Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[thews]

The "covenant" referred to in D&C 132:4 is "the new and everlasting covenant," not polygamy.

What does this covenant mean if it isn't polygamy? From LDS.org:

http://www.lds.org/s...dc/132?lang=eng

Section 132

Revelation 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.

Edited July 20, 2012 by thews

[Calm]

relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant,

[Nevo]

What does this covenant mean if it isn't polygamy? From LDS.org:

http://www.lds.org/s...dc/132?lang=eng

The headnote to Section 132 should tip you off that the new and everlasting covenant isn't polygamy since the two things are clearly distinguished ("the new and everlasting covenant . . . and also the plurality of wives"). Here's some further reading from LDS.org:

• New and Everlasting Covenant
  
• Search "New and Everlasting Covenant"
  

Edited July 20, 2012 by Nevo

[why me]

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?

Well, I think that this is the point. I said earlier that if one has a testimony of the book of mormon and if one receives spiritual witnesses from the holy ghost that the church is true, Joseph being a polygamist should not matter. It does not change that spiritual confirmation or spirit experience. However, if one reads the critic sites, they make it a point to claim that it does matter and they attempt to make a convincing case. Then, as people follow links from those sites, the critic interpretation is confirmed by other critic sites. Then, the member goes to church sites and finds nothing about it. Thus, the confirmation that the church hides its history.

But overall, whether JS practiced polygamy as did others during his time, should not matter to the spiritual experiences of that member.

But this can be rectified by the church at least acknowledging the practice by joseph smith and the number of women that were sealed to him and their ages. And give a good faith promoting reason for the practice started by Joseph Smith.

[why me]

Yes...thanks. For some of us, the information mill is such a maze. It is, sometimes, difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.

This is why FAIR is attempting to fight back through confereces, journals and websites. However, one must also be aware that the critic or anti sites also attempt to discredit FAIR by claiming that FAIR's interpretation is indefensible and weak. This can be heard over and over again from the posts on critic discussion sites. Also, another common refrain is that FAIR does more harm than good to the searching member. And this is repeated over and over again also, so the searching member begins to believe it.

[thews]

relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant,

You're just quoting the part that you assume bolsters your argument while ignoring what the covenant entails. Please explain what the everlasting covenant means.

[thews]

The headnote to Section 132 should tip you off that the new and everlasting covenant isn't polygamy since the two things are clearly distinguished ("the new and everlasting covenant . . . and also the plurality of wives"). Here's some further reading from LDS.org:

• New and Everlasting Covenant
  
• Search "New and Everlasting Covenant"
  

How does "and also the pularity of wives" exclude polygamy? If it isn't polygamy (polyandry), then what is it?

[Calm]

You're just quoting the part that you assume bolsters your argument while ignoring what the covenant entails. Please explain what the everlasting covenant means.

See the links Nevo gave.

[thews]

Well, I think that this is the point. I said earlier that if one has a testimony of the book of mormon and if one receives spiritual witnesses from the holy ghost that the church is true, Joseph being a polygamist should not matter.

Your opinion of "what should and should not matter" is moot regarding how the everlasting covenant is interpreted per D&C 132:4, as failing to do so damns the person.

It does not change that spiritual confirmation or spirit experience. However, if one reads the critic sites, they make it a point to claim that it does matter and they attempt to make a convincing case. Then, as people follow links from those sites, the critic interpretation is confirmed by other critic sites. Then, the member goes to church sites and finds nothing about it. Thus, the confirmation that the church hides its history.

Again your opinon, followed by more opinion of how others think. Please tell me how to interpret D&C 132:4?

But overall, whether JS practiced polygamy as did others during his time, should not matter to the spiritual experiences of that member.

According to who? You? A covenant that damns someone for rejecting it is serious. Please give a CFR to justify your opinion.

But this can be rectified by the church at least acknowledging the practice by joseph smith and the number of women that were sealed to him and their ages. And give a good faith promoting reason for the practice started by Joseph Smith.

There's no need to acknowledge, as the wives of Joseph Smith are recorded on the LDS geneology website... I fail to see your point.

[thews]

See the links Nevo gave.

If you have a point to make then please make it (and link the source) without giving me the place where I can supposedly find it for you.

You have been answered so move on or move out of the thread.

[wenglund]

How does "and also the pularity of wives" exclude polygamy? If it isn't polygamy (polyandry), then what is it?

You clearly failed to correctly understand what Nevo said. He was rightly acknowledge the improtant distinction between "new and everlasting covenant" and "plurality of wives," and in no way drew a distinction between "plurality of wives" and "polygamy." Please take more care in your reading.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You're just quoting the part that you assume bolsters your argument while ignoring what the covenant entails.

Please be specific about what you opine the covenant entails and why you believe it is being ignored in the quoted portion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

If you have a point to make then please make it (and link the source) without giving me the place where I can supposedly find it for you.

I don't know if this will help but the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is being married and sealed for all eternity. Polygamy can (but is not necessary) be practiced within this covenant. When polygamy is added then all wives are in and everlasting and eternal marriage with one man. When polygamy is not involved it is one man and one woman.

[why me]

There's no need to acknowledge, as the wives of Joseph Smith are recorded on the LDS geneology website... I fail to see your point.

Okay, let me try this again. The lds church is a world wide church. To counteract the critics who claim that the church hides such information, there should be an article in the ensign or in the liahona about Joseph Smith and polygamy. Then, the critics will need to change their tune. If you think that church members know that they can find it on the geneology website or that they would look at it without reason to do so, would be a mistake. First, the member needs to know that Joseph was a polygamist. Then they can search such a website to find out more information.

[why me]

Again your opinon, followed by more opinion of how others think. Please tell me how to interpret D&C 132:4?

According to who? You? A covenant that damns someone for rejecting it is serious. Please give a CFR to justify your opinion.

We are talking about two different things. I was not referring to the everlasting covenant at all. Just the fact that the church needs to be more upfront with Joseph's polygamy and what happens when church members visit anti sites and experience the information about it.

My opinion may be just an opinion but as someone who has been on the boards for years, I think I know what exmembers think because they post what they think on their boards.

I think that you misread my posts.

[Libs]

This is why FAIR is attempting to fight back through confereces, journals and websites. However, one must also be aware that the critic or anti sites also attempt to discredit FAIR by claiming that FAIR's interpretation is indefensible and weak. This can be heard over and over again from the posts on critic discussion sites. Also, another common refrain is that FAIR does more harm than good to the searching member. And this is repeated over and over again also, so the searching member begins to believe it.

Yes, I know. I've spent a fair amount of time with critics. Most really do not believe that LDS apologists have put up very good arguments and they do try to discredit them. Personally, I went through a period of being very critical of the LDS apologists, myself, but it was because of mostly second hand information...and reading some articles that seemed a little too far out, in trying to explain things, IMO. I remember reading about an explanation for Joseph Smith lying about polygamy. It was compared to hiding people during the Holocaust (don't remember, now, who wrote the article). I thought it was a bit outrageous, at the time, and still think the comparison may have been a little over the top. But, I've also read many other articles, mostly on the Book of Mormon (some on the Book of Abrahm) that I thought were very good and quite reasonable. Michael Ash's book, in general, was helpful and even encouraged me to go back for awhile.

[Calm]

President Brigham Young said: “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the Devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, … that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young[1997], 62–63).

http://www.lds.org/new-era/2010/08/being-in-the-kingdom-and-of-the-kingdom?lang=eng&query=%22new+and+everlasting+covenant%22

The scriptures speak of the new and everlasting covenant. The new and everlasting covenant is the gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, the doctrines and commandments of the gospel constitute the substance of an everlasting covenant between God and man that is newly restored in each dispensation. If we were to state the new and everlasting covenantin one sentence it would be this: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Jesus explained what it means to believe in Him: “Now this is the commandment [or in other words, this is the covenant]: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day” (3 Nephi 27:20).

http://www.lds.org/g...sting covenant"

As we enter into these important covenants, we become partakers of the new and everlasting covenant, “even the fulness of [the gospel of Jesus Christ]” (D&C 66:2). The new and everlasting covenant is “the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations” we’ve made,10 and the resulting blessings include all that the Father has, including eternal life.

As we strive to understand and keep our covenants, we should remember that keeping our covenants is not merely a list of things to do but a commitment to become like the Savior.

“The Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts—what we have done,” taught Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions. The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become.”

^{http://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/07/understanding-our-covenants-with-god?lang=eng&query=%22new+and+everlasting+covenant%22}

Edited July 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

Yes, I know. I've spent a fair amount of time with critics. Most really do not believe that LDS apologists have put up very good arguments and they do try to discredit them. Personally, I went through a period of being very critical of the LDS apologists, myself, but it was because of mostly second hand information...and reading some articles that seemed a little too far out, in trying to explain things, IMO.

You went through the usual process that many people have done before you. Fortunately, you ended up here having a dialogue with some of the apologists who write the articles for FAIR. It is always good to speak with the horse's mouth. I went through a similiar process before I discovered the FAIR discussion board which eventually became this board. This can be a rough place at times but the people here can be kind and gentle too and willing to help.

If you ever came back to the church, (I believe that you said that you left the church) with the knowledge that you are now learning, you will be towering above the average member because the insights that you are learning here.

[Tacenda]

Libs and Why Me your comments bouy me up! I really appreciate your honesty, it helps so many that read this board. Libs I relate to the not knowing about JS polygamy thing, I didn't know until 6 ? yrs. ago. I think the comments on this thread show that it can happen. There is a need to put it out there maybe in the ways suggested so far. It might well be a refiners fire but it would be the right thing to do.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

duplicate

Edited July 20, 2012 by Tacenda

[Deborah]

What does this covenant mean if it isn't polygamy? From LDS.org:

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The New and Everlasting Covenant is defined very clearly in v. 7 "And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

Marriage is a part of this covenant as is plural marriage when instituted. Neither is the whole covenant or the only thing under the covenant.

[why me]

Libs and Why Me your comments bouy me up! I really appreciate your honesty, it helps so many that read this board. Libs I relate to the not knowing about JS polygamy thing, I didn't know until 6 ? yrs. ago. I think the comments on this thread show that it can happen. There is a need to put it out there maybe in the ways suggested so far. It might well be a refiners fire but it would be the right thing to do.

It would be the right thing to do. But the point is that testimony should not depend on the actions of people inside the office building. It depends on the book of mormon, the 11 witnesses and the foundations of the lds church. Not on decision made in the Church Office Building.

I think that the majority of people on this thread know that the lds church can do a better job in educating its members about polygamy, mutliple accounts of the first vision, the translation process etc. Church magazines would be a great way to introduce such topics and not very difficult. What is amazing is that church history is actually faith promoting and not faith doubting. History is never perfect because it is ´humans who make history. And we need to keep this in mind.

[ERayR]

It would be the right thing to do. But the point is that testimony should not depend on the actions of people inside the office building. It depends on the book of mormon, the 11 witnesses and the foundations of the lds church. Not on decision made in the Church Office Building.

I think that the majority of people on this thread know that the lds church can do a better job in educating its members about polygamy, mutliple accounts of the first vision, the translation process etc. Church magazines would be a great way to introduce such topics and not very difficult. What is amazing is that church history is actually faith promoting and not faith doubting. History is never perfect because it is ´humans who make history. And we need to keep this in mind.

What most do not stop to think about is the scope of the job of those in the Church Office Building. The number and magnitude of the decisions made on a daily basis is staggering. Decisions that have the potential of affecting 15,000,000 lives. These decisions must encompass much more than a member in the USofA sitting in our comfortable and relatively safe circumstances. I am afraid most of us have a very myopic view of what should be done.

[Libs]

You went through the usual process that many people have done before you. Fortunately, you ended up here having a dialogue with some of the apologists who write the articles for FAIR. It is always good to speak with the horse's mouth. I went through a similiar process before I discovered the FAIR discussion board which eventually became this board. This can be a rough place at times but the people here can be kind and gentle too and willing to help.

If you ever came back to the church, (I believe that you said that you left the church) with the knowledge that you are now learning, you will be towering above the average member because the insights that you are learning here.

I have left. I tried to go back, twice, in the last four years. I think there are too many things about the church that I don't believe, anymore. I couldn't settle into it. Always something nagging at me.

I am, however, glad to have a little more peace about some of the things that were bothering me, deeply (mainly having to do with Joseph Smith)..

[Libs]

Libs and Why Me your comments bouy me up! I really appreciate your honesty, it helps so many that read this board. Libs I relate to the not knowing about JS polygamy thing, I didn't know until 6 ? yrs. ago. I think the comments on this thread show that it can happen. There is a need to put it out there maybe in the ways suggested so far. It might well be a refiners fire but it would be the right thing to do.

I don't know if it would be the "right" think to do, but I do, sincerely, believe it would be helpful for some people. Whether or not that would outweigh the people it might hurt, I don't know. Only leadership can make that determination. So far, they seem to be leaning "against" sharing the details of Joseph's polygamy, in church.

Maybe, the internet is going to take care of that need....but, it's quite a bit more risky, IMO.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Libs