What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage?

[theplains]

6 hours ago, drums12 said:

What about eternal marriage?  How do we separate the idea of eternal marriage from section 132, which clearly teaches plural marriage?  Any other implications?  

D&C 132 also teaches Heavenly Father (i.e. the Mormon depiction) is a polygamist. See verse 31.

Jim

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Were other women sealed to Joseph..lose babies.  We have some implications that those marriages were indeed real in husband/wife way...but there was some help from Dr. Bennett at times wasn't there?  Why?  What does Emma's pregnancies imply other than Joseph was able to plant seed?  I did feel bad for Emma in so many ways.

I was only pointing out that Emma knew of polygamy, and that their relationship made clear the fact that Joseph could father children. It is clear that Joseph could have impregnated other women. However many of these were women who were sealed to Joseph, and were not "wives" (in the classic definition). Even though Emma claimed that polygamy was Brigham's doing alone, it was not. Also, she died 35 years later and had remarried, but on her deathbed she called out to Joseph, whom she was still very much in love with, and looked forward to spending eternity with him. I was not approaching the topic on moral grounds, but on historical grounds.    

Edited April 18, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[jcake]

I am descended from a polygamist family in the early days of the church.  It doesn't surprise me at all that so many active members do, with that "relic of barbarism" preventing so many people from being interested in joining the church. It is to be expected that those who are more accustomed to the idea would accept it.   The innate inequity of women under such circumstances repels most fair-minded people.  Just because something was practiced in biblical times doesn't mean it is the highest form of living the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Many practices of biblical days are not favored today, which is likely a good thing.  I stand with the Book of Mormon in rejecting polygamy because it breaks the hearts of the daughters of God.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Alan said:

I believe your friend is correct.

Joseph practiced multiple sealings.

Same thing, last I read the words of the sealing ceremony.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, theplains said:

D&C 132 also teaches Heavenly Father (i.e. the Mormon depiction) is a polygamist. See verse 31.

Jim

It can be interpreted that way, but the law discussed does not have to refer to plural marriage:

"28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the lawof my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself."

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, theplains said:

D&C 132 also teaches Heavenly Father (i.e. the Mormon depiction) is a polygamist. See verse 31.

Jim

If we believe that plural marriage is a part of the body of eternal or Celestial law by its  nature and that there are eternal blessings connected to the keeping of that law then it stands to reason.

Do we really think we can keep a law that our Heavenly Father and our Savior never did?  Or receive the blessings predicated on obedience to that law that they didn't?  No. Jesus and Heavenly Father both lived plural marriage, else the would have no right to require it as part of their eternal gospel at any point.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It can be interpreted that way, but the law discussed does not have to refer to plural marriage:

"28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the lawof my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself."

Except it does because verse 34 clarifes the law in 28-31.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

 

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, jcake said:

I am descended from a polygamist family in the early days of the church.  It doesn't surprise me at all that so many active members do, with that "relic of barbarism" preventing so many people from being interested in joining the church. It is to be expected that those who are more accustomed to the idea would accept it.   The innate inequity of women under such circumstances repels most fair-minded people.  Just because something was practiced in biblical times doesn't mean it is the highest form of living the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Many practices of biblical days are not favored today, which is likely a good thing.  I stand with the Book of Mormon in rejecting polygamy because it breaks the hearts of the daughters of God.

It is, in my view, the reason that God could have had many members of His Church...had it not been for the polygamy.  This does not mean that those who have their heritage from polygamy are not good people or should be shamed..it is just a man made thing that crippled the early American church from the get go...and nothing but trouble in Brigham's Utah.  It is even possible that Joseph would have lived out his days longer had it not been for the whole mess.

[jcake]

I agree, Jeanne, the sad fruits of Polygamy have been the large numbers of people who turned away from learning about the church because of this practice.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, jcake said:

I agree, Jeanne, the sad fruits of Polygamy have been the large numbers of people who turned away from learning about the church because of this practice.

A lack of faith is not a fruit of polygamy.

[MormonMason]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

...had it not been for the polygamy...it is just a man made thing...

Why then did God give David all his wives but one and take credit for it? (See 2 Sam. 12:7-8.)

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Why then did God give David all his wives but one and take credit for it? (See 2 Sam. 12:7-8.)

I have asked myself that very question myself..why?  Perhaps this is why mormons believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly??  Or should we stick with the  old..."it was the times" answers?  As far as the Old Testament...I don't have much to do with that God..I tend to start with the birth of Christ. For some it has to do with laws..the old and the new.  But it has no place (IMO) in any restoration.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Jeanne

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I have asked myself that very question myself..why?  Perhaps this is why mormons believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly??  Or should we stick with the  old..."it was the times" answers?  As far as the Old Testament...I don't have much to do with that God..I tend to start with the birth of Christ. For some it has to do with laws..the old and the new.  But it has no place (IMO) in any restoration.

"It was the times," as you say, and it does require rejection of at least that aspect of the OT from "any restoration," because we live in very different times.  Fortunately that means that one may make a cafeteria selection from the religious and life-style choices available.  Ancient peoples did not have such a modern, Western array of choices.

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I have asked myself that very question myself..why?  Perhaps this is why mormons believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly??  Or should we stick with the  old..."it was the times" answers?  As far as the Old Testament...I don't have much to do with that God..I tend to start with the birth of Christ. For some it has to do with laws..the old and the new.  But it has no place (IMO) in any restoration.

Yes, actually it does have to do with the restoration.  What do you think "restoration" means? What it really is, is a restoration of all the keys and such from all of the ancient gospel dispensations all welded together in one.  That is what is meant by the "restitution of all things."  Plural marriage was practiced by Abraham through Moses (before the Law of Moses), and among others.  If God could give wives to a servant of God, he most certainly could do it again at any other time, unless he says he never will again.  I am aware of no location in scripture where God himself states that there will be no further plural marriages or that he'll never give more.  God is the same yesterday today and forever, and will do the same things even if for a limited or intermittent time.  Has that no meaning at all?

But, then again, Jesus Christ also taught a parable involving marriage to more than one wife.  (He also continued the Old Testament teaching that marriage is between male and female.)  Or are you saying that the God of the Old Testament isn't the same God of the New? That is what you seem to be saying.  I just wanted to make sure that I understand that that is what you believe.

Edited April 18, 2018 by MormonMason

[tulip]

Polygamy was the worst thing the church ever did.  There were equal number of men and women at the time.  Just like polygamists today,  the young men were chased out of the town so the old men could have plural wives.  Brigham Young being the worst of the worst.

[MormonMason]

1 minute ago, tulip said:

Polygamy was the worst thing the church ever did.  There were equal number of men and women at the time.  Just like polygamists today,  the young men were chased out of the town so the old men could have plural wives.  Brigham Young being the worst of the worst.

Most of those who practiced it thought otherwise.  There were exceptions, of course.  But it was very different from what the apostates practice today.  It also seems that the rest of what you claimed in your post was comedy that you (or rather your source) appeared to have taken seriously.

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, drums12 said:

Still, let's just assume for a moment that he is correct.  What are the implications for the modern Church?   Would not Brigham Young and his successors have been adulterers, and thus unworthy to hold the Priesthood?  What about eternal marriage?  How do we separate the idea of eternal marriage from section 132, which clearly teaches plural marriage?  Any other implications?

If Joseph Smith himself nevber practiced polygamy it would chnge nothing for Brigham Young and succeeding prophets who did practice it because the averred it was a revelation from God and and they were the ones who had the authority to speak for God on that and all other matters pertaining to the church. The only question really, is revelation that includes polygamy a revalation from God?

Glenn

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

If Joseph Smith himself nevber practiced polygamy it would chnge nothing for Brigham Young and succeeding prophets who did practice it because the averred it was a revelation from God and and they were the ones who had the authority to speak for God on that and all other matters pertaining to the church. The only question really, is revelation that includes polygamy a revalation from God?

Glenn

Exactly, and also denying blacks the priesthood, as well.

[MormonMason]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Exactly, and also denying blacks the priesthood, as well.

I seem to recall a couple eyewitness accounts recounted an event taking place during the latter part of Joseph Smith's administration that leaned in the direction that Brigham Young took.  President Young himself stated that he wasn't doing anything or expanding upon anything but what was based on what brother Joseph himself taught.

But at least that priesthood ban wasn't nearly as bad as the one Moses started.  That one omitted everyone but the tribe of Levi, with few exceptions.  Two whole nations (Moab and Ammon) couldn't even become citizens of the people of Israel or even so much as enter into the congregation of God, with few exceptions.

Edited April 18, 2018 by MormonMason

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

If Joseph Smith himself nevber practiced polygamy it would change nothing for Brigham Young and succeeding prophets who did practice it because the averred it was a revelation from God and and they were the ones who had the authority to speak for God on that and all other matters pertaining to the church. The only question really, is revelation that includes polygamy a revalation from God?

Glenn

If Joseph himself never practiced polygamy but we still had D&C 132 as a revelation from God as you state, then something would change...Joseph would have disobeyed God.

And the results for him personally would be truly terrible.  To receive a revelation from God a refuse to follow it?  Bad results.

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If Joseph Smith himself nevber practiced polygamy it would chnge nothing for Brigham Young and succeeding prophets who did practice it because the averred it was a revelation from God and and they were the ones who had the authority to speak for God on that and all other matters pertaining to the church. The only question really, is revelation that includes polygamy a revalation from God?

Glenn

If JS never practiced polygamy, I think it would lend credence to JS III's claims to succession. Wasn't this a big issue in the late 1800's and spilled over to the temple lot case? If JS didn't practice it, maybe he really intended for the RLDS to grab the torch instead of BY? Or maybe the bickertonites of Alice Cooper's father's faith (I think his father was an apostle in that branch)?  School's out for summer ... forever ... 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Exiled

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If JS never practiced polygamy, I think it would lend credence to JS III's claims to succession. Wasn't this a big issue in the late 1800's and spilled over to the temple lot case? If JS didn't practice it, maybe he really intended for the RLDS to grab the torch instead of BY? Or maybe the hendrickites of Alice Cooper's father's faith (I think his father was an apostle in that branch)?  School's out for summer ... forever ... 

Had to google it- Alice Cooper's father and grandfather were leaders in the Bickertonite offshoot, not the Hedrickites.  So that would be Sidney Rigdon grabbing the torch.

Too bad he didn't have enough ordinances to get the gig.  Or really, not too bad at all.

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Had to google it- Alice Cooper's father and grandfather were leaders in the Bickertonite offshoot, not the Hedrickites.  So that would be Sidney Rigdon grabbing the torch.

Too bad he didn't have enough ordinances to get the gig.  Or really, not too bad at all.

I looked it up too and had to edit my post. 

[longview]

There are probably plenty evidences that Joseph Smith entered into several sealing relationships.  Including marriages as husband and wife in the mortal sphere (for time and all eternity).  Some were to take effect in mortality and some to take effect in the next world?

But what if he never consummated any of them except with Emma?  Was it because Emma never gave her consent (see D&C 132:61) to practise this principle during mortality?  Verse 51 seems to indicate that she was required to believe in this principle but was "let off the hook" from having to practise it on earth?

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, longview said:

There are probably plenty evidences that Joseph Smith entered into several sealing relationships.  Including marriages as husband and wife in the mortal sphere (for time and all eternity).  Some were to take effect in mortality and some to take effect in the next world?

But what if he never consummated any of them except with Emma?  Was it because Emma never gave her consent (see D&C 132:61) to practise this principle during mortality?  Verse 51 seems to indicate that she was required to believe in this principle but was "let off the hook" from having to practise it on earth?

The thought that Joseph Smith never consumated his various marriage relationships does violence to the meaning of the word "marriage." Intimacy is part of marriage and always has been. Why go through a "marriage" if intimacy wasn't going to be a part of it? Why not just call it "adoption" like he did with other non-intimate sealings?