D&C 132 Verse 41 - Polyandry

[DBMormon]

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committedadultery and shall be destroyed.

I find this scripture offensive. Would you Brothers and sisters please help me frame this. Help me see this in better light. I see this as God can and has given men to a women who is already married without her husband's consent for her to be with including intimately. and as long as it was given by God it is ok. i know this may seem no different then a man marrying multiple wives when Polygamy was around but for some reason this scripture just doesn't strike me as something I am comfortable with.

I know I will get several opinions and I am looking forward to them and need them.

Edited June 2, 2012 by reelmormon

[thesometimesaint]

King Saul's wives were given to king David whom were given to king Solomon.

[DBMormon]

As a husband to a wonderful woman, I love my wife. And were I to find that God gave another man, that would be the end of me. I can only imagine the hurt from this. What is this verse saying? Am I reading it wrong. I know we are talking hypothetical but what is going on here?

[DBMormon]

in the midst of the church's polygamy and polyandry we have a much more recent case for this scripture. In fact this scripture can be considered the permission from God for Joseph's polyandry

[inquiringmind]

King Saul's wives were given to king David whom were given to king Solomon.

Since Solomon was David's son, Solomon would have been uncovering his father's nakedness (according to the Torah) if he laid with his wives.

I recall D&C saying that Saul's wives were given to David, but I think you're very mistaken in saying they were then given to Solomon.

I don't believe it says that anywhere in your standard works (but please correct me if I'm wrong.)

[The Nehor]

Well, you seem to have found the worst light and seem to be going with it so I'll shorten my reply:

I do not find this scripture to be offensive.

Edited June 2, 2012 by The Nehor

[DBMormon]

I am open to revision but need better understanding. Don't give up on me so easily

[blackstrap]

There is a bit of convolutedness in the verse,but it could saying that if a man receives a wife( gets married) and she goes with another man ,then she commits adultery.Well,duh.I'm not sure about the 'I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing ' part means.Might it mean that a woman can be sealed to 2 men and no harm no foul.??

[DBMormon]

it is harm and foul to the first husband... Makes you put yourself in the polygamous wives shoes and see how it stings. no wife sharing here. That is my line. If asked to cross it I would have to stay in the Terrestial Kingdom

[The Nehor]

I am open to revision but need better understanding. Don't give up on me so easily

You're right. I will repent of my laziness and share everything I know about this topic. I also apologize. Rereading my comment it sounds harsher then I intended. I shouldn't post on waking up from a nap.

Nehor's Gem of Wisdom #372

Find heaven and then you won't worry about the path there.

I think the feeling of possessiveness, even of a romantic partner, comes down to jealousy and fear and a feeling of inferiority for not being enough. This was something our polygamous ancestors tried (with varying degrees of success) to overcome. Imagine, instead that you are told by God Himself that your spouse will be happier if they are shared. You'd find yourself ripped in half. Your desire for their happiness and your jealousy/feelings of inadequacy/possessiveness masquerading as love would war it out. Which is the better emotion to follow? The former comes from heaven, the latter comes from our animal nature.

I will stop there as the rest of my thoughts on the matter would probably be classed as heretical by everyone here and will derail your thread.

[DBMormon]

well send me a message here on the rest, I am interested in your opinion

[The Nehor]

well send me a message here on the rest, I am interested in your opinion

Rather not. It's all speculation plus they are really only half-formed speculations akin to my thoughts on Adam-God, my speculations on the nature of heaven, and various other ideas I'm kicking around. They're only guesses backed up with the vaguest of spiritual direction and could very easily be wrong. They also have all kinds of holes in them that you could pick apart.

[blackstrap]

There enters into the equation the iron rule of 'agency'.If this concept is forced on anyone it violates the requirements for priesthood use.

[DBMormon]

yet also by turning down God's request by using your agency you miss out on blessings like exhaltation. possible right?

[The Nehor]

yet also by turning down God's request by using your agency you miss out on blessings like exhaltation. possible right?

Possibly but I find it is better to love God and want to please and serve him rather then worrying about the points column dipping you above or below the threshold for exaltation (also Brigham Young pointed out that everyone is just barely saved and no one is over-saved).

Unless you meant exhalation in which case I believe that is a rain falling on the just and unjust situation and I don't know of any case of God denying it to anyone.

Edited June 2, 2012 by The Nehor

[sunstoned]

As a husband to a wonderful woman, I love my wife. And were I to find that God gave another man, that would be the end of me. I can only imagine the hurt from this. What is this verse saying? Am I reading it wrong. I know we are talking hypothetical but what is going on here?

I am in agreement with you. I believe that just about killed Henry Jacobs.

[ERayR]

I am in agreement with you. I believe that just about killed Henry Jacobs.

There you go superimposing your own prejudices onto someone who can no longer speak for himself. What evidences do you have that it "just about killed Henry Jacobs."

[Darren10]

I find this scripture offensive.

Now there's a shocker.

/sark off

I see this as God can and has given men to a women who is already married without her husband's consent for her to be with including intimately.

There's no explicit statement of "intimacy" though it does carry a historical meaning of intimacy.

and as long as it was given by God it is ok

Isn't that pretty much how anything goes?

In fact this scripture can be considered the permission from God for Joseph's polyandry.

That I would agree with. And in Joseph's Case, I have not found any evidence anywhere that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with anyone except Emma. All accusations to the contrary were made in a combination of peole who have been excommunicate for fornication and/or adultery themselves, made after Joseph Smith's death, at times, decades after, and made with absolutely no corraborating evidence, especially in light of Emma Smith's silence in expressing Joseph gaving intimate relations with anyone else. Emma, as you may know, was very opposed to Joseph practicing polygamy though faithfully accepted it as God's will.

My bottom line is that this scripture applies to Joseph Smith especially if he, as all indications I know of point to, had no intimate relationships with any of his polygamous wives. And whatever God's will is, I'm OK with.

it is harm and foul to the first husband... Makes you put yourself in the polygamous wives shoes and see how it stings. no wife sharing here. That is my line. If asked to cross it I would have to stay in the Terrestial Kingdom

Polygamy in any nature is very hard of spouses. But, like anything else God wills, the bottom line is we all have our moral agency to choose. Joseph did as well. So did all the women he was sealed to. Those who go to the Terrestrial Kingdom are those who choose it. Likewise, those who g ot othe Celestial Knigdom are those who choose it. Chose the Celestial Kingdom, reelmormon. You'll be happier if you do.

[Darren10]

I am in agreement with you. I believe that just about killed Henry Jacobs.

My guess is that you read the "heart wretching" letter Henry wrote to Zina, correct? And that henry was "commanded" by Brigham young to leave Zina and then sent off on a mission, correct? i recently read a FAIR article on these accounts and you can read it by clicking onthe link below.

Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

Here's the summary of the article:

1) Zina twice refused Joseph Smith's proposal to be sealed to him.

2) Zina consented after personal revelation from God confirmed to her that He willed her to be sealed to Joseph.

3) Zina and Joseph were sealed with Henry Jacobs present.

4) Zina lived exclusively with Henry Jacobs

5) Zina was sealed to Brigham Young after Joseph's death

6) Zina lived exclusively with henry

7) Willam Hall made the accusation that, Brigham young told Henry to give Zina and their children to him and to go and find a new wife. there's a big problem with this accusation as the article shows:

Critics of the early Saints have, often with glee, latched onto William Hall’s story and used it as a prime example of ecclesiastical abuse, pitting a powerful Brigham Young against a penniless and ill Henry Jacobs, with Zina as some kind of prize for the winner of their imagined contest. It is easy to understand how one might see things that way; it is certainly the way that William Hall portrayed the episode:

At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. “Brother Jacobs,” he says, “the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.”³⁷

The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1).

8 ) Henry went on a mission

9) In a letter to henry Zina clearly indicated that she considered their marriage terminated. Zina was living with noone at this time.

10) Zina received and invitation from Brigham Young to go to Winter Quarters where Brigham Young resided

11) Henry found a new wife even before Zina ever got to Winter Quarters

12) No record of divorce but do consider:

a) The nauvoo Charter was revoke thus disassembling the government

b) Iowa was a very small place and in no sape for the courts and local government to accomodate the Mormon exodus.

c) on the wild frontier, like that of the Mormon exodus, had no established government so one must question what is "legal and lawful"

In short, there is no way to confirm Halls' accusation against Brigham Young and it was Zina who, accordingto what is known, considered her marriage terminated to Henry Jacobs. It was also Henry who remarried before Zina ever lived with any other man.

[Calm]

As a husband to a wonderful woman, I love my wife. And were I to find that God gave another man, that would be the end of me. I can only imagine the hurt from this. What is this verse saying? Am I reading it wrong. I know we are talking hypothetical but what is going on here?

If you died, would you want your wife to remain alone (and lonely) for the rest of her life so that you would not have to share her with anyone in the future?

[why me]

I find this scripture offensive. Would you Brothers and sisters please help me frame this. Help me see this in better light. I see this as God can and has given men to a women who is already married without her husband's consent for her to be with including intimately. and as long as it was given by God it is ok. i know this may seem no different then a man marrying multiple wives when Polygamy was around but for some reason this scripture just doesn't strike me as something I am comfortable with.

I know I will get several opinions and I am looking forward to them and need them.

Destroyed is used in the king james version. For example:

Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded.

This can be found in Proverbs 13:13. I know that many people do not like the word destroyed and they can find this word offensive in the D&C. But it is in the bible.

[DBMormon]

If you died, would you want your wife to remain alone (and lonely) for the rest of her life so that you would not have to share her with anyone in the future?

I am talking about while still living, emotionally there is a gigantic difference

[Darren10]

I'm not one to cater to "emotions" when expressed by others to make a point. Emotions are irrational, though deifintely have a purpose in human existence. From my understanding about ploygamy and polyandry, plural marriage is not given without the consent of all parties involved. A prime example is in my #19 post on this thread. Zina Jacobs twice turned down Joseph Smith proposing to be sealed to him. There's no indication whatsoever that Zina was going to change her mind. She did, however, suddenly change it but only after the word of God spoke directly to her confirming to her that what Joseph smith was asking is true and that she needed to be sealed to him. I do not see anything wrong with applying this story to you. If, hypothetically-speaking, you were asked to "share your wife", there is nothing wrong with you refusing to do so until you received your own confirmation directly from God to do so. The way I see it, as a child of the Most High, you exist with a divine heritiage which includes communicating directly with God and God directly to you. To do this one's mind and heart needs to be open to the will of God and not one's own will and to live worthily to receive communication with the Spirit of God.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Darren10

[DBMormon]

Darren, You and I will part here. God has made it clear to me that the gospel is emotional at its root. That we are in Moroni chapter 7 instructed to do that which draws us closer to christ. My wife sleeping with other men would not under any circumstance do that for me, so I bow out from that obligation on that premise alone. It seems you have everything figured out, bless you for that. But I don't operate under the same structure you do. If the gospel didn't lift me emotionally and bring peace, comfort, hope, faith (all emotional feelings) then I would have never joined, I would have kept using drugs & alcohol, and found other ways to spend my time. It is the emotional joy of the gospel that keeps me pressing forward with steadfasteness. It is knowing how much better I feel spiritually and emotionally with the church and how hopeless and discouraged I feel in my sins. The gospel's emotional gifts are what causes me to reach higher

Edited June 2, 2012 by reelmormon

[Bob Crockett]

c) on the wild frontier, like that of the Mormon exodus, had no established government so one must question what is "legal and lawful"

And further consider the life of Andrew Jackson. His wife never formally divorced her first husband and there are questions as to the formality of the Jackson's wedding. Voters seemed to accept the frontier circumstances.

Of course, he was shot in a duel over an insult relating to this, so there was criticism.