Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_Jason Bourne]

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

I would not say bunk. I discussed this here with Danial Peterson once. He said do away with D&C 132 and you do away with eternal marriage and the sealing power. I stated the D&C 131 allowed for the New and Everlasting covenant of eternal marriage to be in place without plural marriage and D&C 132. He told me that D&C 132 was a revelation received before the instruction in D&C 131 were given.

Apparently under current LDS teaching one can be sealed to on person and be exalted. Apologists argue that such was the case even when polygamy was in place not with standing many comment be LDS prophets and apostles.

So I do not know really. For the most part I do not view God as rigid as the LDS system or most religions make him out to be. I believe he is merciful, meek and forgiving and really does not have all these rules for us to come back to him. I certainly could be wrong though.

[_Jason Bourne]

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

This is not correct. Brigham married Zina for time while Henry stood by in the Nauvoo temple and Henry was still faithful. Zina moved in with Brigham while still married to Henry while Henry was faithfully serving a mission. Not with standing since when did a husbands lack of faith justify the wife marrying another man while her marriage was still in force to the unbeliever? This also contradicts Paul who tells the believing spouse to remain with the unbelieving spouse.

Now could you go back in the thread please about three pages and address the question Liz and I ask of you?

[_charity]

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.

Liz, we are all given things that are hard. Some are physical. I have to be in a wheelchair. I hate being in a wheelchair. I can't walk. I can't drive. Despite ADA, there are a lot of places I can't go. People treat me like I am a child or stupid because my eye level doesn't come anywhere near theirs. BUT this is a temporary condition. Once I get my perfected, resurrected body, my knee is fixed. I wil be able to stand, walk, run

Some people are given emotional or mental challenges. In some cases, it probably is a challenge to believe a certain doctrine. Abraham was asked to sacrfice Isaac. He didn't have to do it. He just had to be willing to show that he would obey God. You aren't being asked to live plural marriage. It sounds to me as though your abhorrence at this requirement would be much what Abraham had to face.

Just as my destroyed knee is temporary and will be perfect, any ideas or attitudes we have that are not in line with God's will be perfected, IF we show an absolute desire to be obedient to God.

And in the case of plural marriage, if this is your test, you have a great consolation. You know that in this imperfect state, you will not be asked to live it. You just have to be willing to say, you would if God told you to. And you also have the knowledge that once we are on the other side, we will absolutely without a doubt know what God's mind and will is, completely.

[_truth dancer]

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 . . . . .

So there are a hundred married men who all claim God told them to marry/sleep with/take/seal/whatever girls and women and you believe Joseph Smith but no one else. You don't see a problem with this?

The point is, the very same behavior in other men would be condemned, in Joseph Smith it is ignored, discounted, or even celebrated.

THIS is what I find so odd.

If you know some details, doesn't mean you know enough to make bold assertions that you know a lot more.

What bold assertions? The only assertions I hear are ones documented and accepted by critic and apologist alike. What are you talking about here?

Please list or clarify for us.

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.

So? I do not think anyone cares. There is enough documented evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with some of the girls and women he "married". One documented case is enough to know he slept with a girl or woman other than his wife.

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

I repeat the answer. People have a right to learn about the integrity, honesty, behavior, ideas, and actions of a man who claims to be the restorer of God's church on earth. The fact that you do not understand this is odd.

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.

And the only people who pass the test are believers in Joseph Smith. Well guess what? JW's think they are the only ones who have it right. Scientologists believe they are the ones who have it right. Muslim's think they are the ones who have it right. The FLDS think THEY are the ones who are true followers of Joseph Smith.

So, yeah, it seems odd that most religions think they have it right. What a strange God who would create a test where everyone thinks they have the right answers.

As strongly as YOU believe YOU are the one to pass the test, the world is filled with others who believe equally as strong.

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.

OK, please give us some evidence of critics of Joseph Smith's demonstrating their "real" motivation for wanting truth.

You have a tendency to read into things that are not there so I am interested in what proof you have for this accusation.

Truth because all truth is equally valuable? Then why not focus on some other "truth?"

Read the board, there are plenty of questions, ideas, scriptures, thoughts, teachings past and present that are topics of discussion. Joseph Smith is at the core of all of Mormonism hence he gets some attention nevertheless, he is hardly the sole focus of interest.

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?

I think this is an example of you creating from your own mind what you want to believe.

With NO exceptions (I can recall), the critics I have encountered are not trying to confirm Joseph Smith was a bad guy. The exact opposite occurs. People WANT to believe but find disturbing behavior and history and find it impossible to continue to do so.

What is this search for truth going to prove to you?

To be clear, I am not searching for anything in the church. I think most critics have at one time or another wanted to search for truth and the desire to learn is what brought them to their knowledge.

Again, I do not think any critic is out to prove something. They are or were out to discover truth.

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.

Yes...

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?

What are you talking about?

Who is searching for more details of Joseph Smith's personal life? I am not. I do not know of anyone who is. I think for most critics and believers alike they are pretty clear on what happened.

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?

I do not want anything. What gave you the impression I wanted something ? I'm not trying to discover anything. I do not care about intimate details of the lives of Joseph Smith. I seriously do not know what you are talking about here.

I do not believe in the LDS God and have no interest in discovering God's commands as interpreted by Joseph Smith.

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

Again to be clear, I was suggesting that those who want to understand the life of Joseph Smith are on a question for truth as opposed to trying to prove Joseph Smith was a bad guy or looking for some titillating information.

Again, believers and followers, and even observers have a right to learn about anyone who claims to be the restorer of God's one and only true church.

One's honesty, integrity, morality, choices, behaviors, actions, not only ARE important topics for discussion but SHOULD be, in my opinion.

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.

Again, while you think YOU are right, billions of people the world over think THEY are right and YOU are wrong. You do not seem to comprehend this.

So, yes, basing one's beliefs on what God tells someone looks pretty shaky to say the least. I have yet to see anything that would suggest your method of knowing if something is of God or not is reliable or even remotely works.

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.

See above.

Funny, that you say the source of information is infallible yet prophets and leaders cannot even figure out how to get it right.

TD: This isn't a battle.

Charity: 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.

TD: 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. [/quote]

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.

I do not believe the scriptures are God breathed. And I question any God who would set up a world where life is one big war. I just do not see it.

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.

Funny how so many religions think they are on the winning team. Seems religionists think God is on their side regardless of what side that is.

To me this mindset is leftover from the primitive days of warrior Gods... my God is more powerful than yours. :-)

I hope humankind can move beyond this unhealthy mindset and embrace a world view that is not so cruel and hurtful.

If there is a God, I hope that God would think of our world as a human family, working together to bring peace, compassion, and care to each other. Not a world where every tribe is looking at others as the enemy.

~dancer~

[_charity]

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.

The way the scriptures record it, David's condemnation came because he took the wife of anyother, and had the man killed to cover up the adultery. Solomon's condemnation came not because of his plural wives, but because he married women who were on the forbidden list.

Doctrine and Covenants 132: 38-39 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. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;

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.

At the very least, Levirate marriage was still being practiced. And the only New Testament direction on monogamy is that bishops shall have only one wife. And why do you think there was such a requirement listed if monogamy was the rule? Can you imagine the stake president standing up on your ward as a new bishop is being called, praising the man for his abilties and his willingness to serve, and then saying, "And of course, he has only one wife."

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.

I don't understand the idea that God only tolerated His prophets engaging in what so many people who think was a vile and abhorrent practice. Section 132 does clarify that this was a COMMAND of God. For me that is the end of the discussion.

And from what I have read of the polyandrous sealings, they weren't of the same nature as the marriage/sealings.

[_rcrocket]

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?

1. Levirate law IS an element of Biblical plural marriage. Hebrew men were expected to be married by the time they became adults. Why would God impose Levirate law when kinsman were likely to already be married? Note that in one of the two clear examples of Levirate law in the Bible, the male kinsman was clearly previously married. (Judah/Tamar.) In the second example, we don't know anything about Boaz. Also, Levirate law applies only to close kinsman (see Ruth; Metzger, Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 434). Saul and David were of completely different tribes. There is no Biblical example of Levirite law being practiced between kings. So, 2 Samuel 12, if it was simply an application of Levirate law, it would have violated the "close kinsman" rule on the one hand but would have condoned plural marriage on the other hand. David was already married.

2. You state that the passage merely contemplates a cultural phenomenon and God wanted to make sure the wives were taken care of. Interestingly, in the "thus saith the Lord" context, God does two things in this passage. First, he reminds David -- the first thing after reminding David that David was anointed by God as king -- that David received his wives from Saul. Then, in the threat passage, God tells David that his wives are going to be given to a "neighbor." It is a very unreasonable reading of a "thus saith the Lord" passage to say that God was concerned with a "cultural phenonemon" and that he wanted to make sure that unnamed women were protected. Rather, a more reasonable reading is that God focused upon two very important concepts -- (1) kingship, and (2) wives. Both were given David.

3. Look at the other "thus saith the Lord" passages. Do they concern "cultural phenomena?"

Exod 5:1: To Pharoah: "Let my people go."

Exod 7:17 To Pharoah: You will know that I am the Lord when I turn the Nile to blood.

Joshua 22:16 To Israel: Why have you built this accursed altar and turned away?

and, others.

[_Jason Bourne]

Liz, we are all given things that are hard. Some are physical. I have to be in a wheelchair. I hate being in a wheelchair. I can't walk. I can't drive. Despite ADA, there are a lot of places I can't go. People treat me like I am a child or stupid because my eye level doesn't come anywhere near theirs. BUT this is a temporary condition. Once I get my perfected, resurrected body, my knee is fixed. I wil be able to stand, walk, run

Some people are given emotional or mental challenges. In some cases, it probably is a challenge to believe a certain doctrine. Abraham was asked to sacrfice Isaac. He didn't have to do it. He just had to be willing to show that he would obey God. You aren't being asked to live plural marriage. It sounds to me as though your abhorrence at this requirement would be much what Abraham had to face.

Just as my destroyed knee is temporary and will be perfect, any ideas or attitudes we have that are not in line with God's will be perfected, IF we show an absolute desire to be obedient to God.

And in the case of plural marriage, if this is your test, you have a great consolation. You know that in this imperfect state, you will not be asked to live it. You just have to be willing to say, you would if God told you to. And you also have the knowledge that once we are on the other side, we will absolutely without a doubt know what God's mind and will is, completely.

Charity

Would you intentionally test you kids this way? Would you take one and say "today I am going to beat you becaues you need a trial in your life" Maybe I will cheat on your mom so you both can be tested."

I mean really think about this. Is the Abrahm story a myth or fact? Would the God of this universe really test us in such a petty way? I can see sickness and the trials of mortality. But intentional tests? "I will try my people and have Joseph ask for their wives"

Come on. Really. Does this seem like a perfect holy God? Think outside your box. I used to think exactly as you. POWER FROM THE ABRAHAMIC TESTS! God will try us each just like he did Abraham and if we cannot stand it no celestial glory for us.

But when I looked at this rationally and thought about the ideal way I would want to treat my own children this just was goofy sounding.

I could be wrong and maybe I am failing my ABRAHAMIC TEST.

But just try it for a minute. Think about what you are saying. Is this sensible, rational, loving and kind, meek and merciful?

[_Jason Bourne]

The way the scriptures record it, David's condemnation came because he took the wife of anyother, and had the man killed to cover up the adultery. Solomon's condemnation came not because of his plural wives, but because he married women who were on the forbidden list.

Doctrine and Covenants 132: 38-39 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. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;

Ah but there is the rub. Jacob 2 does not make that exception and and D&C 132 DRIECTLY contradicts this.

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.

At the very least, Levirate marriage was still being practiced. And the only New Testament direction on monogamy is that bishops shall have only one wife. And why do you think there was such a requirement listed if monogamy was the rule? Can you imagine the stake president standing up on your ward as a new bishop is being called, praising the man for his abilties and his willingness to serve, and then saying, "And of course, he has only one wife."

Monogomy was the rule because Polygamy was considered bad form. by the way, Runtu quoted Paul above as well as Jesus pointing to one wife. And why would a bishop be told to have only one wife if polygamy was acceptable. Sure people did it then. But the New Testament church did not and it is clear that they were not to do so.

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.

I don't understand the idea that God only tolerated His prophets engaging in what so many people who think was a vile and abhorrent practice. Section 132 does clarify that this was a COMMAND of God. For me that is the end of the discussion.

I don't understand why God would never command it then suddenly he did.

And from what I have read of the polyandrous sealings, they weren't of the same nature as the marriage/sealings.

As noted above in the case of Zina Diantha Hunington Jacob you are not correct.

[_rcrocket]

by the way, Runtu quoted Paul above as well as Jesus pointing to one wife.

Why don't you check your Greek New Testament and tell me if this should instead be construed as "a wife" rather than "one wife?"

[_Jason Bourne]

Now Bob

Can you kindly answer these questions I posed to you on page two of this thread. You can see the sources I referred to there:


1: What is your opinion and conclusion about Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith
2: If you do not think they had an affair do you thing they were married?
3: How was it valid if it was pre 1835 an prior to the sealing power.
4: If you think nothing happened do you have sources that dispute the sources we have posted?