Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage?


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, longview said:

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?

I don't believe your explanation of verses 51 or 61 match up with the history and they ignore other verses.

Link to comment
36 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?  

Why would Joseph live the principle of plural marriage differently than those other men who he’d called to live it during his lifetime?  (There were children born to plural wives of some while Joseph was still alive).

Or why would Joseph live it differently than Brigham Young and the other early Mormon prophets who practiced polygamy?

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

If he didn’t he would still be a prophet of God. And Brigham Young in the 12 still would’ve succeeded him

You may be right, but what would that mean for the LDS Church generally?  Would it have prospered to an even greater degree?  Or would the lack of persecution have left the Saints weak and ineffectual?  Would they have ever gone West?  Wouldn't the history of Mormonism be entirely different?

Link to comment

I believe that if JS  had never practiced polygamy/polyandry there would have been no reason for him to destroy Bill Law's printing press.  Which means JS would not have been arrested and held at Carthage jail.  And perhaps not murdered.  If there was no polygamy, Oliver would not have had any excuse to leave the church because the "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" would not have happened.   Without one of the relics of barbarism the church would have probably received much less percussion in the long run.  The U.S. government would have had no reason to confiscate church properly and imprison church leaders.  And without having to hide the practice and later deny it,  many church leaders would probably have been more honest.  And wiithout the practice, there would probably not be as many fundamentalist break offs today practicing something that in many cases in demeaning to women and girls.

Edited by sunstoned
Link to comment
2 hours ago, tulip said:

Brigham Young was divorced at least ten times.  Good proof that many women did not like polygamy.  He would court women in one room while he ignored his wives in the other room.

What percentage of plural marriage women divorced and then remarried in another plural marriage?

Link to comment
On 4/18/2018 at 12:15 AM, JulieM said:

Why would Joseph live the principle of plural marriage differently than those other men who he’d called to live it during his lifetime?  (There were children born to plural wives of some while Joseph was still alive).

Or why would Joseph live it differently than Brigham Young and the other early Mormon prophets who practiced polygamy?

Mary was a virgin, so that handmaid/marriage was not consummated.  It would be a better example of the Savior's family if the second marriage was not consummated.  The real test in all of this involves the children though - children with multiple sets of parents, just as the Savior had heavenly and Earthy parents, and we all have heavenly and earthy parents - giving your child to another to bear (Jesus was born by a handmaid, and raised by a step-father), that is the real test.

We are all children of both heavenly and earthly parents - the trial of heavenly parents sending their spiritual children to earth to be born and raised by imperfect people, for anyone who wants to become like G-d, you have to learn to share your family.  

Edited by changed
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, changed said:

Mary was a virgin, so that handmaid/marriage was not consummated.  It would be a better example of the Savior's family if the second marriage was not consummated.  The real test in all of this involves the children though - children with multiple sets of parents, just as the Savior had heavenly and Earthy parents, and we all have heavenly and earthy parents - giving your child to another to bear (Jesus was born by a handmaid, and raised by a step-father), that is the real test.

We are all children of both heavenly and earthly parents - the trial of heavenly parents sending their spiritual children to earth to be born and raised by imperfect people, for anyone who wants to become like G-d, you have to learn to share your family.  

My point is that children were born of polygamous marriages while Joseph was alive. He had called these men to live the principle and approved those plural marriages.  If these men were not to consummate these marriages, Joseph would have disciplined these men or corrected them if they were living the principle incorrectly.  

So why are members just fine with the fact that other men and Prophets consummated their plural marriages but want to believe Joseph lived it differently?  That makes no sense.

Plus we have much evidence (statements from his wives and others) that they did have marital relations with Joseph.  They were his wives.  

The no children equals no consummation reasoning is not a good one, in my opinion.  There are just too many reasons why there may be no children (that we know of).

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

My point is that children were born of polygamous marriages while Joseph was alive. He had called these men to live the principle and approved those plural marriages.  If these men were not to consummate these marriages, Joseph would have disciplined these men or corrected them if they were living the principle incorrectly.  

So why are members just fine with the fact that other men and Prophets consummated their plural marriages but want to believe Joseph lived it differently?  That makes no sense.

Plus we have much evidence (statements from his wives and others) that they did have marital relations with Joseph.  They were his wives.  

The no children equals no consummation reasoning is not a good one, in my opinion.  There are just too many reasons why there may be no children (that we know of).

I agree completely.

To be clear, we only have record of two children conceived in polygamy during Joseph's life, one to Heber C. Kimball and one to William Clayton.  Joseph told Clayton that he might have to publicly discipline him (for appeances) but then he'd baptize him again and he'd be just fine.  Joseph had no issues with polygamous offspring which clearly shows he wasn't establishing just "sealings", whatever those would be.

Link to comment
On 4/18/2018 at 8:55 AM, JulieM said:

My point is that children were born of polygamous marriages while Joseph was alive. He had called these men to live the principle and approved those plural marriages.  If these men were not to consummate these marriages, Joseph would have disciplined these men or corrected them if they were living the principle incorrectly.  

So why are members just fine with the fact that other men and Prophets consummated their plural marriages but want to believe Joseph lived it differently?  That makes no sense.

Plus we have much evidence (statements from his wives and others) that they did have marital relations with Joseph.  They were his wives.  

The no children equals no consummation reasoning is not a good one, in my opinion.  There are just too many reasons why there may be no children (that we know of).

I think it has to do with JS being the founder of the religion, rather than just a follower, and as such, everyone would like to hold him to a higher standard.  I am not sure if those relationships were consummated or not - for the law of Sarah, Hagar did have a child - when it comes to considering the eternal implications though, I think it is good to remember that Mary was a virgin.  

The point of polygamy - as it was for Mary, and as it was for Abraham - is to raise up seed.  As with Mary, consummation is not necessary to raise up seed.

Edited by changed
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree completely.

To be clear, we only have record of two children conceived in polygamy during Joseph's life, one to Heber C. Kimball and one to William Clayton.  Joseph told Clayton that he might have to publicly discipline him (for appeances) but then he'd baptize him again and he'd be just fine.  Joseph had no issues with polygamous offspring which clearly shows he wasn't establishing just "sealings", whatever those would be.

Yes, I agree (and those are the only 2 men who had children while Joseph was alive that I’m aware of too).

I just wonder why some members seem to think it’s wrong for Joseph to actually live the principle he restored.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, changed said:

I think it has to do with JS being the founder of the religion, rather than just a follower, and as such, everyone would like to hold him to a higher standard.  I am not sure if those relationships were consummated or not - for the law of Sarah, Hagar did have a child - when it comes to considering the eternal implications though, I think it is good to remember that Mary was a virgin.  

The point of polygamy - as it was for Mary, and as it was for Abraham - is to raise up seed.  As with Mary, consummation is not necessary to raise up seed.

What makes you think that Mary's marriage with her eternal husband was unconsummated?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Exiled said:

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?

There are more important concepts in a covenantal marriage than mere gratification between a couple.  Sex is an incentive for "scaredy cat" guys to make the leap to commitment.

Levirate marriage was provided by God to enable childless widows to raise seed for their departed husbands with the help of one of the brothers.  Not merely to provide intimate "comfort" for the widow.

I believe the Abrahamic Covenant has to do with our willingness to become "Fathers of Many Nations."  Meaning not only do we have earthly marriages that will give us posterity enabling us to be grafted into the "House of Israel" with sealing powers linking us into one harmonious whole.  But also to be willing to become a creator that will recruit intelligences to become spirit children of our own and introduce them to the "Plan of Happiness" and continue on to endless "Eternal Rounds."

Link to comment
23 hours ago, drums12 said:

I was talking to a close friend the other day who believes in the Restoration, the Book of Mormon, etc.  He is very disillusioned with the modern Church for various reasons.  As I mentioned my difficulty reconciling plural marriage, he said "but there is no proof Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  There are affidavits in which he denied it.  There are no contemporary documents from his lifetime."  I didn't wish to argue the point, but I think he is wrong.  To my thinking, his belief requires a conspiracy of epic proportions.  Dozens of early Saints would have to have been in on the lie.  

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?  

There are members in the world who don’t think Joseph practiced plural marriage? How can that be when the Church has been transparent about it all along (according to apologists)? Has your friend not studied the subject? Has your friend read the Church essays on the subject?

Edited by Marginal Gains
Link to comment
On 4/18/2018 at 9:35 AM, katherine the great said:

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not a part of LDS theology.

On 4/18/2018 at 9:36 AM, rongo said:

How can anyone believe that, anyway, as the New Testament talks of Jesus' brothers and sisters? 

Jesus was not born through consummation, and he was born to a handmaid.  Yes, I agree that later Mary and Joseph had their own children.  Mary and Heavenly Father's relationship did not involve sex.  

Edited by changed
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, rongo said:

How can anyone believe that, anyway, as the New Testament talks of Jesus' brothers and sisters? 

Well, in all fairness, they could have been his half brothers and sisters from Joseph's first wife. I don't think it says anywhere that they were Mary's children. Personally I believe that they were Mary and Joseph's children, but it does seem odd that Jesus turned over the care of Mary to John if she had sons who could have (and should have) taken care of her.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, changed said:

Jesus was not born through consummation, and he was born to a handmaid.  Yes, I agree that later Mary and Joseph had their own children.  Mary and Heavenly Father's relationship did not involve sex.  

I think Brigham Young disagreed with you and taught otherwise.

Either way, that has nothing to do with Joseph consummating some of his plural marriages.  Do you believe he had no marital relations with any of his plural wives?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, changed said:

Jesus was not born through consummation, and he was born to a handmaid.  Yes, I agree that later Mary and Joseph had their own children.  Mary and Heavenly Father's relationship did not involve sex.  

If I were using standard operating procedure here, I would say, "CFR!" But, this is your opinion.

I would actually not have a problem, either way, if Jesus' conception involved sex or not. Certainly, if we can conceive children today without sex using medical instruments, God was able to achieve this through the means of the Holy Ghost. 

Assuming that sex was not involved, do you agree that Jesus received 23 chromosomes from Mary, and 23 from the Father? Or, is that also beyond the pale?

As an aside, I found it funny that Ron Wyatt (from the other thread) allegedly found blood under the crucifixion site that only had 24 chromosomes. Psychologically, this was probably necessary to claim so that a) there weren't 23 chromosomes from God, and b) it wasn't just Mary's 23. Viola! Add a mystery chromosome, and it has to be Jesus! 

None of the known things that have 24 chromosomes are even animals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count

And I know that you haven't said anything about chromosomes. But, now that I brought it up, do you believe that Jesus had 46 chromosomes: 23 from his mother, and 23 from his father (not Joseph the carpenter)?

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, changed said:

Jesus was not born through consummation, and he was born to a handmaid.  Yes, I agree that later Mary and Joseph had their own children.  Mary and Heavenly Father's relationship did not involve sex.  

You have no way of knowing that.  It is pure assumption.  

Link to comment
9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe your explanation of verses 51 or 61 match up with the history and they ignore other verses.

I read a very interesting and compelling story of a young lady many years ago.   I no longer remember the name of the general authority who wrote it but it might have been Harold B Lee.  She had received her Patriarchal Blessing that she will have a Temple marriage.  She was very beautiful and was faithful and virtuous and close to the spirit.  She did a great deal of dating.  When she received proposals from her companions, she would go to the Lord to pray.  She received unmistakeable answers to not marry those particular individuals.  This went on for several more years, causing her to become more and more distressed.  So she went to this general authority for counsel.  He assured her that he would personally preside over her marriage when the time came.   She eagerly dated a lot but continued to be disappointed questioning herself as to whether she was dating the right guys.  When the general authority (probably President Lee), realization struck her that her marriage was to occur in the next world.  She immediately obtained peace and she was willing to accepts God's Will in her case and live the remainder of her mortal probation with calmness.   This was her Abrahamic Test.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Well, in all fairness, they could have been his half brothers and sisters from Joseph's first wife. I don't think it says anywhere that they were Mary's children. Personally I believe that they were Mary and Joseph's children, but it does seem odd that Jesus turned over the care of Mary to John if she had sons who could have (and should have) taken care of her.

That's a good point. I have always assumed that Joseph was significantly older than Mary and unable to care for her. The siblings did not accept Jesus' claims until after his death, so maybe they weren't happy with Mary's devotion to Jesus? 

Does anyone know if it was common for half-siblings to be referred to in that culture/in Greek/in Aramaic as "brothers and sisters?" Or, would there have been a distinction made. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...