Polygamy And Dishonesty-

[halconero]

Actually, according to D&C 132, the consent of both are required. The major three rules are clearly referenced in verse 61:

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

1. Taking any/all women as wives must be by God's permission. (see v.19)
   
2. All new women candidates must be virgins.
   
3. The first wife must always give permission.
   

You're ignoring verses 64 and 65:

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

The law of Sarah, if obeyed by the first wife, allowed her to choose her husband's second, third, and so on and so forth wives. If she was taught the law, but did not consent the husband was under no obligation to let her choose.

[DavidB]

Smac, what many many sources for many years can you point too? Specifically Official LDS Church publications? As of yet there is a primary manual from 1997, a new era article (possibly) from 1969, and ensign 1994 and according to Calmoriah "two CES Church History manuals that have been around together since 67." That is five official LDS sources so far.

ErayE, you are asking the wrong person and more important you miss the bigger issue i.e. life long members do not certain details.

Pahoran, how long has that material been published in primary manuals? And how does that account for those person who convert at an age beyond the age group for primary 5?

Edited September 17, 2012 by DavidB

[Calm]

Smac, what many many sources for many years can you point too? Specifically Official LDS Church publications? As of yet there is a primary manual from 1997, a new era article (possibly) from 1969, and ensign 1994.

ErayE, you are asking the wrong person and more important you miss the bigger issue I.e. longtime.life long members do not certain details.

Pahoran, how long has that material been published in primary manuals?

You seem to keep forgetting the two CES Church History manuals that have been around together since 67.

[why me]

I grew up in the Church and attended church pretty much every Sunday. I think I probably paid attention 15-20% of the time, if that.

I wonder how many details and how much information I missed during the 80-85% of the time I was not paying attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

A boy in primary would love the gun lesson, complete with pictures of the gun. No forgetting that demonstration. But a lecture from a desk by the primary teacher would go in one ear and out the other.

[ERayR]

Smac, what many many sources for many years can you point too? Specifically Official LDS Church publications? As of yet there is a primary manual from 1997, a new era article (possibly) from 1969, and ensign 1994 and according to Calmoriah "two CES Church History manuals that have been around together since 67." That is five official LDS sources so far.

ErayE, you are asking the wrong person and more important you miss the bigger issue i.e. life long members do not certain details.

Pahoran, how long has that material been published in primary manuals? And how does that account for those person who convert at an age beyond the age group for primary 5?

What part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ does the gun in Liberty Jail pertain to?

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know, but Jesus thought it important that Peter be armed.

[why me]

Smac, what many many sources for many years can you point too? Specifically Official LDS Church publications? As of yet there is a primary manual from 1997, a new era article (possibly) from 1969, and ensign 1994 and according to Calmoriah "two CES Church History manuals that have been around together since 67." That is five official LDS sources so far.

ErayE, you are asking the wrong person and more important you miss the bigger issue i.e. life long members do not certain details.

Pahoran, how long has that material been published in primary manuals? And how does that account for those person who convert at an age beyond the age group for primary 5?

I think that they have been there for a long time. We also need to remember that the early saints knew the story of the gun and about polygamy and the sword. And this was passed down generationally. However, as the church expanded and incorporated new areas, the message may have gotten lost. This is the problem of a world wide church. However, it has been pointed out to you that it is in the manuals. But do new converts study these materials? I doubt it. Are they requested to? No. Should they? Yes.

I think that there needs to be a history study manual like The Fulness of Times manual. This would solve many problems, I believe.

[Tacenda]

I think that they have been there for a long time. We also need to remember that the early saints knew the story of the gun and about polygamy and the sword. And this was passed down generationally. However, as the church expanded and incorporated new areas, the message may have gotten lost. This is the problem of a world wide church. However, it has been pointed out to you that it is in the manuals. But do new converts study these materials? I doubt it. Are they requested to? No. Should they? Yes.

I think that there needs to be a history study manual like The Fulness of Times manual. This would solve many problems, I believe.

And a manual on our doctrine would be nice.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[why me]

What part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ does the gun in Liberty Jail pertain to?

We see in the book of mormon people willing to defend themselves. The gun in the prison would go along with laying one's life down for a friend. They had a right to protect not only themselves but each other. No one wishes people to commit suicide whether self induced or allowing someone to kill you without an attempt to protect oneself.

The idea that a christian martyrdom is accepting one's fate without struggle is a misguided one.

[why me]

And a manuel on our doctrine would be nice.

We do have those. But when it comes to past understandings, a history manual can do the trick as it is written in the manuals linked to this thread. The right teacher could make these lessons come alive.

[KevinG]

I must be the problem. Clear enough. Hey, thanks for adding significant content to the discussion.

BTW, what are the other "reason for polygamy," and would please provide credible/substantiated references that support the same? Hey, super-thanks.

Sealings, Royal Priesthood... did you miss that whole discussion? You are super welcome.

Edited September 17, 2012 by KevinG

[DBMormon]

And a manual on our doctrine would be nice.

We have very little concrete doctrine - This manual would be very short

Doctrine doesn't change.... Policies and Programs do

Polygamy really wasn't a doctrine, it was a permitted policy. If it was Doctrine it would have always been and allways be, but it wasn't. In the BOM says it is the exception to the rule.

I don't want creeds and more doctrine

I want to keep it as basic as it is. Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Holy Ghost, Endure to the end, any additional ordinances that Christ deems as required for salvation.

Word of Wisdom for example is not doctrine - it is a policy that revelation could change

Rebelation can not change doctrine as Doctrine is eternal

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40 ).

The "doctrine of Jesus Christ," which the Savior's listeners found "astonishing" (Matt. 7:28 ) and "new" (Mark 1:27 ) and which he attributed to the Father (John 7:16-19 ), is synonymous with his central message, the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Paul's words, it was the good news that the kingdom of God is at hand and that God "hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 5:18 ).

The apostles, following the death and resurrection of the Savior, continued to teach this essential message (Acts 13:12 ; 1 Tim. 6:1 ). They used the word "doctrine" most often in reference to what a person must believe and do in order to be saved (Acts 2:41-47 ; 1 Tim. 4:16 ;Heb. 6:1-3 ).

Thus, the "doctrine of Jesus Christ" is the only teaching that can properly be called "doctrine." It is fixed and unchanging. It cannot be modified or contradicted, but merely amplified as additional truths that deepen understanding and appreciation of its meaning are revealed. It is the basis on which the test of faith is made, and the rock or foundation of all other revealed teachings, principles, and practices.

Edited September 18, 2012 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

We have very little concrete doctrine - This manual would be very short

Doctrine doesn't change.... Policies and Programs do

Polygamy really wasn't a doctrine, it was a permitted policy. If it was Doctrine it would have always been and allways be, but it wasn't. In the BOM says it is the exception to the rule.

I don't want creeds and more doctrine

I want to keep it as basic as it is. Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Holy Ghost, Endure to the end, any additional ordinances that Christ deems as required for salvation.

Word of Wisdom for example is not doctrine - it is a policy that revelation could change

Rebelation can not change doctrine as Doctrine is eternal

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine

DB thankyou for the detailed description of the meaning for doctrine. To be honest, I didn't understand it that way before, the meaning that it is what is practiced in a religion, lame huh? I thought it to meant more like a creed of belief etc. I've never looked up the definition before.

But the critics might bring up the fact that polygamy is still practiced in our temples. When a man becomes a widower and marries again, he keeps his first wife.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Tacenda

[why me]

But the critics might bring up the fact that polygamy is still practiced in our temples. When a man becomes a widower and marries again, he keeps his first wife.

That's if he marries in the temple again. However, one can talk about this in the present. I think that couples need to have a chat about this. If the woman is uncomfortable with this idea that her husband can marry again in the temple and be sealed to another woman, this should be discussed in the present. When the critics were active members they had very little problem with this. It is only when they become exmembers do they seem to have a problem with it. It is a nice subject to bring up to put the lds person on the defensive.

[MormonMason]

I think that they have been there for a long time. We also need to remember that the early saints knew the story of the gun and about polygamy and the sword. And this was passed down generationally. However, as the church expanded and incorporated new areas, the message may have gotten lost. This is the problem of a world wide church. However, it has been pointed out to you that it is in the manuals. But do new converts study these materials? I doubt it. Are they requested to? No. Should they? Yes.

I think that there needs to be a history study manual like The Fulness of Times manual. This would solve many problems, I believe.

The Presidents of the Church have encouraged all of us to attend Institute. They have encouraged us repeatedly to read the Church magazines. These kinds of things can be found in the Church magazines. The Fulness of Times manual is an Institute class manual. Take Institute; learn from the manual. Doesn't anybody listen to the Presidents of the Church and take their advice anymore?

[ed2276]

Frankly, I couldn't care less about whether or not Joseph had more than one wife. I'm fine knowing it was okay if he did.

I feel the same way, Ahab.

Our fellow Christians approach Abraham's, Isaac's, Jacob's, and David's polygamy with the same attitude you express above about Joseph Smith. However, they are not quite so generous and accepting toward Joseph as they are toward those other Patriarchs/ prophets above.

I wonder how many of our fellow Christians teach their adherents about the OT polygamy of those great men of God and how many hide it from their congregants? How many would flee the churches when upon reading the OT for themselves they discover the polygamous past of those men of God, crying, "You deceived us! You hid their polygamy from us!", as they run out the door?

[why me]

The Presidents of the Church have encouraged all of us to attend Institute. They have encouraged us repeatedly to read the Church magazines. These kinds of things can be found in the Church magazines. The Fulness of Times manual is an Institute class manual. Take Institute; learn from the manual. Doesn't anybody listen to the Presidents of the Church and take their advice anymore?

I know that it is an institute manual. But we also need this manual for regular sunday school for those interested. The point is to make the information available to the general membership. In this way, the critics cannot claim deceit or hiding the truth. The ensign is a little scarce with such information and it has been for at least 20 years.

[DBMormon]

I know that it is an institute manual. But we also need this manual for regular sunday school for those interested. The point is to make the information available to the general membership. In this way, the critics cannot claim deceit or hiding the truth. The ensign is a little scarce with such information and it has been for at least 20 years.

You are likely aware but the church is currently re-writing the D&C/church history manuals for Sunday School and are hopeful they will be done in time for next year. It is written to include more of these controversial issues.

[Pahoran]

Smac, what many many sources for many years can you point too? Specifically Official LDS Church publications? As of yet there is a primary manual from 1997, a new era article (possibly) from 1969, and ensign 1994 and according to Calmoriah "two CES Church History manuals that have been around together since 67." That is five official LDS sources so far.

ErayE, you are asking the wrong person and more important you miss the bigger issue i.e. life long members do not certain details.

Pahoran, how long has that material been published in primary manuals? And how does that account for those person who convert at an age beyond the age group for primary 5?

David,

In my sports activities, I'm used to the fact that I may sometimes have to sprint down the field to catch up with the ball. I don't usually expect to have to run anywhere to catch up with the goal posts.

My post was in response to your claim that:

Primary children are taught the history of Joseph Smith martyrdom - were are taught all details of the event but for Joseph shooting back - why are all the other historical details taught to children but the gun is left out.

You want to ask about the past? Okay; it's in History of the Church.

Naturally I can't produce every single manual from every single year since HC was published. But now it's your turn; instead of leaning back in your chair and demanding to be spoonfed, you get to do some research yourself.

You're the one making the accusation; so you get to either (1) prove it, or (2) retract it. CFR that there has ever been a time when the Church has "suppressed" or "hidden" the fact that Joseph had a gun. Primary sources only, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

You are likely aware but the church is currently re-writing the D&C/church history manuals for Sunday School and are hopeful they will be done in time for next year. It is written to include more of these controversial issues.

If this is the case, it is being done because of elder Jensen's influence. And with the knowledge of what the critics are saying on the Internet.

[why me]

David,

In my sports activities, I'm used to the fact that I may sometimes have to sprint down the field to catch up with the ball. I don't usually expect to have to run anywhere to catch up with the goal posts.

Regards,

Pahoran

Sounds like Australian football. Or soccer.

[DBMormon]

If this is the case, it is being done because of elder Jensen's influence. And with the knowledge of what the critics are saying on the Internet.

I would agree that Elder Jensen has been a giant part of this. I would also add that Elder Christofferson and Elder Holland also seem to have this on their mind gauging from recent talks and from some personal experience.

[Scott Lloyd]

David,

In my sports activities, I'm used to the fact that I may sometimes have to sprint down the field to catch up with the ball. I don't usually expect to have to run anywhere to catch up with the goal posts.

My post was in response to your claim that:

You want to ask about the past? Okay; it's in History of the Church.

Naturally I can't produce every single manual from every single year since HC was published. But now it's your turn; instead of leaning back in your chair and demanding to be spoonfed, you get to do some research yourself.

You're the one making the accusation; so you get to either (1) prove it, or (2) retract it. CFR that there has ever been a time when the Church has "suppressed" or "hidden" the fact that Joseph had a gun. Primary sources only, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

I know it's been over a week ago, but I'm just now seeing this thread.

I was wondering whether DavidB is going to be forthcoming with a response to the CFR.

My personal policy is that if someone fails to respond to a CFR, I feel at liberty to conclude that person can't substantiate his accusation or assertion. I therefore conclude that DavidB's accusation is without merit that the Church hides the fact of Joseph having had a pistol in Carthage.

[DavidB]

I know it's been over a week ago, but I'm just now seeing this thread.

I was wondering whether DavidB is going to be forthcoming with a response to the CFR.

My personal policy is that if someone fails to respond to a CFR, I feel at liberty to conclude that person can't substantiate his accusation or assertion. I therefore conclude that DavidB's accusation is without merit that the Church hides the fact of Joseph having had a pistol in Carthage.

Before you pat yourself on the back.....I did not notice the CFR until.reading your post 30 seconds ago.

But here is my response " Naturally I can't produce every single manual from every single year since HC was published." Nor can produce every manual the Church has every produced.

Edited September 26, 2012 by DavidB

[Pahoran]

Before you pat yourself on the back.....I did not notice the CFR until.reading your post 30 seconds ago.

But here is my response " Naturally I can't produce every single manual from every single year since HC was published." Nor can produce every manual the Church has every produced.

Nice try; but it doesn't wash.

You see, to make your (discredited) accusation stick, you don't have to produce "every single manual." That's what I would have to do to disprove your unsupported accusation, if you were to succeed in duck-shoving your burden of proof onto me; but the burden is yours, and all you have to do is produce one manual -- just one will do -- that suppresses or hides the fact that Joseph had and used a gun.

Such a manual would need to purport to offer a detailed description of the martyrdom; one-sentence summaries such as "Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in Carthage Jail on June 27, 1844" will not, of course, suffice.

Regards,

Pahoran