Yes Another Polygamy Question

[StriplingWarrior]

Joseph, Brigham, et al wanted more wives because it added to their glory.

ME:

Not true, evidence please.

The wives contributed to their increase which added even more glory.

ME:

Not true, evidence please.

They obviously couldn't control themselves in wanting this because Joseph did it to the extent it greatly contributed to his demise, and Brigham just couldn't get enough either.

ME:

Very not true, provide evidence please.

The only reason he caved was because it was threatening his even bigger goal of being the king of the Utah territory/state.

ME:

Not true again, provide evidence please.

People do what they want to do. And that is a bottom line. Angels and flaming swords were just stageplay tactics used by Joseph to get people to go along with what he wanted to do.

ME:

Your opinion, I disagree.

You're right about that. Your statement essentially means that polygamy will happen in heaven.

ME:

It will be there in heaven, but nowhere do we imply that it will be there for EVERYONE.

That Joseph, when he married Zina Huntington, essentially bound her to HIM, usurping her dear Henry's eternal family setup. Because Joseph's role and authority was greater than Henry's.

ME:

Henry advocated the sealings and so did Zina. Please see http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf this article or this one from FAIR http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...nd_Her_Men.html

God can do anything. God is only unchanging as long as he wants to be unchanging. God's ways are only God's ways until he changes his mind, and then those ways will no longer be God's ways. It really helps the humans that God tends to mirror the culture of the day. But wait? Are we really sure then that it is God and not man who is calling the shots? Good question.

ME:

Nothing to refute for me here. I have my own views on this subject.

[No Touch]

Its just a difference of application and understanding of scripture.

Funny just a day or 2 ago there was a thread from an lds poster[i forget who] stated that the Bible is open to different understandings and many lds agreed. Well it seems that is only true for the lds side ---at least on this topic.

By all means then, please share your understanding,interpretation of the following:

2 Samuel 12:7 ... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy masterâ??s house, and thy masterâ??s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

And while I figure you might have some other understanding of it that I will disagree with, I think the bigger point is this: The obvious interpretation is that God literally gave David his wives, as in plural. It defies all logic to accept that God did so, and yet dissaproves of Polygamy.

God also gave laws concerning the practice of plural marriage. Would that make any sense if he didn't approve of it?

[roman]

Here are points that I think should be considered:

1. Polygamy is not "polygamy" as the world sees it. The world portrays it as men who can't control themselves wanting more than one wife. This clearly is not what happened with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others. Polygamy to the LDS faith is very different from how the world thinks it is.

2. Marriage that ends with death is different than Marriage that does not end with death. This concept is vital to understanding the LDS position.

3. God can authorize changes to his own Gospel. IF Joseph Smith was a Prophet, then this revelation was valid.

4. Cultures and situations have always been different.

There is more to it than just saying that the Old Testament is the answer. When an LDS says this argument, there is a lot implied, such as the reasons above. We are not attempting to cite scriptures to prove our point, but rather the method in how God works. See where the misunderstanding can then come?

I believe that the Old Testament "answer" to this question is misleading and can see how others would not understand it.

Thanks for your replies and remarks roman. I think you have the best intentions and just want to understand where we come from. I hope this helps.

I agree with your take on thing----kinda.

i have to go back to the word covanant. i think a proper understanding of that goes along way as i don't see God "ADDING : to the gospel ------but revealing more of his already given word on it.

Yes it helps and I appriciate your imput.

[roman]

By all means then, please share your understanding,interpretation of the following:

2 Samuel 12:7 ... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy masterâ??s house, and thy masterâ??s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

And while I figure you might have some other understanding of it that I will disagree with, I think the bigger point is this: The obvious interpretation is that God literally gave David his wives, as in plural. It defies all logic to accept that God did so, and yet dissaproves of Polygamy.

God also gave laws concerning the practice of plural marriage. Would that make any sense if he didn't approve of it?

I have already cover this passage--but for you----------------

I see no where in this scripture where it says that these women were to be Davids wifes--------Yes they were given to David by God-----but your reading into it that they would function as wifes-------they could have functioned as slaves --housekeepers or many other things----but to take it meaning specifically wifes is a streach , at least for me

[StriplingWarrior]

I agree with your take on thing----kinda.

i have to go back to the word covanant. i think a proper understanding of that goes along way as i don't see God "ADDING : to the gospel ------but revealing more of his already given word on it.

Yes it helps and I appriciate your imput.

Ah I think I know what you mean. To an LDS we see covenants as individual to a specific ordinance instead of 1 major covenant encompassing everything. We also see covenants as a two way promise in which we make promises to God and God makes promises to us.

For example the covenant we make at baptism is different from the covenant we make when we are sealed. Both covenants are needed for salvation. In this way they are connected, but they are their own separate entity. Joseph Smith described it as a ladder. Each step is different, but the ladder itself is whole.

So for us, some of these covenants can change over time depending on the circumstances of His children.

[Oracle]

Joseph, Brigham, et al wanted more wives because it added to their glory.

ME:

Not true, evidence please.

I'll limit my evidence to canonized scripture: D&C 132, verses 19,20, 30, 31, 37, 48,49, 53, 55

I will quote 55 because it is a good gist of the messaging regarding the rewards of having multiple wives:

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

The wives contributed to their increase which added even more glory.

ME:

Not true, evidence please.

Please see scriptural references above.

They obviously couldn't control themselves in wanting this because Joseph did it to the extent it greatly contributed to his demise, and Brigham just couldn't get enough either.

ME:

Very not true, provide evidence please.

Very not true? The reason Joseph ended up in Carthage Jail were charges related to the destruction of a printing press that was authorized by him. This particular Nauvoo Expositor print he was trying to suppress revealed the practice and the extent of the practice of polygamy as practiced by Joseph. William Law was the instigator behind the printing. Joseph ruffled his feathers by asking William's wife, Jane, to marry Joseph. There is some speculation that Emma had once entertained entering into a polyandrous relationship with William.....and the fallout from that particular plan is what instigated D&C 132 (please see vs 54). These polygamy-related situations are what pushed William Law right over the edge and he was very motivated to let people know about this secret practice Joseph was advocating to the more elite circles of the church.

The only reason he caved was because it was threatening his even bigger goal of being the king of the Utah territory/state.

ME:

Not true again, provide evidence please.

Polygamy was abandoned so that Utah could become a state. In order for Utah to be granted statehood they were required to put a ban on polygamy in the state constitution. Brigham Young abandoned this practice he stated many times as being a requirement for exaltation so that his blossoming territory that had made him the most powerful and the most wealthy could be legitimized as a state.

You're right about that. Your statement essentially means that polygamy will happen in heaven.

ME:

It will be there in heaven, but nowhere do we imply that it will be there for EVERYONE.

Take it up with Brigham Young, not I. He seemed pretty emphatic about it:

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

And in case you want to argue with him, here's what he has to say about that:

"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.)

That Joseph, when he married Zina Huntington, essentially bound her to HIM, usurping her dear Henry's eternal family setup. Because Joseph's role and authority was greater than Henry's.

ME:

Henry advocated the sealings and so did Zina. Please see http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf this article or this one from FAIR http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...nd_Her_Men.html

That must have been some sort of effective power play that would compel a man to give up the wife that he loved to another man for eternity.

[roman]

Ah I think I know what you mean. To an LDS we see covenants as individual to a specific ordinance instead of 1 major covenant encompassing everything. We also see covenants as a two way promise in which we make promises to God and God makes promises to us.

For example the covenant we make at baptism is different from the covenant we make when we are sealed. Both covenants are needed for salvation. In this way they are connected, but they are their own separate entity. Joseph Smith described it as a ladder. Each step is different, but the ladder itself is whole.

So for us, some of these covenants can change over time depending on the circumstances of His children.

yes we agree on the diffanition of the word covanant---------we see it differently, hence our different reasoning for what we believe

[StriplingWarrior]

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

ME:

You are trying to show that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did this for additional increase. This is untrue. Men with only one wife are entitled to the same blessings of exaltation as well, yet you fail to mention that.

Very not true? The reason Joseph ended up in Carthage Jail were charges related to the destruction of a printing press that was authorized by him. This particular Nauvoo Expositor print he was trying to suppress revealed the practice and the extent of the practice of polygamy as practiced by Joseph. William Law was the instigator behind the printing. Joseph ruffled his feathers by asking William's wife, Jane, to marry Joseph. There is some speculation that Emma had once entertained entering into a polyandrous relationship with William.....and the fallout from that particular plan is what instigated D&C 132 (please see vs 54). These polygamy-related situations are what pushed William Law right over the edge and he was very motivated to let people know about this secret practice Joseph was advocating to the more elite circles of the church.

ME:

"The Nauvoo Expositor was ordered destroyed by the Nauvoo City Council and the order was carried out in broad daylight by the City Marshal (see History of the Church 6:432)."

This is on the shields website in an article about the lies that Jim Robertson has told others. What you said is not true.

Polygamy was abandoned so that Utah could become a state. In order for Utah to be granted statehood they were required to put a ban on polygamy in the state constitution. Brigham Young abandoned this practice he stated many times as being a requirement for exaltation so that his blossoming territory that had made him the most powerful and the most wealthy could be legitimized as a state.

ME:

Again, this is not true. Brigham Young had nothing to do with abandoning Polygamy, President Wilford Woodruff did. Please see this article, http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=111

ME:

You use canonized scripture to talk about exaltation with plural wives, yet you use an uncanonized book with sermons. Polygamy was not a requisite for EVERYONE when it was around, and it is not a requisite now.

That must have been some sort of effective power play that would compel a man to give up the wife that he loved to another man for eternity.

ME:

You make it sound like he was hurt. Both of them advocated for polygamy and endorsed it.

Oracle you are speaking half truths or lies. I find your tactics questionable.

[cinepro]

Hi Roman,

I can only speak for myself. Whenever I cite OT examples of polygamy it is only to show that the practice, in and of itself, is not innately immoral or dissaproved of by our Heavenly Father. In fact, some of Heavenly Father's greatest sons were polygamists. Some of his greatest sons were monogamists.

Just curious, but would you feel comfortable citing OT examples of slave-owning prophets to show that the practice of slavery, in and of itself, is not innately immoral or disapproved of by out Heavenly Father?

[Paul Ray]

roman,

Please explain to me why I should accept your understanding of anything at all.

... or, since this thread is about polygamy.

Please explain to me why I should accept your understanding of polygamy.

I don't see any good reason.

I still appreciate knowing what you personally believe, however.

It helps me to know who you are.

[Oracle]

Elder James Faust too used both the D&C and the Journal of Discourses as references in his most recent general conference talk:

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display...-690-24,00.html

Do you question his tactics as well?

YOU:

You are trying to show that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did this for additional increase. This is untrue. Men with only one wife are entitled to the same blessings of exaltation as well, yet you fail to mention that.

You fail to demonstrate how the scripture reference I gave does not apply to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I urge you to go back to your scriptures to look at the SCRIPTURAL justification for reinstituting polygamy. If you still disagree that it was for increase, please explain to me your hypothesis, providing scriptural reference, for why you think polygamy was reinstituted.

You fail to demonstrate how Brigham Young's words do not apply. They were given in a conference talk in the Bowery. Such conference talks today are printed up in the Ensign and passed off as current revelation.

YOU:

"The Nauvoo Expositor was ordered destroyed by the Nauvoo City Council and the order was carried out in broad daylight by the City Marshal (see History of the Church 6:432)."

This is on the shields website in an article about the lies that Jim Robertson has told others. What you said is not true.

I KNOW who ordered the NE destroyed. Do you know who the mayor was? I know WHEN it was destroyed. I'm talking about the content and the reasons WHY it was destroyed. Absolutely everything I said was true. Have you read the actual content of the NE articles that caused the council to feel it must be destroyed in order to protect order? Here you are: Nauvoo Expositor Text

I have to go at this moment because real life calls, but I'll beee bacckkkkkkkkkkk.

[drfatguy]

Roman,

A few NT scriptures for you to ponder. James stated in James 2:23 that Abraham was a Friend of God. I belive this is very significant because of John 15:14-15. To be a friend of God one must do as God commands (vs 14) and one is taught all Christ was taught by His Father (vs 15). If Abraham is a Friend of God as James states one can assume Abraham is living the Commands of God. This would mean he, Abraham wouldn't be doing something counter to God's Commands. I think we can assume from this polygamy isn't breaking God's commands.

Dr Fatguy

PS I, like an earlier poster, am wondering ----------------- Why -------------------- you --------------- have--------------------- the------------------------------ annoying--------------------------- dahes

[No Touch]

I have already cover this passage--but for you----------------

I see no where in this scripture where it says that these women were to be Davids wifes--------Yes they were given to David by God-----but your reading into it that they would function as wifes-------they could have functioned as slaves --housekeepers or many other things----but to take it meaning specifically wifes is a streach , at least for me

I suppose it doesn't explicitly say so beyond that they were wives before that, whom were now given "into they[David's] bosom". I think it's bizarre though that you are more accepting of the notion that God would give them to him as slaves than as wives. Especially considering that they did become his wives, and nothing I know of later suggests God's displeasure with David taking them as wives.

[No Touch]

Oracle,

I'm not going to look it up for you, because if I remember correctly, it might even be in the sermon you are quoting, but Brigham Young said that one need be a Polygamist in faith at least - meaning that all members had to accept the doctrine to reach exaltation. Naturally, they also would've had to abide by it had they been called to plural marriage, but not all members were called to it. Many members were monogamous, and it was never counted against them. Members with plural wives were not considered superior or destined for higher exaltation than faithful members in monogamous marriages. They said that the doctrine of Polygamy was from God, and that all members had to accept it, but they did not say that monogamy was contrary to God and that it would hinder exaltation.

[ed2276]

ed and no touch, this is a standard tactic for a certain poster. And next, after you have posted and posted and responded and responded, you will be accused of ignoring him. A word to the wise. The wall doesn't notice that you are banging your head against it.

Ok , point taken Charity. Roman says he sees what is plainly there , but just disbelieves it.

enuff said

[StriplingWarrior]

--Elder James Faust too used both the D&C and the Journal of Discourses as references in his most recent general conference talk:

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display...-690-24,00.html

Do you question his tactics as well?

ME:

He has cited not from the Journal of Discourses as you say, but from Discourses of Brigham Young. Read the preface to this book and you will see that these excerpts came directly from his mouth (before all the printing, etc.).

But the fact remains that you are speaking half truths yet again. As Elder Faust never wrote down Journal of Discourses in his citations.

--You fail to demonstrate how the scripture reference I gave does not apply to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I urge you to go back to your scriptures to look at the SCRIPTURAL justification for reinstituting polygamy. If you still disagree that it was for increase, please explain to me your hypothesis, providing scriptural reference, for why you think polygamy was reinstituted.

ME:

I never tried to demonstrate how the scripture reference does not apply to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It does to them and every man that practiced the law of Polygamy; however, what I was trying to demonstrate is that these same blessings are available to those who are sealed to one wife.

All faithful members who are sealed and endure to the end will be rewarded with these blessings of exaltation.

Polygamy was reinstituted for many reasons. Here are some (there are others as well):

1. Unfaithful husbands

2. Husbands of another faith

3. Direct revelation

4. Husbands died

--You fail to demonstrate how Brigham Young's words do not apply. They were given in a conference talk in the Bowery. Such conference talks today are printed up in the Ensign and passed off as current revelation.

ME:

You have prooftexted Brigham Young's words. For example in your first quote from volume 3 of "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266)." He is talking about the doctrine of plurality of wives, yet you make it sound like it is a must in heaven. Let's read it in context shall we?:

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned."

He is talking about the revealed doctrine, not the denial of HAVING plural wives. Polygamy was a revealed doctrine and if men didn't not believe it, then they did not believe the Prophet. If they did not believe the Prophet, they were damned. This same line of reasoning can be applied to ANY revealed doctrine from the Prophet.

Let's look at the next one:

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

You have prooftexted again, let's read a little bit further shall we?

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

He is specifically talking to those who HAD this law applied to them and then denied it. You want to prooftext "only men who become Gods" and apply it to all men.

With this said, the third quote makes sense when one looks at what Brigham Young was saying.

--I KNOW who ordered the NE destroyed. Do you know who the mayor was? I know WHEN it was destroyed. I'm talking about the content and the reasons WHY it was destroyed. Absolutely everything I said was true. Have you read the actual content of the NE articles that caused the council to feel it must be destroyed in order to protect order? Here you are: Nauvoo Expositor Text

ME:

Yet you say that it was Joseph Smith who destroyed it. Council means more than one person. You twist it to make it sound like Joseph Smith ordered it like a dictator when a council met together and made a decision.

[Oracle]

You got lost in the communication. First you say I am being sneaky for quoting scripture and then adding noncanonized thoughts from BY. Now you are backtracking and trying to justify the situation by putting stipulations on noncanonized thoughts from BY. Your backtracking is irrelevant to the original point. You are trying to tell me that YOU know what came exactly from his mouth, when that is virtually impossible to do. Unless you have a tape recording of BY saying those words, I will not except it as evidence and your evidence has as much weighting as mine.

Just because you don't like the truth does not mean it is a half truth.

You fail to demonstrate how the scripture reference I gave does not apply to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I urge you to go back to your scriptures to look at the SCRIPTURAL justification for reinstituting polygamy. If you still disagree that it was for increase, please explain to me your hypothesis, providing scriptural reference, for why you think polygamy was reinstituted.

I never tried to demonstrate how the scripture reference does not apply to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It does to them and every man that practiced the law of Polygamy; however, what I was trying to demonstrate is that these same blessings are available to those who are sealed to one wife.

Back up there, bucky. This is what you said:

YOU: You are trying to show that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did this for additional increase. This is untrue.

How is this untrue? You accuse me of telling half-truths, or outright untruths. Are you suggesting Joseph really didn't wonder about Abraham and David? That he really didn't go to God and God didn't tell him that polygamy was for increase? Are you disputing D&C 132? It IS the sole scripture we have for understanding the rationale behind Joseph's reinstitution of polygamy in this day and age.

Polygamy was reinstituted for many reasons. Here are some (there are others as well):

1. Unfaithful husbands

2. Husbands of another faith

3. Direct revelation

4. Husbands died

Now I can find verse 43,44 which endorses taking up a man's wife if he is unfaithful, and I can certainly find verses which give Joseph ample freedom to take what he wants if the spirit allows it. That does not, however, negate the promise of increase. So why would you call me a liar for mentioning increase?

Since we are scrutinizing 132, I probably should point out that according to the stipulations in the verses, Joseph committed adultery by taking wives who were vowed to other men (vs 61). He also broke that pesky little caveat of allowing the first wife to give her consent previous to taking on additional wives in vs 61.

YOU:

You have prooftexted Brigham Young's words. For example in your first quote from volume 3 of "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266)." He is talking about the doctrine of plurality of wives, yet you make it sound like it is a must in heaven. Let's read it in context shall we?:

Brother Brigham was not one to be vague about his wording. Where did you find the word doctrine? If it were doctrine he was talking about he would have said "Now if any of you will deny the doctrine of plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned."

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned."

He is talking about the revealed doctrine, not the denial of HAVING plural wives. Polygamy was a revealed doctrine and if men didn't not believe it, then they did not believe the Prophet. If they did not believe the Prophet, they were damned. This same line of reasoning can be applied to ANY revealed doctrine from the Prophet.

You are putting words in Brigham's mouth. I take these words from the early prophets on their own merit and do not add to them.

Let's look at the next one:

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

You have prooftexted again, let's read a little bit further shall we?

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

He is specifically talking to those who HAD this law applied to them and then denied it. You want to prooftext "only men who become Gods" and apply it to all men.

With this said, the third quote makes sense when one looks at what Brigham Young was saying.

Who was Brigham speaking to? Were they aware of the doctrine? Was Brigham aware of any members who were not ever going to be privy to the doctrine of polygamy?

YOU:

Yet you say that it was Joseph Smith who destroyed it. Council means more than one person. You twist it to make it sound like Joseph Smith ordered it like a dictator when a council met together and made a decision.

I recommend you read a little book called Rough Stone Rolling, and then assert Joseph was not the pivotal, ultimate decisionmaker in the Nauvoo climate. Heck, you don't even have to read RSR. Go back to the History of the Church. Joseph was the prophet where all went for final decisions related to spiritual guidance and judgment. Joseph was the mayor where all went for final decisions related to the development and progression of the community. The mormon community. Joseph was aspiring to be president of the US. Joseph was the chair in the Council of Fifty. Joseph was the General of the Nauvoo Legion.

Joseph was, for all intensive purposes, a dictator in Nauvoo.

[StriplingWarrior]

You got lost in the communication. First you say I am being sneaky for quoting scripture and then adding noncanonized thoughts from BY. Now you are backtracking and trying to justify the situation by putting stipulations on noncanonized thoughts from BY. Your backtracking is irrelevant to the original point. You are trying to tell me that YOU know what came exactly from his mouth, when that is virtually impossible to do. Unless you have a tape recording of BY saying those words, I will not except it as evidence and your evidence has as much weighting as mine.

Just because you don't like the truth does not mean it is a half truth.

ME:

Then don't take 1 sentence from a whole sermon and twist it to prove your point. You are in effect, bending what he has said to prove your point.

Many of your points are in extremes and you use his quotes to prove them.

How is this untrue? You accuse me of telling half-truths, or outright untruths. Are you suggesting Joseph really didn't wonder about Abraham and David? That he really didn't go to God and God didn't tell him that polygamy was for increase? Are you disputing D&C 132? It IS the sole scripture we have for understanding the rationale behind Joseph's reinstitution of polygamy in this day and age.

ME:

Here is your original quote (with emphasis by me) in which I responded:

Joseph, Brigham, et al wanted more wives because it added to their glory. The wives contributed to their increase which added even more glory. They obviously couldn't control themselves in wanting this because Joseph did it to the extent it greatly contributed to his demise, and Brigham just couldn't get enough either. The only reason he caved was because it was threatening his even bigger goal of being the king of the Utah territory/state.

People do what they want to do. And that is a bottom line. Angels and flaming swords were just stageplay tactics used by Joseph to get people to go along with what he wanted to do.

Here is what I think about this statement:

1. Your use of the word 'glory' is to the effect of them seeking power over others and for themselves and not as 'glory' as in exaltation.

2. Not only do you say they, in effect, were on a 'power trip,' you go on further to say that they couldn't control themselves.

3. They then made up things to further their advancement.

I believe that Joseph Smith received this revelation because it was what was needed at the time. Please read my previous posts as to why. If you don't agree then refute those and bring them to the discussion, do not attempt to go into another direction. I suggested any of the questions you brought up.

--Now I can find verse 43,44 which endorses taking up a man's wife if he is unfaithful, and I can certainly find verses which give Joseph ample freedom to take what he wants if the spirit allows it. That does not, however, negate the promise of increase. So why would you call me a liar for mentioning increase?

ME:

Because your mention of increase clearly shows an increase of power, or in other words, Joseph Smith made it up to have power over people, as if he was a dictator. This is untrue.

The LDS version of increase means continual and ever increasing power after this life, or in other words being exalted forever and ever. I have also told you that this increase is available to men with one wife as well.

--Since we are scrutinizing 132, I probably should point out that according to the stipulations in the verses, Joseph committed adultery by taking wives who were vowed to other men (vs 61).

ME:

Being married by law is different than being married by being sealed. It is possible to have no relations with a woman and still be sealed to her. Your reading into 132, and verse 61 is your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the doctrine of plural marriages.

--He also broke that pesky little caveat of allowing the first wife to give her consent previous to taking on additional wives in vs 61.

ME:

Again, you misunderstand and misinterpret.

--Brother Brigham was not one to be vague about his wording. Where did you find the word doctrine? If it were doctrine he was talking about he would have said "Now if any of you will deny the doctrine of plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned."

ME:

Try reading before your quote and after? It is clear that he is talking about the revealed doctrine that came to Joseph Smith. If God speaks to a Prophet and then the Prophet speaks to us, we need to follow what was said. It is this principle Brigham Young is trying to teach.

--You are putting words in Brigham's mouth. I take these words from the early prophets on their own merit and do not add to them.

ME:

I beg to differ.

--Who was Brigham speaking to? Were they aware of the doctrine? Was Brigham aware of any members who were not ever going to be privy to the doctrine of polygamy?

ME:

Your point of this quote was to show that Brigham Young said that if we were to become God, we would have to enter into Polygamy. This would be true IF the revealed doctrine of Polygamy was required for them! Again, if the Prophet speaks and we do not follow the counsel, we will be damned. This does not me that every man MUST have more than one wife as you would like it to appear.

--I recommend you read a little book called Rough Stone Rolling, and then assert Joseph was not the pivotal, ultimate decisionmaker in the Nauvoo climate. Heck, you don't even have to read RSR. Go back to the History of the Church. Joseph was the prophet where all went for final decisions related to spiritual guidance and judgment. Joseph was the mayor where all went for final decisions related to the development and progression of the community. The mormon community. Joseph was aspiring to be president of the US. Joseph was the chair in the Council of Fifty. Joseph was the General of the Nauvoo Legion.

Joseph was, for all intensive purposes, a dictator in Nauvoo.

ME:

If he were a dictator there would be no need for councils now would there? Your explanations are inconsistent with his character.

[Zakuska]

I have already cover this passage--but for you----------------

I see no where in this scripture where it says that these women were to be Davids wifes--------Yes they were given to David by God-----but your reading into it that they would function as wifes-------they could have functioned as slaves --housekeepers or many other things----but to take it meaning specifically wifes is a streach , at least for me

Hows that for Bible exegesis!

It specificaly says they where his wives...

2 Sam. 20: 3

3

[jadams_4242]

Every time I see a polygamy thread the lds faithful try to give it ligitimatcy by siting the OT. I would really like someone to teach me how the LDS explain JS and BY mulitple marriages according to the New Covanant that Jesus ushered in

With all the references to --ONE WIFE in the NC and Jesus NEVER teaching more that one wife---------How do lds give their approval to polygamy.

I'm looking for civil debate----------though I might have more questions and will certainly challenge any scripture references if I feel promted to.

Other than that have a good one

if you read and understand the bible..then why dont you ask god why he directed sevearal of his disciples to do this? imsure you have been led down this path before? butif you know the bible,,,this has been directed in the past,,so why is it impossible for god to see fit for it to be done again??

it was only a temporary thing in the l.d.s history,, and we do not beleive in it!!...

but the lord did it throgh out the bible...

why is that so hard to accept??

[thesometimesaint]

jadams_4040:

Section 132 of the D&C has never been repealed. We still believe in polygamy. It is its practice on earth at this time that we do not do.

[roman]

if you read and understand the bible..then why dont you ask god why he directed sevearal of his disciples to do this? imsure you have been led down this path before? butif you know the bible,,,this has been directed in the past,,so why is it impossible for god to see fit for it to be done again??

it was only a temporary thing in the l.d.s history,, and we do not beleive in it!!...

but the lord did it throgh out the bible...

why is that so hard to accept??

Oh I read and understand the Bible quite well. Its the lds spin on scripture I have trouble with. I know God and have walked with him intimatly for almost 20 years. I have mormon relatives all around me all the time and I can say with certainty that there is a vast difference in the understanding of who God is betwen us and the people of this board-[lds that is --------I identify quite well with many nonlds also on this board} so I can also say, that God NEVER istituted polygamy.

Men of the OT did it in ignorance and people under the NT times did it in violation of Gods covanant and plan for marriage upon the earth.

no offence meant----but for lds to bring legitimacy to this issue I see them doing Olympic style gymnastics, bending over back-wards, turning scripture inside out and upside down---just in a effort to give it a spritual complexion. Ii have said it before and now say it again------ the end of plural marriage has alwys ended on a bad note for those involved

[Lachoneus]

Men of the OT did it in ignorance and people under the NT times did it in violation of Gods covanant and plan for marriage upon the earth.

As has already been explained on this thread, this is an entirely false statement. No offence, but your "understanding" of the scripture is both incomplete and incorrect. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc were NOT ignorant of God or His ways. They were holy men who followed the laws of God and were approved of God. Those who claim otherwise while pretending to understand the scriptures themselves are the ones who are ignorant of God and His ways, not the Lord's chosen servants.

[roman]

As has already been explained on this thread, this is an entirely false statement. No offence, but your "understanding" of the scripture is both incomplete and incorrect. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc were NOT ignorant of God or His ways. They were holy men who followed the laws of God and were approved of God. Those who claim otherwise while pretending to understand the scriptures themselves are the ones who are ignorant of God and His ways, not the Lord's chosen servants.

Apply your style of thinking to Moses as he killed the Egytian- or when abraham Lied---------------your trying to say that these Holy men were PERFECT and did everything according to Gods Law, when in fact they were men of inperfection who sometimes missed God by a million miles. Also if my statment had been "PROVEN" false then I would now believe different, but since I don't the statment has NOT been proven at all-per lds view

I'm not ignorant of God or his ways I understand the scriptures as per this subject. After this thread I now better undertand the lds view better than ever and how they arrive at its conclusion.

You have your opinion and I have mine and I think mine fits scripture while lds use other things with scripture to come to an ungodly conclusion--no offence intented

One of the glaring points in all of this, has not even be touched on and that is the reason ploygamy was stopped being practiced -------it was forced out by goverment threats. But lds believe it was by revalation of God. To convient for me.

[johnny]

Lachoneus,

>> No offence, but your "understanding" of the scripture is both incomplete and incorrect. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc were NOT ignorant of God or His ways. They were holy men who followed the laws of God and were approved of God.

God did not command polygamy, in the Old Testament God tolerated polygamy.

>> Those who claim otherwise while pretending to understand the scriptures themselves are the ones who are ignorant of God and His ways, not the Lord's chosen servants.

From the beginning God's way was one wife, Adam had one wife.

The Book of Genesis DOES NOT say a man shall cleave unto his WIVES, it says WIFE.