D&C 101: 4 does not say anything about concubines!
Other references to multiple partners in the Book of Mormon and later D&C revelations include concubines as commonplace. In the absence of specific reference to concubines in this specific text, we can assume that they were not mentioned for a reason (spelled L-O-O-P-H-O-L-E).
In fact, if one were to accept that a functioning temple was required to re-institute plural marriage proper, concubinage may have been a temporary arrangement pending completion of the Nauvoo temple (when one would assume concubines would be made full wives). So it was not Joseph Smith' fault that he didn't make it to the grand opening. And if the gentiles didn't read between the lines, tough bikkies. I am a bit shaky on the opening dates of Utah temples, so I won't go there. But, having set up in Utah and establishing the 'principle' of plural marriage of actual wives from the pulpit, amending the D&C to reflect multiple wife-taking was simply a formality.
How did I go?
I was reading last night in "Mysteries of Godliness" statements from the JoD (Young), about this very matter. This particular chapter in the book was about the second anointing and it was quoting Brigham in the JoD as saying that a temple was not necessary for sealing wives to husbands.
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace
The Nehor wrote:This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
I have always been amazed at the lack of thinking and reading with this response and the willingness for naïve members to cling to the most ridiculous answers that they are force fed.
Smith, as publisher and editor of the LDS Church's Times and Seasons acknowledged and reiterated the 1835 D&C doctrine on marriage as the CHurch's " only rule on marriage" in October 1842 priniting.
Nehor, read and learn!!! Self denial is not a good way to go through life!
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
Moreover, it was allowed to stand during BY's time, when the leaders stopped hiding polygamy from the general members, anyway.
It's a good question - why didn't church members question leaders as to why this was in their scriptures?
They probably asked God about it and he clarified it for them.
No, probably not.
Well, they probably should have. Joseph and Brigham told them to do it repeatedly.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
I have always been amazed at the lack of thinking and reading with this response and the willingness for naïve members to cling to the most ridiculous answers that they are force fed.
Smith, as publisher and editor of the LDS Church's Times and Seasons acknowledged and reiterated the 1835 D&C doctrine on marriage as the CHurch's " only rule on marriage" in October 1842 priniting.
Nehor, read and learn!!! Self denial is not a good way to go through life!
Yes, and it pretty much was the only rule on marriage. I didn't see Joseph openly practicing plural marriage yet so there you go. It was later supplanted (like much of our doctrine) with further light and knowledge. Instead of fixating on contrast to plural marriage why not say that by this revelation there could never be eternal marriage?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
I have always been amazed at the lack of thinking and reading with this response and the willingness for naïve members to cling to the most ridiculous answers that they are force fed.
Smith, as publisher and editor of the LDS Church's Times and Seasons acknowledged and reiterated the 1835 D&C doctrine on marriage as the CHurch's " only rule on marriage" in October 1842 priniting.
Nehor, read and learn!!! Self denial is not a good way to go through life!
Yes, and it pretty much was the only rule on marriage. I didn't see Joseph openly practicing plural marriage yet so there you go. It was later supplanted (like much of our doctrine) with further light and knowledge. Instead of fixating on contrast to plural marriage why not say that by this revelation there could never be eternal marriage?
What does "pretty much" mean? While Smith was marrying many wives prior to "receiving" (his words) the revelation on plural marriages in 1843, was he in violation of church doctrine or was he merely lying? can't have it both ways!
Going back to your original excuse again, what was your point now that "Smith was not present" and how is it relevant here? Sounds like just one of those knee jerk answers that has no apparent relevance.
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
The Nehor wrote:This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
I have always been amazed at the lack of thinking and reading with this response and the willingness for naïve members to cling to the most ridiculous answers that they are force fed.
Smith, as publisher and editor of the LDS Church's Times and Seasons acknowledged and reiterated the 1835 D&C doctrine on marriage as the CHurch's " only rule on marriage" in October 1842 priniting.
Nehor, read and learn!!! Self denial is not a good way to go through life!
Yes, and it pretty much was the only rule on marriage. I didn't see Joseph openly practicing plural marriage yet so there you go. It was later supplanted (like much of our doctrine) with further light and knowledge. Instead of fixating on contrast to plural marriage why not say that by this revelation there could never be eternal marriage?
What does "pretty much" mean? While Smith was marrying many wives prior to "receiving" (his words) the revelation on plural marriages in 1843, was he in violation of church doctrine or was he merely lying? can't have it both ways!
Going back to your original excuse again, what was your point now that "Smith was not present" and how is it relevant here? Sounds like just one of those knee jerk answers that has no apparent relevance.
It has no relevance who wrote the revelation and whether they were entitled to that revelation? To this day I still consider the declaration on government to be a declaration and not a revelation. He was in violation of a declaration in the D&C because he had superseding revelation from God. It happens all the time. I've had revelations like it myself.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
It has no relevance who wrote the revelation and whether they were entitled to that revelation? To this day I still consider the declaration on government to be a declaration and not a revelation.
So? What difference does it make? Joseph Smith knew it was official doctrine, taught it as truth, allowed it to be official canonized scripture, taught it, and claimed to live it.
As I stated, all official scripture is not revelation.
He was in violation of a declaration in the D&C because he had superseding revelation from God. It happens all the time. I've had revelations like it myself.
So, basically, if people claim God is speaking to them, they can engage in whatever despicable behavior they wish. I can see how this idea is nice for some folks. The old, "God said" excuse. Works great for some folks.
:-(
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
The Nehor wrote:This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
I have always been amazed at the lack of thinking and reading with this response and the willingness for naïve members to cling to the most ridiculous answers that they are force fed.
Smith, as publisher and editor of the LDS Church's Times and Seasons acknowledged and reiterated the 1835 D&C doctrine on marriage as the CHurch's " only rule on marriage" in October 1842 priniting.
Nehor, read and learn!!! Self denial is not a good way to go through life!
Yes, and it pretty much was the only rule on marriage. I didn't see Joseph openly practicing plural marriage yet so there you go. It was later supplanted (like much of our doctrine) with further light and knowledge. Instead of fixating on contrast to plural marriage why not say that by this revelation there could never be eternal marriage?
What does "pretty much" mean? While Smith was marrying many wives prior to "receiving" (his words) the revelation on plural marriages in 1843, was he in violation of church doctrine or was he merely lying? can't have it both ways!
Going back to your original excuse again, what was your point now that "Smith was not present" and how is it relevant here? Sounds like just one of those knee jerk answers that has no apparent relevance.
It has no relevance who wrote the revelation and whether they were entitled to that revelation? To this day I still consider the declaration on government to be a declaration and not a revelation. He was in violation of a declaration in the D&C because he had superseding revelation from God. It happens all the time. I've had revelations like it myself.
What did Joseph do to rectify the fact that a false "declaration" had been codified as doctrine in the D&C in his absense?
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace