Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John Larsen

Joseph F. Smith on Plural Marriage

Recommended Posts

"Not necessary here" flies utterly against pre 1890 General Authority statements on the topic. Brigham Young et al. taught that in order to attain to the highest glory in the CK men and women must live polygamy in this life first.

And what about plurality of husbands? Read Sec 132 carefully, and you can see the offer to Emma to accept for herself what Joseph was already doing: at that time he was "married" to quite a few women who were already married, most of them to Mormon husbands (who hadn't a clue). She was outraged and tore "the revelation" to shreds and drove Hyrum Smith out. Joseph had warned his brother beforehand what would happen. Anticipating Emma, they had written "the revelation" in at least two copies....

Brigham Young and George Q. Cannon consistently taught that what was necessary was a willingness to abide by the precept of plural marriage. As not all men were asked to enter into the principle, it was not required for them to do so in order to be exalted. However, they were clear, just as Joseph F Smith, that a man could not, willingly, disobey the Lord and expect to receive His promised blessings.

Best,

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

You may be interested in my research on these verses. They are often misunderstood. When Paul refers to being the "Husband of one wife" he meant that these men could only have been married once. In other words, if a man had remarried follow a divorce or the death of his spouse, he was disqualified. That was the culture of the day. Those verses have nothing to do with plural marriage.

T-Shirt

I'd be happy to peruse anything you would like to reference. Thanks :P

Share this post


Link to post

Once the practice was banned some members continued the practice until 1910, these marriages were conducted and sealed against the wishes of the First Presidency and without there knowledge and permission. These marriages are not valid since you need First Presidency approval to seal any plural marriage. Those who entered into theses marriages were excommunicated, some of them went off to form various polygamist sects that make us the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm sorry but this statement is false on so many levels.

1)The 1P allowed and sanctioned PM up until 1901.

2)They are valid.

3)Only those entering plural marriage after 1901 were excommunicated.

Read and be enlightened:

one

two

Share this post


Link to post

Let me give a few possible apologetic responses to this:

Apologist:

"Really, this obsession that many seem to have with trying to pick apart any saying of the modern prophets to determine what is doctrine <revelation> and what isn't is unhealthy. My advice is to get over it."

You are mis-quoting me. I did not say "revelation", and there are certainly situations where you cannot equate doctrine with revelation. Please edit your post to remove the "<revelation>" clarification.

Share this post


Link to post

You are mis-quoting me. I did not say "revelation", and there are certainly situations where you cannot equate doctrine with revelation. Please edit your post to remove the "<revelation>" clarification.

I would oblige, but I'm not being given an edit button?

Share this post


Link to post

sjdawg:

We put tremendous stock in living the principles espoused in our doctrine. Good counsel is still good counsel. Thus JS was perfectly right in saying I teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves.

Does that mean that every word JS(or any other prophet, seer, or revelator) ever spoke was/is doctrine of the Church? Of course not. I don't believe God makes men sock puppets.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me get this straight:

Revelation = anything unanimously accepted by the 15 apostles and the body of the Church in general conference.

Opinion = anything else

. Unfortunately, I think my Bishop missed the memo since he thinks the Word of Wisdom forbids mild drinks made of barley when it is expressly permitted by the scriptures.

If by mild drinks made of barley you mean beer than yes, you Bishop is right, beer is prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. Mild drinks are not beers or ales, they still contain plenty of alcohol and alcohol intoxicates the body which makes the body unclean to host the Holy Ghost.

Share this post


Link to post
Brigham Young et al. taught that in order to attain to the highest glory in the CK men and women must live polygamy in this life first.

CFR

Share this post


Link to post

Whoa, wait a minute. The articles in the Ensign are clearly fallible opinion since they were not unanimously sustained as revelation by the 15 apostles and the body of the Church. What does the concept of "new doctrine" have to do with it? Joseph F. Smith was not declaring new doctrine when he made the statement quoted in the original post so I don't see how you can assert that President Smith's statement is fallible opinion yet the Ensign is not.

I didn't say that the Ensign was revelation, it is scripture. There is a Big difference between scriptures and revelations, revelations change or clarify current doctrine, scripture is testament of support for current doctrine.

Believe me I wish that the scriptures was only our doctrine it would be about only 1/4 of the current size. The overwhelming majority of the scriptures is the testimonies of the prophets and the recorded history of the people of God, if the scriptures were only new doctrine there would be no 2 Nephi (which would make my study of the BoM infinitely easier!

Share this post


Link to post
I would say thing taught at GC or given in church approved cirriculum, suchas manuals would be doctrine or revelation if, you will.

This is better described as Church policy since manuals can and are changed over time, revelation is eternal and never changes. The talks given at GC and the things taught from the manuals do change over time, so they are not revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Joseph F. Smith was not declaring new doctrine when he made the statement quoted in the original post so I don't see how you can assert that President Smith's statement is fallible opinion yet the Ensign is not.

So, show me the section of the D&C that states polygamy is required for exaltation, if there is no part of the D&C that says this then President Smith (or any Presidents before him) were presenting new doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post

So, show me the section of the D&C that states polygamy is required for exaltation, if there is no part of the D&C that says this then President Smith (or any Presidents before him) were presenting new doctrine.

Erm... there wouldn't be anything wrong with new doctrine.

BTW, the part with BY saying something related to this, is actually oftentimes misinterpreted. What it is saying, is that if the Lord commands you to be in a polygamous relationship, and you do not, you will not inherit the celestial. So Fifth Columnist and Questing Beast would be incorrect here, I think.

Share this post


Link to post

John,

Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, you could start a thread where you actually discussed something in good faith?

I mean, just once?

Would that really be too much to ask?

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."

Joseph F. Smith (Prophet, Seer and Revelator)

Tell us, John: why did you give that set of titles?

You wouldn't be trying to imply that he said that while he was President of the Church, were you?

Because you know he didn't become President of the Church until 23 years after he made that statement, don't you?

Was Smith right or wrong?

Ah yes; nothing quite like a nice little binary solution set. It really gives us confidence that you're not trying to ask a leading question, or set up a false dilemma.

Not!

The "law of consecration" which many associate with plural marriage.

Really? Which "many" are they?

For 1878, he was right.

The Gospel is not an eternal truth, but dependent upon date and time? Is there any truth or moral that is not relative in Mormonism?

Wow. way to foster a real discussion, John. I could almost hear the trap snapping shut.

Nobody has said anything about "any truth or moral" being "relative in Mormonism." Your question bears no relationship to the argument.

Do we have any context for the quote?

It's hard to judge words without knowing the context, but so many have been willing to judge these ones without even caring what the context was. It's hard not to see such judgements as springing merely from bias against the mormon religion in general.

If there's cause to denigrate his words, then let's at least do so honestly with as much understanding of them as we can find. I know it's easier to be witty than informed but being informed is so much more becoming.

I'd personally like to understand his quote better and would appreciate some context to it-does anyone have any?

Whaddaya mean, context?

John's little snippet is all he needs to do what he wants; he don't need no stinkin' context!

But for those who would actually like to understand what Elder (not President) Smith was saying at the time, here is just a little bit of the relevant context:

It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, and neither acceptable to God or binding on man unless given by commandment, not only so given in this dispensation, but particularly adapted to the conditions and necessities thereof, and to the circumstances, responsibilities, and personal, as well as vicarious duties of the people of God in this age of the world. God has revealed it as a principle particularly suited to the nature of the work we are called to perform, that it might be hastened to its consummation.

So, it turns out -- John's attempt at mockery notwithstanding -- that CV75 was right after all. As long as the commandment was in force, it was necessary to obey it; and obedience brought eternal blessings. Now that the commandment is no longer in force, trying to live it is an act of disobedience.

Let me give a few possible apologetic responses to this:

Because, of course, none of us are actually articulate enough to speak for ourselves. We need you to rush forward and speak for us.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."

Joseph F. Smith (Prophet, Seer and Revelator)

JD 20:28

Was Smith right or wrong?

Right

Share this post


Link to post

Right

Super answer!!

Now can you show Grampa Grumps above how you did it? :P

Share this post


Link to post

You are correct, that is actually why I am here to gain an insight into LDS doctrine. Thank you for recognizing that :P And I'm not trying to offend anyone with my questions, I truly do not know and that is why I ask.

Hey Nack,

I think Lareliw is relatively unfamiliar with LDS doctrine, especially as described here on this forum. She may need some room for error.

Share this post


Link to post

Erm... there wouldn't be anything wrong with new doctrine.

I know this, but as the conversation previously agreed on, doctrine can only be brought about by revelation. There is no revelation in this case hence no new doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post

I know this, but as the conversation previously agreed on, doctrine can only be brought about by revelation. There is no revelation in this case hence no new doctrine.

Sorry, but I am going to have to CFR this. =/

I don't think we know whether it is or isn't revelation for both BY's quote and JFS's quote... Besides, I think this quote is about obedience... so it's not all that new really, tbh. Obedience is good. =)

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but I am going to have to CFR this. =/

I don't think we know whether it is or isn't revelation for both BY's quote and JFS's quote... Besides, I think this quote is about obedience... so it's not all that new really, tbh. Obedience is good. =)

Do we agree that it takes the unanimous decision of the Apostles for something to be declared revelation for the world aka the will of the Lord?

Share this post


Link to post

Even with unanimous decision, if it contradicts previous scripture, say in the Bible, can it be of God? I'm really trying to puzzle all this out.

Do we agree that it takes the unanimous decision of the Apostles for something to be declared revelation for the world aka the will of the Lord?

Share this post


Link to post

Even with unanimous decision, if it contradicts previous scripture, say in the Bible, can it be of God? I'm really trying to puzzle all this out.

It depends, in most situations contradiction means simply, that we have done something to mcause God to change his laws for us. God is eternal and perfect and some things cannot be changed. For example you cannot change that Jesus is the Son of God. You cannot change some of the recorded history. For example you can't change and say the there was no Adam and eve or creation.

But you can change the nature of some laws given to man or reveal more about a certain topic.

For example Christ changed the laws of Moses his atonement ment the law of sacrifice and circumcision were no longer required for salvation.

An example there was further revelation of ordiances for the dead and the nature of heaven in this dispensation. It didn't change anything just gave more detail to topics previously revealed.

Share this post


Link to post

It depends, in most situations contradiction means simply, that we have done something to cause God to change his laws for us. God is eternal and perfect and some things cannot be changed. For example you cannot change that Jesus is the Son of God. You cannot change some of the recorded history. For example you can't change and say the there was no Adam and eve or creation.

...

Slippery slope argument: Muslims accept Jesus Christ as a prophet but assert that all the "Son of God" business is created by disciples after he died. Moses is problematic; Abraham is at the extreme edge of recorded history and is probably mythical; Adam and Eve are absolutely mythical, along with the "six days of creation" (even IF you allow 1,000 years per "day"). The Great Deluge has no empirical evidence in the earth's geologic record to show it. Etc. Yet none of these refutations or alternate opinions make out non Christians to be less religious, righteous or "correct" than Christians are. Mormon doctrines and exegesis have changed a lot of orthodox Christian dogma that other denominations consider essential to faith. And within the mainstream Christian denominations you have YEC who are the vanguard of fundamentalists: those who take the Bible to be absolute history and the complete and perfect word of God, etc.

Who is it that trumps everyone else in claiming that God changed his law for us? We have too many "laws" and their adherents to be able to ever accomplish anything more than to courteously agree to disagree....

Share this post


Link to post

Slippery slope argument: Muslims accept Jesus Christ as a prophet but assert that all the "Son of God" business is created by disciples after he died. Moses is problematic; Abraham is at the extreme edge of recorded history and is probably mythical; Adam and Eve are absolutely mythical, along with the "six days of creation" (even IF you allow 1,000 years per "day"). The Great Deluge has no empirical evidence in the earth's geologic record to show it. Etc. Yet none of these refutations or alternate opinions make out non Christians to be less religious, righteous or "correct" than Christians are. Mormon doctrines and exegesis have changed a lot of orthodox Christian dogma that other denominations consider essential to faith. And within the mainstream Christian denominations you have YEC who are the vanguard of fundamentalists: those who take the Bible to be absolute history and the complete and perfect word of God, etc.

This really isn't discussion just you stating what you feel is fact. I don't see then point of putting it on the forum. This has nothing to do with the discussion I posted, it just you denying what Christians believe.

Share this post


Link to post

His quote never said you couldn't get to the Celestial Glory without polygamy. He simply said that your glory with one wife could not be as great as your glory with two. His statement also makes true the proposition that your glory with 2 wives will not be as great as the glory of a man with 10 wives. This can be repeated infinitely.

If we assume that our glory is in someway related to our eternal procreation of Children, and that such procreation takes time, then the argument is that he who breeds fastest is more glorious. Therefore, the God with the most partners to procreate with will be more glorious than any other.

Such a line of reasoning makes perfect sense.

However, I am unsure that F. Smiths underlying propositions are truly correct.

I think the idea that the most glorious God is the one that has the most "Breeding Partners" is a little archaic. Very agrarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Adam and Eve are absolutely mythical, along with the "six days of creation" (even IF you allow 1,000 years per "day").

There's your problem!

We don't "allow 1,000 years per 'day'", you see.

The Biblical passage does not say that any of the periods of creation was a "day", not a 24-hour day, not as a 1,000 year day. It says "a time", or "an age", ??? yo?m.

Most of us Saints believe that it took millions and billions of years for God to create this earth, and we know, by doctrine, that there was no creatio ex nihil, a creation from nothing. We do not suffer from the affliction of having to explain how God made stars hundreds and billions of light years away and that their light all first arrived on the same "day", nor how the sun and the moon were created on the same day. God has told us that He organized the elements of our universe for us, and that the creation accounts in scripture are illustrative of His power and care for us. We are not literalists for this part of the word of God.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...