When Pondering Polygamy.... Do You Feel

[MJNSW]

It wasn't directed at you.

The point I was making is that is irrelevant to ask if someone thought that Joseph was acting as Prophet or Man when he revealed D&C 132 and brought plural marriage if they do not believe he was in any way a Prophet. Clearly such a person cannot ascribe any divinity to his revelations.

Even if he was a prophet or not you have to know that his decission was made with inspiration from God and not by inspiration from his manly desires. You can have a prophet that will make a bad decission because he is a man. You are not supposed to put all your faith in one man. Just because he holds a title does not make all his choices the "Right" ones. After all, look at his problems with finances. Was he following God when he was making decissions financially for the church? The point is that you need to follow your heart as well.

My heart tells me that he was a Man using his Title as Prophet to further his Manly desire to Bed any and all the women he could whether they were married or not. Throwing in some older and homelier women a little later to make it look "divine"... after all a man would not choose the older homelier if it wasn't divine - right?

Also - God Loved Emma! So why would he break her heart and take away her choice in the matter when the first wife had to approve of it? Why would she be punnished because she did not want her husband bedding other women? God loves his daughters and would not hurt them the way Joseph did!

[Thinking]

Put yourself in that position, and stop thinking that we are all like mindless sheep. I doubt it was a decision made easily.

I am in that position. My family is TBM and I am married in the temple. After learning the truth about how plural marriage was introduced and practiced in the early church (among other things), I re-examined my faith and realized that I did not believe that JS was a prophet. I had a choice to make. Either I pretend to believe so I can avoid conflict, or I can be truthful. Having chosen the latter, I no longer participate in blessings, ordinations, etc.

But if even the Father, who again, was not indoctrinated, came to accept and approve of this, who are you to say otherwise?

1) Why are you so hung up on "indoctrination from birth?" Do you believe that the only way to become "mindless sheep" is to be indoctrinated from birth?

2) So because Heber accepted polygamy, I have no right to question its divinity?

Is there any way in the world you would accept a woman choosing to enter a plural marriage, whether or not that choice is influenced by a belief on its ramifications on their salvation/exaltation?

Whether an individual woman would freely choose to practice plural marriage is irrelevant to whether God revealed it or not.

JS used fear and manipulation to convince others to accept it by promising salvation, and telling stories of an angel with a drawn sword ready to destroy JS if he didn't follow "the principle."

Such beliefs also influence the women who enter into monogamous marriages - does that also invalidate their consent?

If fear and manipulation are used to convince a woman to marry a man, then yes it does invalidate her consent.

[No Touch]

1) Why are you so hung up on "indoctrination from birth?" Do you believe that the only way to become "mindless sheep" is to be indoctrinated from birth?

2) So because Heber accepted polygamy, I have no right to question its divinity?

Whether an individual woman would freely choose to practice plural marriage is irrelevant to whether God revealed it or not.

JS used fear and manipulation to convince others to accept it by promising salvation, and telling stories of an angel with a drawn sword ready to destroy JS if he didn't follow "the principle."

1) Consent is commonly dismissed by people critical of polygamy, since according to them, they were under all this pressure and had no choice. They did have a choice, just like you.

2) No. You (like the government) just have no right to decide for him or his daughter. As far as questioning its divinity, that is something you need to take up with the divine.

Again, if you are willing to believe in modern revelation, angelic and divine visitation, as well as cherubim with flaming swords guarding the garden of Eden, why is it not even possible that Joseph might actually have been telling the truth on this one? You believed he was telling the truth everywhere else before this, but because it offends your pre-existing sensibilities, you will not even entertain the possibility. Not all truth is convenient or what you think it should be. And again, in your dismissal of polygamy as being a righteous God-ordained practice, what is your opinion then of the OT polygamists?

[MJNSW]

Again, if you are willing to believe in modern revelation, angelic and divine visitation, as well as cherubim with flaming swords guarding the garden of Eden, why is it not even possible that Joseph might actually have been telling the truth on this one? You believed he was telling the truth everywhere else before this, but because it offends your pre-existing sensibilities, you will not even entertain the possibility. Not all truth is convenient or what you think it should be. And again, in your dismissal of polygamy as being a righteous God-ordained practice, what is your opinion then of the OT polygamists?

I know this was not directed at me but I would like to answer for me... I am sure You will get other responces. The reason I don't believe is a collective thing... not just 1 bit. The reason I think this was a false doctrine is mostly because JS goes back on himself. For instance - In D&C he stated that the first wife must consent to the other wives... then he went and hid his actions from her (like with Fanny) and a few. Emma did not give her consent. And when she refused then he went about and threw in that he had "another revelation" that the Lord will deal with Emma - and all his damnation reports.

Those are actions of a liar to me. Really sad.

But that does not take away from other great things that he helped to establish with the church. Just my 2 pennies again.

[SlackTime]

... And when she refused then he went about and threw in that he had "another revelation" that the Lord will deal with Emma - and all his damnation reports.

Seems to me that in Section 132 there is already a verse that deals with, what if she refuses...

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.

Breaking out the essentials

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

SO after the first wife is informed of the law and she rejects it, then the Law of Sarah is removed and the man is justified in receiving all that the Lord gives to him WITHOUT HER CONSENT.

-SlackTime

[MJNSW]

Seems to me that in Section 132 there is already a verse that deals with, what if she refuses...

Breaking out the essentials

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

SO after the first wife is informed of the law and she rejects it, then the Law of Sarah is removed and the man is justified in receiving all that the Lord gives to him WITHOUT HER CONSENT.

-SlackTime

That sounds like a disclaimer to me! I don't believe that God works through others in not giving a person a choice (really) You do it or you are damned because God told me and not you.... Really now!

[No Touch]

That sounds like a disclaimer to me! I don't believe that God works through others in not giving a person a choice (really) You do it or you are damned because God told me and not you.... Really now!

What it sounds like to you is again, irrelevant. God's way is what he wants it to be. Each of us has the opportunity to accept it and receive the blessings that come with it. If we deny it, then we will have to deal with whatever consequences there might be. But no man or woman should be condemned because their spouse rejects a God-given principle. Or does that not make sense?

[Thinking]

And again, in your dismissal of polygamy as being a righteous God-ordained practice, what is your opinion then of the OT polygamists?

According to the Doctrine & Covenants, God commanded Abram (Abraham) to take a second wife. "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife." (D&C 132:34)

The Old Testament records that Sarai commanded Abraham, not God. "And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai." (Genesis 16:2)

Then after Hagar was pregnant, "...Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee." (Genesis 16:5)

Now read Galations 4:22-31.

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Questions:

1) What would be the purpose of Abraham marrying Hagar if her sons were not to be heirs?

2) Why would God command Abraham to marry Hagar (for the purpose of having a child) if He was going to allow Sarah to conceive later?

3) Why would Sarai call it a wrong, if God commanded it?

[No Touch]

According to the Doctrine & Covenants, God commanded Abram (Abraham) to take a second wife. "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife." (D&C 132:34)

The Old Testament records that Sarai commanded Abraham, not God. "And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai." (Genesis 16:2)

Then after Hagar was pregnant, "...Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee." (Genesis 16:5)

Now read Galations 4:22-31.

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Questions:

1) What would be the purpose of Abraham marrying Hagar if her sons were not to be heirs?

2) Why would God command Abraham to marry Hagar (for the purpose of having a child) if He was going to allow Sarah to conceive later?

3) Why would Sarai call it a wrong, if God commanded it?

1) Should Hagar be condemned to a lifetime of celibate slavery/servitude? Should she have her eternal progress blocked eternally for never having an opportunity to we a righteous husband? And if she is to bare a child for Abraham, should it be from fornication, or within marriage?

2) Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice his son later, if he was not going to allow him to do it and it would add nothing? I don't pretend to fully comprehend all that God does or asks and neither should you. But if I were to posit a guess, perhaps God saw fit to test Sarai in this way before blessing her to be able to conceive. Her later conception was not a forgone conclusion. It was a blessing she received for her adherence/obedience.

3) Why do you call it wrong? Niether you nor her are a prophet, nor can you pretend to know clearly or always be in agreement with God. Her believeing it is wrong has nothing to do with God's commands, just as your opinion has nothing to do with God's command recorded in D&C 132.

[MJNSW]

1) Should Hagar be condemned to a lifetime of celibate slavery/servitude? Should she have her eternal progress blocked eternally for never having an opportunity to we a righteous husband? And if she is to bare a child for Abraham, should it be from fornication, or within marriage?

2) Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice his son later, if he was not going to allow him to do it and it would add nothing? I don't pretend to fully comprehend all that God does or asks and neither should you. But if I were to posit a guess, perhaps God saw fit to test Sarai in this way before blessing her to be able to conceive. Her later conception was not a forgone conclusion. It was a blessing she received for her adherence/obedience.

3) Why do you call it wrong? Niether you nor her are a prophet, nor can you pretend to know clearly or always be in agreement with God. Her believeing it is wrong has nothing to do with God's commands, just as your opinion has nothing to do with God's command recorded in D&C 132.

1. You really do not make any sense. Here you sound as if you are trying to write you own thought and laws...

Only God can say whether she can have or not have eternal progress - and no one else. Not even Joseph Smiths writings. Only God! Who is to say she never wed again? And if she did then she may have had more children. These are all things you know nothing of and is between her and God.

2. Why is it that when Joseph Smith writes anything you take it as Word of God? He is not God. He is a man. He may be a prophet... but he was also a Man! That is the one mistake sooooooooooooooooooo many mormons make. If you carefully study the history of the church you will even find that there are conflicts even with new prophets verses old. For instance. Look at the book "Mormon Doctrine" That book was published and then the prophet of the time did not fully agree with it. Well he died and the Father in Law became the prophet and he felt that it should be backed by the church. What does that tell you? Politics? So which prophet was acting as a prophet and which as a man?

And her conception was a blessing to her for her enduring to the end or endless hope and love for the Lord. You interpretations are quite interesting...

3. What is even more interesting is that Neither are you a prophet but you act as if what you speak is that of God and inspiration... that your opinion or understanding of things is the only one that matters - or your own interpretation of D&C.

[No Touch]

1. You really do not make any sense. Here you sound as if you are trying to write you own thought and laws...

Only God can say whether she can have or not have eternal progress - and no one else. Not even Joseph Smiths writings. Only God! Who is to say she never wed again? And if she did then she may have had more children. These are all things you know nothing of and is between her and God.

2. Why is it that when Joseph Smith writes anything you take it as Word of God? He is not God. He is a man. He may be a prophet... but he was also a Man! That is the one mistake sooooooooooooooooooo many mormons make. If you carefully study the history of the church you will even find that there are conflicts even with new prophets verses old. For instance. Look at the book "Mormon Doctrine" That book was published and then the prophet of the time did not fully agree with it. Well he died and the Father in Law became the prophet and he felt that it should be backed by the church. What does that tell you? Politics? So which prophet was acting as a prophet and which as a man?

And her conception was a blessing to her for her enduring to the end or endless hope and love for the Lord. You interpretations are quite interesting...

3. What is even more interesting is that Neither are you a prophet but you act as if what you speak is that of God and inspiration... that your opinion or understanding of things is the only one that matters - or your own interpretation of D&C.

1) I do not think God, by his own laws, will deny anyone the opportunity. Soceity and other forces might, but God would not (maybe that's just my opinion). Beyond that, I infer Hagar's marriage potential based on her seemingly lower class status as a hand maid belonging to Sarai.

2) I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet. Not infallible by any means, I believe he had his shortcomings and his sins. BUT, I believe he took his calling as Prophet seriously, and I do not believe he would simply invent a revelation to be canonized to justify his own sins to his followers. I think such an act would be mocking God, and since I see Joseph Smith as a true Prophet, I think he would at least know well enough not to do that. Basically it all comes own to something being received as a revelation. If you want to argue that not all Church leaders' teachings are binding - fine. You can ignore all that King Follet stuff if you like, but D&C 132 is different. It is canonized revelation, it is scripture. It is held to a higher standard and has been sustained by every prophet since then. It is not comparable to support for a non-scriptural text.

As far as my interpretation goes - it is simple: obedience begets blessings. Obedience to the law of Tithing begets blessings, obedience to the Word of Wisdom begets blessings, and obedience to the law of Chastity begets blessings. This is how God works, or do you disagree?

3) I speak for me, and I cannot speak for anyone else. But I accept D&C 132 as scripture, and I do not see how someone can consider themselves Mormon without accepting it. And I trust the Spirit to guide my interpretation of such scriptures. I do not act as a Prophet, but I will sustain them.

[Thinking]

I do not think God, by his own laws, will deny anyone the opportunity. Soceity and other forces might, but God would not (maybe that's just my opinion). Beyond that, I infer Hagar's marriage potential based on her seemingly lower class status as a hand maid belonging to Sarai.

Wow! You infer a lot from, "Abram, I can't have kids. Why don't you marry Hagar and have kids by her?

[No Touch]

Wow! You infer a lot from, "Abram, I can't have kids. Whay don't you marry Hagar and have kids by her?

I infer more from D&C.

[MJNSW]

I infer more from D&C.

Would you mind listing the reference and quote from what you are infering?

It is interesting to me to see that they are continually proving many points of the Bible scientifically - and that you so easily dismiss it as the lesser book. Why is that?

1) I do not think God, by his own laws, will deny anyone the opportunity. Soceity and other forces might, but God would not (maybe that's just my opinion). Beyond that, I infer Hagar's marriage potential based on her seemingly lower class status as a hand maid belonging to Sarai.

2) I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet. Not infallible by any means, I believe he had his shortcomings and his sins. BUT, I believe he took his calling as Prophet seriously, and I do not believe he would simply invent a revelation to be canonized to justify his own sins to his followers. I think such an act would be mocking God, and since I see Joseph Smith as a true Prophet, I think he would at least know well enough not to do that. Basically it all comes own to something being received as a revelation. If you want to argue that not all Church leaders' teachings are binding - fine. You can ignore all that King Follet stuff if you like, but D&C 132 is different. It is canonized revelation, it is scripture. It is held to a higher standard and has been sustained by every prophet since then. It is not comparable to support for a non-scriptural text.

As far as my interpretation goes - it is simple: obedience begets blessings. Obedience to the law of Tithing begets blessings, obedience to the Word of Wisdom begets blessings, and obedience to the law of Chastity begets blessings. This is how God works, or do you disagree?

3) I speak for me, and I cannot speak for anyone else. But I accept D&C 132 as scripture, and I do not see how someone can consider themselves Mormon without accepting it. And I trust the Spirit to guide my interpretation of such scriptures. I do not act as a Prophet, but I will sustain them.

You say you believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet. Not infallible by any means - but you speak otherwise. Like he was an infallible prophet. I can tell you that all men... including prophets can take their callings seriously... but they can still be led astray, or make serious mistakes. I believe that Polygamy is one of those instances.

The entire BoM and D&C has been scripture... but I am not going to go cut off someones head like Nephi! Obedience my beget blessings but is your obedience to GOD or to Joseph. That is where it seems to get mixed up to me! So many people treat Joseph as God. He is not! He is a man. He very well may have maid some serious mistakes. Basically each individual has to build their own personal relationship with GOD and has HIM if the principal was his or Josephs. Not if Joseph was a prophet... but was EVERYTHING that he taught correct. I do not believe that all his choices were. That is just me.

You still need to seek the Spirit out to guide you in knowing that all that is taught is true. Blind obedience is very dangerous. More dangerous than many realize - yet practice all the time.

[No Touch]

Would you mind listing the reference and quote from what you are infering?

D&C 132:34

God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

It is interesting to me to see that they are continually proving many points of the Bible scientifically - and that you so easily dismiss it as the lesser book. Why is that?

What relevant points of the Bible are they proving true? (Who are They anyway?) And truth does not equate to completeness. I do not contend that the Bible is necessarily wrong in many places or flat out lies, only that it is incomplete, having had much removed. And when you look at the variations, between different versions of the OT, how the Ethiopian Orthodox Church even has Enoch in their OT and has had it forever, despite the rest of the world being oblivious to it, should show you that the Bible is not complete, and does not say everything that need be said.

You say you believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet. Not infallible by any means - but you speak otherwise. Like he was an infallible prophet. I can tell you that all men... including prophets can take their callings seriously... but they can still be led astray, or make serious mistakes. I believe that Polygamy is one of those instances.

Did you read past the second sentence? There is a significant difference between a bad judgement call or a mistake and recording a revelation, attributing words to God, that are an outright lie. That is what you are accusing the Prophet of. If this revelation is a lie, then which others are lies? Why believe any are true? But you know that others are true, but your prejudices cause you to reject this revelation.

The entire BoM and D&C has been scripture... but I am not going to go cut off someones head like Nephi! Obedience my beget blessings but is your obedience to GOD or to Joseph. That is where it seems to get mixed up to me! So many people treat Joseph as God. He is not! He is a man. He very well may have maid some serious mistakes. Basically each individual has to build their own personal relationship with GOD and has HIM if the principal was his or Josephs. Not if Joseph was a prophet... but was EVERYTHING that he taught correct. I do not believe that all his choices were. That is just me.

We are not talking about Joseph choices. He said that this commandment came from God, delivered in some cases by some well-armed angels. Either he was lying or he was telling the truth. My obedience is to God, but if I cannot trust the Prophet to deliver that message and the Spirit to bear witness to me that it is true, then whom should I trust? You? The good "Christians" who shot Joseph? The American government who was using it to seize Church property and imprison members and leaders?

You still need to seek the Spirit out to guide you in knowing that all that is taught is true. Blind obedience is very dangerous. More dangerous than many realize - yet practice all the time.

The Spirit is guiding me. I don't take this kind of position lightly.