Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Callings given to imperfect human beings


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He was so reluctant, in fact, that he delayed and "dawdled" to the extent that he had to be threatened by a sword-wielding angel to proceed with carrying out this part of his prophetic responsibilities.

Just how many plural wives did Joseph need to have before he’d restored polygamy and lived it?

If it’s true he already had more than 18 wives at that point, how much delay or dawdling was going on? 😂

I always scratched my head about that story and wonder if it was a story that grew each time it was repeated!

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not a matter of "making it up" but working out which part you think is unsubstantiated. 

So far?  Pretty much all of your argument is unsubstantiated.

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You are, you do realise, operating under your own premises such as

"But we are more than our biology.  We are creatures with the free will, and the ability to reason.  And more than that, we have the access God through personal revelation and prophetic guidance (past and present)."

and

"A person can choose to accept these things, or not.  A person can submit to the authority of the Church, or not.  A person can obey the commandments of God, or not.  For each of these "or nots," the worst possible consequence is a limitation or termination of the individual's voluntary membership in the Church.  That's the total extent of the Church's power/authority over an individual.  To call that power/authority "coercive" is unreasonable."

Yes.  I think these premises are pretty hard to dispute.

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So for you, the church is "voluntary" but also the major conduit to God through prophetic guidance.

Yes.

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The church is the major source of truth in life, along with personal revelation, right? 

Yes.

But all of this is a matter of faith.  It's a choice.  And it's a choice that can be rescinded at any time, and for any reason or no reason at all.

And if and when a choice is made to reject these principles, then a person is free to leave the Church.  And even to turn against and fight the Church.  And the absolute worst thing the Church can do in response to such a choice is to limit or end that individual's membership in the Church.

The Church's power/control over its members is both limited and self-limiting.  The best evidence for this is that people leave the Church all the time, and the Church allows them to do so.  There is no shunning.  There is no public flogging or public denunciation.  There is no violence.  There is no confiscation of the individual's property.  There is no incarcerating of the individual.  Nothing.

The Church's own scriptures constrain and prohibit the Church from doing anything except limiting or ending an individual's membership/participation in the Church.  Personally, I find this quite wonderful, as it allows me to freely choose to devote myself to the Lord and His Church.  To voluntarily contribute time and money and effort to it.  There is no "coercion" in view.  Just commandments, together with my of-my-own-free-will obedience to those commandments.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We are just going to have to disagree on that, I guess.

Many men love women and are definitely NOT lecherous.....so you're wrong regarding what I believe :P

Wow...you're really making stuff up now, smac.  Where have I stated that Joseph is lecherous (I haven't and don't believe that) or mentally incompetent (I have never stated that and do not believe it's true).

You are completely misrepresenting what I have stated that I believe.  Maybe it's time for you to just step away from this discussion if you're going to continue with these types of false accusations....

I guess we'll need to agree to disagree.  Your remarks/arguments sure seem to require a finding that Joseph was lecherous and non compos mentis

That is my conclusion from what you've said.  I'll characterize it as that (as my conclusion), thus leaving you to continue accusing Joseph of being "a man who did love women" (and yet, somehow, your readers should not take this as you characterizing him as being prone to sexual licentiousness) and that he "most likely believed polygamy had been commanded by God" (and yet, somehow, your readers should not infer that you are accusing Joseph Smith's claims about the revelatory origins of polygamy to be the product of delusion or mental defect).

🤨

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

SMAC:

So, once a person has bought into the church's authority claim, or if they always did (as in my case being born and raised in the church) they generally have two conscious choices: either do the church path and be right with God and the group, or don't. And if you don't, you're wrong, you're not safe, and as far as you can know, it will definitely not be okay. In the early church, it was preparing for an imminent Second Coming. In the modern church, you're either on the covenant path or you're in trouble.

You are treating the church context and the public context strangely: on the one hand, the church is the truth, full stop. On the other hand, the church member can technically find protection in the general public. You are skipping that step where the church does its enforcement, as if the only real enforcement is public law.

Yet within the church context, there is real value that is destroyed when the church enforces. Spiritual authority is claimed and preached and wielded. A person's position as accepted in the church can be destroyed. And that is the bare minimum, if you only fear that immediate temporal banishment from the social group. 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

CFR on previously given commandment from God. Or are you talking about the Jacob verses in the BoM. Which btw, would negate JS from going to the Lord in the first place.

D&C 132 was given before the angel with the sword.  He had received much of it earlier.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll need to agree to disagree.  Your remarks/arguments sure seem to require a finding that Joseph was lecherous and non compos mentis

That is my conclusion from what you've said.

 

Well,  I'm the expert on knowing what I believe and you are wrong on both counts.   I can't control what you've concluded though no matter how erroneous it is....so I'm moving on now from those points.... 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I've never looked at it that way.  To the contrary, Hales and Bushman characterize the situation as Joseph being very reluctant to enter into, or continue to enter into, or teach others about, polygamy.  He was so reluctant, in fact, that he delayed and "dawdled" to the extent that he had to be threatened by a sword-wielding angel to proceed with carrying out this part of his prophetic responsibilities.

The issue wasn't about whether God "is okay with a man having more than one wife."  The issue was whether Joseph was "okay with a man having more than one wife."  Whether he could accept and implement that idea.

My understanding of Joseph is that he was the kind of man who wanted to know what God thought was good so that he could incorporate those good things into his life, which would mean that if he found out God thought it was good for a man to have more than one wife that he would think it was good too, and not just for other men to have more than one wife, but also good for him to have more than one wife.  IF it was what God wanted him to have at that particular time.  At which point all Joseph would need to know is whether or  not God wanted him to have more than one wife, and the how, and the when.  And I am pretty dang sure that Joseph was NOT a dawdler or someone who would rather just put things off for another time when he knew what the will of God was. 

I'm not saying God wanted him, in particular, to have more than one wife, though, and I don't think he had more than one wife even though he had other women sealed to him for eternity.  I think he thought he could and should be sealed to other women without those women then becoming his wife, or wives. I think he thought everyone should be sealed together into one overall cohesive unit and that if a woman didn't have a man she could be sealed to for eternity that he could provide the blessings that would come from being sealed to someone in the celestial kingdom of glory without him having to function as her or their husband.  That he could marry one off to another man as soon as he could find another man for her, basically delegating that duty to another man who wanted a woman as his own wife.  Because while I am sure Joseph knew it was good for a man to have more than one wife, in some circumstances, I am also sure that he knew it was also good for a man to have only one wife with God being good with that too.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Just how many plural wives did Joseph need to have before he’d restored polygamy and lived it?

I'm not sure the issue was just his own practice.  I think he was also obligated to teach and implement its practice in the Church.

Mary Lightner's recollection was that Joseph claimed the angel visited in him "three times between the years of 1834 and 1842."  This rather jibes with the dates in the historical record (which, we should note, are of uneven accuracy and substantiation):

  • Prior to early 1833: Joseph marries Fanny Alger.  It's a debacle.  Joseph therefore "dawdles" and doesn't enter into any further polygamous marriages for at least five years (1838, to Lucinda Harris, which is a disputed marriage), and perhaps as much as eight years (April 1841, to Louisa Beaman).
  • 1833: No other polygamous marriages.
  • 1834: No other polygamous marriages.
  • 1835: No other polygamous marriages.
  • 1836: No other polygamous marriages.
  • 1837: No other polygamous marriages.
  • 1838: A possible marriage (to Lucinda Harris).
  • 1839: No other polygamous marriages.
  • 1840: No other polygamous marriages.
  • 1841: 2 polygamous marriages.
  • 1842: 13- polygamous marriages (and perhaps even more, as seven are listed as only "before 1844").
  • 1843: 17-18 polygamous marriages (and perhaps even more, as seven are listed as only "before 1844").

Fawn Brodie lists seven or women that are not included in other lists (by Todd Compton and George D. Smith).

The above list shows large gaps of time in which Joseph appears to have "dawdled" or delayed implementing polygamy (for himself, and more so for others).

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If it’s true he already had more than 18 wives at that point, how much delay or dawdling was going on? 😂

"If it's true" being the operative phrase.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, ALarson said:
Quote

I guess we'll need to agree to disagree.  Your remarks/arguments sure seem to require a finding that Joseph was lecherous and non compos mentis

That is my conclusion from what you've said.

Well,  I'm the expert on knowing what I believe

I'm not presuming to know what you believe.  I am only scrutinizing what you have said.

And what you have said seems to require a finding that Joseph was lecherous and non compos mentis.  

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

and you are wrong on both counts.   

I don't think I am.

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I can't control what you've concluded though no matter how erroneous it is....so I'm moving on now from those points.... 

Okey doke.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I always scratched my head about that story and wonder if it was a story that grew each time it was repeated!

Yup....was it just a drawn sword or was it flaming (or both :) )?

We don't have an account told in Joseph's own words, so we are left with hearsay.....that we do know.  Maybe he did record it somewhere, (but we haven't found it if he did).

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well,  I'm the expert on knowing what I believe and you are wrong on both counts.   I can't control what you've concluded though no matter how erroneous it is....so I'm moving on now from those points.... 

 

You're okay in my book, bro.  I love women, too, all women, and even all men, and I don't believe that I am a lecherous man.  Or that if I am, by some definition, then being a lecherous man is not a bad thing.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The above list shows large gaps of time in which Joseph appears to have "dawdled" or delayed implementing polygamy (for himself, and more so for others).

It is also possible that his sealings to married women and possibly widows (assuming they are older and possible nonsexual relationships) didn't qualify as to how God intended Joseph to live plural marriage (maybe not in line with Sec 132 or even the appearance of the purpose of raising up seed), so that would have eliminated a number of the earlier wives if that was the case (not saying it was, the lack of Joseph's own explanation leaves us with confusing information imo, so there are a number of possibilities imo).

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So far?  Pretty much all of your argument is unsubstantiated.

Yes.  I think these premises are pretty hard to dispute.

Yes.

Yes.

But all of this is a matter of faith.  It's a choice.  And it's a choice that can be rescinded at any time, and for any reason or no reason at all.

And if and when a choice is made to reject these principles, then a person is free to leave the Church.  And even to turn against and fight the Church.  And the absolute worst thing the Church can do in response to such a choice is to limit or end that individual's membership in the Church.

The Church's power/control over its members is both limited and self-limiting.  The best evidence for this is that people leave the Church all the time, and the Church allows them to do so.  There is no shunning.  There is no public flogging or public denunciation.  There is no violence.  There is no confiscation of the individual's property.  There is no incarcerating of the individual.  Nothing.

The Church's own scriptures constrain and prohibit the Church from doing anything except limiting or ending an individual's membership/participation in the Church.  Personally, I find this quite wonderful, as it allows me to freely choose to devote myself to the Lord and His Church.  To voluntarily contribute time and money and effort to it.  There is no "coercion" in view.  Just commandments, together with my of-my-own-free-will obedience to those commandments.

Thanks,

-Smac

I posted this above but you may have missed it, so I'm quoting you so thst you'll get the notification:

SMAC:

So, once a person has bought into the church's authority claim, or if they always did (as in my case being born and raised in the church) they generally have two conscious choices: either do the church path and be right with God and the group, or don't. And if you don't, you're wrong, you're not safe, and as far as you can know, it will definitely not be okay. In the early church, it was preparing for an imminent Second Coming. In the modern church, you're either on the covenant path or you're in trouble.

You are treating the church context and the public context strangely: on the one hand, the church is the truth, full stop. On the other hand, the church member can technically find protection in the general public. You are skipping that step where the church does its enforcement, as if the only real enforcement is public law.

Yet within the church context, there is real value that is destroyed when the church enforces. Spiritual authority is claimed and preached and wielded. A person's position as accepted in the church can be destroyed. And that is the bare minimum, if you only fear that immediate temporal banishment from the social group. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The above list shows large gaps of time in which Joseph appears to have "dawdled" or delayed implementing polygamy (for himself, and more so for others).

I suppose he could have asked all single women in the church to come to him immediately after baptism instead of spending any time looking or waiting for another man to marry, but I can understand his calendar not being filled with wedding dates without calling that "dawdling:".

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My understanding of Joseph is that he was the kind of man who wanted to know what God thought was good so that he could incorporate those good things into his life,

I don't think that has any application to polygamy.  I think Joseph was a product of his time, and his upbringing.  He was not some conniving lech going about doing a spot-on Machiavelli impression by making up stories and passing them off as revelations, and doing this for the purpose of gaining sexual access to women other than his wife.

Rather, I think the idea of polygamy was very disturbing to Joseph Smith, so much so that he was reluctant to implement it.  If Mary Lightner's account is correct, then Joseph was so averse to the doctrine that it took repeated visits from an angel threatening his life unless he started to obey God and fulfill that part of his prophetic mandate.

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

which would mean that if he found out God thought it was good for a man to have more than one wife that he would think it was good too, and not just for other men to have more than one wife, but also good for him to have more than one wife. 

Or . . . not.  After all, couldn't you also be described as "the kind of man who wanted to know what God thought was good so that he could incorporate those good things into his life"?  And yet here you are, disliking polygamy.

So does ALarson.  So do I.

We are all good and decent people, but we all share a strong sociocultural aversion to polygamy.  And we are living in 2019, in an era which is far more sexualized and licentious than Joseph's environment (frontier America in the early 19th century).  If you and I and ALarson averse to polygamy, wouldn't it be likely that Joseph Smitih would be even more averse to it?

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

IF it was what God wanted him to have at that particular time. 

No need to add the "if."  It's understood.

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

At which point all Joseph would need to know is whether or  not God wanted him to have more than one wife, and the how, and the when.   At which point he would then have more than one wife. And I am pretty dang sure that Joseph was NOT a dawdler or someone who would rather just put things off for another time when he knew what the will of God was. 

I encourage you to reconsider this.  Perhaps incorporate the observations of Hales and Bushman in your approach to this.

And I hope you recognize that what you are describing has almost nothing to do with what Joseph Smith did and did not do, and instead pertains almost exclusively to what you, in 2019, speculate about him and his motives and inner thoughts.

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm not saying God wanted him, in particular, to have more than one wife, though, and I don't think he had more than one wife even though he had other women sealed to him for eternity. 

I'm saying that, though.  I think that Jacob 2:30 places polygamy within the purview of God's specific regulation.  Polygamy is a very difficult thing to handle, such that I don't think God would be indifferent to it (as ALarson suggests).

Moreover, I think the historical record is chockablock full of evidences that Joseph Smith understood that he was commanded to practice polygamy and teach it to others.  This was not just some random guess.  It was not a hunch.  It was not him looking for some pretext for obtaining sexual access to other women.  The revelations given to Joseph about polygamy are on equal footing with the revelations given to thim about the Book of Mormon, the organizing of the Church, the various matters discussed in the Doctrine & Covenants, his translation of the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price, and so on.

The only reason the revelations about polygamy are being singled out is because we, in 2019, are subjectively and socioculturally uncomfortable with it.  Even to the point where some of us identify a desired outcome (repudiating polygamy), and then craft arguments and interpretations that are designed to reach that pre-chosen outcome.

I don't think that works, though.  As uncomfortable as I find the topic of polygamy to be, as socioculturally "icky" I find it to be, the revelations and the historical record put it squarely within the parameters of revealed truths.  I struggle with that, and with some other things (such as Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, animal sacrifice, and a few other topics).  That struggle, however, can't be wholesale rejection of doctrines that, though unpleasant, are plainly revelatory.

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think he thought he could and should be sealed to other women without those women then becoming his wife, or wives.

That doesn't jibe with the historical record.  Again, Hales and Bushman provide some pretty good context for this.

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think he thought everyone should be sealed together into one overall cohesive unit and that if a woman didn't have a man she could be sealed to for eternity that he could provide the blessings that would come from being sealed to someone in the celestial kingdom of glory without him having to function as her or their husband. 

Yes, this is the "dynastic" and "law of adoption" aspect of polygamy.  It gets far less attention than it deserves.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I suppose he could have asked all single women in the church to come to him immediately after baptism instead of spending any time looking or waiting for another man to marry, but I can understand his calendar not being filled with wedding dates without calling that "dawdling:".

My comment was presented in the context of the angel-with-a-sword story.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You're okay in my book, bro.  I love women, too, all women, and even all men, and I don't believe that I am a lecherous man.  Or that if I am, by some definition, then being a lecherous man is not a bad thing.

LOL....thanks, Ahab.

Actually my feelings regarding Joseph can get complicated (I try to explain them the best I can...).  I believe he was a good man and one who believed in God and someone who tried to do what he believed God wanted him to do.  I just also believe that he was a fallible man who made mistakes.  I really dislike anyone slandering him with labels of being evil or a pedophile (as some do)....that's very extreme and wrong!

I always go back to how much the saints loved him and I know he was a good and loving man who cared deeply.  I think he was very charismatic and probably close to being a genius.

Anyway...I'm just rambling now :) 

Link to comment
Quote

I am pretty dang sure that Joseph was NOT a dawdler or someone who would rather just put things off for another time when he knew what the will of God was. 

We have the example of the Brother of Jared 'dawdling' over seeking out the Lord for 4 years, so just because someone is a prophet and aware of the Will of God doesn't mean they are always efficient in carrying out that Will (and I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph was somewhat reluctant to ask for more details as he was nervous about what the answer might be....as in even more difficult to fulfill than what he already knew...so he was trying to work out solutions on his own that would satisfy the commandment and Emma and others involved).

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the idea of polygamy was very disturbing to Joseph Smith, so much so that he was reluctant to implement it.

I don't think it was disturbing to him.  I think he wondered how those old patriarchs of our religion were justified in having more than one wife and that he was totally open to receiving God's thoughts on the issue.  I'm sure he was aware that in his day and neck of the woods it wasn't practiced, but in the scriptures he could see that it must have been a good thing as far as God was concerned, at least in the lives of those people, so he wondered what it was that made it okay while not being disturbed by the idea that it actually was okay with God.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

couldn't you also be described as "the kind of man who wanted to know what God thought was good so that he could incorporate those good things into his life"?  And yet here you are, disliking polygamy.

So does ALarson.  So do I.

No, I don't dislike the idea.  I just haven't had God give me the impression that I should take more than one wife so I feel content with the one that I already have.  If God impressed on my mind later that I should take an additional wife, I would.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We are all good and decent people, but we all share a strong sociocultural aversion to polygamy.  And we are living in 2019, in an era which is far more sexualized and licentious than Joseph's environment (frontier America in the early 19th century).  If you and I and ALarson averse to polygamy, wouldn't it be likely that Joseph Smitih would be even more averse to it?

I don't share that aversion.  I've considered the aversion and if I should feel adverse to it and God hasn't given me the impression I should feel like there is something wrong with it, when he approves of it.  Until then we're to only seek the one. 

I do think one is enough but with God's guidance and direction I could be open to having some more women as wives. 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Polygamy is a very difficult thing to handle, such that I don't think God would be indifferent to it (as ALarson suggests).

There are ups and downs to every type of relationship.  I can see some positive things about that way of life, too.  As well as some challenges.  

If by God being indifferent ALarson meant that if God left it up to each man to decide for himself whether to have one or more wives that God would be okay with either choice, I pretty much agree with that. 

I think the main reason why more men don't do it right now is because it's illegal, and also because God doesn't want us to break the law to do it.

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I posted this above but you may have missed it, so I'm quoting you so thst you'll get the notification:

SMAC:

So, once a person has bought into the church's authority claim, or if they always did (as in my case being born and raised in the church) they generally have two conscious choices: either do the church path and be right with God and the group, or don't.

Or mix and match.  

Every Latter-day Saint, even he most observant ones, stray and make mistakes and sin.  This is why we need to repent, exercise faith, serve others, study, grow, etc.

So I can't accept your dichotomy.  We do not face two choices.  We face dozens or hundreds of choices every day, every week, every month, every year.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And if you don't, you're wrong, you're not safe, and as far as you can know, it will definitely not be okay.

Again, I reject the dichotomy.  We are all making mistakes every day.  But we can be "safe."  We accept Jesus Christ and strive to obey His commandments.  Those commandments include repenting when we sin.  We have the opportunity to repent every day, particularly on Sundays.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In the early church, it was preparing for an imminent Second Coming. In the modern church, you're either on the covenant path or you're in trouble.

This is wildly inaccurate.  You are way oversimpllifying what we believe, to the point of caricature and inaccuracy.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You are treating the church context and the public context strangely: on the one hand, the church is the truth, full stop.

I don't know what this means, so I can't really say whether I agree with it or not.

I believe the Church is what it claims to be.  That does not mean I believe it has a monopoly on "truth," or that it is infallible, or that it is perfect and without blemish, or that it cannot improve itself.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

On the other hand, the church member can technically find protection in the general public.

I don't know what this means, either.  "Protection" from what?

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You are skipping that step where the church does its enforcement, as if the only real enforcement is public law.

What "enforcement" are you talking about?  

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet within the church context, there is real value that is destroyed when the church enforces.

What is it that the Church does when it "enforces?"

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Spiritual authority is claimed and preached and wielded.

And not backed up by anything except the individual's voluntary agreement to cooperate.

If and when a member of the Church does something the Church doesn't like, the Church can't to bupkis about it, except to limit or end the individual's membership.  The relationship between the Church and the individual member is entirely voluntary.  On both sides.  Consequently, the only "authority" that the Church wields is that which the individual agrees to accept.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

A person's position as accepted in the church can be destroyed.

Yes.  But there is no shunning.  There is no public flogging or public denunciation.  There is no violence.  There is no confiscation of the individual's property.  There is no incarcerating of the individual.  Nothing.

Moreover, the Church moves heaven and earth to not "destroy" a person's membership in the Church.  We go out of our way to encourage each other to repent, to keep the commandments, and so on.  Formal discipline is quite rare, with the most extreme form - excommunication - being very rare.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And that is the bare minimum, if you only fear that immediate temporal banishment from the social group. 

But there is no "banishment."  We broadly welcome everyone to attend Sunday services and other activities and events.  People who are under discipline, or who have been excommunicated, are specifically and emphatically welcomed and encouraged to attend such events.

"Banishment?"  Where you getting such nonsense? 

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

We have the example of the Brother of Jared 'dawdling' over seeking out the Lord for 4 years, so just because someone is a prophet and aware of the Will of God doesn't mean they are always efficient in carrying out that Will (and I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph was somewhat reluctant to ask for more details as he was nervous about what the answer might be....as in even more difficult to fulfill than what he already knew...so he was trying to work out solutions on his own that would satisfy the commandment and Emma and others involved).

We also have the example of Jonah "dawdling" over his assignment to minister to the people of Nineveh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think it was disturbing to him. 

That's the assessment of Bushman ("Joseph ordinarily followed the commandments punctiliously, as if disobedience put him at risk.  In the case of plural marriage, he held off for two or three years before marrying Fanny Alger, and then after this one unsuccessful attempt, another five years.  The delay showed an uncharacteristic reluctance...")

And Hales ("Multiple documents support that Joseph Smith was hesitant to revisit the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo.").

And Helen Mar Kimball ("{H}ad it not been for the fear of His {the Lord’s} displeasure, Joseph would have shrunk from the undertaking and would have continued silent, as he did for years."  and "Joseph put off the dreaded day as long as he dared.”).

And Lucy Walker ("{Joseph} had his doubts about it for he debated it in his own mind.”).

And many, many other contemporaries of Joseph Smith (Hales: "Several writers left accounts from the Nauvoo period that Joseph told of an angel with a sword who threatened him if he did not proceed.").

And Joseph F. Smith ("Joseph Smith was commanded to take wives, he hesitated and postponed it, seeing the consequences and the trouble that it would bring and he shrank from the responsibility...").

Frankly, your assessment is rather astonishing.  Upon what historical evidence do you base your claim that polygamy "was {not} disturbing to {Joseph}"?

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think he wondered how those old patriarchs of our religion were justified in having more than one wife and that he was totally open to receiving God's thoughts on the issue.  I'm sure he was aware that in his day and neck of the woods it wasn't practiced, but in the scriptures he could see that it must have been a good thing as far as God was concerned, at least in the lives of those people, so he wondered what it was that made it okay while not being disturbed by the idea that it actually was okay with God.

Where are you getting this stuff?  Are you just making it up out of thin air?  It sure seems like it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is also possible that his sealings to married women and possibly widows (assuming they are older and possible nonsexual relationships) didn't qualify as to how God intended Joseph to live plural marriage (maybe not in line with Sec 132 or even the appearance of the purpose of raising up seed), so that would have eliminated a number of the earlier wives if that was the case....

That’s an interesting theory (or concept or thoughts), Calm!

Is there evidence of this, do you know?  Like did he change the pattern or stop marrying widows or other men’s wives after 1843?  I haven't looked that up, but it would be interesting to know.

Link to comment

 

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think it was disturbing to him.  I think he wondered how those old patriarchs of our religion were justified in having more than one wife and that he was totally open to receiving God's thoughts on the issue.  I'm sure he was aware that in his day and neck of the woods it wasn't practiced, but in the scriptures he could see that it must have been a good thing as far as God was concerned, at least in the lives of those people, so he wondered what it was that made it okay while not being disturbed by the idea that it actually was okay with God.

 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Where are you getting this stuff?  Are you just making it up out of thin air?  It sure seems like it.

From the fact that he received revelation from God on the issue now referred to as D&C 132:1-3 - Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines— Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

And also from the fact that I receive revelations from the Lord, too.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

From the fact that he received revelation from God on the issue now referred to as D&C 132:1-3 - Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines— Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

And also from the fact that I receive revelations from the Lord, too.

Well, okay.

As between your A) unsubstantiated and unexplained opinion, and B) the combined and informed assessments of Hales, Bushman, Helen Mar Kimball (a percipient witness), Lucy Walker (a percipient witness), many of Joseph's contemporaries (most or all of which were percipient witnesses), and Joseph F. Smith, I'll go with the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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