Calm Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 I think Bushman handled some of this, but my memory is not eidetic.I am trying to remember where I saw this discussed. Could be Bushman but it has been awhile since I read him and my loaned copy was never returned so can't check.
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 It would be quite strange, imo, for Joseph to make up a revelation to justify his practices of polygamy when the revelation itself seems to contradict how he went about it. From a nonbeliever's perspective, it makes perfect sense for him to "make up" (your words) a revelation specifying rules that he might feel Emma could accept, regardless of his past behavior.
ALarson Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 It would be quite strange, imo, for Joseph to make up a revelation to justify his practices of polygamy when the revelation itself seems to contradict how he went about it.I agree. I think that's very strange too. But I see a lot of strange and disturbing things regarding how Joseph lived polygamy and polyandry.
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 That would be interesting to see (a timeline). D&C 132 was recorded on July 12, 1843. Already known. SEE Section 132Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 Grammar aside, how about actually commenting on what sunstoned posted. Just because he misused a word, hopefully doesn't mean you didn't grasp the meaning of what he was stating. Any comment on what was posted?"Misused a word"? He mangled a scriptural phrase to the point it no longer made any sense. And you act as though his point was all that keen or insightful in the first place -- which it wasn't. What KevinG said.
KevinG Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 How can you justify Joseph doing that because you believe he was just trying to figure out how to live plural marriage? Was it necessary to deceive his wife and others? Was it necessary to marry other men's wives or young girls? Mostly because I see the experiments on sealings and family organization as an effort to do what God was revealing to Joseph. If you strip away the scandalous stories and deal with facts like sealing is not necessarily connubial marriage (as evidenced by entire families sealed to Joseph) and rumors are not always what really happened... you are left with a much more complex picture of what was going on. I'm not buying the "Joseph was sleeping with other men's wives" reports at face value.
ALarson Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Already known. SEE Section 132Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1. Thanks for posting this. It's strange then (IMO) that the Lord didn't give Joseph the sealing keys as early as 1831-1833. It would make more sense out of what took place between him and Fanny Alger. What do you think the ceremony was like for that marriage? What words were used since it wasn't a sealing and it wasn't a legal marriage. Is anything recorded anywhere regarding this?
KevinG Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 From a nonbeliever's perspective... You hit on the key here. If someone is inclined to damn Joseph they will interpret events one way and buy the rumors that support it. If someone is inclined to deify Joseph they will excuse almost anything that doesn't fit their ideal. I suspect Joseph would rather not be damned or deified, but described factually, warts and all.
ALarson Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) I'm not buying the "Joseph was sleeping with other men's wives" reports at face value.I agree. I think how he lived polyandry is difficult to understand and complicated. I do believe that at least one was consummated, but I wouldn't state it as "Joseph was sleeping with other men's wives". However, about a third (iirc) of his plural marriages were to other men's legal wives. Edited September 10, 2015 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 Thanks for that info. Since you are experienced in the matter, is the purpose of the correlation review to make sure things are accurate, or to make sure the are palatable for public consumption (i.e. PR committee)?I am as experienced in the matter as jkwilliams claims to be, and I can tell you that Correlation is charged with ensuring doctrinal accuracy and consistency with policy that has been set by the Church leaders. Correlation serves the Brethren and not the other way around. It is as absurd to state or imply that Corellation is some autonomous, shadowy star chamber that tells everyone else what to do as it is to make ill-informed claims that Public Affairrs free-lances with no oversight from the leadership of the Church. 2
KevinG Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 I am as experienced in the matter as jkwilliams claims to be, and I can tell you that Correlation is charged with ensuring doctrinal accuracy and consistency with policy that has been set by the Church leaders. Correlation serves the Brethren and not the other way around. It is as absurd to state or imply that Corellation is some autonomous, shadowy star chamber that tells everyone else what to do as it is to make ill-informed claims that Public Affairrs free-lances with no oversight from the leadership of the Church. I suspect as much. But do the members of the correlation committees know they are serving the brethren? Bwahahahaha (conspiratorial tone added here).
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 I agree. I think that's very strange too. But I see a lot of strange and disturbing things regarding how Joseph lived polygamy and polyandry.that might just be an indication that there is more there than meets your eye. And I mean that in a positive sense.
ALarson Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 "Misused a word"? He mangled a scriptural phrase to the point it no longer made any sense. Mangled? I don't think so. And, I'd imagine that anyone who reads sunstoned's post knows what he was trying to say (including you), even though he did misuse a word.
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 You're not marrying other men's wives, going after teenagers who work in your home with your wife, and lying or hiding it from her. How can you justify Joseph doing that because you believe he was just trying to figure out how to live plural marriage? Was it necessary to deceive his wife and others? Was it necessary to marry other men's wives or young girls? Those are the details that upset many. I get it that it doesn't bother you or others in the church and that's definitely your right to feel as you do about this. Your Presentism is showing. Polygamy and marrying other men's wives is all through the Bible. I was in High School when marrying a 13 year old was legal. Yet Emma was present at many of those weddings. There comes a point at which not upsetting your wife is more important than telling her the whole truth. IE; "Honey; Does this dress make me look fat?" There is no satisfactory and kind way to answer that question. So most husbands don't talk about it, or lie.
Calm Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) From a nonbeliever's perspective, it makes perfect sense for him to "make up" (your words) a revelation specifying rules that he might feel Emma could accept, regardless of his past behavior.And yet the little history that we have on the revelation is that, iirc, there was no expectation on Joseph's part that Emma would accept it though Hyrum was more hopeful. Edited September 10, 2015 by Calm
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 I suspect as much. But do the members of the correlation committees know they are serving the brethren? Bwahahahaha (conspiratorial tone added here). By the way, I was going to compliment you on your "don't act shocked when the mockers get mocked." That's a very sig-worthy line. 1
Calm Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Already known. SEE Section 132Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1.We need more than two points, one established by the record, one found through reasoning, to establish a timeline imo. What parts were revealed when?
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 And yet the little history that we have on the revelation is that, iirc, there was no expectation on Joseph's part that Emma would accept it though Hyrum was more hopeful. Agreed, but you can't blame him for trying.
KevinG Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 40 pages into a topic I'm not really surprised that we're off topic... but I reiterate. Pointing out Joseph's marriages isn't really an answer to opinions about the Scriptures and same sex marriage. It's more of a "squirrel!" The faithful LDS view is that marriage is what God commands it to be in any dispensation. Monogamy is the default setting. Between a man and a woman is currently affirmed by LDS Church authority, and also arguably the default setting in the Scriptures including many Biblical verses. Wasn't that the whole point of the thread- to affirm the LDS position on marriage in our day? 1
ALarson Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Your Presentism is showing. Polygamy and marrying other men's wives is all through the Bible. I was in High School when marrying a 13 year old was legal. Yet Emma was present at many of those weddings. There comes a point at which not upsetting your wife is more important than telling her the whole truth. IE; "Honey; Does this dress make me look fat?" There is no satisfactory and kind way to answer that question. So most husbands don't talk about it, or lie. Emma was present at very few of Joseph's marriages (from the records available). Out of the 33, I believe she attended less than 3 (but I'd have to look that up). And, comparing lying to your wife about marrying other women behind her back to lying about how she looks in a dress is a ridiculous comparison. 1
Calm Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 . IE; "Honey; Does this dress make me look fat?" There is no satisfactory and kind way to answer that question. So most husbands don't talk about it, or lie.Using this as an example of justifying lying to one's wife in regards to having another wife is absurd.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 Mangled? I don't think so. And, I'd imagine that anyone who reads sunstoned's post knows what he was trying to say (including you), even though he did misuse a word.Again, it wasn't just misuse of single word. Compare "dost sayest the Lord" to "thus saith the Lord."Yes, I understand what he was trying to say, and no, prophets are not required to apply that phrase to give inspired teachings. Nor are they required to declare new doctrine for them to be prophets. Again, his point was not l that keen or insightful.
KevinG Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Emma was present at very few of Joseph's marriages (from the records available). Out of the 33, I believe she attended less than 3 (but I'd have to look that up). And, comparing lying to your wife about marrying other women behind her back to lying about how she looks in a dress is a ridiculous comparison. Agreed. I think a better comparison is "if God gives you a commandment and your family refuses to accept it, are you still obliged to share those commandments with your family?" "behind her back..." is another one of those snarky phrases that has negative connotations that Joseph may not be guilty of. 1
Calm Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Agreed, but you can't blame him for trying.This is what I don't understand. How do you get to Joseph was trying to convince Emma when he states himself there is no hope to do so.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 40 pages into a topic I'm not really surprised that we're off topic... but I reiterate. Pointing out Joseph's marriages isn't really an answer to opinions about the Scriptures and same sex marriage. It's more of a "squirrel!" The faithful LDS view is that marriage is what God commands it to be in any dispensation. Monogamy is the default setting. Between a man and a woman is currently affirmed by LDS Church authority, and also arguably the default setting in the Scriptures including many Biblical verses. Wasn't that the whole point of the thread- to affirm the LDS position on marriage in our day?Yes, we are off topic. Perhaps I need to lock the thread again.
Recommended Posts