Great apostasy

[JulieM]

34 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Julie I am just not going to get into a debate with a bunch of hearsay evidence of who said what, when, etc. We also need to recognize that essentially all of these marriages were before Joseph received section 132, which made it clear that a man needed the woman's permission to enter another marital covenant. I am not Joseph's judge, and Jesus commanded us not to judge our fellows.

That's not true.  Check the history of section 132 and the dates of the marriages.

(And, you were quoting the Bible regarding what consisted of committing adultery.  That was definitely written prior to what Joseph did with marrying other wives behind Emma's back.)

Edited February 17, 2017 by JulieM

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That's not true.  Check the history of section 132 and the dates of the marriages.

(And, you were quoting the Bible regarding what consisted of committing adultery.  That was definitely written prior to what Joseph did with marrying other wives behind Emma's back.)

Yep, I believe it is wrong to marry another wife without permission. When Joseph came to understand that is not clear at all. Since sin is to a large extent based upon our understanding it is a valid issue of when Joseph understood it.  

I have never changed my position on this issue. You can look through every single post I have ever made. Clearly, other sects which have left the Church, do not practice plural marriage this way, and are usually in sin - the FLDS being in the forefront of these apostate sects. I realize plural marriage is a touchy subject for many. To live it well is difficult because people tend to be naturally jealous, suspicious, etc. So it says a lot for those who do live it well. However, I want to make it clear that I am NOT advocating for polygamy. Once again, I will say it is NOT required for exaltation. It is not commanded nor required in any way. In the end I will show that temporal polygamy is NOT required for exaltation. To the extent that BY taught this, I disagree, as have others in the church. Obviously tho, I am not an official spokesperson for the church. I think this issue ought not to be so contentious. If a man and a wife want to enter another covenant with yet another wife, who am I or you to stand in the way of their happiness? If you don't like polygamy, don't enter into it.  For you to feel like you can morally police another couple, however, seems a lot presumptuous. That is really all I can say about it.

Cheers.

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yep, I believe it is wrong to marry another wife without permission. When Joseph came to understand that is not clear at all. Since sin is to a large extent based upon our understanding it is a valid issue of when Joseph understood it.  

Hey, you're the one who quoted the Bible about it being adulterous if the first wife didn't authorize the other relationships.

And, Joseph definitely knew this prior to at least some of his plural marriages. 

It's interesting to see the mental gymnastics you have to perform to justify what he did.  But if that works for you, continue on.  I understand and I mean that.

Edited February 18, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Hey, you're the one who quoted the Bible about it being adulterous if the first wife didn't authorize the other relationships.

And, Joseph definitely knew this prior to at least some of his plural marriages. 

It's interesting to see the mental gymnastics you have to perform to justify what he did.  But if that works for you, continue on.  I understand and I mean that.

It is!!  And to think that we cannot morally police another couple sounds so ironic!

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Hey, you're the one who quoted the Bible about it being adulterous if the first wife didn't authorize the other relationships.

And, Joseph definitely knew this prior to at least some of his plural marriages. 

It's interesting to see the mental gymnastics you have to perform to justify what he did.  But if that works for you, continue on.  I understand and I mean that.

I haven't justified anything Julie, and I don't appreciate your tone. I do not justify anyone who tries to live polygamy in sin. 

My understanding of polygamy came after a number of years - certainly after I was 20 or 25 which is when JS was apparently first introduced to the subject. That is shrouded in Church history now. My guess is he ran into a group practicing polygamy, and discussed the subject with them, and eventually went to the Lord in prayer about it. If he understood at that time that permission was needed from the wife(s) to enter another marital covenant then perhaps he did sin at some point. But for you to try to paint me as somehow justifying him because I won't accuse him of sinning is unappreciated. You have Emma's view on the subject after his death, when he wasn't around to give his version of events. The subject was not at the forefront during his life. It is pretty obvious he was pretty secret about it, and probably lied about it to protect himself and his family.

As for knowledge of the law abrogating sin, that is found throughout the scriptures. If you want a lesson on that I suggest a new thread.

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is!!  And to think that we cannot morally police another couple sounds so ironic!

Not when scripture makes it very clear that polygamy is not always sinful. Scripture does make it clear that adultery is sinful, so then adulterers are rightly morally policed.

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I haven't justified anything Julie, and I don't appreciate your tone. I do not justify anyone who tries to live polygamy in sin. 

My understanding of polygamy came after a number of years - certainly after I was 20 or 25 which is when JS was apparently first introduced to the subject. That is shrouded in Church history now. My guess is he ran into a group practicing polygamy, and discussed the subject with them, and eventually went to the Lord in prayer about it. If he understood at that time that permission was needed from the wife(s) to enter another marital covenant then perhaps he did sin at some point. But for you to try to paint me as somehow justifying him because I won't accuse him of sinning is unappreciated. You have Emma's view on the subject after his death, when he wasn't around to give his version of events. The subject was not at the forefront during his life. It is pretty obvious he was pretty secret about it, and probably lied about it to protect himself and his family.

As for knowledge of the law abrogating sin, that is found throughout the scriptures. If you want a lesson on that I suggest a new thread.

I said that I understand why you do what you've done here regarding Joseph's polygamy.  I mean that too.

It just makes no sense though if you review your posts about what you quoted from the Bible regarding what constitutes adultery and then compare it to the fact that Joseph did exactly what you described.  Then you say that was different and justify it. Would you do that for anyone else?

I love Joseph Smith and I do believe he was a Prophet.  But that doesn't mean I can't also believe he made mistakes and sinned.  I believe how he lived polygamy was wrong.  I know others disagree and I'm fine with that (and my tone is just fine here  honestly.)

Edited February 18, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not when scripture makes it very clear that polygamy is not always sinful. 

We've seen that it's been allowed at times (not commanded).  But that's not how Joseph lived it (as it was in the Bible).  

And where in scriptures has it been made clear that living polyandry is from God?

Edited February 18, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not when scripture makes it very clear that polygamy is not always sinful. Scripture does make it clear that adultery is sinful, so then adulterers are rightly morally policed.

How ever you want to twist this..scripture or not...JS knew better..by his own words written from his revelation.  Emma should have been in the know from the very beginning..the rest doesn't matter. 

[RevTestament]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I said that I understand why you do what you've done here regarding Joseph's polygamy.  I mean that too.

It just makes no sense though if you review your posts about what you quoted from the Bible and compare it to the fact that Joseph did exactly what you described.  Then you say that was different and justify it.  Would you do that for anyone else?

Again Julie, I have not justified it. I have said under what circumstances I believe it is sinful, and that Joseph may have sinned.

Quote

I love Joseph Smith and I do believe he was a Prophet.  But that doesn't mean I can't also believe he made mistakes and sinned.  I believe how he lived polygamy was wrong.  I know others disagree and I'm fine with that (and my tone is just fine here  honestly.)

When I was young I strongly identified with Joseph Smith, As I have matured. I have come to see that he definitely was an imperfect man. However, I am not about to sit in judgment of him based on a bunch of hearsay. I also have come to believe that many put words in his mouth, or simply did not understand what he was trying to say, and have my suspicions about BY in this regard. History written about JS is full of various prejudices, and therefore skewed viewpoints and facts. The Lord knows if he sinned in his marital relationships, but I will not presume to have near enough evidence to reach a valid judgement on it, and therefore I will err on the side of the Lord who tells me to judge no man. I am glad that you love Joseph Smith, and I agree that "he made mistakes and sinned." I am the first to admit that. But my opinion about prophets has changed before. For many years I did not know what to think about the so-called Adam-God teachings of BY. I believe the Lord has shown me truth in it, so I am glad I reserved my personal judgment on BY.  I certainly owe JS that as well. It is fine with me if you believe JS sinned in his marital relationships, but I simply want to make it clear my belief on polygamy per se, and why that doesn't change even if JS sinned as you believe. I am glad we seem to be coming to a better meeting of the minds on this subject, as I respect you, and enjoy reading your posts, but in fairness to the OP, I am going to bow out on this subject now rather than hijack the thread anymore. Thank you for a lively discussion.

Cheers

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

Nope (and I didn't state that, but nice apologetic tactic).

I stated that we have no record that states polygamy was a principle of the original gospel of Jesus Christ.

Can you provide a reference for where there is a record of it?

We accept ALL of the word of  God, including the Bible and modern revelation.  The restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ included the principle of polygamy, as revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith.   The Lord was quite insistent on it.

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yeah, those early Christians and Catholics had no idea about the temple. ;)

Nor the Chinese

Nor the Zoroastrians

Teehee. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

We accept ALL of the word of  God, including the Bible and modern revelation.  The restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ included the principle of polygamy, as revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith.   The Lord was quite insistent on it.

Nice dodge.  But that's ok as I figured you wouldn't have a reference. 

I guess the key (from your statement above) would be to determine if the "word of God" includes the commandment to live polygamy.  I believe it doesn't, but I know others believe the principle came from God.  

However, there is no record of Jesus teaching it, commanding it, or living it.  So one does have to wonder if it was an essential principle of his gospel.

[Gray]

On 2/17/2017 at 4:46 PM, RevTestament said:

It's implied since He said the man put her away, that it was without her permission that he "remarried." Usually, in these cases that is why the man put his wife away - he wanted to marry someone else that she didn't want him to. 

This is entirely your speculation, which I don't find persuasive.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

This is entirely your speculation, which I don't find persuasive.

Yeshua was responding to a hypothetical situation which assumes certain facts. 

There are many areas of scripture in which understanding Jewish culture and context will greatly increase the reader's understanding, because otherwise not all the context gets translated to the reader. If you insist on being told every fact concerning the context of these stories/parables, you are often just going to miss the boat. There are many details and facts left out of various NT stories.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yeshua was responding to a hypothetical situation which assumes certain facts. 

There are many areas of scripture in which understanding Jewish culture and context will greatly increase the reader's understanding, because otherwise not all the context gets translated to the reader. If you insist on being told every fact concerning the context of these stories/parables, you are often just going to miss the boat. There are many details and facts left out of various NT stories.

If your argument is more than your own personal speculation, CFR por favor

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

If your argument is more than your own personal speculation, CFR por favor

An example would be the story about the woman brought before Jesus to judge whether she should be stoned to death. This story has roots in reality even though it got added later. In other words it didn't seem to be in the first version of John, but it feasibly could have happened, and was a story preserved in oral history. To fully understand this story, it is important to understand the law. What about the man? To commit adultery there are presumably two participants. Under Jewish law the man was basically presumed guilty and didn't need to be judged if there were two witnesses. However, the woman had the presumption of rape on her side. For her to be convicted the man responsible for her - her father or husband - was asked to speak for her or against her.  All this stuff is left out of the story.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

An example would be the story about the woman brought before Jesus to judge whether she should be stoned to death. This story has roots in reality even though it got added later. In other words it didn't seem to be in the first version of John, but it feasibly could have happened, and was a story preserved in oral history. To fully understand this story, it is important to understand the law. What about the man? To commit adultery there are presumably two participants. Under Jewish law the man was basically presumed guilty and didn't need to be judged if there were two witnesses. However, the woman had the presumption of rape on her side. For her to be convicted the man responsible for her - her father or husband - was asked to speak for her or against her.  All this stuff is left out of the story.

Okay, so this continues to be your speculative interpretation.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Okay, so this continues to be your speculative interpretation.

You can find aspects of the law in the Torah. So no, not speculation. With the background info, we can understand why under the law Jesus would ask: "woman where are thine accusers?" If she had none, and no man present to speak for her, she was presumed innocent under the law. Even if she was guilty, she could be forgiven. In a sense Jesus was just taking advantage of the law on her behalf rather than just coming out and forgiving her.