Atonement

[Questing Beast]

I've noticed there are a number of participants on this board who, with great confidence, posit opinions without doing the legwork to make sure the opinions so posited are accurate.

There is no such inconsistency in the scriptures on this point as you assert. Pay particular attention to the highlighted portions of the following scripture quote:

"38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord." (D&C 132)

David's plural wives did not become an abomination until he sinned in the case of Uriah and Bathsheba. That sin tainted the sanctity of his marriages to the others because he committed adultry on all of them when he took Bathsheba in unrighteousness.

That's not what Jacob said. So the inconsistency exists....

[pogi]

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.

I would not use the word upset. I simply find it hard to swallow due to my cultural upbringing. I recognize the possibility that I may be wrong and may be reacting to an unenlightened standard. But I find the evidence overwhelming that Emma did not know about Fanny Alger. Why did Joseph wait until after he married Fanny to show Emma the revelation of section 132? Why was he so afraid to show it to her? Why did she tear it up and burn it if she was consensual to their marriage? Why are there reports that she discovered their relationship by finding them in the barn? Why did she kick Fanny out of the house right after that? If it is true that she was not consensual, Joseph was guilty of transgressing a law. Why is that so hard to believe? Prophets in the past have done much worse.

I am not judging Joseph, but I am beyond the point of being able to defend his innocence from any transgression. It will forever be a mystery for me in this life, but I am willing to accept whatever the truth is without any wavering of my faith. My faith is not dependent upon Joseph's innocence at this point.

Edited April 26, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

I find the evidence overwhelming that Emma did not know about Fanny Alger.

A remarkable thing given that there is no real evidence on the matter.

Why did Joseph wait until after he married Fanny to show Emma the revelation of section 132?

How do you know he did that?

Why was he so afraid to show it to her?

Perhaps because she was pillar to post on the issue. Is this the first time you have heard of someone agreeing to something and then changing their mind and going back and forth?

Why did she tear it up and burn it if she was consensual to their marriage?

Why did she take women by the hand and give them to Joseph if she was not? Why do people do things? You would have to ask her.

Why are there reports that she discovered their relationship by finding them in the barn?

Because enemies of Joseph Smith like to publish those kinds of stories. They sell.

Why did she kick Fanny out of the house right after that?

Probably for the same reasons that she may have poisoned Joseph Smith -- she got angry. But you would really have to ask her.

If it is true that she was not consensual, Joseph was guilty of transgressing a law.

Or so you believe. This also is not so obvious.

Why is that so hard to believe?

Because of the testimony of Joseph's conduct and character in so many varied and different circumstances and the high and holy calling he had -- he was several times by the Lord that he could be replaced. Had he done something too egregiously contrary to will of God, he would have been. In addition, the niggling stories that make him out to be a horrible person do not match his character in every other regard.

That is why.

I am not judging Joseph

Yeah, you kinda are.

but I am beyond the point of being able to defend his innocence from any transgression.

There is no need to do that. He was not perfect. He never even claimed to be close to perfect and admitted to transgressions. Plus he was rebuked for some -- a few times.

It will forever be a mystery for me in this life, but I am willing to accept whatever the truth is without any wavering of my faith. My faith is not dependent upon Joseph's innocence at this point.

Fair enough. But don't imagine you are not judging him.

[volgadon]

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.

Again, there is utterly no indication that David's wives were asked by Absalom to consent to public intercourse when he ousted his father from the throne and asserted his possesion of David's household. The late Tikvah Frymer-Kensky explained the situation:

"Nathan reminds David of all that God has done for him; but what God gave, God can take away. God's punishments are measure for measure, "an eye for an eye," but with the intensification that corresponds to multiple damages. David used the sword of battle to kill Uriah, and the sword will haunt his own house. David took Uriah's wife; God will give David's wives to someone else, publicly to dishonor him. This is no empty threat, for when David's son Absalom took over Jerusalem, he publicly slept with ten wife/concubines that King David had left in the city (2 Sam. 16:20 24). Though unfair to the wives, such measure-for-measure retaliation for male misdeeds is a feature of ancient law, and the Middle Assyrian laws even call for the rape of a married rapist's wife.

There is poetic justice here: David stopped to see Bathsheba from the rooftop, and Absalom slept with the women on the roof."

-"Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories," p. 155-156.

[Questing Beast]

@CA:Why did she take women by the hand and give them to Joseph if she was not? Why do people do things? You would have to ask her.

The evidence indicates that Emma had been under the assumption that she was giving other "wives" to her husband for eternity only, and when she discovered that he was cohabiting with them carnally as well, that's when she "changed her mind" and ordered her husband to send them away and cease forthwith to have anything further to do with them, or else she would leave him, etc....

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, but Revelations 21:8 does not imply that murder is unpardonable, unless you group unbelievers, liars, whoremongers, etc under the "unpardonable" category as they are referenced in that same verse. It is true that they are in danger of the second death without repentance.

Perhaps the middle ground for you and Bikeemikey is that murder is pardonable up and until one enters the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as outlined in D&C 132. This makes sense to me.

This may be a correct middle ground.

Would the covenant have to be plural marriage?

And why is the definition of murder in D&C 132 about your response to christs atonement, not actually killing another person?

[pogi]




A remarkable thing given that there is no real evidence on the matter.


You mean there is no evidence that you wish to acknowledge.

Emma Dow Partridge:

"...the Prophet Joseph and his wife Emma offered us a home in their family,... We had been there about a year when the principle of plural marriage was made known to us, and I was married to Joseph Smith on the 4th of March 1843, Elder Heber C. Kimball performing the ceremony. My sister Eliza was also married to Joseph a few days later. This was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith. Two months afterward she consented to give her husband two wives, providing he would give her the privilege of choosing them. She accordingly chose my sister Eliza and myself, and to save family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed. Accordingly on the 11th of May, 1843, we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time, in Emma's presence,... From that very hour, however, Emma was our bitter enemy. We remained in the family several months after this, but things went from bad to worse until we were obligated to leave the house and find another home" (Historical record, vol. 6, page 249).

Fair enough. But don't imagine you are not judging him.

You don't know how you come off sometimes do you? Don't pretend like you know my heart.

I am simply making a conjecture based on the limited information at hand that his wife was not aware of some of his marriages. It certainly is a possibility that has some evidence to support it. I have no reason to doubt Emma Partridge's account. I am not incisting that it was so. This would make him guilty of something, but of what I don't know. It seems that God commanded Joseph to marry these other women, but it also seems clear that God expected him to seek for Emma's consent first. What does that make him guilty of? Deception? Something worse? Broken marriage covenant? I don't know. Whatever his transgression was towards Emma in section 132, it is clear that he will be reconciled from it to the Lord for his sacrifice.

[pogi]

This may be a correct middle ground.

Would the covenant have to be plural marriage?

And why is the definition of murder in D&C 132 about your response to christs atonement, not actually killing another person?

Being that plural marriages have ceased, I would think not.

I'm not really sure what verse 27 means in section 132, so I can't comment on your second question. I am not entirely convinced however, that it is not speaking about killing another person.

[CASteinman]

You mean there is no evidence that you wish to acknowledge.

How does your quote have anything to do with Fanny Alger?

You don't know how you come off sometimes do you?

Probably not.

Don't pretend like you know my heart.

OK. And really it never occurred to me to do that. Why would you bring that up unless you thought you knew my heart?

I am simply making a conjecture based on the limited information at hand

That is almost correct. You are making a conjecture based on limited or non-existent information. But you are not "simply" doing that. Because with that conjecture is coming some judgment.

I don't know.

And that is the key. I don't either. The differences between us is what we do with that lack of knowledge. I take it as seriously not knowing at all -- and you take it as a gap in information that can be crossed.

[pogi]

How does your quote have anything to do with Fanny Alger?

My point is that you seem to doubt that there is any evidence that Joseph married other women behind Emma's back. There is the evidence. If he was hiding Partridge and her sister, why would I not suspect that he was hiding Fanny, especially given other stories surrounding Alger? Take Alger out of the story and it doesn't change a thing. My point is simply that he was most likely marrying girls behind Emma's back.

That is almost correct. You are making a conjecture based on limited or non-existent information. But you are not "simply" doing that. Because with that conjecture is coming some judgment.

Please do tell, what judgment is it that you insist on sticking me with? Emma Partridges account is non-existent? My conjecture is simply that Joseph married other women behind Emma's back and nothing more. Does that make Joseph guilty of some transgression? I would suspect so.

[CASteinman]

My point is that you seem to doubt that there is any evidence that Joseph married other women behind Emma's back.

But we were talking about Fanny when I said that.

If he was hiding Partridge and her sister, why would I not suspect that he was hiding Fanny, especially given other stories surrounding Alger?

Because she was the first and he did not have time to find out how hard it would be to deal with Emma yet. That's why.

Take Alger out of the story and it doesn't change a thing. My point is simply that he was most likely marrying girls behind Emma's back.

As far as I can tell.. not a single one.

Please do tell, what judgment is it that you insist on sticking me with?

That it would be a good thing for him to have committed adultery.

You also repeatedly ignore how God told him that he did not have to inform Emma -- thus making him a transgressor when he was not. Its not a good thing to do.

[pogi]

As far as I can tell.. not a single one.

Seriously, you doubt Partridge? Why?

That it would be a good thing for him to have committed adultery.

First of all, you have accused me of judging Joseph, that is not a judgment of Joseph. Secondly, it is never a good thing for someone to commit adultery. You are putting words in my mouth and incorrectly characterizing me. I do have a hard time believing that God would command Joseph to commit infidelity and marry other women wether she (Emma) was consensual or not. That is why I said the whole way the polygamy thing appears to have gone down would be easier for me to swallow if adultery was involved.

Edited April 26, 2013 by pogi

[Stone holm]

Being that plural marriages have ceased, I would think not.

I'm not really sure what verse 27 means in section 132, so I can't comment on your second question. I am not entirely convinced however, that it is not speaking about killing another person.

You are not alone in not knowing what verse 27 means, there are GAs baffled by it. But only living plural marriages are banned, a man still may be sealed to more than one woman.

[CASteinman]

Seriously, you doubt Partridge? Why?

No not really. But she says that Emma knew about both wives.

First of all, you have accused me of judging Joseph, that is not a judgment of Joseph.

Maybe you call it something else. But when you are very distressed and upset and accusing Joseph Smith of grave sin, it seems like a judging position to me. If it isn't, I don't really know what judging someone is.

Secondly, it is never a good thing for someone to commit adultery. You are putting words in my mouth and incorrectly characterizing me.

Well, I am remember that you said you wished he had committed adultery. I did not look it up and if I misquoted you, it is because I misread what you said -- and I will apologize. Because I do not mean to misrepresent anyone. But I do make mistakes. I will go back and look to see if I got it wrong.

I do have a hard time believing that God would command Joseph to commit infidelity and marry other women wether she (Emma) was consensual or not.

You have said that you have a hard time with all of 132. I don't blame you. I think it is not currently in the form that it was originally received and even if it was, it would be full of hard doctrines. But verse 65 indicates that Joseph Smith is not bound if Emma is hostile. And she was. Really hostile.

So you know, I have two problems with 132. But my problems are not with the doctrine per se but with the way it is presented. (I manage to get past this by my view that we have a text that we think may apply to everyone, when it doesn't -- and a text that may not be exactly right anyway).

That is why I said the whole way the polygamy thing appears to have gone down would be easier for me to swallow if adultery was involved.

I think it would be a rather awful thing. I prefer the view that seems to come down through friendly history and reports -- and not the words of apostates and enemies.

But to me that seems like you are wishing Joseph Smith committed adultery. Sometimes communications do not work right using written language -- but it really does seem to me that is what you are saying: "Based on what I know -- I wish that this were adultery". Am I really off the beam there?

[teddyaware]

That's not what Jacob said. So the inconsistency exists....

Note that in Jacob 2 it is the Lord speaking those words about plural marriage, not Jacob. Again, in D&C 132 it is the Lord speaking about plural marriage in the first person. In Jacob 2 the Lord does not categorically rule out the possibility of commanding his people to practice plural marriage once again sometime in the future.

8 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (i.e. monogamy). (Jacob 2)

In that last verse, the practice of divinely approved plural marriage is refered to by the Lord as commanding his people to "raise up seed unto me." Therefore, since the Lord introduces the possibility of his commanding plural marriage to be practiced once again by his people in a future day, he is not altogether condemning the practice of polygamy. As a consequence, there is no inconsistency.

David's and Solomon's plural marriages became abominable after both transgressed the holy laws governing that heavenly institution.

Edited April 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[pogi]

No not really. But she says that Emma knew about both wives.

Man, I really get tired of your games. She said "this was done without the knowledge of Emma."

Maybe you call it something else. But when you are very distressed and upset and accusing Joseph Smith of grave sin, it seems like a judging position to me. If it isn't, I don't really know what judging someone is.

You claim my judgment of Joseph is that, in your exact words, "it would be a good thing for him to have committed adultery." I'm still not seeing any judgment of Joseph here. That is not even an accusation. Secondly and more important, that is not even what I am saying.

But to me that seems like you are wishing Joseph Smith committed adultery. Sometimes communications do not work right using written language -- but it really does seem to me that is what you are saying: "Based on what I know -- I wish that this were adultery". Am I really off the beam there?

Yes, you really are off the beam. You know, everything I said is accessible to you, why don't you just use a direct quote instead of misquoting me?

Once again, I am not wishing that Joseph committed adultery. My exact words were "I would feel much better about all of this if he were guilty of adultery." By that I mean, it is easier for me to believe that Joseph was guilty of adultery, than it is for me to believe that God commanded Joseph to marry other women without Emma's knowledge. I never accused Joseph or judged him.

I can accept the fallibility of man, even prophets, but I have a hard time in my limited perspective accepting that God would command Joseph to marry two 14 year old girls and around 30 other women, and threaten Emma with destruction if she resisted. She would be mad not to! This is a very hard doctrine. Let me make this very clear, I wan't Joseph to be innocent of adultery but it is hard for me to accept otherwise.

This leaves me with two options. I have to either transform my understanding of Joseph, or transform my understanding of God. I find the latter to be much more difficult given this context, but I remain open. That is all I was saying.

Edited April 27, 2013 by pogi

[Stargazer]

And there in lies the problem... D&C 132 suggest that "murder... the shedding of innocent blood" is actually a term of specific meaning related to refusing the atoning blood of Christ... thereby wasting his innocent blood.

Hey, that is an interesting idea. Never thought of that, but it makes a certain amount of sense. But I have my doubts about it being actually true.

[Tacenda]

Man, I really get tired of your games. She said "this was done without the knowledge of Emma."

You claim my judgment of Joseph is that, in your exact words, "it would be a good thing for him to have committed adultery." I'm still not seeing any judgment of Joseph here. That is not even an accusation. Secondly and more important, that is not even what I am saying.

Yes, you really are off the beam. You know, everything I said is accessible to you, why don't you just use a direct quote instead of misquoting me?

Once again, I am not wishing that Joseph committed adultery. My exact words were "I would feel much better about all of this if he were guilty of adultery." By that I mean, it is easier for me to believe that Joseph was guilty of adultery, than it is for me to believe that God commanded Joseph to marry other women without Emma's knowledge. I never accused Joseph or judged him.

I can accept the fallibility of man, even prophets, but I have a hard time in my limited perspective accepting that God would command Joseph to marry two 14 year old girls and around 30 other women, and threaten Emma with destruction if she resisted. She would be mad not to! This is a very hard doctrine. Let me make this very clear, I wan't Joseph to be innocent of adultery but it is hard for me to accept otherwise.

This leaves me with two options. I have to either transform my understanding of Joseph, or transform my understanding of God. I find the latter to be much more difficult given this context, but I remain open. That is all I was saying.

This is exactly my problem. It would be easier to say that he was like some of the prophets of old, not perfect and must have commited adultery because I thought our belief is more geared toward free agency. I don't think God ever commandef polygamy like that. And if he did, that is too unbearable to believe.

[savedbygrace]

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.

That's really funny, considering you are deeply engaged in a conversation about polygamy that has nothing to do with this thread. That you can read I have to concede, that you can understand seems the problem, demonstrated by the fact that you cannot or will not see the connection between the post you refer to and the OP

[savedbygrace]

I believe it was taught in the LDS church that there are some sins that Christ's sacrifice cannot atone for and require the shedding of the sinner's own blood. I don't know if the method of execution is still by firing squad in Utah, but if it is not, or if it should be changed in the future, then how would these sins be atoned for?

So for the benefit of those who are engaged with the topic of polygamy, here is a reminder of the OP.

The final question has not been addressed: if the doctrine of blood atonement has been recinded then when and why was that, and if not and there is no way for people to have their blood spilled for their sins, where does that leave them if they have committed a sin that would require it?

[pogi]

So for the benefit of those who are engaged with the topic of polygamy, here is a reminder of the OP.

The final question has not been addressed: if the doctrine of blood atonement has been recinded then when and why was that, and if not and there is no way for people to have their blood spilled for their sins, where does that leave them if they have committed a sin that would require it?

Blood atonement never was an official doctrine of the church. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041267/Mormon-church-statement-on-blood-atonement.html?pg=all

The only way it was practiced was in the case of capital punishment. Instead of electric chair, or whatever, they used firing squad.

[CASteinman]

The doctrine of Blood Atonement cannot be rescinded. It it a core element of the Gospel in all ages The assumption it has been rescinded is false.

[pogi]

The doctrine of Blood Atonement cannot be rescinded. It it a core element of the Gospel in all ages The assumption it has been rescinded is false.

Are we talking about the same "blood atonement" that President Young taught, requiring the shedding of blood of the sinner for remission of certain sins? Because the church officially and publicly denounced it as a doctrine in 2010 (see above article), saying that Christ's sacrifice and blood covers all sins.

[savedbygrace]

Blood atonement never was an official doctrine of the church. http://www.deseretne...ent.html?pg=all

The only way it was practiced was in the case of capital punishment. Instead of electric chair, or whatever, they used firing squad.

I think this discusses the above claim URL removed for temple content the reason I posted the link is that there is just too much for me to type

[pogi]

I am not aware of any historical evidence of blood atonement being "practiced" any other way than in capital punishment. Again, the Church's official stance on the matter as addressed in the above link I posted.

Edited April 27, 2013 by pogi