Nevo Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 That is neither here nor there. I just made mention of the reasons he felt it needed to be in the scriptures. I know it was recorded in 1843. In 1835 polygamy wasn't known to exist. But Joseph knew of the revelation since 1831.You said that "Joseph Smith put that section [section 132] in the D&C." I had the temerity to point out that he did not. Now you say that it's irrelevant whether or not Joseph put the section in the D&C, the point is "he felt it needed to be in the scriptures." I don't know how you could possibly know that, but I won't question you further.
ERayR Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 I believe you're right. One needs to know the reason behind why Joseph Smith put that section in the D&C. I believe it was that he had difficulty with Emma accepting the commandment to have plural wives. Emma wasn't having any of it and threw the written revelation in the fire. Of course there was a copy elsewhere. Also, Emma maybe chided Joseph and asked if he can have extra wives why can't she? So in the D & C 132 it describes where she isn't to have another husband but him.You have been reading the anti sites again. Will you never understand they lie.
ERayR Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) You said that "Joseph Smith put that section [section 132] in the D&C." I had the temerity to point out that he did not. Now you say that it's irrelevant whether or not Joseph put the section in the D&C, the point is "he felt it needed to be in the scriptures." I don't know how you could possibly know that, but I won't question you further.Edited to delete my bad morning. Edited July 19, 2012 by ERayR
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2012 Author Posted July 19, 2012 You and dougtheavenger should talk. He read Section 132 and didn't think it said anything about Joseph Smith's polygamy.I'm not accountable for his exegesis.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2012 Author Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) What was in the header before the 1981 version of the LDS scriptures? I would need to consult my missionary Triple Combination at home tonight to answer that. (I served in the mid-70s.) I'd be surprised if it did not identify the section as pertaining to plurality of wives.It should not take a "genius IQ or PhD to comprehend the message of Section 132" but I don't agree that just because the header spells out that the section deals with plurality of wives means that we can immediately understand that Joseph Smith took plural wives in his lifetime. There's a difference.Then one must resolve the question of why Joseph would receive the revelation and commandment, tell others to obey it, but not do it himself. Wouldn't that make him a hypocrite?And why should a faithful member of the Church who accepts Brigham Young as a prophet of God be OK knowing that Brigham practiced plural marriage but find it so shocking and disturbing to learn that Joseph did? That's a highly inconsistent mentality. And in reading the text of 132, one can infer it, but it is not clear. It is not spelled out. Preparing his heart to receive a commandment does not necessarily equate to having many wives.Why would he have to prepare his heart to receive it if he is not expected to live it? That doesn't make sense. Edited July 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Tacenda Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) You said that "Joseph Smith put that section [section 132] in the D&C." I had the temerity to point out that he did not. Now you say that it's irrelevant whether or not Joseph put the section in the D&C, the point is "he felt it needed to be in the scriptures." I don't know how you could possibly know that, but I won't question you further.I have a terrible vocabulary and may have put the wrong wordage, I was just talking about the gist of it. I didn't mean to convey that it was irrelevant that Joseph put the section in the D & C. How did it come out that way? But why do you say the you have the temerity to point out that he did not put it there. Do you mean I should have been specific and said that God did? Edited July 19, 2012 by Tacenda
Tacenda Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 You said that "Joseph Smith put that section [section 132] in the D&C." I had the temerity to point out that he did not. Now you say that it's irrelevant whether or not Joseph put the section in the D&C, the point is "he felt it needed to be in the scriptures." I don't know how you could possibly know that, but I won't question you further.http://www.ldsces.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-131-132.aspHere is a snippet:It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831 (see History of the Church, 5:xxix). In March 1843 he spoke to William Clayton of eternal marriage. In July of that year, he was discussing the doctrine with his brother Hyrum in William Clayton’s presence when Hyrum said, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace” ( History of the Church, 5:xxxii).
Tacenda Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 You have been reading the anti sites again. Will you never understand they lie.No I listened to the MormonStories podcast with Grant Palmer. . http://mormonstories.org/324-326-grant-palmer-returns-to-discuss-sexual-allegations-against-joseph-smith-william-and-jane-law-and-his-resignation/I guess that's where I got the information about Emma chiding Joseph Smith. So not an anti site, or then again some would say it is sometimes. Though today I listened partially to one interview on there with an active LDS bishop. But yeah sometimes things I say flippantly I need to remember where I read them or heard them. Thanks ERayR, you keep me on my toes, it's a good thing as long as your polite about it.
ERayR Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 No I listened to the MormonStories podcast with Grant Palmer. . http://mormonstories...is-resignation/I guess that's where I got the information about Emma chiding Joseph Smith. So not an anti site, or then again some would say it is sometimes. Though today I listened partially to one interview on there with an active LDS bishop. But yeah sometimes things I say flippantly I need to remember where I read them or heard them. Thanks ERayR, you keep me on my toes, it's a good thing as long as your polite about it. Just remember that sometimes I get a little short and need to rein myself in.
Libs Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Then I suggest you read the introduction to Volume 5 of History of the Church, pp. xxx to xlvi.Thank you for the link. That's a much better site than the previous. I read your reference. I think I have seen a part of that, before. Interesting stuff.Incidentally, the reason you should beware of anti-Mormon sources is that they are unreliable. They pick and choose half-truths wrenched from context to serve their adversarial agenda. They often give deceptively simple treatments to complex topics that require nuanced explanations. That may have been why your bishop counseled you to avoid them.Yes, I thought I knew that going in. I was banned from CARM, twice, for stating a little too bluntly, what I thought of their forum and moderation. That was in the beginning. What threw me was when I found out a lot of what they said was true. I guess I was expecting complete lies. It took me awhile to determine that a lot of it was half-lies. But, some damage was done to my testimony, because I really thought I should have been informed by the church about some of these things (like Joseph's polygamy, in much more detail). Perhaps, that was, in part, my fault, for not being curious enough. Finding out some of these things from the critics created an extreme emotional reaction in me, that really took some time to work through.Again, don't be content with spoon feeding, but be judicious in your selection of and reliance on information sources.Yes...thanks. For some of us, the information mill is such a maze. It is, sometimes, difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. Edited July 19, 2012 by Libs
thesometimesaint Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Libs:A hundred truths used to support a single lie is still a lie. 1
Libs Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 So? What difference does it make if you have a true testimony of the things you already know? We honor our Founding Fathers for what they did to establish this nation. In recent years there have been those who for some reason feel it important we know all the "dirty" little secrets of their personal lives, and yes they present those things in the most negative manner. Does knowing these things change anything about what these men did and the sacrifices they made? In my view their human weaknesses make the things they accomplished more amazing and show the hand of God.First and foremost history is a matter of interpretation. The church has always been careful about talking about past events unless they can corroborate the information. Critics don't care about that. They throw out bits and pieces with the hope of destroying faith. Not only that but we don't always know the full story or the motivation behind certain things even if we can corroborate the facts of something.I'm always reminded of the delightful movie "Galaxy Quest" where the aliens took a fictional show as fact and built their civilization around it. I have the feeling this is what too many people have done in taking events out of context and putting together a picture that is in itself a piece of fiction.Yes, I don't disagree with anything you said. As I said, it is sometimes difficult to sort through all of the information...there is so much. And, when you learn something kind of shocking...and that it is true...then, you have to wonder what else you don't know. For me, it caused some second guessing about my own good judgment and whether or not my spiritual experiences were really true.
ERayR Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Yes, I don't disagree with anything you said. As I said, it is sometimes difficult to sort through all of the information...there is so much. And, when you learn something kind of shocking...and that it is true...then, you have to wonder what else you don't know. For me, it caused some second guessing about my own good judgment and whether or not my spiritual experiences were really true.For me it is easy to sort through the information. I just ask myself: Do you know the gospel is true? Do you know Joseph Smith restored the gospel including the saving ordinances? If the answer to both questions is yes then the negative information is irrelevant. 1
why me Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 For me, it caused some second guessing about my own good judgment and whether or not my spiritual experiences were really true.Which is the goal of the anti sites...to have you question your spiritual experiences and the witness of the holy ghost. The end goal is to compare those confirmations and spiritual experiences to warm fuzzies. I have seen this happen to quite a few people. 2
Zakuska Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Which is the goal of the anti sites...to have you question your spiritual experiences and the witness of the holy ghost. The end goal is to compare those confirmations and spiritual experiences to warm fuzzies. I have seen this happen to quite a few people.What I don't understand is why it would matter if Joseph Smith practiced Polygamy or not. Prophets in the Bible did far worse things than that, and that did not detract one bit from their status as a prophet. Why would it Joseph Smith?
Calm Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Great! Can you find the peanut butter and jelly and make me a sandwich? Don't think I have any. Will almond butter do? Selek dear
Calm Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Eureka!I found a good online site for History of the Church. It is provided by BYU Studies It has page numbers, and it is broken out into volumes.Enjoy:http://byustudies2.b...c/hcpgs/hc.aspxIt is bookmarked! Thank you! Time to party, almond butter and jelly sandwiches for everyone!
Alan Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) What I don't understand is why it would matter if Joseph Smith practiced Polygamy or not. Prophets in the Bible did far worse things than that, and that did not detract one bit from their status as a prophet. Why would it Joseph Smith?I think it matters because he publicly stated a matter of days before his death that he did not practice it and had only one wife. It's a credibility thing. Furthermore he stated that he could prove all those who claimed otherwise to be liars.This is why I believe Joseph was not a polygamist. Edited July 19, 2012 by Alan
Darren10 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Don't think I have any. Will almond butter do? Selek dear Almond butter...yummmmmmmmmm!!!!
Evangeline Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Eureka!I found a good online site for History of the Church. It is provided by BYU Studies It has page numbers, and it is broken out into volumes.Enjoy:http://byustudies2.b...c/hcpgs/hc.aspxAwesome!!! Thanks!
selek1 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Don't think I have any. Will almond butter do? Selek dear Sorry...still working on the fresh bread and strawberry preserves....Be with you in a sec...
mathilde Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Eureka!I found a good online site for History of the Church. It is provided by BYU Studies It has page numbers, and it is broken out into volumes.Enjoy:http://byustudies2.b...c/hcpgs/hc.aspxI just bookmarked this too, thanks for this link.
thews Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I don't recall (I'll check for sure tomorrow) the Lord ever specifically commanding anyone to take more than one wife. How can you say this when D&C 132:4 specifically states that those rejecting the covenant will be damned? Are you claiming that D&C 132:4 isn't about polygamy? If so, what does it mean?http://www.lds.org/s...dc/132?lang=engcovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye bdamned; for no one can creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. Section 132Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. Was it done? Yes. Was it commanded by the Lord? Not so sure on that one..... Again, what is the covenant in D&C 132:4? Seems pretty straightforward to me.In my opinion it was a practice that was tolerated for a time by the Lord but not desired by Him. Niether is it a higher law, but actually a lower practise.This doesn't make sense to me. How can a "practice" be tollerated by the Lord God, yet not "desired" by him, when he commanded it? Edited July 20, 2012 by thews
Calm Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Palerider isn't LDS, he wouldn't appeal to LDS scriptures to demonstrate commands from the Lord.
Nevo Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 How can you say this when D&C 132:4 specifically states that those rejecting the covenant will be damned? Are you claiming that D&C 132:4 isn't about polygamy? If so, what does it mean?Again, what is the covenant in D&C 132:4? Seems pretty straightforward to me.The "covenant" referred to in D&C 132:4 is "the new and everlasting covenant," not polygamy.
Recommended Posts