my position remains the same. There was a difference between being married for eternity only and for time or time and eternity. Joseph and Brigham married some women for eternity who were married for time to other men, or the "time" marriages were not valid or became invalid by reason of the husband's faithlessness. Henry Jacobs is an example

Welcome back, Bob! I thought you had deserted us. ;)

So, Jacobs was unfaithful to his wife? I had never heard this before. Where is this documented? Or, are you saying that he was unfaithful to the LDS religion? Please clarify. Thanks.

[cacheman]

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 . . . . .

I don't assume that God couldn't command plural marriages. I must say that I'm less inclined to worship a God who uses coercion and lying in order to fulfill his commandments, but that's just me.

If you know some details, doesn't mean you know enough to make bold assertions that you know a lot more. The fact is that most of the women did not make any statements concerning their level of relationship with Joseph Smith, some made some statements which did not state that the realtionship was physical, and others made some statements which are ambiguous at best.

And yet some of the women were quite specific, and you chose to deny their statements, anyway.

I repeat, a question, what right is it of anyone to pry into any one else's relationships?

That's a good question. Does a bishop have a right to pry into anyone else's relationships? If the bishop asks someone "Do you keep the law of chastity?" are you suggesting that the person say, "Please stop prying into my personal relationships."

I think the "God said" excuse is overused, myself. But I think even more overused is the "you can't possible know if God said that" excuse. It is a problem for some people to know what God says. It is a problem for some people to know that God hasn't told them something when they think He has. That is the whole point of life. To figure it out. LIFE IS A TEST.

I guess I don't understand why God would want me to believe in something that is morally reprehensible. What kind of test is that? To see if we'll buy anything, no matter how much it violates our consciences? Again, I'm not sure I'd want to worship that kind of God. You and Will and others seem to have no problem worshiping a God who is apparently without any moral foundation other than a demand for obedience.

I am completely able and willing to understand that most critics of Joseph Smith do want the truth. What is clear to me, but seems not to be clear to the critics is their motivation in wanting the truth. Truth because all truth is equally valuable? Then why not focus on some other "truth?" Or could it possibly be that they are wanting some "truth" to confirm in their own minds that Joseph Smith could not possibly have been a prophet, and they are thereby relieved of the responsbility to take anything he said seroiusly?

Do you have any idea how tired I am of this argument, charity? How many times do we have to tell you we weren't looking to get out, we weren't looking for an excuse, and we weren't looking to confirm in our minds that Joseph Smith was a prophet? I would have given anything not to have found out what I did, but I am dealing with it. It's very annoying to hear that you believe we're just trying to avoid responsibility.

What is this search for truth going to prove to you? You already know from proof that Joseph Smith was sealed/married to 33 women. Some of those women were already married to other men. Some of those women were young. Is any search into the details of the personal life of Joseph and these women going to provide you with any truth about WHY he was married/sealed?

Have you searched into the details of Joseph Smith's relationships with these women? Why or why not?

The heart of the matter is exaclty that. I do not deny that Joseph practiced plural marriage. The real issue is did God tell him to or not? Nothing you are trying to discover is going to answer that question. So what do you want? More intimate details of the lives of people who have been dead for 150 years? What exactly will that tell you about God's commands?

We don't need more details. We have enough to reach fairly definite conclusions. What I find far more interesting than Joseph's actions are the contortions some people engage in to deny or rationalize what he did. My conscience is never going to tell me that coercion and lying are OK. That yours does is of no consequence to me.

Is this your "quest for truth?" How does this exactly tell you what God said, or did not say to Joseph Smith?

It just adds one more piece to the puzzle: bogus scriptures + morally suspect religious leader = more than enough reason to dispense with Mormonism.

I understand that very well. But the source of information for whether or not he was a prophet does not come from him, does not come from any personal characteristics. It comes from God, Himself. We are not to trust in the arm of flesh. We are not to use our own puny powers of logic, deduction, interpretation, whatever you call it, to determine what is of God and what isn't. The Spirit tells us, and then we have sure knowledge.

So you would have us ignore all evidence of anything and appeal directly to God. What exactly does one need to know before one goes to God asking if it's true or not? And if, as you suggest, facts are immaterial, why bother even defending Joseph Smith. Prayer will sort it out in the end, right?

You are talking about a mortal matter in your investment company. You may gather a lot of information, make a well reasoned judgement and still get taken to the cleaners, because you do not have a infallible source for your information. We do have an infallible source of information on who is a prophet and authorized to speak for God, and who isn't.

Given that so many people have received conflicting answers about who is a prophet, I don't consider your source infallible.

Search the scriptures for references to this, opposition in all things, if you are not for me you are against me, etc. You can deny it if you want.

Oh, yes, I am not always in fear. It's like a football game. If your team is ahead 40-7, you don't really have to worry about who is going to win, just as long as you keep playing.

Maybe this warrior attitude explains some of the hate we critics have received from your side. All's fair in love and war, after all.

[_Yoda]

Nathan quotes the Lord "Thus Saith the Lord" and makes two points.

1. "I anointed thee king over Israel . . ." vs. 7.

2. "I gave the thy master's house, and they master's wives into thy bosom." vs. 12. And, it is indeed correct that David had succeeded to the husbandship of all of Saul's many wives.

What would have happened to these women had David not taken these wives as his own? Again, this seems to be a cultural consequence rather than a commandment. The Lord would want these women to be taken care of.

God didn't say "go out and find multiple wives." He is speaking of an inheritance in that particular cultural setting. I still find it a huge leap between that and what Joseph Smith was supposedly asked to do.

[_Runtu]

Nathan quotes the Lord "Thus Saith the Lord" and makes two points.

1. "I anointed thee king over Israel . . ." vs. 7.

2. "I gave the thy master's house, and they master's wives into thy bosom." vs. 12. And, it is indeed correct that David had succeeded to the husbandship of all of Saul's many wives.

What would have happened to these women had David not taken these wives as his own? Again, this seems to be a cultural consequence rather than a commandment. The Lord would want these women to be taken care of.

God didn't say "go out and find multiple wives." He is speaking of an inheritance in that particular cultural setting. I still find it a huge leap between that and what Joseph Smith was supposedly asked to do.

These wives are what are considered "Levirate" wives. Under the Mosaic Law, when your brother dies, you have a responsibility to marry his widow and provide for her. That seems to be what is going on when David takes Saul's wives.

[_Yoda]

Nathan quotes the Lord "Thus Saith the Lord" and makes two points.

1. "I anointed thee king over Israel . . ." vs. 7.

2. "I gave the thy master's house, and they master's wives into thy bosom." vs. 12. And, it is indeed correct that David had succeeded to the husbandship of all of Saul's many wives.

What would have happened to these women had David not taken these wives as his own? Again, this seems to be a cultural consequence rather than a commandment. The Lord would want these women to be taken care of.

God didn't say "go out and find multiple wives." He is speaking of an inheritance in that particular cultural setting. I still find it a huge leap between that and what Joseph Smith was supposedly asked to do.

These wives are what are considered "Levirate" wives. Under the Mosaic Law, when your brother dies, you have a responsibility to marry his widow and provide for her. That seems to be what is going on when David takes Saul's wives.

That was my take when I read this passage as well. Bob? Your thoughts?

[_Runtu]

That was my take when I read this passage as well. Bob? Your thoughts?

for what it's worth, when Don Carlos Smith died, Joseph Smith took Agnes Coolbrith, Don Carlos' widow, as a plural wife in the same way.