Atonement

[CASteinman]

That's an interesting thought.

I don't think it changes anything important, but I do think that we have a version that is -- let me say -- obscuring.

[pogi]

I also do not think we have it as it was originally given.

That seems too convenient. Who would have manipulated it?

[CASteinman]

That seems too convenient. Who would have manipulated it?

I don't know that manipulate is the right word. I suppose the right word would be "reconstruct".

[pogi]

I don't know that manipulate is the right word. I suppose the right word would be "reconstruct".

Just curious, why do you say this?

Section 132 to me is both the crowning jewel of scripture as well as the most difficult to swallow. The question I have is that it seems like versus 43 and 61 demonstrate that Joseph was guilty of adultery. Firstly, he married other women who were not virgins, but were married to other men. Secondly, he had vowed to Emma and she never gave her consent to the other marriages, which verse 61 says is required. How can Joseph be justified in his actions?

[Stone holm]

Just curious, why do you say this?

Section 132 to me is both the crowning jewel of scripture as well as the most difficult to swallow. The question I have is that it seems like versus 43 and 61 demonstrate that Joseph was guilty of adultery. Firstly, he married other women who were not virgins, but were married to other men. Secondly, he had vowed to Emma and she never gave her consent to the other marriages, which verse 61 says is required. How can Joseph be justified in his actions?

It is my understanding that Joseph carried it around in his pocket for some time, until Hyrum finally told him to announce it or he would. Maybe it got a bit wrinkled in his pocket. Interesting that it worked out a bit better for Hyrum's family than Joseph's.

[CASteinman]

Just curious, why do you say this?

Section 132 to me is both the crowning jewel of scripture as well as the most difficult to swallow. The question I have is that it seems like versus 43 and 61 demonstrate that Joseph was guilty of adultery. Firstly, he married other women who were not virgins, but were married to other men. Secondly, he had vowed to Emma and she never gave her consent to the other marriages, which verse 61 says is required. How can Joseph be justified in his actions?

43 is, I think, about having sexual relations with someone you are not married to. In other words, Plural Marriage is not a license to have sex with random women.

61 could be a problem if Emma did not give her consent, but we don't really know that she didn't.

In addition, in reconciling history, you should remember three things: 1. Joseph had to hide his actions and 2. Many (I am not sure if it isn't most) of his "marriages", particularly to other men's wives were "sealings" for eternity and had essentially no impact on earthly relationships and 3. It appears that Joseph received the Revelation very early in his career but did not follow it as quickly or enthusiastically as he did later. It seems that when he received the revelation he was given women to marry. He didn't do it. Later they married other men. In restoring the principle, he may have felt that he should now take the women "given" to him by the Lord earlier even though they were now married. As far as I can tell, these were dynastic sealings -- see #2.

[CASteinman]

It is my understanding that Joseph carried it around in his pocket for some time, until Hyrum finally told him to announce it or he would. Maybe it got a bit wrinkled in his pocket. Interesting that it worked out a bit better for Hyrum's family than Joseph's.

He gave it to Hyrum who gave it to Emma who tore it up and burned it.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[pogi]

Verses 56, 60 and 61, state that he was guilty of some transgression, given the context one can only assume. What was that sacrifice required for his transgression I wonder? His life? Honestly, I would feel much better about all of this if he was guilty of adultery. Though very difficult, I can come to accept polygamy. I have a very hard time with the way he went about it however, marrying Emma's best friend and counselor in the Relief Society presidency, marrying underage girls and other married women all behind Emma's back and lying to her about it when she quarried. Please tell me he is guilty of something here for Emma's sake if nothing else.

No need to respond, I don't think there are any suitable answers and I don't want to derail the thread further.

[pogi]

61 could be a problem if Emma did not give her consent, but we don't really know that she didn't.

At least in regard to Fanny Alger and Eliza Snow, it is extremely unlikely that she knew and gave her consent.

Edited April 26, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

Honestly, I would feel much better about all of this if he was guilty of adultery.

Well, it does not appear so.

I have a very hard time with the way he went about it however, marrying Emma's best friend and counselor in the Relief Society presidency, marrying underage girls and other married women all behind Emma's back and lying to her about it when she quarried. Please tell me he is guilty of something here for Emma's sake if nothing else.

Sorry. Can't help you there. I am not sure he lied to her. I don't see how you can be so sure. He did not marry underaged girls.

[CASteinman]

At least in regard to Fanny Alger and Eliza Snow, it is extremely unlikely that she knew and gave her consent.

You cannot know this enough to be so sure as you are. Certainly not in Eliza Snow's case. And also, not really in Fanny's case either.

[Tacenda]

Well, it does not appear so.

Sorry. Can't help you there. I am not sure he lied to her. I don't see how you can be so sure. He did not marry underaged girls.

Maybe with parental consent he was able to legally, but in my eyes it was immoral, 14 even back then, is a child.

[pogi]

He did not marry underaged girls.

I'm not sure what the age of consent was back then, but when you are marrying girls your daughters age, that is "underage" in my book.

Helen Mar Kimball - 14 year old daughter of Heber C. Kimball

Fanny Alder - 16

Flora Ann Woodworth - 16

Lucy Walker - 17

Nancy Winchester - 14

Sarah Ann Whitney - 17

Edited April 26, 2013 by pogi

[volgadon]

Hopefully, David's former wives had some say in the matter before they were handed over to the "neighbor," whomever he might be.

Not really. no. There is no indication that they had any say in Absalom's take over of the kingdom and the harem.

[CASteinman]

Maybe with parental consent he was able to legally, but in my eyes it was immoral, 14 even back then, is a child.

Nah. I have an ancestor from that time who was married when she was 13. And she actually had sexual relations with her husband.

[CASteinman]

I'm not sure what the age of consent was back then, but when you are marrying girls your daughters age, that is "underage" in my book.

Well, your book has an incorrect standard. I suppose you are upset that Joseph married Mary and it is typically considered that he was more than twice her age while she was 13 or 14.

[savedbygrace]

As before, how about if you provide a reference that those are beliefs. Your claim that they are beliefs is not the same thing as saying that they are.

The Bible teaches that blood must be shed to atone for sins. There are a bunch of these statements but here are just a few that mention it:

Exodus 30;10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the Lord.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I John 1:7 the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Yes but it is always a sinless sacrifice, such as animals or finally in thje sinless sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot atone for our own sins, otherwise there would be no need for Christ's death

[teddyaware]

Not really. no. There is no indication that they had any say in Absalom's take over of the kingdom and the harem.

The words "no indication" should usually mean there is no evidence one way or another, yet you present yourself as being sure they had no say by saying "no." Rather than jump to conclusions, I will withold judgement on this matter, and other matters where there's "no indication" one way or another. Remember, these plural marriages of David and Soloman -- as difficult as they may be to fathom in our day -- were approved and ordained of God. 2 Samuel and D&C 132 (both recorded by prophets of God) clearly do indicate these marriages were acceptable and righteous in God's eyes -- that is until David committed adultry and Soloman married the forbidden "strange women" who led his heart away from Jehovah. Since the Lord and his prophets were involved in these things, I will hold my peace and presume the best before presuming the worst. Under the circumstances, we owe it to the Lord to believe he had good reasons to do what he did, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Edited April 26, 2013 by teddyaware

[CASteinman]

Yes but it is always a sinless sacrifice, such as animals or finally in thje sinless sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot atone for our own sins, otherwise there would be no need for Christ's death

Its blood atonement. That's what you asked about. Why are you changing the subject?

[teddyaware]

Its blood atonement. That's what you asked about. Why are you changing the subject?

CA, Did I ever tell you you look like a very intense, intimidating and somewhat creepy Mr. Clean?

[savedbygrace]

The second death is far more serious than that nonchalant approach. It is damnation. It is the Second Death.

This is why "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation". The Apostles have discussed this and explained that this passage refers to murder -- the shedding of innocent blood.

Is murder always the shedding of innocent blood? A crime of passion for example where possibly someone kills their partner for infidelity. Or someone kills someone who is intent on killing them, I mean who is innocent. God says 'thou shalt not kill', doesn't qualify that with anything to do with innocent blood. He is simply commanding that we do not take life.

[CASteinman]

CA, Did I ever tell you you look like a very intense, intimidating and somewhat creepy Mr. Clean?

You have obviously been talking to my wife...

[CASteinman]

Is murder always the shedding of innocent blood?

I don't know. I tend to think of it as the other way around -- the shedding of innocent blood is murder. How God will deal with these things is not our call. We have our instructions on how we should handle it.

A crime of passion for example where possibly someone kills their partner for infidelity.

Maybe not innocent.

Or someone kills someone who is intent on killing them

Probably not innocent.

I mean who is innocent.

People who aren't doing bad things I suppose.

God says 'thou shalt not kill', doesn't qualify that with anything to do with innocent blood. He is simply commanding that we do not take life.

Not true.

[savedbygrace]

Its blood atonement. That's what you asked about. Why are you changing the subject?

What???? Can't you read

[CASteinman]

What???? Can't you read

Yes. You asked about blood atonement. Not sure why. But you did. You asked about biblical references. I gave them.

Now you are talking about how we cannot atone for our own sins. Different subject.

See. I can read.