Why Wasn't Emma The First To Be Sealed To Joseph?

[JLHPROF]

How do you know this?

 

From the historical accounts of this ceremony and its meaning (which I can't link to on this site).

 

But you can always check out Mysteries of Godliness by Buerger.

Heck, the wikipedia article references the same things.

[Tacenda]

You read to much anti-Mormon literature.  It most likely had to do with sealing the saints into a family unit.

 

Maybe it's statements like this that give people the idea that Joseph and maybe Brigham, were Gods starting their kingdoms on the earth.  It might also provide the premise that women and some husbands, agreed to living polygamy/polyandry thinking that perhaps they were Gods in the making.   

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

 

"Jacobs struggled with the arrangement and, in later years wrote to Zina, "the same affection is there .... But I feel alone ..... I do not Blame Eny person .... [M]ay the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham .... [All] is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph".  

 

(bold mine)

 

And this is interesting right after the first quote...

 

"In later life, Zina commented that women in polygamous relationships "expect too much attention from the husband and ... become sullen and morose". She explained that "a successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy."

Edited November 19, 2014 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

Maybe it's statements like this that give people the idea that Joseph and maybe Brigham, were Gods starting their kingdoms on the earth.  It might also provide the premise that women and some husbands, agreed to living polygamy/polyandry thinking that perhaps they were Gods in the making.  

 

The very purpose of Mormonism...for God to raise his children to be Gods.

[ERayR]

Maybe it's statements like this that give people the idea that Joseph and maybe Brigham, were Gods starting their kingdoms on the earth.  It might also provide the premise that women and some husbands, agreed to living polygamy/polyandry thinking that perhaps they were Gods in the making.   

 

 

Are you not a god even the son daughter of God starting your kingdom on earth?  We all are and if you do not know that then you ought to put away the anti literature and become more familiar with Mormonism.

[bcuzbcuz]

 

So follow the logic there -> Woman wants guaranteed exaltation -> woman "get's herself sealed to the prophet" -> prophet ensures his wives receive their 2nd anointings -> wife now has a guarantee that unless she commits murder (or denies the Holy Ghost) that she WILL get her exaltation.

 

........ it is part of the reason a woman might choose Joseph over a non-member husband or an average member who may not receive the guarantee in this life and is subject to breaking their covenants and losing exaltation because they haven't the guarantee.

 

Wow, I used to have a deal like that on the car lease with my job. As long as I took care of the vehicle I could always trade up to the latest model and year. No sense in riding around in an average car.

They didn´t call them the celestial, exalted model car, but they were the top of the line. Of course it makes sense to trade up.

[canard78]

When have every cared about a teaching being "current"? Truth is truth, whether it was taught in the 1800's, the 1900's or today. And if one says yes and the other says no, that doesn't change which one is true.

I'll resist the urge to dig out some 19thC prophetic messages that have been disavowed by the church.

If your theory is true then the entire human family goes to the celestial kingdom. An exalted father saves and helps to exalt his wife and children. Having now become exalted his children then rescue their wives and children...

I had a long exploration of this question with both my stake president and the temple department a few years ago.

While we don't know exactly what will happen in the hereafter it is not at all a doctrine of the church that a faithful spouse rescues the unfaithful spouse and children. I know it's a really popular idea, especially for a lot of parents, but it's not sustained by LDS scripture, policy or doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

Wow, I used to have a deal like that on the car lease with my job. As long as I took care of the vehicle I could always trade up to the latest model and year. No sense in riding around in an average car.

They didn´t call them the celestial, exalted model car, but they were the top of the line. Of course it makes sense to trade up.

 

If this doctrine were still taught over the pulpit as it appears to have been practiced by Joseph and Brigham and taught by Brigham I think we'd see a mass exodus, and oh, the anti's would have a field day...but what if they were right and the doctrine is true?  Is this one of those doctrines that Joseph said members couldn't handle and would seek his life over?

 

Just how strong is our faith?  This would be a tough sell for me, but what a fascinating doctrine.

[bcuzbcuz]

Are you not a god even the son daughter of God starting your kingdom on earth?  We all are and if you do not know that then you ought to put away the anti literature and become more familiar with Mormonism.

Sometimes you say the funniest things. I would think one of the first steps to becoming a god would not be just standing in line, but would be in the all knowing sense, a master of every field of study,, a "knower of all things". Can someone become a god without knowing all things?

[ERayR]

Sometimes you say the funniest things. I would think one of the first steps to becoming a god would not be just standing in line, but would be in the all knowing sense, a master of every field of study,, a "knower of all things". Can someone become a god without knowing all things?

 

Most of us have to start somewhere.  We can't all be as brilliant as you.

 

Ps.  If one gets in the right line things have a way of working out.

[bcuzbcuz]

Maybe it's statements like this that give people the idea that Joseph and maybe Brigham, were Gods starting their kingdoms on the earth.  It might also provide the premise that women and some husbands, agreed to living polygamy/polyandry thinking that perhaps they were Gods in the making.   

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

 

"Jacobs struggled with the arrangement and, in later years wrote to Zina, "the same affection is there .... But I feel alone ..... I do not Blame Eny person .... [M]ay the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham .... [All] is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph".  

 

"In later life, Zina commented that women in polygamous relationships "expect too much attention from the husband and ... become sullen and morose". She explained that "a successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy."

I´m speechless. Whoda thought? The way to a successful marriage is indifference.

[JLHPROF]

I'll resist the urge to dig out some 19thC prophetic messages that have been disavowed by the church.

If your theory is true then the entire human family goes to the celestial kingdom. An exalted father saves and helps to exalt his wife and children. Having now become exalted his children then rescue their wives and children...

I had a long exploration of this question with both my stake president and the temple department a few years ago.

While we don't know exactly what will happen in the hereafter it is not at all a doctrine of the church that a faithful spouse rescues the unfaithful spouse and children. I know it's a really popular idea, especially for a lot of parents, but it's not sustained by LDS scripture, policy or doctrine.

 

Yes and no, but we could spend weeks debating "who" gets exaltation when in the end it's really up to God (and the individual who abides the required laws and ordinances).

 

The bible says the faithful spouse can sanctify (make holy) the unbelieving spouse.  D&C 132 refers to those sealed by the holy spirit of promise - a higher condition than just endowed & sealed.

 

And if God's very work and glory is to bring about the exaltation of as many of his children as is possible why wouldn't he allow an exalted man to claim his wife or vice-versa or an exalted couple to claim their children as Joseph Smith taught absolutely clearly.

 

I don't believe now nor will I ever accept the doctrine of a finite limit on progression.  It is 100% false because it puts an end to God's work, a limit on the power of atonement, and a temporal deadline on eternal beings.

As the great title I saw in Deseret Book says: "Face It!  You're Probably Going To Be Exalted!"  (unless you CHOOSE not to be).

[JLHPROF]

I´m speechless. Whoda thought? The way to a successful marriage is indifference.

 

Nope, it's to put God and his requirements ahead of your spouses or your own.  The gospel has to come first.

[theplains]

If this doctrine were still taught over the pulpit as it appears to have been practiced by Joseph and Brigham and taught by Brigham I think we'd see a mass exodus, and oh, the anti's would have a field day...

 

The thought of becoming a god with multiple wives may actually cause the LDS membership

to soar.  You may even get some converts from another religion if they are willing to accept

less than the 72 virgins promised to them in their tradition if they are very faithful.

 

Regards,

Jim

[theplains]

The very purpose of Mormonism...for God to raise his children to be Gods.

 

I think that is how some have interpreted Moses 1:39.

 

Jim

[ERayR]

The thought of becoming a god with multiple wives may actually cause the LDS membership

to soar.  You may even get some converts from another religion if they are willing to accept

less than the 72 virgins promised to them in their tradition if they are very faithful.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

If that is what catches their attention then we can teach them the gospel.

[theplains]

Nothing will stop me from loving the church, but I have to say that my feelings towards Joseph Smith are changing now.

 

You don't mind God [supposedly] warning Emma that she would be destroyed if she rejected Joseph's

polygamy in 132:54?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[ERayR]

You don't mind God [supposedly] warning Emma that she would be destroyed if she rejected Joseph's

polygamy in 132:54?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

The same warning to all who have had a manifestation from the Holy Ghost and then reject the gospel.

[Calm]

I´m speechless. Whoda thought? The way to a successful marriage is indifference.

Study the "Curse of Eve" and why "desiring" your husband was seen as part of that curse (and not just for LDS), this is something that was transplanted into LDS thought and where LDS thought may have even addressed in what they saw as a positive way, giving a woman a chance to be redeemed from it rather than damned through eternity as second class.

Edited November 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

I've seen others say that this Louisa Beaman wasn't even baptized yet before she became Joseph Smith's first plural wife, what do people make of that?

[ALarson]

I've seen others say that this Louisa Beaman wasn't even baptized yet before she became Joseph Smith's first plural wife, what do people make of that?

I haven't heard anything about this.  Is it true?

[LinuxGal]

You don't mind God [supposedly] warning Emma that she would be destroyed if she rejected Joseph's

polygamy in 132:54?

 

It's ironic that we are now told the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

[bluebell]

It's ironic that we are now told the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

I'm not sure what you are referencing. Where are we told that about the bible?

[bluebell]

You don't mind God [supposedly] warning Emma that she would be destroyed if she rejected Joseph's

polygamy in 132:54?

Thanks,

Jim

JS taught that God threatened him with destruction if he didn't accept the principle as well.

[Silhouette]

It would make a lot more sense if he sealed men to him as sons then he would have sealed the women to him as daughters if sealing was meant to only bind us together as eternal families and wasn't sexual in nature..

Hmmm, good point. I'd never thought of it that way.

[LinuxGal]

I'm not sure what you are referencing. Where are we told that about the bible?

 

By the advocates of Prop 8 in California back in 2008, and the like, although they seem to be losing traction these days.