Lamanite Posted September 13, 2012 Author Posted September 13, 2012 If its not about sex how is this any different?Matthew 8:3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was acleansed.4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.Matthew 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the aChrist. (This one I find most significant because he did it after conferring the keys of the kingdom.Could it be that some things are sacred and no one's business but those who are asked to take upon themselves covenants and obligations? I think so.This comparison doesn't really work for me. To put it bluntly, Jesus asking his disciples to keep something both sacred and secret, do not equate to lying to your wifes face multiple times and taking overt actions to conceal behaviors, emotions, and intentions.But thats just me.Big UP!Lamanite 1
why me Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Emma didn't know. Perhaps you might try doing historical research from books other than correlated manuals.Big UP!LamaniteAnd yet, since many critics claim that joseph's polygamy is hidden from the membership, the correlated manual proves otherwise.
The Nehor Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 You're absolutely right. I understand what you're saying and I apologize. But I still have difficulty expressing the very real existence of my envy and longing for a state of spiritual being that you currently occupy. Don't put a judgment on it. Big UP!@LamaniteSo you envy but are simultaneously trying to destroy that which you envy?That is jealousy turned to destructive hatred isn't it?I also do not buy the "ignorance is bliss" mindset behind it. That is usually used by the self-identified intellectual elite as an excuse to wallow in self-pity.
Lamanite Posted September 13, 2012 Author Posted September 13, 2012 So, others kept it from emma too. And all the 12 apostles kept it from her too. And the bishop who married Joseph and louisa lied to emma too.I wonder what was wrong with emma.Yes.And I'd like to punch you in the face for suggesting that this is somehow a problem of Emma's.You still get a Big UP! though Lamanite 2
DH Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) Do you mean emma? Emma knew of the polygamy but she wavered between consent and withdrawing consent. What was joseph to do? If the commandment comes and the wife is not always on board, what should he have done? What would you do?Didn't the commandment involve getting the first wife's consent? If so, to proceed without her consent would be disobeying the commandment. Edited September 13, 2012 by DH
KevinG Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 So the revelation of the new and everlasting covenant was not supposed to be sacred or secret? I think you are imposing your sense of justice and propriety upon Joseph from 150 years away, not knowing what he was commanded to do and who to reveal it to.I got a different answer from God when I prayed if Joseph was a prophet and if the principle was correct.
KevinG Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Yes.And I'd like to punch you in the face for suggesting that this is somehow a problem of Emma's.You still get a Big UP! though LamaniteSarcasm swung at and missed...
KevinG Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 This comparison doesn't really work for me. How about this one. Do you suppose Abraham had a nice chat with the wife about sacrificing Isaac just to see if it was OK with her before hand?
Lamanite Posted September 13, 2012 Author Posted September 13, 2012 This is one of the issues that will not die. And it has been and will continue to be one of the issues that will "cause" many to fall away from the church. And those will be the wrong reasons to do so. The only real questions: (1) Was Joseph Smith a prophet called of God? (2) Was he commanded in the practice of plural wives? (3) Was he lying when he said that an angel with a drawn sword threatened to cut him off if he did not obey the commandment that he had been given?The question of supposed dishonesty is subordinate to those questions. Remember that Abraham was actually told by the Lord to tell the Egyptians that Sarai was his sister rather than his wife so that the Egyptians would not kill Abraham in order to get Sarai. See Abraham, chapter 2:23-24 in the Pearl of Great Price.If Joseph was a prophet of God and commanded to the practice, we do not have a lot we can really complain about. That is the very first thing that must be resolved. That point has been resolved for me ages ago.GlennNo one is falling away from the Church Glen so just relax. I still sustain and reveer Joseph as both Prophet and Seer and Revelator.... as well as a man who flat out lied to his wife's face and decieved her in a multiplicity of ways.Why is that a problem for you?Big UP!Lamanite
USU78 Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 From another thread a poster said:"I think that for many members the lying and dishonesty surrounding the polygamy issue is more of a problem that the polygamy itself"Well said and thank you.Big UP!LamaniteDoes my great-grandfather lie by denying legal charges against him and refusing, when asked, to make self-incriminating comments?Remember that these folks were being threatened with incarceration . . . and later with worse.It was the invalidation by the territorial courts of the marital privilege against testifying against one's spouse that caused many, many "co-habs" like him to check into the Sugar House hotel rather than subject his wives to being haled into Court.I make no apologies, and no apology need be made, for his behavior.
DH Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) If its not about sex how is this any different?...Could it be that some things are sacred and no one's business but those who are asked to take upon themselves covenants and obligations? I think so.Is this a joke? I don't see how you can ask that with a straight face. Marriage is the business of BOTH spouses. It involves two people entering into a covenant and obligation to be faithful to each other. So when one spouse secretly marries another person, and lies to his first spouse about it, there's a problem. It's nothing at all like the situation described in the scripture you quoted. Edited September 13, 2012 by DH
Lamanite Posted September 13, 2012 Author Posted September 13, 2012 So the revelation of the new and everlasting covenant was not supposed to be sacred or secret? I think you are imposing your sense of justice and propriety upon Joseph from 150 years away, not knowing what he was commanded to do and who to reveal it to.I got a different answer from God when I prayed if Joseph was a prophet and if the principle was correct.It was most certainly lied about. I would have kept it a secret too! Just not from my wife. I'm fairly certain God was not behind some of his actions as they pertain to dishonesty.God also revealed the sacred nature of plurality of wives and Celestial marriage. I'm also not so blinded by devotion that I have to resort to denying the very real existence of Joseph's dishonesty with Emma and others.Big UP!LamaniteP.S. Once you bring revelatin into it, the discussion immediately turns into a discussion about subjective religious knowledge and experience. Tough at that point to sort things out.
KevinG Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Is this a joke? I don't see how you can ask that with a straight face. Marriage is the business of BOTH spouses. It also involves two people promising to be faithful to each other. So when one spouse secretly marries another person, and lies to his first spouse about it, there's a problem. It's nothing at all like the situation described in the scripture you quoted.You are still buying into the assumption that Emma didn't know. It would be heartbreaking to me if God commanded me to keep something secret from my wife, but if commanded by God I would do it or be damned.I believe Joseph was in that position IF (and if its a big if) he hadn't discussed it with Emma first.
Lamanite Posted September 13, 2012 Author Posted September 13, 2012 How about this one. Do you suppose Abraham had a nice chat with the wife about sacrificing Isaac just to see if it was OK with her before hand?Check my recent threads for an answer to this. Last I checked I think my answer was and is , I don't know.Big UP!Lamanite
DH Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) You are still buying into the assumption that Emma didn't know. It would be heartbreaking to me if God commanded me to keep something secret from my wife, but if commanded by God I would do it or be damned.I believe Joseph was in that position IF (and if its a big if) he hadn't discussed it with Emma first.Do you have evidence that she did know about it? Or are you just assuming that she did? Edited September 13, 2012 by DH
Lamanite Posted September 13, 2012 Author Posted September 13, 2012 Does my great-grandfather lie by denying legal charges against him and refusing, when asked, to make self-incriminating comments?Remember that these folks were being threatened with incarceration . . . and later with worse.It was the invalidation by the territorial courts of the marital privilege against testifying against one's spouse that caused many, many "co-habs" like him to check into the Sugar House hotel rather than subject his wives to being haled into Court.I make no apologies, and no apology need be made, for his behavior.Ha! Tell that to Emma. Joseph could have maintained secrecy while still being honest with Emma and others. This argument is a cop out.Big UP!Lamanite 1
why me Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Yes.And I'd like to punch you in the face for suggesting that this is somehow a problem of Emma's.You still get a Big UP! though Lamanite <<<<<okay I'll meet you down by the train tracks. Critics claim that this practice was secret and yet we see that members knew about it. There was no secret. The relatives of the women knew, the apostles knew, the people who married Joseph to his plural wives knew. How could emma be in the dark? I think that there is much that we do not know about this time. But one thing is for sure, he was not a willing person to engage in the practice and he did have to get around emma to obey the lord. And he did what he did to obey the commandment.If you got a problem, blame god.
KevinG Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 If I am blinded by devotion it is to God. Not to Joseph whom He commended. Unless you have pretty strong evidence that he was a fallen Prophet or in error to be sealed (remember no evidence of conjugal relations) secretly to other men and women you had best be cautious of what you accuse him of.I don't take kindly to being told I'm covering someones sins. Revelation was the first thing brought into it. It was a revelation for Joseph and if you want to know the truth of it you perhaps should ask for your own revelation instead of believing all of the lies and rumors spread by people NOT involved in the practice. 1
KevinG Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Do you have evidence that she did know about it? Or are you just assuming that she did?Did you just ask me to prove a negative? Yes you did.
Lamanite Posted September 13, 2012 Author Posted September 13, 2012 You are still buying into the assumption that Emma didn't know. It would be heartbreaking to me if God commanded me to keep something secret from my wife, but if commanded by God I would do it or be damned.I believe Joseph was in that position IF (and if its a big if) he hadn't discussed it with Emma first.Go to your library and check out Compton, Smith, Newell, Bushman and a couple more dialogue articles. Then read about Lousia Beaman and whether or not she knew about the sealing. Then look into the Love letters involved and the secret meeting (I think this was Lousia) Then tell me Joseph didn't lie. And lie in a very real and hurtful way to Emma, through commission and ommission .Big UP!Lamanite 1
Ahab Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 The only real questions: (1) Was Joseph Smith a prophet called of God?That's a yes.(2) Was he commanded in the practice of plural wives?That's a "I don't know" as far as whether or not he personally was, but I do know he was given commandments regarding it, and it would have been okay, and even good, for him to seal many women to him as well as to other men, with the keys of the kingdom. (3) Was he lying when he said that an angel with a drawn sword threatened to cut him off if he did not obey the commandment that he had been given?Do you even have proof that he ever said that? I've seen other people say he said it, but God hasn't told me that he did and I haven't seen any direct quotes from him that show he said that, or anything like it. And I also haven't seen him say anything about him having more than one wife. I've read Church History several times, though, and all of his writings I know of. If he had more wives, why wouldn't there be more talk from him talking about them.If Joseph was a prophet of God and commanded to the practice, we do not have a lot we can really complain about. That is the very first thing that must be resolved. That point has been resolved for me ages ago.For me too, which is why I'm fine with the idea that he may have had more than one wife.
KevinG Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Critics claim that this practice was secret and yet we see that members knew about it. There was no secret. The relatives of the women knew, the apostles knew, the people who married Joseph to his plural wives knew. How could emma be in the dark? I think that there is much that we do not know about this time. But one thing is for sure, he was not a willing person to engage in the practice and he did have to get around emma to obey the lord. And he did what he did to obey the commandment.If you got a problem, blame god.Ironically it may be Emma's observance of the sacredness and secrecy of this practice as it emerged among the Saints that allows critics to assume she didn't know about it.
KevinG Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) Go to your library and check out Compton, Smith, Newell, Bushman and a couple more dialogue articles. Then read about Lousia Beaman and whether or not she knew about the sealing. Then look into the Love letters involved and the secret meeting (I think this was Lousia) Then tell me Joseph didn't lie. And lie in a very real and hurtful way to Emma, through commission and ommission .Big UP!LamaniteI have read most of them and often recommend Bushman as a good even handed biography. The people actually involved in the practice from Joseph to Wilford never denied their testimony of the practice with the exception of a few vocal apostates. The most vocal critics of Joseph had to "fill in the blanks" to come up with their accusations. Edited September 13, 2012 by KevinG
DH Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) Did you just ask me to prove a negative? Yes you did.I don't think so. You could, if such a thing existed and was available to the public, show me a quote of Emma saying that she consented to Joseph marrying another wife. I'm not asking you to prove she didn't know, but to provide evidence that she did know. Edited September 13, 2012 by DH
KevinG Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 No, you're wrong. You could, if such a thing existed, show me a quote of Emma saying that she consented to Joseph marrying another wife.Show me a quote that she didn't? (see how that works - NOT)
Recommended Posts