Do We Worship Joseph Smith?

[Ahab]

I'm good with the song, though hard for me to sing. I'm uncomfortable singing it is sacrament meeting. Ans so much more uncomfortable singing it as the closing song when there has been no mention of Christ in any of the talks that day.

I like what whoever it was that said we wouldn't be singing or even talking about Joseph if Jesus had not spoken to him. Jesus is who made and still makes Joseph worth singing about, and what we're really singing about is what Jesus said to and through him. Without that association Joseph would have just been another one of the billions of us, nothing special.

[Kenngo1969]

I lack the attention span necessary to endure to the end of reading this thread in its entirety, so if someone has already made similar points please forgive the duplication.  Here are some of my thoughts on the subject, for the $0.012500625000375 that they're worth :

 

http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/why-mormons-revere-joseph-smith/

 

P.S.: Bottom line?  Joseph Smith is of value only insofar as he leads people to Christ.  If the Restoration doesn't do that, then, whatever else that is good may be said about it, it's useless for achieving its intended purpose, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."  See Joseph Smith-History 1:19 and 2 Timothy 3:5.

 

P.P.S.: I think, too, (and forgive me; someone may have already made this point, as well) that it's important to understand the back story behind "Praise to the Man": W.W. Phelps had special reason to hold Joseph in such high regard, not simply because of his calling as the Prophet of the Restoration, but because, after Brother Phelps had caused Joseph untold grief by fomenting disharmony from within the Church of Jesus Christ and persecution from without, Joseph forgave him, writing, "Come on, Dear Brother, since the war is past, for friends at first are friends again at last."  (See Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 34, "The Power of Forgiving").

Edited October 18, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Matt1074]

I actually came here to talk about JS but as a newbie I will add my questions here. After several years as a convert I have been confronted with the unfortunate truth that JS married two girls who were 14 years old, as well as 11 women who were already married to other men... who were still alive and still living with their wives.

 

I am at a loss to discover that JS was a pedophile and an adulterer and have no way of reconciling this. I have reconciled a lot, but this is just over the top. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

[Storm Rider]

I actually came here to talk about JS but as a newbie I will add my questions here. After several years as a convert I have been confronted with the unfortunate truth that JS married two girls who were 14 years old, as well as 11 women who were already married to other men... who were still alive and still living with their wives.

 

I am at a loss to discover that JS was a pedophile and an adulterer and have no way of reconciling this. I have reconciled a lot, but this is just over the top. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

 

Hello Matt, welcome to the Board.  You seem to have learned some things, but then there is a bit of re-constructionist history thrown in.  I could guess where that type of spin came from.  There are a number of threads that have addressed this topic.  There are also several books by critics and members alike.  

 

Here are a few links you may want to review:

 

•  Joseph Smith and polyandry
• Joseph Smith's polygamy
• Joseph Smith and his marriages to young women
• Joseph and lustful motives

The challenge for you is to learn.  I studied this out and remain confident in Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration and chosen by God for that purpose.  However, he is just like prophets have always been and that is just a man.

[Matt1074]

Hello Matt, welcome to the Board.  You seem to have learned some things, but then there is a bit of re-constructionist history thrown in.  I could guess where that type of spin came from.  There are a number of threads that have addressed this topic.  There are also several books by critics and members alike.  

 

Here are a few links you may want to review:

 

•  Joseph Smith and polyandry
• Joseph Smith's polygamy
• Joseph Smith and his marriages to young women
• Joseph and lustful motives

The challenge for you is to learn.  I studied this out and remain confident in Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration and chosen by God for that purpose.  However, he is just like prophets have always been and that is just a man.

I have to be straight forward and say that anything I get from fairmormon on subjects like this are highly suspect at best. JS either did or didn't marry two 14 year old girls and he either did or didn't marry 11 women who were already married to other men. No matter what source is trying to shed light on or water down this topic, the base facts remain, and they trouble me to an extent that fairmormon has not been able to adequately deal with. I'm not impressed by explanations that women wanted to be with JS for eternity rather than their legally married husbands, LDS or not. If a woman wants to be with me for eternity but is already married to another man, well, that's too bad. I have really come to believe that JS was fallen from God's grace by the time he started doing these things, like David before him. I can come up with no other explanation if JS was a prophet, because prophet's don't marry other men's wives or 14 year old girls, they just don't.

[Storm Rider]

I have to be straight forward and say that anything I get from fairmormon on subjects like this are highly suspect at best. JS either did or didn't marry two 14 year old girls and he either did or didn't marry 11 women who were already married to other men. No matter what source is trying to shed light on or water down this topic, the base facts remain, and they trouble me to an extent that fairmormon has not been able to adequately deal with. I'm not impressed by explanations that women wanted to be with JS for eternity rather than their legally married husbands, LDS or not. If a woman wants to be with me for eternity but is already married to another man, well, that's too bad. I have really come to believe that JS was fallen from God's grace by the time he started doing these things, like David before him. I can come up with no other explanation if JS was a prophet, because prophet's don't marry other men's wives or 14 year old girls, they just don't.

 

What sources you want to use is your business and no one here will limit you.  If you have found more balanced sources, stick with them.  

 

If you are asking questions, then there is room for discussion.  If your mind is already made final, informed conclusions then there really aren't any questions on your mind.  If that is the case, what exactly are you looking for on this site?  

 

Also, given that you already have an idea about what prophets do and don't do I suggest you go back and read the OT in its entirety and then let's talk about what men of God do and don't do.  Do prophets commit adultery?  Do prophets murder? Do prophets commit incest? What exact sin pushes you over the edge? You will probably find that prophets in the OT have done it.  Now what?  Are they fallen prophets too or are they just fallible instruments that God still uses to do a great work?  It is not about the man - it is about the work that God accomplishes through them that counts.  Men called as prophets do not accomplish anything without God and it is God that is working with the weakest things.  If you are looking for a perfect prophet you won't find them because they do not and have not existed. 

 

Do not attempt to get me started on our penchant for recentism - i.e. judging history by today's more "enlightened standards".  Today we might not find too many girls married at fourteen (I think you might be surprised about how many actually do and how many have children in our society), but as a genealogist I have a family tree, based mostly in the south, where fourteen year old girls were married quite regularly.  All this proves is those wonderful web sites that love to shock and awe the reader rather than actually inform may not be the most informed sites existing today.

 

Matt, I apologize, but I too old to bet exercised too much by these types of things. I have read the anti-literature and the Church's literature.  I have been a student of religion for decades.  I have studied many religions and continue to study them.  I have collected copies of the world's sacred texts and have read most of them.  We each walk a path of faith and we each have problems - no one walks through life without struggling to to and remain men of faith.  Though I respect and understand the feelings of one in a crisis of faith I also do not get too excited about it.  I have concluded that if one desires to be faithful to God they will be.  Some get so far and then they stop and will go no farther; their spiritual journey ends and they do something else.  They may return and they may not; the decision is theirs.

 

If there are questions, this is a good place come to talk with those with some answers.  However, it can also be a dangerous place to come because this is hardly a church  sponsored site.  We have people from all walks of life and who are at strongly different places in their life.  Most are on a spiritual journey and a few are not; they have found another way that works for them.  

 

Honesty is good here.  We tend to quickly identify those who are less than honest and don't really tolerate it very much.  I hope you enjoy your time here.

[Matt1074]

What sources you want to use is your business and no one here will limit you.  If you have found more balanced sources, stick with them.  

 

If you are asking questions, then there is room for discussion.  If your mind is already made final, informed conclusions then there really aren't any questions on your mind.  If that is the case, what exactly are you looking for on this site?  

 

Also, given that you already have an idea about what prophets do and don't do I suggest you go back and read the OT in its entirety and then let's talk about what men of God do and don't do.  Do prophets commit adultery?  Do prophets murder? Do prophets commit incest? What exact sin pushes you over the edge? You will probably find that prophets in the OT have done it.  Now what?  Are they fallen prophets too or are they just fallible instruments that God still uses to do a great work?  It is not about the man - it is about the work that God accomplishes through them that counts.  Men called as prophets do not accomplish anything without God and it is God that is working with the weakest things.  If you are looking for a perfect prophet you won't find them because they do not and have not existed. 

 

Do not attempt to get me started on our penchant for recentism - i.e. judging history by today's more "enlightened standards".  Today we might not find too many girls married at fourteen (I think you might be surprised about how many actually do and how many have children in our society), but as a genealogist I have a family tree, based mostly in the south, where fourteen year old girls were married quite regularly.  All this proves is those wonderful web sites that love to shock and awe the reader rather than actually inform may not be the most informed sites existing today.

 

Matt, I apologize, but I too old to bet exercised too much by these types of things. I have read the anti-literature and the Church's literature.  I have been a student of religion for decades.  I have studied many religions and continue to study them.  I have collected copies of the world's sacred texts and have read most of them.  We each walk a path of faith and we each have problems - no one walks through life without struggling to to and remain men of faith.  Though I respect and understand the feelings of one in a crisis of faith I also do not get too excited about it.  I have concluded that if one desires to be faithful to God they will be.  Some get so far and then they stop and will go no farther; their spiritual journey ends and they do something else.  They may return and they may not; the decision is theirs.

 

If there are questions, this is a good place come to talk with those with some answers.  However, it can also be a dangerous place to come because this is hardly a church  sponsored site.  We have people from all walks of life and who are at strongly different places in their life.  Most are on a spiritual journey and a few are not; they have found another way that works for them.  

 

Honesty is good here.  We tend to quickly identify those who are less than honest and don't really tolerate it very much.  I hope you enjoy your time here.

Thank you, and  yes I have questions. Is JS a fallen prophet? He was dead in less than one year after D&C 132 was published, so I can't help but think there was a reason for his sudden departure after that section was "revealed" to him. I realize prophets in the OT were quite a troubled lot, but I have not found anything near JS's behavior in those chosen of Christ to spread His Church on earth, so JS does not get to be compared with OT prophets, but NT prophets, and it does not appear he measured up, so I ask again, is he a fallen prophet? The "truth and light" I was truly overwhelmed by at my baptism, and the peace and comfort I get from living the Gospel makes no sense to me if JS was not called of God, but his behavior speaks of one who then fell, and the LDS Church's extreme difficulties because of polygamy would also speak to D&C 132 not being of God. I do not know how I could have been given the Gift of the Holy Spirit any other way, but adultery (14 years is painfully young, even in the mid 1800's but for the sake of focusing on my question I will move past the pedophile issue) is as serious as it gets short of murder, and as has been pointed out JS would not have been the first prophet to fall.

[JLHPROF]

Thank you, and  yes I have questions. Is JS a fallen prophet? He was dead in less than one year after D&C 132 was published, so I can't help but think there was a reason for his sudden departure after that section was "revealed" to him. I realize prophets in the OT were quite a troubled lot, but I have not found anything near JS's behavior in those chosen of Christ to spread His Church on earth, so JS does not get to be compared with OT prophets, but NT prophets, and it does not appear he measured up, so I ask again, is he a fallen prophet? The "truth and light" I was truly overwhelmed by at my baptism, and the peace and comfort I get from living the Gospel makes no sense to me if JS was not called of God, but his behavior speaks of one who then fell, and the LDS Church's extreme difficulties because of polygamy would also speak to D&C 132 not being of God. I do not know how I could have been given the Gift of the Holy Spirit any other way, but adultery (14 years is painfully young, even in the mid 1800's but for the sake of focusing on my question I will move past the pedophile issue) is as serious as it gets short of murder, and as has been pointed out JS would not have been the first prophet to fall.

 

Joseph was absolutley NOT a fallen prophet.  He neither committed adultery or was a pedophile.

And as for the "extreme difficulties" the church suffered - these are a sign of the adversary fighting good, not God punishing bad.  It is one of the biggest misconceptions of the gospel that everything goes well if you are being righteous.  In fact, the more righteous a person is the more "extreme difficulties" they will suffer (generally).  The adversary doesn't bother to try those who are no threat to him.  Someone once said the adversary will pat you on the back right up to the door of the temple...then watch out.

[ERayR]

If they're going there only one day a week I don't think that counts as being a very important part of their lives, or at least they don't worship it very much. When I worship something I want it to be an every day activity, and I want it to be good for me to worship it as much as I can

 

That is more often than most people attend church.

[Matt1074]

Joseph was absolutley NOT a fallen prophet.  He neither committed adultery or was a pedophile.

And as for the "extreme difficulties" the church suffered - these are a sign of the adversary fighting good, not God punishing bad.  It is one of the biggest misconceptions of the gospel that everything goes well if you are being righteous.  In fact, the more righteous a person is the more "extreme difficulties" they will suffer (generally).  The adversary doesn't bother to try those who are no threat to him.  Someone once said the adversary will pat you on the back right up to the door of the temple...then watch out.

You're not addressing anything I've said, only saying "no no no no!" That hardly adds to the discussion. If JS married women who were already married to other living men, that is adultery. If he married girls who were 14 years old, that at least today is pedophilia although I concede that age of consent at that time was likely even younger than 14, it is still disturbing. I hear lots of apple to oranges comparisons with the founders of the U.S. not being perfect people either. Did any of them marry a 14 year old girl? I'm honestly asking because I don't know. Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion beyond "no no no no!"

[Storm Rider]

Thank you, and  yes I have questions. Is JS a fallen prophet? He was dead in less than one year after D&C 132 was published, so I can't help but think there was a reason for his sudden departure after that section was "revealed" to him. I realize prophets in the OT were quite a troubled lot, but I have not found anything near JS's behavior in those chosen of Christ to spread His Church on earth, so JS does not get to be compared with OT prophets, but NT prophets, and it does not appear he measured up, so I ask again, is he a fallen prophet? The "truth and light" I was truly overwhelmed by at my baptism, and the peace and comfort I get from living the Gospel makes no sense to me if JS was not called of God, but his behavior speaks of one who then fell, and the LDS Church's extreme difficulties because of polygamy would also speak to D&C 132 not being of God. I do not know how I could have been given the Gift of the Holy Spirit any other way, but adultery (14 years is painfully young, even in the mid 1800's but for the sake of focusing on my question I will move past the pedophile issue) is as serious as it gets short of murder, and as has been pointed out JS would not have been the first prophet to fall.

 

Matt, I am not sure I can help because I have the opposite position of you. I don't believe Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet.  I believe that he was an instrument of God until the day he was killed and inspired throughout his life.  I know that he was a man; he himself admitted he was a rough stone and sinful. 

 

What I see is that you had a highly spiritual experience at your baptism and laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  Now you have learned something that confuses you and disturbs you. What is most important in this life; learning to live by the Spirit or learning to live by your own understanding?  I strongly suspect that you do not have an in-depth understanding of plural marriage, the purpose of sealings, the attraction of members to be sealed to Joseph - both male and female.  Further, I suspect you have a very limited understanding of the caliber of relationships Joseph Smith had with each of his women that were sealed to him.  

 

Also, I reject your premise that OT prophets were somehow less valid, less of an instrument, or that righteousness did not exist for them in the same manner that NT prophets.  I see nothing in scripture to create this separation.  Incest is not as bad? Murder is not as bad?  I think i disagree with you and you value things much differently than I do or what the scriptures teach.  

 

There are things I don't understand and that are problematic.  The way I continue is that I have had spiritual experiences that were very powerful; I trust the Spirit.  I also acknowledge that I do not understand all things; that I don't have all the facts, and that I don't really trust in the arm of flesh when it comes to teachings on salvation.  Those things that are problematic I put on the shelf, try to learn more about, keep praying to be a more faithful person, and always asking for forgiveness for my lack of faith and of being a sinner.  I am an old, grumpy fellow and so far this works for me.  I hope that you find your way and continue to grow in Christ's Church.  

[Matt1074]

"Also, I reject your premise that OT prophets were somehow less valid, less of an instrument, or that righteousness did not exist for them in the same manner that NT prophets.  I see nothing in scripture to create this separation.  Incest is not as bad? Murder is not as bad?  I think i disagree with you and you value things much differently than I do or what the scriptures teach."

 

I need to understand what NT prophets committed murder or incest, and if it is Paul you speak of I would ask that those things be committed once they were called to be prophets. I'm not arguing, only trying to see what you are saying by this because I don't understand where you are getting the murder and incest from NT prophets from.

[Matt1074]

"I strongly suspect that you do not have an in-depth understanding of plural marriage, the purpose of sealings, the attraction of members to be sealed to Joseph - both male and female.  Further, I suspect you have a very limited understanding of the caliber of relationships Joseph Smith had with each of his women that were sealed to him."

 

This would make one believe polygamy is still a valid institution. If my understanding is so limited and yours therefore is not, and you say these relationships are such that both men and women would want to be married to a prophet, then the question becomes why did the institution ever stop?

[Matt1074]

I am also interested to know if D&C 132 was only published in the D&C in 1876, as is claimed, while at the same time D&C 101 was changed from it's polygamy restriction to accommodate D&C 132's polygamy acceptance. 

 

And further, why D&C 132 specifically lists virgins but JS then married women who were married to other men... not virgins. So JS was violating even the very commandments God had given him regarding polygamy then... very confusing.

[JLHPROF]

You're not addressing anything I've said, only saying "no no no no!" That hardly adds to the discussion. If JS married women who were already married to other living men, that is adultery. If he married girls who were 14 years old, that at least today is pedophilia although I concede that age of consent at that time was likely even younger than 14, it is still disturbing. I hear lots of apple to oranges comparisons with the founders of the U.S. not being perfect people either. Did any of them marry a 14 year old girl? I'm honestly asking because I don't know. Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion beyond "no no no no!"

 

1. Civil marriage was not considered a true marriage after the reception and reveal of D&C 132.  It was considered inferior in the eyes of God.  Only those marriages sealed by God's authority could be considered a covenant.  It was not considered adultery to ignore a marriage that God didn't ordain.  Do you really think all those devout believers would have knowingly participated in adultery?  Of course not.

 

2. Only 2 of his marriages could in any way be considered "pedophilia" and neither of those would have been considered anything of the sort in 1840's america.  In many countries today they aren't considered too young.  The idea of 18 years old is a western civilization construct, and only for the last 120 years or so.

 

As far as may adding to the conversation - we have all heard this before.  The explanations have already been given.  I can completely understand why this might have come as a shock to your testimony.  But when I say "No", I really mean, "No", Joseph wasn't an adulterer or a pedophile and the explanations have been around for a long time.

[JLHPROF]

 

This would make one believe polygamy is still a valid institution. If my understanding is so limited and yours therefore is not, and you say these relationships are such that both men and women would want to be married to a prophet, then the question becomes why did the institution ever stop?

ith each of his women that were sealed to him."

 

It never really did.  Many men are sealed to multiple women in the eternities.  The last prophet of the Church that current teaching would say is sitting up in heaven with two wives would be Pres. Hunter who only died in 1995.  And the practice continues today.

Plural marriage was an eternal principle.  It was restored through God's prophet in D&C 132, and revoked temporarily due to civil and political issues in 1904.

[Matt1074]

1. Civil marriage was not considered a true marriage after the reception and reveal of D&C 132.  It was considered inferior in the eyes of God.  Only those marriages sealed by God's authority could be considered a covenant.  It was not considered adultery to ignore a marriage that God didn't ordain.  Do you really think all those devout believers would have knowingly participated in adultery?  Of course not.

 

2. Only 2 of his marriages could in any way be considered "pedophilia" and neither of those would have been considered anything of the sort in 1840's america.  In many countries today they aren't considered too young.  The idea of 18 years old is a western civilization construct, and only for the last 120 years or so.

 

As far as may adding to the conversation - we have all heard this before.  The explanations have already been given.  I can completely understand why this might have come as a shock to your testimony.  But when I say "No", I really mean, "No", Joseph wasn't an adulterer or a pedophile and the explanations have been around for a long time.

So the 11 women who were members of the church and married to other men were counseled to seal themselves to JS rather than their LDS husbands? We are not talking simply civil marriage here, we are talking members who would have been part of the new and everlasting covenant.

 

And if it's not adultery unless it's a temple marriage, then why isn't that still an accepted belief today? Seems like D&C 132 creates rules that allowed JS to "anoint" women to sleep with anyone he "anointed" them to sleep with no matter who they had been with or who they were with currently, but if he didn't "anoint" them then it was adultery.

 

So had JS given those 11 women to other men in the church and "anointed" those women... and then he himself married them as well? And if not, after they were anointed and sealed to JS and then went back to live with their church member husbands, did they never have sex with their first husbands ever again?

 

You see what I'm getting at here? Either it was adultery because those women were already sealed to other men, or it was adultery after they were sealed to JS, to say nothing of the one woman who was later sealed to Brigham Young as well. There is no avoiding adultery here, even if one wishes to believe that sex with a woman who is already given in marriage under any law is not adultery. Christ himself needed no such anointing when he spoke of marriage. To Christ it was anyone who had given themselves to another.

[Matt1074]

It never really did.  Many men are sealed to multiple women in the eternities.  The last prophet of the Church that current teaching would say is sitting up in heaven with two wives would be Pres. Hunter who only died in 1995.  And the practice continues today.

Plural marriage was an eternal principle.  It was restored through God's prophet in D&C 132, and revoked temporarily due to civil and political issues in 1904.

I thank you for this. Seriously, it is a straight forward answer and I greatly appreciate that. Now the question becomes... revocation of a commandment of God because of temporal difficulties? Assuming all else I have been told here is accurate, this one becomes the most troubling of all. At what point did Christ teach to bow to temporal authority and stop living His Word?

[JLHPROF]

I thank you for this. Seriously, it is a straight forward answer and I greatly appreciate that. Now the question becomes... revocation of a commandment of God because of temporal difficulties? Assuming all else I have been told here is accurate, this one becomes the most troubling of all. At what point did Christ teach to bow to temporal authority and stop living His Word?

 

Here:

"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue – to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the prophets, apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice...  all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners.

He has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it...  I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write..."  Wilford Woodruff

[Matt1074]

So the 11 women who were members of the church and married to other men were counseled to seal themselves to JS rather than their LDS husbands? We are not talking simply civil marriage here, we are talking members who would have been part of the new and everlasting covenant.

 

And if it's not adultery unless it's a temple marriage, then why isn't that still an accepted belief today? Seems like D&C 132 creates rules that allowed JS to "anoint" women to sleep with anyone he "anointed" them to sleep with no matter who they had been with or who they were with currently, but if he didn't "anoint" them then it was adultery.

 

So had JS given those 11 women to other men in the church and "anointed" those women... and then he himself married them as well? And if not, after they were anointed and sealed to JS and then went back to live with their church member husbands, did they never have sex with their first husbands ever again?

 

You see what I'm getting at here? Either it was adultery because those women were already sealed to other men, or it was adultery after they were sealed to JS, to say nothing of the one woman who was later sealed to Brigham Young as well. There is no avoiding adultery here, even if one wishes to believe that sex with a woman who is already given in marriage under any law is not adultery. Christ himself needed no such anointing when he spoke of marriage. To Christ it was anyone who had given themselves to another.

I am still interested in having the above addressed, but it also appears that the LDS Church still practices polygamy, it is only temporally they have stopped the practice for political reasons, but the belief, and if the belief is accurate, is still that polygamy is God's Word. That is not what the missionaries told me, that's for sure.

[Glenn101]

I am still interested in having the above addressed, but it also appears that the LDS Church still practices polygamy, it is only temporally they have stopped the practice for political reasons, but the belief, and if the belief is accurate, is still that polygamy is God's Word. That is not what the missionaries told me, that's for sure.

 

Matt, We can go 'round and 'round about this for days, months, years. For every question that we answer, you will find another to ask. But we are really the wrong source. I would leave you with some advice from a prophet of long ago when his brothers were coming to him complaining that they could not understand the words of another prophet, their father, had spoken to them concerning revelations he had received. Nephi asked them "Have ye inquired of the Lord?"

 

So simple. Just prepare yourself by fasting and prayer, and you will receive your answer, from the Lord.

 

And now, I await the spate of naysayers.

 

Glenn

[Matt1074]

Glen,

 

I appreciate your thoughts, but these questions I have are temporal ones, with temporal answers. The LDS Church does or does not still practice polygamy. I don't need God to answer that question for me, it is answerable by the doctrine of the LDS Church and the answer appears to be yes. And as I stated here...

 

So the 11 women who were members of the church and married to other men were counseled to seal themselves to JS rather than their LDS husbands? We are not talking simply civil marriage here, we are talking members who would have been part of the new and everlasting covenant.

And if it's not adultery unless it's a temple marriage, then why isn't that still an accepted belief today? Seems like D&C 132 creates rules that allowed JS to "anoint" women to sleep with anyone he "anointed" them to sleep with no matter who they had been with or who they were with currently, but if he didn't "anoint" them then it was adultery.

So had JS given those 11 women to other men in the church and "anointed" those women... and then he himself married them as well? And if not, after they were anointed and sealed to JS and then went back to live with their church member husbands, did they never have sex with their first husbands ever again?

You see what I'm getting at here? Either it was adultery because those women were already sealed to other men, or it was adultery after they were sealed to JS, to say nothing of the one woman who was later sealed to Brigham Young as well. There is no avoiding adultery here, even if one wishes to believe that sex with a woman who is already given in marriage under any law is not adultery. Christ himself needed no such anointing when he spoke of marriage. To Christ it was anyone who had given themselves to another.

... adultery took place in the LDS Church at the highest levels because of D&C 132, as it has been explained to me here and as D&C 132 is written. It also indicates that in not taking virgins as his plural wives as he states God commanded him to, JS violated God's own word that was given directly to him.

 

If I need a spiritual answer I seek the Spirit, if I need a temporal one I seek the answer temporally. These are temporal questions that are easily answered temporally. I don't know why that is so troubling, unless the answers are what they appear to indeed be.

[Matt1074]

Glen,

 

I can't find the edit function so I have to add this here because I don't feel I made it clear in my above post. I don't know how these questions I'm asking go round and round, as I stated above, they are simple questions and have concrete answers. So far I appear to have found those answers even though no one here wants to give them, and so I am further inclined to believe JS was a fallen prophet by the time D&C 132 was implemented. There is no way around the adultery issue as D&C 132 is written to say nothing of the virgin commandment that was violated.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think it was wrong for already married women to be sealed to a prophet, since they already had a husband. They should've been sealed to their husband. If I was that husband I would be super angry. Weren't there enough single women to be sealed to?

[JLHPROF]

I think it was wrong for already married women to be sealed to a prophet, since they already had a husband. They should've been sealed to their husband. If I was that husband I would be super angry. Weren't there enough single women to be sealed to?

 

Oh for pete's sake.  I love that everyone blames Joseph.  One of the key principles of the Mormon marriage system (as evidenced from the higher ordinances) is that the woman chooses her eternal companion.  If they wanted to choose Joseph to be sealed to for all eternity that was their right.