wenglund

I hardly know where the conversation has gone.

You're right. This is it. This is the sum total of evidence for an 1831 date for section 132.

Pretty poor really.

Instead we now have Wade saying that we need to provide evidence that it was not received in 1831. I wonder what evidence he'd like for that and how that remotely answers the OP.

What we have is Wade initiating a comparative analysis of hypotheses for the dating of the revelation and finding that while evidence in support of the 1831 date is scant, evidence in support of later dates is non-existent at this point, and rationally deciding to follow the evidence, while reserving the right to change his mind on this relatively inconsequential issue were later found data to suggest otherwise.  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you arguing that "polygamy" in general was revealed in 1831, or that the specific principles of D&C 132 were revealed? 

 

Because according to the Church, D&C 132 is about the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, which requires the sealing power, which wasn't on the Earth before 1836. 

 

Ultimately, I guess the question is whether or not God revealed it and commanded it before the sealing power was restored, and if so, whether the situation with Fanny Alger was the way in which He wanted it carried out.  That's probably something each of us needs to try and figure out for ourselves.

What I am suggesting is that the timing of the restoration of the sealing power doesn't negate the 1831 dating of the revelation or related practices, nor is it evidence one way or another  In other words, your confusing principles with restored keys and practices, does not negate multiple testimonies to the contrary, nor is it evidence, in and of itself for when the revelation may have been received.

However, people are free to speculate, with or without evidence, as they wish on this relatively inconsequential issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And here I thought the atonement was the solution to the problem of evil.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I did.

No. You presumptuously used the inclusive "us."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I saw it, but it doesn't give us any such evidence.

Speak for yourself. I think otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll leave the rest of your post to Cinepro but this particular point fits in nicely with this thread. What multiple testimonies corroborating the 1831 claim do you have in mind? This thread was started to discuss whether the claim that plural marriage was revealed to JS in 1831 is supported by evidence. But so far not one piece of evidence under consideration suggests 1831. All are much later.

See my previous post where I provided a link to the multiple statement. It is the post that shocked Tacenda because it was to an anti-Mormon web site.

Also, see the initial post by Nevo on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In actuality ... I have always left doors unlocked (I live in southern California ... but I won't share my address) ... my dad leaves his front door unlocked in Provo, UT constantly, my son and daughter both leave their doors unlocked (in SLC, UT). I, my wife, and my children all feel that it's fine to pick fruit from other peoples' orchards (provided we ask for permission first). Both my children have no health insurance, but they do just fine (for the time being), because they are health-smart.

 

Clearly your post regarding presentism hardly applies to my post.

 

Yes there are cultural variations over the years, but the fact of the matter is that there are and were laws regarding plural marriage (and the ages of very young women involved in any sexual relationship). How exactly can you suggest that governmental law should be overridden by heavenly/celestial law ... in total opposition to Article of Faith 12?

Clearly, you missed the point because you mistakenly assumed that I was speaking to exceptional circumstances (such as your own) rather than to the general rule. AoF 12 is a general rule that, on exceptional occasions, has been violated--not the least of which in the practice of polygamy. In fact, leaders of the Church were jailed for such. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

you have a point, you do. But it seems likely to me that things like marriage age has increased because experience has proven for girls to marry young is nothing but damaging to the child who marries so young. "Society" stepping in and defining marriage age to be old than it once was is and effort to protect children. if morality doesn't fit in then it's a wonder why society wants to protect children in the first place. Damaging children seems to fit into a morality-type issue.

What "damage" do you have in mind?

I ask because my perception is that parents these days are reticent to let their children marry young because they view their children as not being mature enough to make wise spousal choices nor adequate in their able to manage marriage and families, neither of which would be a factor in days gone by where there was an agrarian societies where parents chose the spouses.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Like I said, you've just got to define your terms.  I'm using the definition from the Scriptures and current Church publications. Just let me know how you're defining it and we can go from there.

 

But I'm not sure what else you're looking for.  The claim for an early 1830's origin for D&C 132 has no "evidence"; it's just a claim that appears to be made out of thin air and is simply back-dating the "revelation" to a more convenient time.  We have just as much evidence that Moroni revealed D&C 132 to Joseph during his visit on the evening of September 23, 1823, and Joseph just sat on it for 20 years.  There's no evidence that he didn't!

As expected, you have it exactly backwards. You are the one making the claim that the restoration of the sealing keys is evidence that the D&C revelation (in principle or otherwise) postdates 1831. The onus is then on you. I am simply pointing out that, aside from presentism, your alleged "evidence" conflates revelation with restored keys and practice. I don't need to define terms in order to point this out. What I need to accept your alleged "evidence" is for you to substantiate it as evidence in a way that doesn't conflate those three things and by which it rightly considers the matter in the context of the early 1800's when it was revealed rather than as we may view it today.

Furthermore, your serious conflations under the guise of "evidence" do not give sound reason to dismiss multiple testimonies corroborating the 1831 claim. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Personally, I would never allow a 14-year old daughter of mine to marry.

Personally, I would never allow a 14-year old daughter of mine to marry a 37 year old man.

 

Personally, I'm nine years older than my wife, but we were married when she was 27 (and with a degree in biomedical engineering). And, I doubt that Fannie was any more (and very probably much less) informed than any 14 year old today (although, I expect that she was just as physically attractive).

 

After my mother's death, my father married a woman from his ward that is 17 years younger than he is. She (like he), however, had already raised eight children. Grandchildren were well on the way.

 

My younger brother, at the ripe age of 17, married his high school sweetheart (of what ... three months). What did he know, after all? And, what could she possibly have known about life? 

 

Positively arguing that it's OK for any male to marry a 14 year old girl is not something a smart parent can do.

Positively arguing that it's OK for a male of 37 to marry a 14 year old girl is pretty crazy.

 

Certainly, breaking the law to do so ... is certainly illegal (Article of Faith 12).

A clear example of presentism  Good parents these days wouldn't think of leaving their doors unlocked, nor not have health insurance, nor let children take fruit from other peoples orchards, or drop out of school, whereas good parents in olden times, like Mary and Joseph, didn't need to worry about locking their tents or stables, and heath care systems were even a twinkle in their eye, and it was customary to pick other people's fruit, and too often the parents were too poor to send their children to school and opted instead to apprentice them in trades like carpentry. 

Even in modern cultures there are marked differences. Good parents today in some cultures wouldn't consider letting their children pick their own spouse, etc.

The point being, what good parents may do today in some cultures may not be what good parents may have done in days gone by or in other cultures.

Thanks, -Wade Enlglund-

Well, you would need to specify which "principles of Section 132" you are referring to.

 

The problem is, this is how the Church teaches "the principles of Section 132" now. 

 

 

 

So we're talking about two completely different things.  For Fanny Alger and an 1831 date, we have to be talking about time-only, non-sealing polygamy (or marriage in general).  Now, the Church wants Section 132 to be teaching monogamous, eternal marriage.  It's the exact opposite.

In addition to the presentism, you have gone from confusing revelation with restored keys to now confusing both with practice, while assuming in your confusion that this is somehow "evidence" that the revelation was initially received post 1831.  Fascinating.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The question is plural marriage. Was revelation about plural marriage had by Joseph in 1831? did it come later? When? What evidence is there to support an earlier date?

I understood beforehand what the question was about, just as I understood the difference between revelation and restoration of keys. To me, if the so-called scant evidence suggests an 1831 date for the initial revelation, which wasn't transcribed and presented to the Church until years later, this isn't contravened by the fact that the sealing keys were restored several years later, though prior to the transcription of the revelation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm shocked that you would link to "Re-thinking Mormonism", an anti site.  Isn't there an authorized LDS website for this?  Or was that something impossible to find in one spot?  I totally understand that you'd have to settle for this anti site.  Because it's near impossible to have the history of these things all in one place for easier access in our church, tangled webs.

What was important to me was the relevant quotes, and not who was citing them.

However, since the critics are often loath to accept evidence from a pro LDS web site, I am not adverse to linking to sites they may be more apt to trust.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The "evidence" is that the principles of Section 132 are based on the "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage", which is the sealing power, which wasn't restored to the Earth until 1836.

That may be "evidence" were "revelation" and "restoration of keys" one and the same.

Are you suggesting that the principles of Section 132 couldn't have been revealed prior to the sealing keys being restored? If so, on what basis?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Another way to pose the question of this thread is: "In godly matters, are there significant instances when you have more faith and trust in oneself and pop culture than in God's chosen servants?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm asking for 1831 evidence of the revelation. There is next to none until 1860s.

What is the evidence that it wasn't revealed in 1831 and transcribed years later?

Here is a list of statements corroborating the angel and sword account:  link removed/temple content

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In relation to the restored gospel, the title of this thread is correct, polygamy isn't the issue. Instead, it is coming unto Christ and becoming like him. 

As such, those who lose faith in the gospel because of polygamy don't correctly or adequate;y grasp what the gospel is really all about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

4: again why is a revelation required to conclude he may have lied about the angel. Do you seek a revelation to determine if others who claim God told them to take on additonal wives are telling the truth?

In other words, why seek out God on matters of godliness when men are presumably smart enough to figure it all out on their own? What need have we of God?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I, personally, don't have a problem with the notion that the male Christ presides over his bride, the Church. and this because for me the gospel isn't about equality of authority but about progression unto godliness. Sadly, modern culture inverts this priority, arrogantly presuming to know better than God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I see it as little other than a form of spiritual abuse to maintain a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith when he was, at least in this respect, a womanizing, seducing, Lothario who coopted God in order validate his particular feminine tastes.

Apart from mormonnwbe' projecting his 21st century, democrat licentious tendencies onto Joseph Smith, is there any empirical evidence to support the claim above?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If both you and Tom were women, I'll bet you'd know it wasn't a divine commandment, at least not divine to you.

This wins the prize for the most sexist post on the thread. What makes it quite interesting is that it comes from an alleged advocate for gender equality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'd rather sit in the pews on Sunday with mormonewb than some people I know.

While my comment wasn't meant as a popularity contest or in terms of social connectivity (I like him as well--as indicated by my use of the endearing term "buddy"), but rather in regards to gospel precept connectivity, I agree with you since having him in the pews increases the chances that he might overcome his disconnect..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Single men have served as counselors in bishoprics of several singles wards that I attended years ago  Also in the past, it was not uncommon for single missionaries to serve as branch presidents. And, if I recall correctly, John Boynton was called as an apostle prior to marrying. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The US Constitution establishes a secular government not a sectarian one.

The word "secular" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Whereas, the U.S. Motto since 1864 has been, "In God We Trust."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My solution...

 

All public bathrooms are single user and generic.  No more communal bathrooms.  Have to wait in line longer….but it would remove a lot of arguing.

Arguing will continue regarding tolet seats being left up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-