Weston Krogstadt Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Are you so sure JS wasn't talking about the earlier rebellion that was occurring in the south, rather than the civil war? I think the evidence is certainly debatable about whether he was prophesying about the civil war at all.I was just using the civil war as an example. However, Section 87 states "begining at the rebellion in South Carolina" every historian in the world agrees that the Civil War started in South Carolina, not only the shelling of Fort Sumpter which started the Civil War, but the South Carolina Legislature was also the first to succeed from the Union. Section 87 also states, "The Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States" not just some random rebellion, but a true Civil War. It then states, "the Southern states shall call upon other nations, even the nation of Great Britain" which is exactly what happened, Great Britain did, in fact, aid the Southern states. Verse four says "after many days slaves shall rise up against their masters". Not only were the slaves set free in the south, but many ex slaves joined the Union forces and fought against the South wearing Union uniforms. They were "marshaled and disciplined for war"
MitoticSlime Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Well, a Celestial Marriage and a sealing are often thought of as the same thing. But again that is still not accurate.Case in point, when my cousin, who had previously been married, civilly, we said "they are getting sealed today". They were not getting married. Only a temple sealing was taking place.In order to get at the root of Tacenda's point, though, I think you have to address the fact that in the church today, there are no instances (that I know of, anyway) where an adult man and woman are sealed together outside the context of a marriage. We don't have any couples who get sealed together intending to go their separate ways and not be married to each other. There does seem to be evidence that at least some of Joseph Smith's sealings were like that, though. If that's the case you're making, then that does imply a change in either doctrine or policy between Joseph's time and ours. I think that change is worthy of discussion. How was the sealing ordinance understood back then, and how does it differ from how we understand it now?
ERayR Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 In order to get at the root of Tacenda's point, though, I think you have to address the fact that in the church today, there are no instances (that I know of, anyway) where an adult man and woman are sealed together outside the context of a marriage. We don't have any couples who get sealed together intending to go their separate ways and not be married to each other. There does seem to be evidence that at least some of Joseph Smith's sealings were like that, though. If that's the case you're making, then that does imply a change in either doctrine or policy between Joseph's time and ours. I think that change is worthy of discussion. How was the sealing ordinance understood back then, and how does it differ from how we understand it now?We do have adult children being sealed to adult parents but no I do not know of an unrelated man and woman being sealed now. Joseph had both adult men and women sealed to him Possibly to build a dynastic family line. Whether he understood something about the sealing ordinance that we don't or whether he was acting with an incomplete understanding is a matter that can be discussed.
MitoticSlime Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 We do have adult children being sealed to adult parents but no I do not know of an unrelated man and woman being sealed now. Joseph had both adult men and women sealed to him Possibly to build a dynastic family line. Whether he understood something about the sealing ordinance that we don't or whether he was acting with an incomplete understanding is a matter that can be discussed.So maybe some of those plural marriages were actually adoptive sealings? Okay, that's reasonable. Now that you mention it, didn't Brigham Young do quite a few of those? I remember reading some quotes about him building out his kingdom in heaven while on earth, or something like that. Does anyone else more knowledgeable want to comment on that?
Tacenda Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) So maybe some of those plural marriages were actually adoptive sealings? Okay, that's reasonable. Now that you mention it, didn't Brigham Young do quite a few of those? I remember reading some quotes about him building out his kingdom in heaven while on earth, or something like that. Does anyone else more knowledgeable want to comment on that?Yes, and Joseph Smith would tell many of the pre "wives" or "sealed women" whatever the case, that their whole family would be sealed to him and go to the highest kingdom if they submit to being sealed or married to him. Edited June 27, 2012 by Tacenda
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 We do have adult children being sealed to adult parents but no I do not know of an unrelated man and woman being sealed now. Joseph had both adult men and women sealed to him Possibly to build a dynastic family line. Whether he understood something about the sealing ordinance that we don't or whether he was acting with an incomplete understanding is a matter that can be discussed.This is also an important point. It often gets over looked. I am not sure exactly why JS was sealed to all of the people. Perhaps he had a little bit of a misunderstanding. Or perhaps it is as you said that he understood things that we don't. I don't know.But to pretend that JS was "marrying" other men's wives", this just does not seem to be what was going on.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 In order to get at the root of Tacenda's point, though, I think you have to address the fact that in the church today, there are no instances (that I know of, anyway) where an adult man and woman are sealed together outside the context of a marriage. We don't have any couples who get sealed together intending to go their separate ways and not be married to each other. There does seem to be evidence that at least some of Joseph Smith's sealings were like that, though. If that's the case you're making, then that does imply a change in either doctrine or policy between Joseph's time and ours. I think that change is worthy of discussion. How was the sealing ordinance understood back then, and how does it differ from how we understand it now?I know that today sealings don't happen exactly like they did with JS. I was merely pointing out that a sealing and a marriage are different things. I am sure that JS did indeed marry some of these women too.
ERayR Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Yes, and Joseph Smith would tell many of the pre "wives" or "sealed women" whatever the case, that their whole family would be sealed to him and go to the highest kingdom if they submit to being sealed/married to him.Tacenda to refer to them as sealed/marriage is incorrect and is one of the reasons these two get conflated. Maybe in your mind they still are but go back over the conversation we have just had in this thread. It makes it hard to have a discussion on this topic if you are going to continue to equate them.
Tacenda Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Yes, and Joseph Smith would tell many of the pre "wives" or "sealed women" whatever the case, that their whole family would be sealed to him and go to the highest kingdom if they submit to being sealed or married to him.Tacenda to refer to them as sealed/marriage is incorrect and is one of the reasons these two get conflated. Maybe in your mind they still are but go back over the conversation we have just had in this thread. It makes it hard to have a discussion on this topic if you are going to continue to equate them.There, I put "or" to differientiate marriage and sealing. Maybe it's hard for people to understand because they don't want to believe JS did that. It was so hard for me and the reason for my obsession to search it out. Even though I'm about as scatterbrained as they come.
ERayR Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 There, I put "or" to differientiate marriage and sealing. Maybe it's hard for people to understand because they don't want to believe JS did that. It was so hard for me and the reason for my obsession to search it out. Even though I'm about as scatterbrained as they come.Thanks it dos have the differentiation. I have been called picky once or twice but words do mean things and how they are presented can change that meaning.
Tacenda Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Thanks it dos have the differentiation. I have been called picky once or twice but words do mean things and how they are presented can change that meaning. Thank you!
fatherofone Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I am guess we are not allowed to tell exit stories or I would tell you why I left
Calm Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Yes, and Joseph Smith would tell many of the pre "wives" or "sealed women" whatever the case, that their whole family would be sealed to him and go to the highest kingdom if they submit to being sealed or married to him.Have you read the article on polyandry that I gave you the link for yet?
Tacenda Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Have you read the article on polyandry that I gave you the link for yet?No, I'm sorry I wasted your efforts, I'd love to see it again. Or I'll scan back and check it again.
why me Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I am guess we are not allowed to tell exit stories or I would tell you why I leftYou can. But don't make it into a testmony meeting. The best way to do this is to include it in a response that relates directly to the poster you are responding to. It can be informal. People have given us reasons for leaving without the testimony.
Calm Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 No, I'm sorry I wasted your efforts, I'd love to see it again. Or I'll scan back and check it again.Very easy to find if you don't read it right away and don't want to find my link again...just go to fairlds.org and type "polyandry" in their search engine, it's the first article that comes up:http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/katich-a-tale-of-two-marriage-systems.pdf
Tacenda Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Very easy to find if you don't read it right away and don't want to find my link again...just go to fairlds.org and type "polyandry" in their search engine, it's the first article that comes up:http://www.fairlds.o...age-systems.pdf"JS Polygamy" = http://restorationbo.../jsfp-index.htmI'll let the LDS explain the other two.This FAIR article is proof JS tried polyandry and if you go to the FAIR website it has one for polygamy also. I hope it's ok with Calmoriah that I shared it with you. Thanks for the article, Cal. I thought it was very factual and I appreciate something that isn't made up like the one bookofmormonluvr provided.I don't think the church tries to necessarily hide this but it really isn't taught either. It hurts people like me that have to "accidently" run onto it while surfing the internet for geneology purposes about 5 years ago, btw. And it's not fun to learn of it when I'm old enough to know better. But with our previous church historian, Marlin K. Jensen's help I think the church is going to introduce these facts through the CES to the younger generation so they don't feel conned at first like I did. I'm alot less angry now. Especially after reading the apologetic answer from FAIR, so honest! Edited June 28, 2012 by Tacenda
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 This FAIR article is proof JS tried polyandry and if you go to the FAIR website it has one for polygamy also. I hope it's ok with Calmoriah that I shared it with you. Thanks for the article, Cal. I thought it was very factual and I appreciate something that isn't made up like the one bookofmormonluvr provided.I don't think the church tries to necessarily hide this but it really isn't taught either. It hurts people like me that have to "accidently" run onto it while surfing the internet for geneology purposes about 5 years ago, btw. And it's not fun to learn of it when I'm old enough to know better. But with our previous church historian, Marlin K. Jensen's help I think the church is going to introduce these facts through the CES to the younger generation so they don't feel conned at first like I did. I'm alot less angry now. Especially after reading the apologetic answer from FAIR, so honest!"Made up"?I doubt you even took time to look at Richard Price's research. The problem is... you have already made up your mind and will only deem acceptable those things that "prove" Joseph Smith's supposed practice of polygamy.That is the problem with most ex- or leaving Mormons... they have really already made up their minds against all things "Mormon" and are unwilling to look into other claims of the Restoration.
Calm Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I appreciate something that isn't made up like the one bookofmormonluvr....BoML is from a different tradition then Salt Lake centered LDS so it is understandable that he finds Price's work more reliable than FAIR's.
ERayR Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 This FAIR article is proof JS tried polyandry and if you go to the FAIR website it has one for polygamy also. I hope it's ok with Calmoriah that I shared it with you. Thanks for the article, Cal. I thought it was very factual and I appreciate something that isn't made up like the one bookofmormonluvr provided.I don't think the church tries to necessarily hide this but it really isn't taught either. It hurts people like me that have to "accidently" run onto it while surfing the internet for geneology purposes about 5 years ago, btw. And it's not fun to learn of it when I'm old enough to know better. But with our previous church historian, Marlin K. Jensen's help I think the church is going to introduce these facts through the CES to the younger generation so they don't feel conned at first like I did. I'm alot less angry now. Especially after reading the apologetic answer from FAIR, so honest!Church time is very precious. Three hours weekly. IMNSHO it is much more important to teach that which is of value to us in today's world. I would resent it if I had to give up that instruction on topics relevant to me and my family. Those things are part of the past and while interesting are not relevant to today. I have had a spiritual confirmation that the gospel is true so for me those things are at least immaterial. I cannot find a report of those activities that I find convincing as to what really happened . so I must choose which to believe the one designed to kill faith or the other side. 1
Tacenda Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I just meant in an apologetic fashion, thru seminary, ensign, or teachings of the prophets. But spoon fed while younger. This can be done the way they are doing the JS papers also. Maybe every so often. I think I read once that it would help inoculate future generations.
Tacenda Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Of course they don't really dwell on other prophets that practiced polygamy either. So disregard some of what I said. I don't know the right answers. I'll leave it to the experts.
why me Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I just meant in an apologetic fashion, thru seminary, ensign, or teachings of the prophets. But spoon fed while younger. This can be done the way they are doing the JS papers also. Maybe every so often. I think I read once that it would help inoculate future generations.Members are free to read books on their own. But I can also understand your point. I think that in the next couple of years, we will be hearing more about it on the church websites. Already, there is something about the nine first vision accounts by Joseph Smith. I think that the administration of the lds church is aware of the problem.
why me Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Of course they don't really dwell on other prophets that practiced polygamy either. So disregard some of what I said. I don't know the right answers. I'll leave it to the experts.I am not sure of this because I have very few lds published books in my own library. I have no idea what lds authors have said about past prophets when they have published their books with Desseret. I would hope that their polygamy practices were mentioned. But someone who has the books can tell more.
Recommended Posts