Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[JLHPROF]

I hope not, since that would be totally contradictory to scripture...

 

Scripture is very clear:

 

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

 

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

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.

 

 

And so were the prophets and apostles of the time.

 

"We have many bishops and elders who have but one wife. They are abundantly qualified to enter the higher law and take more, but their wives will not let them. Any man who permits a woman to lead him and bind him down is but little account in the church and Kingdom of God." - Wilford Woodruff

 

 

If the wife can show no good reason why she refuses to comply with the law which was given unto Sarah of old, then it is lawful for her husband, if permitted by revelation through the prophet, to be married to others without her consent, and he will be justified, and she will be condemned - Orson Pratt

 

Joseph F. Smith (Reed Smoot hearings)

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.

 

No, the consent exemption wasn't just for Joseph and Emma, but was applied to all who lived polygamy.

 

The Law of Sarah- Also known as the Law that Sarah's opinion doesn't matter.

 

Why have a law that is so easily discarded if it is not accepted. Defeats the purpose of the law.

 

Complete misunderstanding of the law.  In my opinion consent in verse 61 doesn't refer to the practice, but to the new wife being courted. And the law is the requirement of her to give wives to her husband.  There is no "option to ignore the law and remain approved of God".  That is not the consent referred to.

Edited March 31, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

So you disagree with Teancum, then, that Joseph kept it all a secret from Emma until later on?

 

Would you please enlighten him? He seems to be misinformed on that.

 

 

The historical records certainly supports my position.

 

What an amazing thread.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

The historical records certainly supports my position.

 

What an amazing thread.

So you and cinepro can battle it out then. I'll observe from the sidelines.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree my parents are wrong, though of course they "know" that I'm wrong. I'd like to believe that those beliefs are uncommon in this day and age but I see evidence to the contrary. My parents are only in their mid-sixties. They've served in multitudes of leadership callings (my father was bishop 3 times and worked for the church) so calling his beliefs ill-informed is a stretch. The truth is, they have a mountain of evidence to prove their point. Scriptures in the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price etc. Many modern prophets and apostles who have taught this. The problem is these quotes and scriptures still exist which could lead people to believe the same racist teachings and when it is only a choice between choosing which prophet is wrong, then multiple views will reasonably be held.

It is not reasonable to attribute a position to the Church which has been repeatedly disavowed and which is not sustained by anyone in authority currently living. It doesn't matter what or how many Church callings you've held.

 

And in fairness to your parents, I have no way of knowing if you are characterizing their views or opinions accurately.

[Kenngo1969]

Definitely a difficult balancing act when God and his wife are in conflict, and he loves his wife as much as Joseph loved Emma.

We may not believe the Brigham Young statement that Joseph would have to go to hell to get Emma back, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would if necessary, that if he had to he'd be successful, and that Emma is with Joseph (and his other wives) now.

With due respect to President Brigham Young, I don't believe his statement (granting for purposes of this discussion that he said it) that Joseph would have to go to hell to get Emma back.  (I love both men, but it's not as though Brother Brigham ever was known for such rhetorical devices as hyperbole ... )  If Brother Brigham is right that Brother Joseph had to go to hell to get Emma back, then he met her there, because she died with his name on her lips, not just once, not just twice, but thrice.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

With due respect to President Brigham Young, I don't believe his statement (granting for purposes of this discussion that he said it) that Joseph would have to go to hell to get Emma back.  (I love both men, but it's not as though Brother Brigham ever was known for such rhetorical devices as hyperbole ... )  If Brother Brigham is right that Brother Joseph had to go to hell to get Emma back, then he met her there, because she died with his name on her lips, not just once, not just twice, but thrice.

As I understand it, Brigham's words were an off-handed quip reacting to Joseph's reported statement that he would go to hell and back for Emma.

 

It is a matter of history that there was antipathy between Emma and Brigham stemming largely from misunderstanding and ill will pertaining to the disposition of Joseph's estate after the martyrdom, trying to separate personal assets from Church assets, Emma's declining to go west with the body of the Church, etc.

 

And no, I don't believe Brigham's quip was intended to be taken literally.

[Senator]

 

 

"Any man who permits a woman to lead him and bind him down is but little account in the church and Kingdom of God."

 

Heck yeah! Preach it Brother!!

 

Put that in your "this is a woman's church" pipe and smoke it!

Edited March 31, 2015 by Senator

[JLHPROF]

"Any man who permits a woman to lead him and bind him down is but little account in the church and Kingdom of God."

 

Heck yeah! Preach it Brother!!

 

I take it you sustain President Woodruff as the Lord's mouthpiece then.  After all, he is the one who began the end of the "evil" polygamy.

 

Or do I detect sarcasm....

Edited March 31, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Kenngo1969]

"Any man who permits a woman to lead him and bind him down is but little account in the church and Kingdom of God."

 

Heck yeah! Preach it Brother!!

 

Put that in your "this is a woman's church" pipe and smoke it!

1. BDSM is out
2. I should skip Fifty Shades of Gray

Got it.  (  Sorry; couldn't resist.)

 

P.S.: I don't have a this-is-a-woman's-church pipe, and I don't smoke.  That whole Word-of-Wisdom thing, you know!

Edited March 31, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

That changed, of course, as time went by, but as we've indicated, in later years, they had gradually fallen out of general acceptance anyway. For the vast majority of believing Church members, it was not difficult at all to jettison them altogether after the _(40 yrs from now)_ revelation.

You should save that statement with your countdown clock so you we can use it to apply to the new change.

[HappyJackWagon]

HappyJackWagon, on 31 Mar 2015 - 2:29 PM, said:

The Law of Sarah- Also known as the Law that Sarah's opinion doesn't matter.

 

Why have a law that is so easily discarded if it is not accepted. Defeats the purpose of the law.

Also, the Law of Sarah would have required JS to tell Emma about his marriages prior to them occuring and being consumated.

 

JLHPROF said- Complete misunderstanding of the law.  In my opinion consent in verse 61 doesn't refer to the practice, but to the new wife being courted. And the law is the requirement of her to give wives to her husband.  There is no "option to ignore the law and remain approved of God".  That is not the consent referred to.

 

 

I said:

 

In your rebuttal you say I completely misunderstand the law. Could you address my 3rd point, that for Emma to give wives to her husband and approve of a specific plural wife being taken, then she would need to know about it in advance. Clearly this didn't happen so I'm not sure how I am completely misunderstanding this.

 

ETR- duplicate quote

Edited April 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

 Could you address my 3rd point, that for Emma to give wives to her husband and approve of a specific plural wife being taken, then she would need to know about it in advance. Clearly this didn't happen so I'm not sure how I am completely misunderstanding this.

 

 

In all honesty, I don't know how this went down, and neither do you.

We do not know when Joseph first sat Emma down and explained the doctrine of plural marriage to her.

We do not know which wives Joseph asked Emma's approval on or whether she had rejected plural marriage at the time of marrying  each wife and thus exempted him.

We do not know exactly when the principle of plural marriage was fully revealed and when the principle of consent and the Law of Sarah was revealed or whether they were revealed together.

We do know that on several occasions she DID give consent, but not all and that she sometimes allowed for plural marriage briefly, only to withdraw her acceptance of the law later.

Also, the consent clause would have applied to all his wives.  He would have needed the consent of all 28 wives to take wife number 29.  Perhaps if they agreed and accepted plural marriage then blanket consent was presumed.  We do not know.

 

In the end we have absolutely no way of knowing because these dozens of private conversations are not in the historical record.

But I know Joseph was approved of God after he began living plural marriage in earnest, so there can be no sin in it.

[ALarson]

I believe that the reason people continue to debate whether or not Joseph Smith had marital relations with his plural wives (polygamous and polyandrous) is mainly because of feelings towards Emma.  Historical records seem to indicate that Joseph married many women behind Emma's back without her approval.

 

Those who take no issue with the manner in which Brigham Young and other Prophets (and Apostles and members) lived polygamy (and polyandry) seem to argue vehemently that Joseph lived it differently.  Why? It was not a different principle than what Joseph lived.  Why the different feelings towards Joseph and marital relations with his multiple wives?

[JLHPROF]

I believe that the reason people continue to debate whether or not Joseph Smith had marital relations with his plural wives (polygamous and polyandrous) is mainly because of feelings towards Emma.  Historical records seem to indicate that Joseph married many women behind Emma's back without her approval.

 

Those who take no issue with the manner in which Brigham Young and other Prophets (and Apostles and members) lived polygamy (and polyandry) seem to argue vehemently that Joseph lived it differently.  Why? It was not a different principle than what Joseph lived.  Why the different feelings towards Joseph and marital relations with his multiple wives?

 

So true.  There is an artificial division that people attempt to make between the Church under Joseph in Nauvoo and under Brigham in Utah.  It makes people feel good to say the anything they don't like/agree with came from Brigham and not from Joseph.  To say Brigham was Joseph's most loyal disciple would be an understatement.  There is little doubt in my mind that Brigham's church was the same path Joseph had in mind.

It seems to bother people to think the Joseph would have made all the same basic choices (personalities notwithstanding) as Brigham did where doctrine and gospel law is concerned.  And I personally think the division is completely false.

[carbon dioxide]

Divorce was a horrible condition for most women at that time. Given all that Emma had sacrificed for Joseph himself as well as God's work and still continued to do even though she struggled tremendously with this aspect, it would have been an extremely selfish action if Joseph had divorced her.

Probably so though I don't think divorce would have been a selfish act in all cases.  I can see why Joseph did the things he did and why I don't really fault him.  God commanded him to practice polygamy.  Emma was not on board with it.  Divorce was not an option for Joseph so he did the only thing he could do.  Follow the commandment while keeping Emma in the dark some of the time.  It might sound terrible to some but it is more important to follow God than to follow our spouse. 

[The Nehor]

I love the question: Would a loving God do that?

People try to use this as some kind of trump card. God has asked much more difficult things of people then this.

[SmileyMcGee]

I love the question: Would a loving God do that?

People try to use this as some kind of trump card. God has asked much more difficult things of people then this.

Agreed. It's like people never read the JST of the New Testament:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his Only Begotten Son, that whosoever would not allow her husband to hook up with other women under the guise of obedience should be destroyed."

Come on people! Crack open the scriptures once in a while!

Edited April 2, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Scott Lloyd]

You should save that statement with your countdown clock so you we can use it to apply to the new change.

Well, I like the way Sister Bonnie Oscarson put it in last Saturday's women's session of general conference:

 

Little did we realize then, how very desperately we would need these basic declarations in today's world as the criteria by which we could judge each new wind of worldly dogma coming at us from the media, the Internet, scholars, TV and films, and even legislators. The proclamation on the family has become our benchmark for judging the philosophies of the world, and I testify that the principles set forth within this statement are as true today as they were when they were given to us by a prophet of God nearly 20 years ago.

 

 

It will continue to be our benchmark in the future -- even after we've reached your deadline, which is now 39 years, 10 months, 1 week, 2 days, 3 hours, 10 minutes and 9 seconds away.

[Teancum]

I take it you sustain President Woodruff as the Lord's mouthpiece then.  After all, he is the one who began the end of the "evil" polygamy.

 

Or do I detect sarcasm....

 

 

Actually polygamy was ended by the might and power of the government of the United States of America.  President Woodruff, who a few years earlier had argued the Church would never give it up. Other 19th century leaders talked about the Church being in apostasy if they abandoned it.

 

Alas, The God who allegedly sent an angel with a flaming sword to force the allegedly reluctant Joseph Smith to institute this practice (that has caused so much trouble for the Church since then) so important was this had to capitulate to a man made government mere 50 years or so later.

[Teancum]

I love the question: Would a loving God do that?

People try to use this as some kind of trump card. God has asked much more difficult things of people then this.

 

 

No we just think God has asked much more difficult things.   

[Kenngo1969]

Agreed. It's like people never read the JST of the New Testament:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his Only Begotten Son, that whosoever would not allow her husband to hook up with other women under the guise of obedience should be destroyed."

Come on people! Crack open the scriptures once in a while!

Total cheap shot.

[rockpond]

Well, I like the way Sister Bonnie Oscarson put it in last Saturday's women's session of general conference:

It will continue to be our benchmark in the future -- even after we've reached your deadline, which is now 39 years, 10 months, 1 week, 2 days, 3 hours, 10 minutes and 9 seconds away.

I also love the Proclamation. But it teaches us nothing about homosexuality. So keep that clock running!

[omni]

I love the question: Would a loving God do that?

People try to use this as some kind of trump card. God has asked much more difficult things of people then this.

I don't understand why so many here have a problem with this question when we ask it all the time as members of the church. Ever heard his one? "Would a loving God condemn his children to Hell simply because they never had an opportunity to hear his gospel?" Is it a valid question to ask, "would a loving God command his followers to strap a bomb to their chest and detonate it in a crowded market?

I'm not saying we should know all the mysteries of God, but it seems reasonable to me that if he is going to grant us with the intelligence we have then we should be able to make basic assumptions of what a perfectly loving and just God would or would not do.

[The Nehor]

I don't understand why so many here have a problem with this question when we ask it all the time as members of the church. Ever heard his one? "Would a loving God condemn his children to Hell simply because they never had an opportunity to hear his gospel?" Is it a valid question to ask, "would a loving God command his followers to strap a bomb to their chest and detonate it in a crowded market?

I'm not saying we should know all the mysteries of God, but it seems reasonable to me that if he is going to grant us with the intelligence we have then we should be able to make basic assumptions of what a perfectly loving and just God would or would not do.

 

I prefer revelation to attempting to reason out what God will or will not do. My reasoning would never have arrived at the Abraham/Isaac situation, polygamy, allowing genocide, and the like. I believe God is good but his commands are not ours to reason out. They are ours to obey and to reason the whys for ourselves with the help of revelation.

[The Nehor]

No we just think God has asked much more difficult things.   

 

No, he has asked more difficult things of me than commanding me to practice polygamy and I'm not the only one.