JLHPROF Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The law of Sarah is not the law of consent. The law of Sarah is that if your wife does not give her consent, you are then free to proceed without it. Not right at all. D&C 132vs 34 - 34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.vs 65 -Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. The man is exempt if the wife refuses to accept plural marriage. Otherwise she must fulfill the law of Sarah and give the next wife to her husband as Sarah gave Hagar. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Not right at all. D&C 132vs 34 - 34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.vs 65 -Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. The man is exempt if the wife refuses to accept plural marriage. Otherwise she must fulfill the law of Sarah and give the next wife to her husband as Sarah gave Hagar.I think JLHPROF is right. See here.
JAHS Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The law of Sarah is not the law of consent. The law of Sarah is that if your wife does not give her consent, you are then free to proceed without it.At Fairmormon they describe it: "The law" which Sarah obeys or follows is later (D&C 132. 64-65) referred to as "the law of Sarah"—this law seems to imply that a man who will practice plural marriage must first give his wife the opportunity to approve and endorse the new wife. D&C 132:65 says:"Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife." The scripture sounds like the law of Sarah is the requirement for consent.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 At Fairmormon they describe it: "The law" which Sarah obeys or follows is later (D&C 132. 64-65) referred to as "the law of Sarah"—this law seems to imply that a man who will practice plural marriage must first give his wife the opportunity to approve and endorse the new wife. D&C 132:65 says:"Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife." The scripture sounds like the law of Sarah is the requirement for consent.We cited the same thing. But I got there first, with a link!
Buckeye Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The man is exempt if the wife refuses to accept plural marriage. Otherwise she must fulfill the law of Sarah and give the next wife to her husband as Sarah gave Hagar. Exempt from what? You are correct that I misstated the Law of Sarah in part. The law does require that a husband seek his wife's consent. But if she refuses, what then? According to the scripture and prophets, the husband is then free to proceed without her consent. Consider this sworn testimony from President Joseph F. Smith regarding the Law of Sarah: Question: Is it not true that ... if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent.President Smith: Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement.Question: Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing?President Smith: It amounts to nothing but her consent. 2
JLHPROF Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Exempt from what? You are correct that I misstated the Law of Sarah in part. The law does require that a husband seek his wife's consent. But if she refuses, what then? According to the scripture and prophets, the husband is then free to proceed without her consent. President Smith is (unsurprisingly) correct. The Law of Sarah is the wife's consent and giving the new wife to the husband. Period. The Law of Sarah applies mainly to the wife. If the wife refuses consent or to live the law, then the man is not required to have his wife fufill the law of Sarah and she loses the blessings.
Buckeye Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 President Smith is (unsurprisingly) correct. The Law of Sarah is the wife's consent and giving the new wife to the husband. Period. The Law of Sarah applies mainly to the wife. If the wife refuses consent or to live the law, then the man is not required to have his wife fufill the law of Sarah and she loses the blessings. Thank you for the clarification. Too often it is suggested that wives had the scriptural authority to veto additional wives, which simply is not true. A man could act without his wife's consent. In fact, as the essays discuss, Joseph did just that with Emma. I still don't see what the point of the Law of Sarah is. It would make sense if a husband were excused from following God's command to take another wife due to his wife's refusal. But since the husband could act without permission of the wife, what is the point? And what blessings does a wife obtain by consenting? If you have any information, I would appreciate it. 3
JAHS Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 We cited the same thing. But I got there first, with a link! Man, If I snooze I lose.
JAHS Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Thank you for the clarification. Too often it is suggested that wives had the scriptural authority to veto additional wives, which simply is not true. A man could act without his wife's consent. In fact, as the essays discuss, Joseph did just that with Emma. I still don't see what the point of the Law of Sarah is. It would make sense if a husband were excused from following God's command to take another wife due to his wife's refusal. But since the husband could act without permission of the wife, what is the point? And what blessings does a wife obtain by consenting? If you have any information, I would appreciate it. I think there is a requirement to make sure the wife fully understands the law first before asking her consent. That's part of the law. 1
KevinG Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 It is good to see scholarly information provided on sensitive topics. It is why I am a huge fan of Rough Stone Rollong, FairMormon, and now the LDS.org website.Leaving a vacuum just encourages the shock preachers and antis to fill in their own slander.(Cue spooky music) 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Thank you for the clarification. Too often it is suggested that wives had the scriptural authority to veto additional wives, which simply is not true. A man could act without his wife's consent. In fact, as the essays discuss, Joseph did just that with Emma. I still don't see what the point of the Law of Sarah is. It would make sense if a husband were excused from following God's command to take another wife due to his wife's refusal. But since the husband could act without permission of the wife, what is the point? And what blessings does a wife obtain by consenting? If you have any information, I would appreciate it.It doesn't seem pointless to me. Obviously, the man is required in the first instance to seek his wife's approval. He can't just go ahead without any input from her on the matter. Only after she has refused is he exempt. That seems substantial to me.
Calm Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) (so far it's unlisted on the Gospel Topics site).The article on Satan is unlisted too or was last time I checked and had been for a number of months.Just making the observation, don't have a clue if it means anything. Edited October 22, 2014 by calmoriah
Buckeye Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The article on Satan is unlisted too or was last time I checked and had been for a number of months.Just making the observation, don't have a clue if it means anything. 1
Calm Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Interesting insight that had not occurred to me regarding sealings to women already married:this occurred to me a year or so ago when I looked at the timing of those marriages given the gap of no marriages prior to him taking this next step.He waits 5 years after his first attempt that didn't work out very well or so it seems by what we know of what Fanny did later, and then ofnext 11 sealings, 9 are married, one single, one widowed (his brother's Don Carlos' wife which leads me to believe that the sealings of women married or widowed to other men was not about adding to his own glory or reward to the detriment of the women's husband, why would he do that to his brother who he loved?) and then he gets really serious about plural marriage, now primarily with never married women.
Calm Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 On my iPad so can't do the snort emoticon, my apologies as it deserves a few of them.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The article on Satan is unlisted too or was last time I checked and had been for a number of months. Just making the observation, don't have a clue if it means anything. It looks like the church has a general Plural Marriage article now that links from the alphabetical topics list (I believe it must be new as it wasn't there a couple weeks back when I was last checking). It is more general and includes summaries and links to the more specific plural marriage articles (Pre and post Nauvoo). https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng
KevinG Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 On Canards thread about the josephsmithpapers link we determined that the church database is getting huge and the search algorithms are probably being tinkered with to adjust to that.Of course the this can provide the last vestiges of hope for those who make a hobby out of claiming the LDS church hides it's history. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) On Canards thread about the josephsmithpapers link we determined that the church database is getting huge and the search algorithms are probably being tinkered with to adjust to that.Of course the this can provide the last vestiges of hope for those who make a hobby out of claiming the LDS church hides it's history.What a bummer the new Church essays should pop up the day after that thread opened, putting the lie to the conspiracy theory about "unsafe content" being hidden. Edited October 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Nevo Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 What a bummer the new Church essays should pop up the day after that thread opened, putting the lie to the conspiracy theory about "unsafe content" being hidden. In fairness to canard78, the Joseph Smith Papers site wasn't showing up in lds.org searches yesterday. It is today. Yesterday, a search on "Fanny Alger" produced no hits on lds.org. Today there are three: two to JSP webpages and one to the new essay on Kirtland/Nauvoo polygamy.
KevinG Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Sorry I wasn't accusing Canard of conspiracy theory. He asked a valid question and we all looked into it.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 What a bummer the new Church essays should pop up the day after that thread opened, putting the lie to the conspiracy theory about "unsafe content" being hidden.No worries! That claim easily morphs into "The church used to hide its history" 1
KevinG Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 No worries! That claim easily morphs into "The church used to hide its history" That is why prophets from Joseph to Woodruff lived long and luxurious lives free from public scrutiny and government interference. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 No worries! That claim easily morphs into "The church used to hide its history" Doesn't quite carry the same punch though, does it? 1
cinepro Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 No worries! That claim easily morphs into "The church used to hide its history" And how! If someone told me that the Church would publish an essay on its website that acknowledges that plural marriage was illegal in Nauvoo, Joseph and the others practiced it in secret (and made dishonest public statements), Joseph did marry a 14 year old (oh, I'm sorry, "Someone who was a few months shy of her 15th birthday" ) and Joseph didn't tell his wife Emma about his sealings, I wouldn't have believed them.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 In fairness to canard78, the Joseph Smith Papers site wasn't showing up in lds.org searches yesterday. It is today. Yesterday, a search on "Fanny Alger" produced no hits on lds.org. Today there are three: two to JSP webpages and one to the new essay on Kirtland/Nauvoo polygamy.I don't doubt that. I just thought it (and still do) tenuous evidence on which to base the conclusion.
Recommended Posts