Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Purpose of Polygamy before Sealings?


Who Knows

Recommended Posts

As far as unespoused virgins go, then are you proposing that all the divorced and widowed polygamist wives (to whomever) were also unconsummated marriages? Does that rule still count for today?

The Church does not practice polygamy, and has not for some time...

Link to comment
As far as unespoused virgins go, then are you proposing that all the divorced and widowed polygamist wives (to whomever) were also unconsummated marriages? Does that rule still count for today?
The Church does not practice polygamy, and has not for some time...

But the principle is still the same. Sort of like which of the seven brothers gets the wife question in the NT.

Link to comment
For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem; yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

This is one scripture from the link about Jacob 2.

Some of the women who sought out becoming plural wives did so immediately following the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum, because they wanted a good man and didn't think they had one at the time. This was reported by William Clayton in his diary.

Link to comment
The first temple sealing for 'time and all eternity' took place on May 28, 1843 between Joseph and Emma. However, JS had married other women prior to that time.

I'm not aware of a temple sealing for Joseph and Emma--especially, you know, since the Nauvoo Temple was not anywhere near completed when Joseph was murdered. Where did you get your information for a "first temple sealing for 'time and all eternity' took place on May 28, 1843 between Joseph and Emma"?

Link to comment
I asked if all marriages to a divorced or widowed spouse were supposed to be platonic.

I doubt it.

You then asked if the rule applies today, to which I pointed out that we don't practice plural marriage. I suppose we were talking past one another... :P

Link to comment

When I asked if it applies today, that would imply that remarriages should be platonic, since they are plural in the sense that there was already one marriage prior. Also, a widower remarrying in the temple is a plural marriage by eternal standards.

Sorry that I don't always connect my dots. :P

Link to comment

AH!

>smacks forehead<

NOW I get it! cool.gif

Just as I don't think all plural marriage was platonic, I certainly don't think remarriage should be. Though I knew quite a few ministers while I was growing up who refused to marry a couple if one of them was divorced, for the reasons you mention.

Link to comment
But do you think Joseph Smith's polyandrous plural marriages were platonic? I don't see why they would need to be if they were allowed to be performed in the first place.

Good question; I've seen no real evidence that they were not, nor that they were.

I think most if not all were, as there were no documented offspring and most don't seem to have lived with him.

Link to comment
You ask if Dale beleieves all plural marriage in the early Church was platonic, then ask if that applies today?

I asked if all marriages to a divorced or widowed spouse were supposed to be platonic. Get it?

I became convinced in all 11 cases of polyandry attributed to Joseph Smith were only platonic sealings. The effect of these time and for eternity ceremonies no more effected their mortal behavior than a pretend play, or movie marriage ceremony. The only difference is they did view themselves as the real wives of Joseph Smith in some sense.

Nothing in D.&C. 132 prevents an earthly marriage to a divorced, or widowed spouse? It only precludes if the woman had a living husband to take her as an earthly wife as long as the husband is still living. With Joseph Smith's polyandry none of the women were divorced, and the husbands were still living.

Link to comment
D.&C. 132 only allows earthly polygamy in the case of virgins not espoused to another. So earthly polyandry would violate D.&C. 132's instructions.

You said it could only be virgins in polygamy, and these women were no virgins. What am I missing here? :P

Link to comment
D.&C. 132 only allows earthly polygamy in the case of virgins not espoused to another. So earthly polyandry would violate D.&C. 132's instructions.

You said it could only be virgins in polygamy, and these women were no virgins. What am I missing here? :P

Gee I don't know, off the top of my head... um, how about Latter-day Saints believe the Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price provide scriptural support for their doctrines--not just the Doctrine and Covenants.

Link to comment

I don't see D.&C. 132 as contemplating the marrying of divorced women, or widows. Perhap's the document is not the final authority in what the LDS church may, or may not do in such situations.

Link to comment
I don't see D.&C. 132 as contemplating the marrying of divorced women, or widows. Perhap's the document is not the final authority in what the LDS church may, or may not do in such situations.

How can D&C 132 be "the final authority" when it makes references to the Old Testament patriarchs beginning with verse 1: 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

Link to comment
The first temple sealing for 'time and all eternity' took place on May 28, 1843 between Joseph and Emma.  However, JS had married other women prior to that time. 

I'm not aware of a temple sealing for Joseph and Emma--especially, you know, since the Nauvoo Temple was not anywhere near completed when Joseph was murdered. Where did you get your information for a "first temple sealing for 'time and all eternity' took place on May 28, 1843 between Joseph and Emma"?

Sorry, my bad. They were sealed in the redbrick store on May 28, 1843. I don't know why I thought it was in the Nauvoo temple.

I got it from RSR. He crams so much info. into those pages, I somehow got mixed up. Kinda makes this whole thread pointless... :P

Link to comment

I am curious......

Does anyone know how large the occupying army was in Utah? (Johnston's army invaded in 1857.) It must have been tough being part of the occupation as a non Mormon in Utah.

I only ask because Cowboy, in the stats he provided, referred to the Utah statistics as Mormon Church stats. While I freely admit Utah was mostly LDS, I wonder how many non LDS there were in the state. I admit I have never taken the time to research this.

Just as a side note, I am not trying to argue any position on this, I am just seeking a more complete picture.

Link to comment

Scott Gordon wrote:

I am curious......

Does anyone know how large the occupying army was in Utah? (Johnston's army invaded in 1857.) It must have been tough being part of the occupation as a non Mormon in Utah.

I only ask because Cowboy, in the stats he provided, referred to the Utah statistics as Mormon Church stats. While I freely admit Utah was mostly LDS, I wonder how many non LDS there were in the state. I admit I have never taken the time to research this.

Just as a side note, I am not trying to argue any position on this, I am just seeking a more complete picture.

I am just bumping this up to see if anyone here has an well documented answer to this. Edited to add: Thanks Mormon fool!

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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