Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[Storm Rider]

 

It is a cliché that people who can only be described as cult leaders pull women into their secret lives and saying, “God has given you to me.”  She may reply, “But I’m already married!” To which the leader counters, “God didn’t give you to your husband, and thus you don’t belong to him or anyone else.  Since you don’t belong to anyone and God is giving you to me, it isn’t adultery.  Just don't tell my wife or your husband--they wouldn't understand.”

 

Perhaps the only argument one can make about whether or not God really works that way is Occam’s  Razor.  What’s more likely? That the God of the Church that champions traditional family values really issues commands to his prophets like this?  Or that when Joseph Smith was abusing his power for his own personal reasons, in the same the way countless other religious leaders have done since the beginning of time?

 

I agree with you, but what would you say about those who were just sealed to Joseph Smith?  We know that some, as in a very small percentage, of those women who were sealed/married to Joseph lived with Joseph as husband and wife.  So, how do we handle those that were just sealed to Joseph?  

 

Of course, it would be useful to also address how God handled those prophets who also had more than one wife.  Was the God of Israel involved or did it just not matter enough talk about?

[JLHPROF]

So, how do we handle those that were just sealed to Joseph?  

 

I refuse to make that differentiation (between married and sealed).  The temple ceremony wording is identical.

[Storm Rider]

I refuse to make that differentiation (between married and sealed).  The temple ceremony wording is identical.

 

What you refuse to do and reality have no bearing on one another.  What is evident is that Joseph taught a value in sealing people to one another without any sexual relationship intended or expected. This is no longer taught in the Church today.  What is also a fact is that very, very few of those women sealed to him were taken as actual wives.

[Analytics]

I agree with you, but what would you say about those who were just sealed to Joseph Smith?  We know that some, as in a very small percentage, of those women who were sealed/married to Joseph lived with Joseph as husband and wife.  So, how do we handle those that were just sealed to Joseph?  

 

Of course, it would be useful to also address how God handled those prophets who also had more than one wife.  Was the God of Israel involved or did it just not matter enough talk about?

 

Some people assert that God never commanded an Old Testament Prophet to enter into polygamy, and they’ll even say, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, and Jennifer.”  They’ll also point out that when Biblical Prophets did engage in polygamy, they were following their own desires and culture, not commandments of God.  They’ll suggest that throughout the Bible, polygamy leads to bad things and heartache.  The train of thought concludes that the narrative of the Bible teaching that polygamy is wrong.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I refuse to make that differentiation (between married and sealed).  The temple ceremony wording is identical.

But there is an additional bit of covenant making when you get married. So there is a difference.

 

A sealing is not a marriage.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

I refuse to make that differentiation (between married and sealed).  The temple ceremony wording is identical.

Sealings are not marriages. Husbands and wives are sealed to each other.  Children are sealed to parents and parents to children.  Sealings of husbands and wives and marriages often are performed in the same ceremony separated by seconds but never the less they are separate..

[Stargazer]

Okay, read the first five verses of 132 and what do you understand?

 

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

 2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

What do you think the prophet Joseph would do having received this direction from God?  Would he ignore it?  Do you think there is a high probability that he would obey?  Why would anyone deduce Joseph would ignore it or would not practice plural marriage?

 

Do you often respond with a perfectly reasonable answer to the question that wasn't asked?  

 

I asked if he could find me anything in the D&C that discussed anyone's plural marriages, outside of Biblical personalities.  So you respond with verses that talk about Biblical personalities.

 

Just because Joseph is clearly being commanded to engage in plural marriage here, does not mean the verses are discussing his plural wives.

 

And you clearly think I am saying he didn't have any -- but I have never said he didn't.

 

You are answering the wrong question SR.

[USU78]

 

Some people assert that God never commanded an Old Testament Prophet to enter into polygamy, and they’ll even say, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, and Jennifer.”  They’ll also point out that when Biblical Prophets did engage in polygamy, they were following their own desires and culture, not commandments of God.  They’ll suggest that throughout the Bible, polygamy leads to bad things and heartache.  The train of thought concludes that the narrative of the Bible teaching that polygamy is wrong.

 

Perhaps.  But why stop there?  There is plenty of trouble when there is no polygyny . . . in families  . . .  between spouses . . . between parents and children . . . between siblings . . . reported in the Bible, yet are we to conclude that nobody should be inside a family relationship?

 

Should we stop having siblings because Cain killed Abel?

 

Simply a bad argument.

[Storm Rider]

 

Some people assert that God never commanded an Old Testament Prophet to enter into polygamy, and they’ll even say, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, and Jennifer.”  They’ll also point out that when Biblical Prophets did engage in polygamy, they were following their own desires and culture, not commandments of God.  They’ll suggest that throughout the Bible, polygamy leads to bad things and heartache.  The train of thought concludes that the narrative of the Bible teaching that polygamy is wrong.

 

I think what you mean to say is that it was not important enough to God to condemn the practice for his prophets.  Further, you assume that is wrong, but in these instances you have no Biblical evidence.  Those assumptions are understandable, but they are not biblical. 

[Analytics]

Perhaps.  But why stop there?  There is plenty of trouble when there is no polygyny . . . in families  . . .  between spouses . . . between parents and children . . . between siblings . . . reported in the Bible, yet are we to conclude that nobody should be inside a family relationship?

 

Should we stop having siblings because Cain killed Abel?

 

Simply a bad argument.

 

The difference is that Biblical polygamy invariably leads to strife and heartache.  Infer from that what you will.

 

Edit to add Here is a link to an essay that makes the case better than I did on this thread:

 

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2012/06/polygamy-in-the-bible-a-sordid-tale/

 

 

 

The Bible does of course contain commandments, and lots of narratives. But hardly any of the narratives are about morally upright heroes who keep God’s commandments. Most of the narratives are about God’s actions and plans to save immoral human beings. Most of the human characters in Bible stories (even some of the most faithful ones) are morally dubious at best; in fact, many of their activities are downright sordid. You’re not supposed to read these stories as direct examples for your own life; you’re meant to read them to understand God’s actions in the midst of a tragic human history.

 

It is true that the stories will also teach us something about God’s moral order. But we don’t usually discover this moral order simply by reading the stories as if they were straightforward examples to emulate today. Like many good stories, the Bible’s stories can communicate deep moral truths without needing to resort to explicit commandments. Indeed, stories are often more morally powerful when there is no explicit moralising. Think of a movie like Schindler’s List, a powerful story telling us about one of the darkest moments in Western history. Now imagine, at the end of the movie, as you’ve been hit with the human horror of the holocaust, just before the credits, a commandment comes up on the screen: “The director would like to point out (in case you missed it) that you should not be racist.” Not only would this be unnecessary, it would destroy the power of the story.

 

Something similar happens when it comes to the Bible and polygamy. Sure, the narrators never pause to say, “Oh by the way, please, don’t be a polygamist.” But why should they? The stories make the point all by themselves.

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2014 by Analytics

[thesometimesaint]

I refuse to make that differentiation (between married and sealed).  The temple ceremony wording is identical.

 

Reducio ad Absurdum. Parents are Sealed to their children. They are not married to them.

[Analytics]

I think what you mean to say is that it was not important enough to God to condemn the practice for his prophets.  Further, you assume that is wrong, but in these instances you have no Biblical evidence.  Those assumptions are understandable, but they are not biblical. 

 

Is it meet that God should command in all things? 

[thesometimesaint]

 

The difference is that Biblical polygamy invariably leads to strife and heartache.  Infer from that what you will.

 

CFR.

[USU78]

 

The difference is that Biblical polygamy invariably leads to strife and heartache.  Infer from that what you will.

 

Lamech doesn't seem to have had any problems of any significance in his immediate family.

 

Kinda makes "invariably" go out the window, doesn't it?  I mean, Lamech's kind of a rotter.

[Analytics]

CFR.

 

I edited the post by adding a link to this document:

 

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2012/06/polygamy-in-the-bible-a-sordid-tale/

 

Quoting the key line, "Most of the human characters in Bible stories (even some of the most faithful ones) are morally dubious at best; in fact, many of their activities are downright sordid. You’re not supposed to read these stories as direct examples for your own life; you’re meant to read them to understand God’s actions in the midst of a tragic human history."

[Analytics]

Lamech doesn't seem to have had any problems of any significance in his immediate family.

 

Kinda makes "invariably" go out the window, doesn't it?  I mean, Lamech's kind of a rotter.

 

Let me get this straight.  Lamech--the guy who entered into a covenant with Satan and became a Master Mahan--had two wives.  Therefore, having two wives is something that God is okay with.

 

That is your argument?

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.31,49?lang=eng

[thesometimesaint]

I edited the post by adding a link to this document:

 

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2012/06/polygamy-in-the-bible-a-sordid-tale/

 

Quoting the key line, "Most of the human characters in Bible stories (even some of the most faithful ones) are morally dubious at best; in fact, many of their activities are downright sordid. You’re not supposed to read these stories as direct examples for your own life; you’re meant to read them to understand God’s actions in the midst of a tragic human history."

 

David had many wives and concubines. It was pleasing unto the Lord. The Lord would have given him even more if David would have asked. What got David into trouble wasn't his many wives and concubines, but lusting after Bathsheba. Then arranging the killing of her husband Uriah.

[JLHPROF]

Reducio ad Absurdum. Parents are Sealed to their children. They are not married to them.

Different ceremony.

 

Urrgh...It's so frustrating not to be able to post the full text of the ceremonies on this board.  However, I have gone back and checked and read and re-read them, and they are inarguable.

 

When a man and woman are sealed they are pronounced husband and wife for time and all eternity, and the only piece left out when it is proxy work is the injunction to multiply, they are still husband and wife.

They are husbands and wives, no other relationship is created by the sealing.  There is no "sealed but not married" between a man an a woman in the temple ceremony.

 

When children are sealed they are pronounced heirs to the parents.  Completely unrelated ceremony to a sealing between man and woman.

 

I hope that isn't crossing the line into temple content but this distinction between sealing and married is ridiculous.  This false distinction is only made so we can feel better about Joseph's polyandry.

Edited July 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

Different ceremony.

 

Urrgh...It's so frustrating not to be able to post the full text of the ceremonies on this board.  However, I have gone back and checked and read and re-read them, and they are inarguable.

 

When a man and woman are sealed they are pronounced husband and wife for time and all eternity, and the only piece left out when it is proxy work is the injunction to multiply, they are still husband and wife.

They are husbands and wives, no other relationship is created by the sealing.  There is no "sealed but not married" between a man an a woman in the temple ceremony.

 

When children are sealed they are pronounced heirs to the parents.  Completely unrelated ceremony to a sealing between man and woman.

 

I hope that isn't crossing the line into temple content but this distinction between sealing and married is ridiculous.  This false distinction is only made so we can feel better about Joseph's polyandry.

 

I've attended and participated in both Temple marriages and Temple Sealings for the living and the dead.

 

I'm not disputing that husband and wives are Sealed together. I'm not disputing that children are Sealed to their parent. What I am disputing is that there is some fundamental difference between the two. Though the effect is different.

 

I've never personally had any problem with polyandry. Why would God force us to be with someone we don't want to be with?

[Analytics]

David had many wives and concubines. It was pleasing unto the Lord. The Lord would have given him even more if David would have asked. What got David into trouble wasn't his many wives and concubines, but lusting after Bathsheba. Then arranging the killing of her husband Uriah.

 

Just to play along, I have to ask. In general, do you think abominable things are pleasing unto the Lord?

 

Jacob 2:24:

 

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[teddyaware]

Just to play along, I have to ask. In general, do you think abominable things are pleasing unto the Lord?

 

Jacob 2:24:

David's polygyny became an abomination after he committed adultery with Bathsheba and after his  murder of Bathsheba's  husband, Uriah. The following exchange between David and the prophet Nathan took place soon after David's transgression.

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man (who committed these sins). Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12)

 

As you can see, it was the Lord Himself who opened the door to David's practice of polygyny and it was the same Lord who continued to justify him in the practice of the same. It was the transgression of David that turned it all into an abomination.

Edited July 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

When a man and woman are sealed they are pronounced husband and wife for time and all eternity, and the only piece left out when it is proxy work is the injunction to multiply, they are still husband and wife.

They are husbands and wives, no other relationship is created by the sealing.  There is no "sealed but not married" between a man an a woman in the temple ceremony.

 

 

I pronounce you husband and wife (first ordinance) and seal you for (second ordinance).  It is true the sealing follows immediately but they are separate.

[ERayR]

Just to play along, I have to ask. In general, do you think abominable things are pleasing unto the Lord?

 

Jacob 2:24:

 

Who gets to define abominable?  Are we using your definition or the Lords?

[USU78]

Let me get this straight.  Lamech--the guy who entered into a covenant with Satan and became a Master Mahan--had two wives.  Therefore, having two wives is something that God is okay with.

 

That is your argument?

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.31,49?lang=eng

 

Where is the evidence his home life suffered from his living polygynously?

[Analytics]

David's polygyny became an abomination after he committed adultery with Bathsheba and after his  murder of Bathsheba's  husband, Uriah. The following exchange between David and the prophet Nathan took place soon after David's transgression.

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man (who committed these sins). Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12)

 

As you can see, it was the Lord Himself who opened the door to David's practice of polygyny and it was the same Lord who continued to justify him in the practice of the same. It was the transgression of David that turned it all into an abomination.

 

Just because the Lord gives somebody something doesn't mean that it's a good thing. 

 

Deuteronomy 17:17 says, "Neither shall [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

 

Looking at the whole story, what I see is that David wasn't blessed with lots of money and women--he was cursed with them.  Deuteronomy foreshadows the tragedy of David--having lots of women didn't satisfy David.  Rather, it caused "his heart to turn away," and lead directly to Bathsheba.