Joseph's treatment of Emma

[StepfordWife]

You have a very uncommon knack for not seeing the obvious point (as evinced by this inane response to Why Me), and this for reasons of getting lost amidst the unimportant details--and I don't mean this sarcastically.

i wonder if Emma and the rest of his wives knew they were "unimportant details." i wonder what it must feel like for them to see themselves expunged from the lesson manuals as embarrassing, faith challenging, inconveniences... unimportant details.

[Markk]

DO you see Peters behavior or Pauls behavior or Moses behavior or Abrahams behavior as one being ordained from God? What about Jonah? Markk you can't have your cake and eat it too.

BTW in the OT God destoyed people and turned them into a pilar of salt for much less.

LoL, Mola I get a kick out of you, this is exactly what I meant when I said your faith (what you believe) is one of reaction, you need to think these things out.

These men all had short comings and sinned, no one is denying that, all men sin a far short of the glory of God. In Romans Paul declared O wretched Man I am, he said he is dung. The big difference here is that these men's sin's are just that, sin's, and they are a lesson to us that we can get through problems and work out our short comings.

The difference here is, that the subject of question (marrying women and giving revelation demanding his wife accept it...or else!) is not conveyed as sin, but a commandment that he claimed was from God. In other words Mola, in one breath your saying, like Joseph, prophets and apostles are sinners, and then your saying that what JS did is a commandment from God? I think your a little confused here.

Do you believe that sec 132 is a commandment from God, do you believe that JS giving presents and "courting" young women as a good thing and commanded by God? If so, then why are you comparing Josephs actions here, which are Godly, with other prophets sins and short comings?

If you believe that his behavior was a sin, and 132 wrong, and it is comparable to the short comings of other "prophets", then I guess we are in agreement.

Mark

[Markk]

This is what you don't get: all the prophets were men with human wants and desires. You obviously aren't too familiar with the OT if you think otherwise. That is what makes what they accomplish through the power of God even more remarkable.

God is the one who refines his prophets and Joseph certainly went through the refiners fire and at the end of his life Joseph had come to a point where he could truly say "I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men."

Was Joseph sinning when he married other women, is 132 false?

Mark

[Sleeper Cell]

i wonder if Emma and the rest of his wives knew they were "unimportant details." i wonder what it must feel like for them to see themselves expunged from the lesson manuals as embarrassing, faith challenging, inconveniences... unimportant details.

I don

[volgadon]

I don

[justdreamin]

It's my understanding that Emma never accepted Joseph's extramarital behavior, as prophecy or otherwise, and lived quite a very long time...

[StepfordWife]

I don

[cinepro]

I don

[Deborah]

It's my understanding that Emma never accepted Joseph's extramarital behavior, as prophecy or otherwise, and lived quite a very long time...

Since he was married to the other women it could hardly be called "extramarital." And to say Emma didn't know about or never accepted the other wives is false, even though she continued to struggle with it. She even had a couple of the wives living with her.

As an interesting aside, Emma's second husband was actually guilty of adultery and got the young woman pregnant. Emma took the woman and her baby in and cared for them.

[Calm]

Since he was married to the other women it could hardly be called "extramarital." And to say Emma didn't know about or never accepted the other wives is false, even though she continued to struggle with it. She even had a couple of the wives living with her.

As an interesting aside, Emma's second husband was actually guilty of adultery and got the young woman pregnant. Emma took the woman and her baby in and cared for them.

And instructed her husband to marry the woman after she (Emma) died.

[Maya]

FWIW The book on Emma (I cant remember the title maybe just Emma).It remarks that in the journals of their children it mentioned Joseph as the calm one and Emma the one who didn't spare the rod.

[Maya]

Since he was married to the other women it could hardly be called "extramarital." And to say Emma didn't know about or never accepted the other wives is false, even though she continued to struggle with it. She even had a couple of the wives living with her.

As an interesting aside, Emma's second husband was actually guilty of adultery and got the young woman pregnant. Emma took the woman and her baby in and cared for them.

People rally leave out things when they read... or the writters do... just to get a crocked point.

[justdreamin]

Since he was married to the other women it could hardly be called "extramarital." And to say Emma didn't know about or never accepted the other wives is false, even though she continued to struggle with it. She even had a couple of the wives living with her.

As an interesting aside, Emma's second husband was actually guilty of adultery and got the young woman pregnant. Emma took the woman and her baby in and cared for them.

I will be more clear. Emma never accepted plural marriage as a revelation. Until her dying day, she even denied that Joseph engaged in this practice! His other "wives," although civilly or spiritually married, were not concidered legal by the state of Illinois, hence he was engaged in extramarital activities. Emma was not killed by the Lord; obvious. Go back and read the rest of the story about a "couple of the wives living with her." Mr. Bidamon's affair has nothing to do with my post, although it is another testament of how her trust was abused by a spouse.

And instructed her husband to marry the woman after she (Emma) died.

Why not just have him marry her right then? That would certainly be an evidence that she accepted plural marriage.

People rally leave out things when they read... or the writters do... just to get a crocked point.

I couldn't agree with you more, Maya. Actually reading Church history will help you out with this.

[Deborah]

I will be more clear. Emma never accepted plural marriage as a revelation.

Not true. She just didn't like it and continued to fight against it. She never denied that Joseph was a prophet and she vacillated between acceptance and denial of the revelation.

[auteur55]

The Lord also threatens to destroy Joseph earlier on in the D&C for not obeying his commandments. I don't see the same outcry at the Lord's lack of compassion when it's Joseph on chopping block.

[Deborah]

The actual scripture in 132:54 says "And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law." Please look at what the precedent commandment is: to abide and cleave unto Joseph. This commandment she did abide.

The verse immediately following is interesting too: "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."

What is "this" commandment. Based on the preceding verse it is to stay with Joseph. However, the Lord was basically saying if she didn't stay then Joseph was still to take care of her and he would be blessed nevertheless.

BTW, destroy in the Lord's vernacular doesn't necessarily apply to this life.

[Markk]

Not true. She just didn't like it and continued to fight against it. She never denied that Joseph was a prophet and she vacillated between acceptance and denial of the revelation.

Hi Deborah,

She just didn't like it and continued to fight against it.

If you didn't like it and she fought against this teaching then that means she didn't accept it. According to the prophecy she should have been destroyed, but instead of it being her end, it was Joseph's bane.

Hi Justdreamin,

Why not just have him marry her right then? That would certainly be an evidence that she accepted plural marriage.

Some times common sense trumps scholarly efforts.

I will be more clear. Emma never accepted plural marriage as a revelation. Until her dying day, she even denied that Joseph engaged in this practice! His other "wives," although civilly or spiritually married, were not concidered legal by the state of Illinois, hence he was engaged in extramarital activities. Emma was not killed by the Lord; obvious. Go back and read the rest of the story about a "couple of the wives living with her." Mr. Bidamon's affair has nothing to do with my post, although it is another testament of how her trust was abused by a spouse.

Do you have a cf for this, I Would like to read more?

Thanks

Mark

[justdreamin]

Not true. She just didn't like it and continued to fight against it. She never denied that Joseph was a prophet and she vacillated between acceptance and denial of the revelation.

Deborah, are you kidding me? You have been around this board long enough to know the truth of Emma's situation. She NEVER accepted plural marriage!! The key word here is ACCEPTED. You give me a couple of good references that she accepted it, believed it, had a testimony of it, whatever (not that she took a couple of his concubines in at different times, that is NOT accepting the revelation, unless of course you can find somewhere that she actually said "I accept this revelation to be from God."

Also Deborah, I'm surprised at you for trying to prove a point by taking a few verses from 132 out of context. I want you to go back and re-read it. The first 49 verses are setting up the doctrine of the New and Everlasting covenant. Making Joseph the sole key holder, making sure that it's importance is well understood as well as the consequences of not entering to this covenant.

At verse 50, we get to the heart of the matter. Background: Emma had confronted Joseph about his dalliances, and threatening to expose him. In response, Smith told her he would give it all up and surrender to her wishes. To be clear, Joseph told Emma he would stop engaging in spiritual wifery with other women. Verse 50-51

50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

Do you see how Joseph escapes having to keep his promise to Emma?

Then the threat:

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

Which means any one Joseph wants....

53 For I am the Lord thy God and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

The meaning of verse 54 becomes crystal clear.

Emma tried to keep to feelings to herself for a bit but finally gave Joseph the business about it again.

On August 16, 1843 William Clayton wrote in his diary, "This A.M. Joseph told me that...Emma...had resisted the P[rinciple] in toto, and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake...He however told me he [w]ould not relinquish anything."

That pretty much sums it up.

[justdreamin]

Do you have a cf for this, I Would like to read more?

Thanks

Mark

I'm assuming you mean the illegality in Illinois?

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."

Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

Check out this wiki for fun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_wives_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

[Markk]

I'm assuming you mean the illegality in Illinois?

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."

Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

Check out this wiki for fun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_wives_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

Actally it was

she even denied that Joseph engaged in this practice!

Mark

[Markk]

I'm assuming you mean the illegality in Illinois?

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."

Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

Check out this wiki for fun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_wives_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

Hi,

If you want to have some fun go to the link you gave me and look at the names of Orson Pratts children!

[justdreamin]

Hi,

If you want to have some fun go to the link you gave me and look at the names of Orson Pratts children!

Nice find Mark! Some of the names today don't sound quite as weird in comparison!!

[Deborah]

Deborah, are you kidding me? You have been around this board long enough to know the truth of Emma's situation. She NEVER accepted plural marriage!!

Let's look at what is actually being said in verse 52 "And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God."

People tend to read what they want to read. Emma was told to receive those who were pure and who were given by the Lord to Joseph. Nothing about accepting. It is possible to reluctantly obey a commandment such as Jonah did in Nineveh. Look at the precedent referral in v 52. It is not talking about Emma being destroyed but those who said they were pure and were not.

Once again "destroyed" in the scriptural sense doesn't apply just to this life and is more likely referring to spiritual destruction for lack of obedience. In any case Emma left the body of the church and God will be her judge.

[katherine the great]

Hi,

If you want to have some fun go to the link you gave me and look at the names of Orson Pratts children!

What does this mean? The link only took me to a dead wiki page.

[Markk]

What does this mean? The link only took me to a dead wiki page.

Hi katherine,

You have to navigate around, this is the direct link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Pratt#List_of_wives_and_children

No slam or anything just pretty wild names, have fun with it!

Mark