Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

Jacob 2:24:

 

Just to play along let's look at Jacob 2:30  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.

[mormonnewb]

I think that in the battle of ideas people can be disagreed with each other. I have seen very little demeaning and condemning on this board, especially among the active members here. However, if one fights against the lds church, and begins to lead people away or is misguided in their ideas of what the church should be, I think that it is fair game to criticize them, debate them, have a dialogue with them, and yes, passionately differ with their ideas when communicating wth such people. I do not think that the church is against debate and disagreement.

But what I do find interesting is when people take the moral high ground and in doing so, condemn and demean others who they believe fall short of their moral aptitude--a sense of transmitting guilt by proxy to those people who disagree with them. Usually such people want to enjoy the pulpit of internet boards without anyone calling them out passionately or critically. I have seen countless of times, especially among exmembers.

I would also do it if I were in their shoes. I would give a wonderful lecture to lds about how the lds church is the church of christ and how members should emulate such a philosophy on internet boards, and how disagreeable it is to see lds behaving the way they are on the boards...I would even go further about how such behavior influenced my decision to leave the lds church etc, etc,....such statements seem to work most of the time in cowtowing the lds posters into submission. I would be a great critic of the lds church. If I came back as a critic sock puppet I would have posters running around in circles with my nice posts, sweet logic in hope of getting a stir and then wham, condemn them for over reacting to my posts. But I am not that kind of person so I soldier on in the role that I now play on the board.

And I thought I was the funny guy. I am not taking the moral high ground with regards to MY treatment on the board. I'm referring to how Dehlin, Kelly and many anonymous members are routinely thrown under the bus to preserve the Church's "undefeated" record of perfection.

"People who don't know about polygamy, the BoA, etc. are lazy, ignorant or never had a testimony at all."

"People who leave the Church are just too weak to resist the lures of porn, booze and Starbucks."

"People who agitate for change are prideful and arrogant."

By the way, two of the above attacks were made MULTIPLE times in this thread alone. Rather than acknowledge that reasonable people could have legitimate reasons for a faith crisis, we malign them in an effort to bolster the Church.

Now, as for those people who attack ME on the basis that I lack knowledge, wisdom or common sense, I can only say that you sound a lot like my wife. Seriously, I have NO problem with my treatment on the board. I'm sure that I have been FAR more offensive than offended. And if I thought I was being unfairly attacked, do you really think I would cry "Uncle"?

"Please stop yelling at me! You're hurting my feelings!"

Trust me. I haven't been Mormon THAT long.

I'm simply pointing out that perhaps we could give rank and file members who are not even part of these discussions a FRACTION of the grace that we provide for our leaders.

[Analytics]

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

 

The story of Lamech is brief, but it begins with him having two wives, and ends with him making covenants with Satan, being despised and cast out, and finally ends with, "And thus the works of darkness began to prevail among all the sons of men."

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.47-56?lang=eng#46

 

This guy is one of the most superlatively evil characters in the Bible, and his two wives ultimately rebelled against him.  This character engaging in polygamy gives us a clue about whether polygamy is a good thing or a bad thing, does it not?

[teddyaware]

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.

There's another important point to consider. There have been men of God like Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Gideon who did practice plural marriage successfully without slipping into the transgression of adultery and thereby incurring the wrath of God. Not all the polygamists of the Bible followed in David's faulty steps. David's failure demonstrates a very important element of the fallen human nature: It doesn't matter how many wives a man may have, a man with an unconverted carnal nature and an adulterous heart will never be satisfied.

Edited July 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[USU78]

The story of Lamech is brief, but it begins with him having two wives, and ends with him making covenants with Satan, being despised and cast out, and finally ends with, "And thus the works of darkness began to prevail among all the sons of men."

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.47-56?lang=eng#46

 

This guy is one of the most superlatively evil characters in the Bible, and his two wives ultimately rebelled against him.  This character engaging in polygamy gives us a clue about whether polygamy is a good thing or a bad thing, does it not?

 

 

Where do you get this stuff?  There's nothing there demonstrating polygyny to be inherently evil.  There's nothing there demonstrating that it was polygyny that caused Lamech to be a murderer.  Any more than the Binding of Isaac demonstrates that Abraham's polygyny caused him to be a child murderer.

[Analytics]

Just to play along let's look at Jacob 2:30  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.

 

Your interpretation of this is that the default commandment is monogamy, but if he wants seed to be raised up, he'll command polygamy.  In other words, the Lord of Hosts will command his people to engage in what He describes as abominations if He wants to raise seed up unto Himself. That's weird.

 

An alternate interpretation is that the default commandment is complete chastity of women (v. 28), and that if he wants you to rase up seed, he will command you to get married and raise seed in a monogamous manner (v. 31-32).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

This guy is one of the most superlatively evil characters in the Bible, and his two wives ultimately rebelled against him.  This character engaging in polygamy gives us a clue about whether polygamy is a good thing or a bad thing, does it not?

Nope, it doesn't. I think you are reading more into the text than is there.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your interpretation of this is that the default commandment is monogamy, but if he wants seed to be raised up, he'll command polygamy.  In other words, the Lord of Hosts will command his people to engage in what He describes as abominations if He wants to raise seed up unto Himself. That's weird.

I am sure you can get this. What is the abominable part spoken of in the scriptures? Is it polygamy? How can it be in light of vs 30? Or is it when people do it on their own with out the Lords approval that makes it abdominal?

[Analytics]

There's another important point to consider. There have been men of God like Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Gideon who did practice plural marriage successfully without slipping into the transgression of adultery and thereby incurring the wrath of God. Not all the polygamists of the Bible followed in David's faulty steps. David's failure demonstrates a very important element of the fallen human nature: It doesn't matter how many wives a man may have, a man with an unconverted carnal nature and an adulterous heart will never be satisfied.

 

Let’s look at this in more detail.  When Abraham took Hagar as a concubine, it brought “rupture in the relationship between Sarai and Hagar (Gen 16:4-6), strife between the children of the two wives (Gen 21:9-10), and deep distress on the part of Abraham (Gen 21:11-12).”  It then ends with Abraham giving Hagar some bread and a bottle of water, and kicking her out of his house into the wilderness, along with his own son (Gen 21:14).

 

Is that practicing plural marriage successfully?

 

Or how about Jacob?  “The Jacob narratives bristle with details of the disastrous consequences of polygamy in Jacob’s family.  The strive and discord between Rachel and Leah are meticulously documented (Gen 30:1-16). The dispositions of jealously, revenge, short temper, and lack of self control on the part of Jacob’s children seems to mirror the dysfunctional nature of the polygamous home life (Gen 34:13-31; 37:2-34). Jacob himself also experienced the negative effects of the polygamous relationship.  The record simply states that Jacob “loved Rachel more than Leah” (Gen 29:30); even stronger, “Leah was unloved [literally, ‘hated’] (Gen 29:31).”

 

Is that practicing plural marriage successfully?

 

http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Polygamy/Polygamy%20in%20OT.pdf

Edited July 17, 2014 by Analytics

[Analytics]

Where do you get this stuff?  There's nothing there demonstrating polygyny to be inherently evil.  There's nothing there demonstrating that it was polygyny that caused Lamech to be a murderer.  Any more than the Binding of Isaac demonstrates that Abraham's polygyny caused him to be a child murderer.

 

I never said it was "inherently evil."  I said, "it invariably leads to strife and heartache."  The example you provided to prove that it doesn't always lead to strife and heartache is a man who had two wives, then made a covenant with Satan.

 

Granted, we don't know for sure that having two wives is the cause of Lamech's fall, but both of his marriages were abject failures--isn't your wives casting you out the definition of failure?

 

So if you disagree with my actual point, is there are single story anywhere in the Bible where polygamy lead to a happy, healthy, loving relationship for all parties involved where they all live happily-ever-after?

[Analytics]

I am sure you can get this. What is the abominable part spoken of in the scriptures? Is it polygamy? How can it be in light of vs 30? Or is it when people do it on their own with out the Lords approval that makes it abdominal?

 

Verse 30 says God will command his people to raise up seed unto Him.  It doesn't say God will command people to practice polygamy--that is something you are inferring and isn't the only way to read the verse.  Given the problems polygamy causes, both as described in Jacob 2 and illustrated in the Old Testament, it seems quite unlikely that God would command people to engage in disfunctional relalationships in order to raise up seed unto Him.  Maybe, God commanding you to raise up seed means God commanding you to have a happy monogamous marriage.

 

Granted, if that's what this verse really means it could be more clear.  But in context, I think this is the better interpretation.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

No, actually it's I pronounce you and seal upon you.  The sealing is when you are pronounced, the seal upon you are the blessings.  But you are married AND sealed when you are pronounced for time and all eternity, else how could you be married for eternity?  Then additional blessing are sealed upon you.  They are NOT separate.  I read it carefully.

[Sleeper Cell]

Verse 30 says God will command his people to raise up seed unto Him.  It doesn't say God will command people to practice polygamy--that is something you are inferring and isn't the only way to read the verse.  Given the problems polygamy causes, both as described in Jacob 2 and illustrated in the Old Testament, it seems quite unlikely that God would command people to engage in disfunctional relalationships in order to raise up seed unto Him.  Maybe, God commanding you to raise up seed means God commanding you to have a happy monogamous marriage.

 

Granted, if that's what this verse really means it could be more clear.  But in context, I think this is the better interpretation.

 

 Jacob 2:30  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. 

 

If God commanding you to raise up seed means God is commanding you to have a happy marriage, wouldn’t Jacob 2:30 mean that God does not always command you to have a happy marriage?  In fact, wouldn’t it mean that God usually commands you to not have a happy marriage, except in those instances he specifically commands you to raise up seed unto him?  

Edited July 17, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[teddyaware]

Your interpretation of this is that the default commandment is monogamy, but if he wants seed to be raised up, he'll command polygamy.  In other words, the Lord of Hosts will command his people to engage in what He describes as abominations if He wants to raise seed up unto Himself. That's weird.

 

An alternate interpretation is that the default commandment is complete chastity of women (v. 28), and that if he wants you to rase up seed, he will command you to get married and raise seed in a monogamous manner (v. 31-32).

The second interpretation is in error. Here's why -- At the particular point in Nephite history spoken of in Jacob 2, Jacob made it known, in no uncertain terms, that the Lord was demanding strict monogamy among the Nephites. After Jacob goes on at some length in his admonitions against unauthorized polygamy, the Lord Himself says the following:

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.

 

What was Jacob preaching about? He was focusing on the Lord's commandment to the Nephites that they abandon the practice of  unsanctioned plural marriage and cleave instead to the practice of strict monogamy only. So when in the above verse the Lord of Hosts says, "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things," the phrase is an obvious reference to the Lord's commandment to  the Nephites to practice strict monogamy. Therefore when the Lord first declares, "for if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people," the Lord is clearly referring to something other than the practice of marital monogamy. So what is the Lord referring to when he speaks of the commandment to raise up seed unto him? Well He most certainly can't be referring to monogamy, otherwise His use of the word "otherwise" is misplaced and has no meaning. So it's plainly obvious the first part of the verse is referring to a day when the Lord may give His people a commandment to practice plural marriage in order to raise up seed unto Him; "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (monogamy)."

Edited July 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[Analytics]

 

 

 

If God commanding you to raise up seed means God is commanding you to have a happy marriage, wouldn’t Jacob 2:30 mean that God does not always command you to have a happy marriage?  In fact, wouldn’t it mean that God usually commands you to not have a happy marriage, except in those instances he specifically commands you to raise up seed unto him?  

 

 

My suggested reading is that the default state is a chaste, celebate, single life (e.g. "I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women," verse 28).  If God commands you, then get married and raise up seed with a single spouse.  It just so happens that when the time is right, God does in fact command all of us to be fruitful, multiply, and raise up seed.

 

Looking at the scripture the other way, do you think God typically doesn't want the Saints to raise up seed unto Him, and that the only time in this dispensation when He did want seed raised up to Him was from 1852 to 1890?

Edited July 18, 2014 by Analytics

[Analytics]

The second interpretation is in error. Here's why -- At the particular point in Nephite history spoken of in Jacob 2, Jacob made it known, in no uncertain terms, that the Lord was demanding strict monogamy among the Nephites. After Jacob goes on at some length in his admonitions against unauthorized polygamy, the Lord Himself says the following:

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.

 

What was Jacob preaching about? He was focusing on the Lord's commandment to the Nephites that they abandon the practice of  unsanctioned plural marriage and cleave instead to the practice of strict monogamy only. So when in the above verse the Lord of Hosts says, "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things," the phrase is an obvious reference to the Lord's commandment to  the Nephites to practice strict monogamy. Therefore when the Lord first declares, "for if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people," the Lord is clearly referring to something other than the practice of marital monogamy. So what is the Lord referring to when he speaks of the commandment to raise up seed unto him? Well He most certainly can't be referring to monogamy, otherwise His use of the word "otherwise" is misplaced and has no meaning. So it's plainly obvious the first part of the verse is referring to a day when the Lord may give His people a commandment to practice plural marriage in order to raise up seed unto Him; "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (monogamy)."

 

What it says immediately before vs. 30 is "Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments."  That being the case, "these things" in vs. 30 clearly refers to "keep my commandments."

 

So it's obvious the first part of the verse is referring to a day when the Lord may give His people a break from the commandments so that they may wax in iniquity and commit whoredoms, in order to raise up seed unto Him; "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (keeping the commandments)."

 

Of course I'm being facetious here, but with a point.  The chapter goes into great detail to equate polygamy with abomination and iniquity.  Saying God would command people to use something of this nature to raise up seed unto the Him is bizzare.

[teddyaware]

Let’s look at this in more detail.  When Abraham took Hagar as a concubine, it brought “rupture in the relationship between Sarai and Hagar (Gen 16:4-6), strife between the children of the two wives (Gen 21:9-10), and deep distress on the part of Abraham (Gen 21:11-12).”  It then ends with Abraham giving Hagar some bread and a bottle of water, and kicking her out of his house into the wilderness, along with his own son (Gen 21:14).

 

Is that practicing plural marriage successfully?

 

Or how about Jacob?  “The Jacob narratives bristle with details of the disastrous consequences of polygamy in Jacob’s family.  The strive and discord between Rachel and Leah are meticulously documented (Gen 30:1-16). The dispositions of jealously, revenge, short temper, and lack of self control on the part of Jacob’s children seems to mirror the dysfunctional nature of the polygamous home life (Gen 34:13-31; 37:2-34). Jacob himself also experienced the negative effects of the polygamous relationship.  The record simply states that Jacob “loved Rachel more than Leah” (Gen 29:30); even stronger, “Leah was unloved [literally, ‘hated’] (Gen 29:31).”

 

Is that practicing plural marriage successfully?

 

http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Polygamy/Polygamy%20in%20OT.pdf

I appreciate this excellent post. But when I was referring to successful plural marriage, my mind was primarily focused on the sins of David, Solomon and the disobedient Nephites when their adulterous behavior rendered their plural marriages abominations.

That being said, there can be no doubt but that plural marriage is a refiner's fire; an Abrahamic test in the similitude of the of the emotional sufferings of Christ. But even though the plural marriages of the Patriarchs were fraught with turmoil and pain, let it never be forgotten that it was by this means that the Lord's promises to Abraham were fulfilled. Promises by which the Lord swore by His own name that the world and future universes would be filled with Abraham's literal and priesthood seed. Through plural marriage, the Lord's promise to raise up seed unto Abraham was fulfilled in the Lord's own peculiar way. Plural marriage does have its plus side...

And let's also not forget although Jacob's plural marriages were filled with trial and much sorrow, nevertheless it was by the very means of those plural marriages that the promises made unto Abraham continued to be fulfilled through the births of twelve male children who gave rise to the twelve tribes of Israel.; and by this same means all the nations of the world will always be blessed. And also remember,that every time someone steps into the baptismal font of an LDS temple there can be no denying that seed that issued forth from Jacob's plural marriages, as symbolized by the twelve holy oxen that hold aloft the font, have been, are and will continue to be a blessing beyond measure to the entire world. You see, though polygamy is a refiner's fire, it does has its positive side.

Edited July 18, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

And I thought I was the funny guy. I am not taking the moral high ground with regards to MY treatment on the board. I'm referring to how Dehlin, Kelly and many anonymous members are routinely thrown under the bus to preserve the Church's "undefeated" record of perfection.

"People who don't know about polygamy, the BoA, etc. are lazy, ignorant or never had a testimony at all."

"People who leave the Church are just too weak to resist the lures of porn, booze and Starbucks."

"People who agitate for change are prideful and arrogant."

By the way, two of the above attacks were made MULTIPLE times in this thread alone. Rather than acknowledge that reasonable people could have legitimate reasons for a faith crisis, we malign them in an effort to bolster the Church.

Now, as for those people who attack ME on the basis that I lack knowledge, wisdom or common sense, I can only say that you sound a lot like my wife. Seriously, I have NO problem with my treatment on the board. I'm sure that I have been FAR more offensive than offended. And if I thought I was being unfairly attacked, do you really think I would cry "Uncle"?

"Please stop yelling at me! You're hurting my feelings!"

Trust me. I haven't been Mormon THAT long.

I'm simply pointing out that perhaps we could give rank and file members who are not even part of these discussions a FRACTION of the grace that we provide for our leaders.

 

I don't have the ability to determine peoples motivations beyond what they say and do. However on the issue of Mormon polygamy either they are so new to the idea or they are so ignorant it  is beyond credulity. Ask any 100 people on the street if Mormons practice(d) polygamy you'll get 100 affirmative answers. For adult LDS there is no excuse not to know it is our Scriptures.

[mormonnewb]

I don't have the ability to determine peoples motivations beyond what they say and do. However on the issue of Mormon polygamy either they are so new to the idea or they are so ignorant it  is beyond credulity. Ask any 100 people on the street if Mormons practice(d) polygamy you'll get 100 affirmative answers. For adult LDS there is no excuse not to know it is our Scriptures.

So all of these people are liars or stupid, huh? As one such person, tell me WHERE in our scriptures it mentions that JS married GIRLS or other people's wives. Tell me where it talks about how he publicly denied polygamy while practicing it in secret. I'll wait ...

Once again, this desire to attack those who don't know while bending over backwards to protect the reputations of leaders is amazing. No one needs the Holy Spirit to revere the powerful. Even a heathen has enough sense to bow and scrape before royalty (political or ecclesiastical). Christ tells us that he will judge us by how we treat the LEAST of these, not by how we treat those with the greatest authority. And I don't think He was making an exception for those who "should have done the proper research" to know the things that the Church refused to tell them.

[phi39]

An evangelical like me would probably spend time in a discussion trying to show that Joseph Smith was a false (not merely fallen) prophet citing things like the rampant polygamy you mentioned, the secret wives, and the part in the D&C where Emma has to accept these wives or else (D&C 132:52-54).

 

You are hoping that by saying Smith was "fallen" rather than "false" you might separate the man from the message.  But Jesus told us not to separate the two when he said "You will know them [the false prophets] by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-23).    

 

When founding a religion, wouldn't the character of the man be as important as the message?  If so, why hold on to Smith when you have Christ?

[Tacenda]

I don't have the ability to determine peoples motivations beyond what they say and do. However on the issue of Mormon polygamy either they are so new to the idea or they are so ignorant it is beyond credulity. Ask any 100 people on the street if Mormons practice(d) polygamy you'll get 100 affirmative answers. For adult LDS there is no excuse not to know it is our Scriptures.

Sure the Mormons are known for polygamy. I went to Hawaii once just out of high school for a convention with my sister and brother in law. When someone heard we were from Utah they asked my sister and I if we were the wives.

But try asking LDS if Joseph Smith had several wives, I think you'll get a different answer. More people don't know much about JS and Nauvoo polygamy, just Utah and BY polygamy.

Anyone care to experiment with that???

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm pretty sure the church will issue an essay on JS Polygamy. Only a matter of time on that.

Well if it does, don't expect it to throw Joseph under the bus, if that's what you're implying. I've noticed those Gospel Topics entries typically bring together understanding and scholarship that is already existing as opposed to breaking new ground. And nothing in the Church currently comes even close to condemning the Prophet as the OP is doing.

[CV75]

I'm simply pointing out that perhaps we could give rank and file members who are not even part of these discussions a FRACTION of the grace that we provide for our leaders.

Of course we are going to find individuals that struggle with this principle, just as we will find those who struggle with many other Gospel principles. I suppose it even qualifies as a faith crisis of sorts, perhaps invisible and unrecognized, as most hypocrisy is.

 

Helping someone (hypocritical or not) through a faith crisis doesn’t require demeaning and condemning those who established and now uphold Church teachings.

[Scott Lloyd]

An evangelical like me would probably spend time in a discussion trying to show that Joseph Smith was a false (not merely fallen) prophet citing things like the rampant polygamy you mentioned, the secret wives, and the part in the D&C where Emma has to accept these wives or else (D&C 132:52-54).

 

You are hoping that by saying Smith was "fallen" rather than "false" you might separate the man from the message.  But Jesus told us not to separate the two when he said "You will know them [the false prophets] by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-23).    

 

When founding a religion, wouldn't the character of the man be as important as the message?  If so, why hold on to Smith when you have Christ?

It's a moot point anyway. Both you and the OP are quite wrong. Joseph was neither a false nor a fallen prophet.

 

You are right in one sense, though: Mormonnewb is taking a very untenable, inconsistent and insupportable position.

[thesometimesaint]

So all of these people are liars or stupid, huh? As one such person, tell me WHERE in our scriptures it mentions that JS married GIRLS or other people's wives. Tell me where it talks about how he publicly denied polygamy while practicing it in secret. I'll wait ...

Once again, this desire to attack those who don't know while bending over backwards to protect the reputations of leaders is amazing. No one needs the Holy Spirit to revere the powerful. Even a heathen has enough sense to bow and scrape before royalty (political or ecclesiastical). Christ tells us that he will judge us by how we treat the LEAST of these, not by how we treat those with the greatest authority. And I don't think He was making an exception for those who "should have done the proper research" to know the things that the Church refused to tell them.

 

I didn't call them stupid. I said they were ignorant. There is a big difference between those two terms. D&C 132 has been in our Scriptures practically since the beginnings of the Church. I became a member of the Church at age 20 in 1971. I'm not the smartest person in the world and even I knew that.

 

"Girls" in polygamy is a loaded term, a form of Presentism. In the 1830's of the USA women of 12-14 could give legal consent to marry. Heck that was still the case in many states in the 1960's when I was in High School. There really is no confirming evidence that JS ever had sexual relations with anyone but Emma. So to him a Sealing obviously didn't involve earthly sexual relation. BTW JS was also Sealed to men. The law of US has no effect on what happens in the next life.

 

Where have I ever said that we should not treat everyone with the utmost respect and dignity? Sharply disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as not bowing and scraping before them.  I simply maintain that in 2014 adult members of the Church that claim no knowledge about polygamy in the Church stretch credulity.