Tacenda Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) I didn't realize until joining this forum that Joseph did this. It bothers me, too.According to some board members, we should have known these things, we didn't crack enough books open, it's our faults. I'm still scratching my head over it. Edited October 20, 2014 by Tacenda
Silhouette Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) According to some board members, we should have known these things, we didn't crack enough books open, it's our faults. I'm still scratching my head over it.Someone mentioned wondering why Joseph didn't have the women sealed to their own husbands. Someone else said that women could be sealed to Joseph if they wanted to, because no one would be forced to be sealed to someone against their will. My question is, why didn't these women want to be sealed to their own husbands whom they were already married to. And I find it weird that their husbands were still living when they were sealed to somebody else.I have a major crush on actor Alan Rickman. Does this mean that if he were to join the Church I could be sealed to him even though I'm already married to my living husband? Sorry if that is irreverent, but that's basically what is being said with the statement that these women had the right to be sealed to anyone they choose.The whole scenario is fishy, and seems very wrong to me. I think I'm in agreement with those who feel that adultery was committed, and I agree that this probably broke up a lot of good marriages. I think both parties were in the wrong, both the women who went along with this, as well as Joseph.I also find it fascinating that Emma Smith never accepted polygamy, and didn't follow Brigham Young to Utah, but joined one of the offshoot LDS groups. I will research this and try to edit and provide references, but I read this somewhere in the last few days...just can't recall where. Edited October 20, 2014 by Silhouette
Tacenda Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Someone mentioned wondering why Joseph didn't have the women sealed to their own husbands. Someone else said that women could be sealed to Joseph if they wanted to, because no one would be forced to be sealed to someone against their will. My question is, why didn't these women want to be sealed to their own husbands whom they were already married to. And I find it weird that their husbands were still living when they were sealed to somebody else.I have a major crush on actor Alan Rickman. Does this mean that if he were to join the Church I could be sealed to him even though I'm already married to my living husband? Sorry if that is irreverent, but that's basically what is being said with the statement that these women have the right to be sealed to anyone they choose.It perhaps was a changed policy. And from my shallow readings, many back then thought they were in the end times, like within a few years. So they were sealed to stay within that family. Men were allowed to be sealed to men back then. And to Joseph Smith. So I guess when we look at it that way it doesn't seem so bad. The bad part for me is when it's a marriage too, not just a sealing and there have been statements from these already married women that it was a marriage in every way. Edited October 20, 2014 by Tacenda
Silhouette Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Deleted Edited October 20, 2014 by Silhouette
Tacenda Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Deleted Edited October 20, 2014 by Tacenda
thesometimesaint Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 Emma joined the RLDS Church because of all the shenanigans going on.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smith It is a bit more complicated than that article presents.
JLHPROF Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 Emma joined the RLDS Church because of all the shenanigans going on.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smith That's a bit of a twisting of fact.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 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?You don't understand what a sealing is do you. When I get sealed to my kids, am I marrying them? Is a sealing a marriage? When I married my wife was that the same as being sealed?
JLHPROF Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 You don't understand what a sealing is do you. When I get sealed to my kids, am I marrying them? Is a sealing a marriage? When I married my wife was that the same as being sealed? Oh, for heavens sake, let's not bring up this false analogy again.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Oh, for heavens sake, let's not bring up this false analogy again.There is not hing false about it. It is factual. When you get married is a marriage and a sealing the same thing? Yes or no? Why or why not? Was JS not sealed to men too? Were those marriages? Why not? Edited October 20, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
JLHPROF Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 There is not hing false about it. It is factual. When you get married is a marriage and a sealing the same thing? Yes or no? Why or why not? One day maybe the Mod's will let me pull an Orson Pratt and publish the ceremonies here. Until that day, it is impossible to prove anything. But once again - there are two sealing ceremonies, completely unrelated to each other. In the first sealing ceremony a child (or children) are sealed to a mother and father as heirs. This is what they are pronounced in the sealing. In the second sealing ceremony a man and woman are sealed together as spouses. This is what they are pronounced in the sealing. There then follows an additional sealing of blessings sometimes mistakenly considered to be the "sealing" which makes no sense if you read the words. The sealing is the joining of husband and wife. A TEMPLE marriage is the same thing as a TEMPLE sealing. To say otherwise is manipulating fact. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 I didn't realize until joining this forum that Joseph did this. It bothers me, too.Then for a more nuanced understanding of this matter, please see this information from a Church-friendly source.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) A TEMPLE marriage is the same thing as a TEMPLE sealing. To say otherwise is manipulating fact.You just contradicted this. Ugh. In the first sealing ceremony a child (or children) are sealed to a mother and father as heirs. This is what they are pronounced in the sealing. In the second sealing ceremony a man and woman are sealed together as spouses. This is what they are pronounced in the sealing. There then follows an additional sealing of blessings sometimes mistakenly considered to be the "sealing" which makes no sense if you read the words. The sealing is the joining of husband and wife. There are 2 different events. I don't care if you call them 2 different sealings. But there are different events. I am not sure we understand what these sealings that JS entered to are. As Pahoran pointed out but Helen Mar Kimball never lived with Joseph as his wife. After the sealing, in which her father officiated, she went back home and lived with her parents until after Joseph was killed. Does this sound like a marriage in any traditional sense? There seems to be very significant differences here. Edited October 20, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
3DOP Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 First of all, where is the edit function for these posts. Second, if you don't believe JS committed adultery tell me what you make of polygamy in general and especially with women who were already married to living husbands who then continued living with them after the marriage to JS. I'm having a hard time with this an a LDS, but for you I don't see how you can possibly think it wasn't adultery. I'm sure there have been many pigs for prophets, or at least who went pig after they drank too much of their own bath water. Obviously David did, so it's not like it doesn't happen. 1) I am not sure about edit function for these posts.2) Matt, I am sorry for my aggressive response last night. I had a little too much of the wrong kind of water myself. It doesn't matter how I define adultery or what I think of polygamy if the Catholic Church is apostate as Joseph Smith taught. Polygamy was practised by a lawful dispensation of God during the times of Patriarchs. Without such a dispensation, I do not believe in polygamy. It is not a second marriage. It is as you say, adultery. But if Joseph Smith was a prophet, why could not he have received a dispensation like that given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the kings of Israel? If I applied my Catholic standards to the situation, I would not believe that such a man could be a prophet of God. St. Peter, out of deep fear and discouragement denied our Lord, repented for it, and made reparation. So did King David for his sins. The problem, it seems to me, is that Joseph was unrepentant. I should not have used the expression "pig for a prophet". I am also sorry that this issue causes you to lose some peace of mind. That speaks well of you I think. The point I should have made with a more delicate touch than last night is that I don't think you can get away with THE Prophet of the Restoration as a bad guy. He can't even just be average. He can have a bad fall, but he needs to shake himself, repent publicly for public sins and carry on. He needs to be a model to admire. He can't die in his sins. In my opinion, there is no way that you admit that Joseph Smith never repented of adultery and at the same time was the Presiding Prophet of the Restoration of the Kingdom of God. Nobody is going to be interested in a Restoration that had sordid beginnings like that. For my part, if I were trying to be LDS, I would have faith that Joseph didn't have any sins in this regard of which he needed to repent. I would believe that God allowed these sealings...which I admit seem peculiar to me...but its not my culture. Its probably like you guys trying to understand consecrated celibacy. It just seems bizarre to you. That doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes the truth might be bizarre from a certain point of view. Regards, 3DOP 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 1) I am not sure about edit function for these posts.2) Matt, I am sorry for my aggressive response last night. I had a little too much of the wrong kind of water myself. It doesn't matter how I define adultery or what I think of polygamy if the Catholic Church is apostate as Joseph Smith taught. Polygamy was practised by a lawful dispensation of God during the times of Patriarchs. Without such a dispensation, I do not believe in polygamy. It is not a second marriage. It is as you say, adultery. But if Joseph Smith was a prophet, why could not he have received a dispensation like that given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the kings of Israel? If I applied my Catholic standards to the situation, I would not believe that such a man could be a prophet of God. St. Peter, out of deep fear and discouragement denied our Lord, repented for it, and made reparation. So did King David for his sins. The problem, it seems to me, is that Joseph was unrepentant. I should not have used the expression "pig for a prophet". I am also sorry that this issue causes you to lose some peace of mind. That speaks well of you I think. The point I should have made with a more delicate touch than last night is that I don't think you can get away with THE Prophet of the Restoration as a bad guy. He can't even just be average. He can have a bad fall, but he needs to shake himself, repent publicly for public sins and carry on. He needs to be a model to admire. He can't die in his sins. In my opinion, there is no way that you admit that Joseph Smith never repented of adultery and at the same time was the Presiding Prophet of the Restoration of the Kingdom of God. Nobody is going to be interested in a Restoration that had sordid beginnings like that. For my part, if I were trying to be LDS, I would have faith that Joseph didn't have any sins in this regard of which he needed to repent. I would believe that God allowed these sealings...which I admit seem peculiar to me...but its not my culture. Its probably like you guys trying to understand consecrated celibacy. It just seems bizarre to you. That doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes the truth might be bizarre from a certain point of view. Regards, 3DOP I often think you understand us better than do many of our own people. 1
Silhouette Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 The edit function is found by clicking on the content you've already posted that you want to edit. Down at the bottom a quote button and an edit button appear. Click on edit and a window comes up with your content in it. You can then scroll to the point where you want to edit or add something. When you're done, click on submit revised post. That's how it is on the mobile version, anyway.
Silhouette Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 That's a bit of a twisting of fact.You're right. I added the "shenanigans" comment without studying the situation at all. I withdraw that comment as being inappropriate. Someone has kindly provided a link which discusses this in much more detail than I was previously aware. I'll reserve further comments until after I've had the opportunity to read the articles provided in the link.
Pahoran Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 One day maybe the Mod's will let me pull an Orson Pratt and publish the ceremonies here. Until that day, it is impossible to prove anything. A person of good character would not want to publish the ceremonies here. Regards, Pahoran 1
JLHPROF Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) A person of good character would not want to publish the ceremonies here.Regards,Pahoran You are correct, but it becomes frustrating having to argue the same point when anyone who can read can see the difference.And thanks for the dig at my character. I'm sure Orson Pratt and I are terrible people. (Ironic considering there's a link to a video displaying temple clothing on the board right now). Edited October 20, 2014 by JLHPROF
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 You are correct, but it becomes frustrating having to argue the same point when anyone who can read can see the difference.And thanks for the dig at my character. I'm sure Orson Pratt and I are terrible people. (Ironic considering there's a link to a video displaying temple clothing on the board right now).Great as he was, Orson Pratt did not always act with the best judgment. I think what Pahoran was getting at is that the endowment is bestowed upon us with the understanding that it not be discussed in detail outside the temple. Publication of it in full on the part of one so endowed (and I recognize you probably weren't serious in saying that) thus becomes a matter of character.
JLHPROF Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 Great as he was, Orson Pratt did not always act with the best judgment. I think what Pahoran was getting at is that the endowment is bestowed upon us with the understanding that it not be discussed in detail outside the temple. Publication of it in full on the part of one so endowed (and I recognize you probably weren't serious in saying that) thus becomes a matter of character. All I was saying was people CONTINUE to argue that the temple sealing between husband and wife is not marriage and has more in common with the sealing of children to parents. This IS FALSE. Orson Pratt published the full text of the sealing ceremony in the Seer, a book I am sure is sitting on every LDS board member's shelf at home. He got his wrist slapped, but the publication stands, and I wish I could quote the ceremony because this "sealed but not married" argument holds absolutely no water. But of course I don't want to publish the endowment on this board. I'm closing the thread because it has too many personal attacks.
Recommended Posts