Let's just say the Angel with a drawn sword story is true

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Abraham was spared having to sacrifice his son. He didn't actually kill Isaac. He was provided an escape.

But he had to go ahead and marry Sarah's slave, didn't he?

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, USU78 said:

But he had to go ahead and marry Sarah's slave, didn't he?

No.  Where did you read that Abraham  "had to" marry Hagar?

Edited March 29, 2016 by ALarson

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No.  Where did you read that Abraham  "had to"? marry Hagar?

Section 132, nach.

Edited March 29, 2016 by USU78

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Section 132, nach.

Sorry, not a good reference for that   (Nice try though....)

Sarah gave Abraham Hagar to produce a child for him.  He did not have to marry her or even sleep with her if he chose not to.  God did not force him to accept Sarah's offering of Hagar, just as God will not force any of us to live polygamy.

Or do you believe people are forced into living polygamy?

Edited March 29, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No.  Where did you read that Abraham  "had to"? marry Hagar?

Perhaps by that late in life Abraham had learned that it was just better not to say no Sarah.

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps by that late in life Abraham had learned that it was just better not to say no Sarah.

Ha!  Now that's funny...lol  

Perhaps...and it makes a lot more sense than that God made him do it....

Edited March 29, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ha!  Now that's funny...lol  

Perhaps...and it makes a lot more sense than that God made him do it....

I know I made it sound funny...but this must have been something Sarah thought about for a long time before she talked to Abraham.  I'm sure it must have broken her heart not to have had any children, and to decide to give your servant to your husband as his wife could not have been easy.  Much prayer, much fasting, a lot of thought.

In that context I think it makes sense for Abraham to say yes.  Sarah was giving him a gift (not the servant, but the opportunity to have a child) and it makes sense for him to graciously accept.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I know I made it sound funny...but this must have been something Sarah thought about for a long time before she talked to Abraham.  I'm sure it must have broken her heart not to have had any children, and to decide to give your servant to your husband as his wife could not have been easy.  Much prayer, much fasting, a lot of thought.

In that context I think it makes sense for Abraham to say yes.  Sarah was giving him a gift (not the servant, but the opportunity to have a child) and it makes sense for him to graciously accept.

I can see what you're saying and I'm sure there was a lot of emotion involved from all parties.  However, there was no forcing involved.  Abraham did not "have to" marry Hagar.

I have a son who found out after he was married to his sweetheart that she could not have children.  I can tell you for sure that if she had offered him another woman to bear his children, he would have declined (and strongly declined).  

There were choices for Abraham and Sarah, just as we will have choices.

.

Edited March 29, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I can see what you're saying and I'm sure there was a lot of emotion involved from all parties.  However, there was no forcing involved.  Abraham did not "have to" marry Hagar.

I have a son who found out after he was married to his sweetheart that she could not have children.  I can tell you for sure that if she had offered him another woman to bear his children, he would have declined (and strongly declined).  

There were choices for Abraham and Sarah, just as we will have choices.

.

Agreed.  I can just imagine the anguish Sarah must have gone through in making the decision (or perhaps I'm just projecting what I think Sarah must have felt onto her).  To have Abraham say know would seem to just add to the anguish.

 

[T-Shirt]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

This is how many members feel (especially many women).  I agree that from what record we have, Emma did not have a testimony of plural marriage (and who can blame her the way it was lived during that time).

She did have a testimony of plural marriage, but when it came time to actually practice it, she just couldn't fully embrace it.  This is understandable.  I imagine, from Emma's perspective, it must have been easier for other wives to accept the practice, as for them, they were instructed to enter the principle by the Prophet, but in her case, the Prophet happened to be her husband.

Quote

She was lied to and betrayed many times over.

 Can you provide examples of these many lies?

Quote

When she did finally (temporarily) give her approval and chose 2 girls (Partridges) for Joseph to marry, he even deceived her regarding that since he'd already married them.  And then held a fake wedding and remarried the Partridge sisters that involved more deceit.

She actually chose four women for Joseph and there were at least two more, after this, she was probably aware of.

Quote

And, as already mentioned Joseph didn't even make sure that Emma was his first wife to be sealed to, he was sealed to 25 women before her.  

Are you aware that early sealings were all plural sealings.  During the early practice of sealings no sealings to monogamous marriages or to first wives were being performed.  Emma's was actually only the third sealing performed for a man and his first civil marriage.

Quote

I don't believe Emma will be forced to live polygamy after this life.  Maybe she will be with Joseph and he will choose to only be with her.  We just don't know how it will work for sure.  But I believe there will be choices and no forcing for any of us.

Of course there will not be any forcing.  Who ever claimed there would be?

Edited March 29, 2016 by T-Shirt

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I know I made it sound funny...but this must have been something Sarah thought about for a long time before she talked to Abraham.  I'm sure it must have broken her heart not to have had any children, and to decide to give your servant to your husband as his wife could not have been easy.  Much prayer, much fasting, a lot of thought.

In that context I think it makes sense for Abraham to say yes.  Sarah was giving him a gift (not the servant, but the opportunity to have a child) and it makes sense for him to graciously accept.

Nowadays all they'd have to do is hire a surrogate mother with our technology.  Does the Bible go into detail about the woman Sarah ok'd him to sleep with.  Did he marry her?  I'm terrible with the scriptures.  

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

She did have a testimony of plural marriage, but when it came time to actually practice it, she just couldn't fully embrace it.  This is understandable.  I imagine, from Emma's perspective, it must have been easier for other wives to accept the practice, as for them, they were instructed to enter the principle by the Prophet, but in her case, the Prophet happened to be her husband.

 Can you provide examples of these many lies?

She actually chose four women for Joseph and there were at least two more, after this, she was probably aware of.

Are you aware that early sealings were all plural sealings.  During the early practice of sealings no sealings to monogamous marriages or to first wives were being performed.  Emma's was actually only the third sealing performed for a man and his first civil marriage.

Of course there will not be any forcing.  Who aver claimed there would be?

The angel with the sword.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Does anyone here expect to live plural marriage in the eternities? Don't say I don't know. Make a yes or no guess knowing what you know about scriptures, revelation, the church, and your own revelation.

Edited March 29, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

The angel with the sword.

Not force.  Revealing the consequence of using agency to make the wrong choice.

You have the agency to fire or not fire a loaded gun.
You don't have the agency to fire a loaded gun at someone's head and not have a very nasty result.
Agency has limits.

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Nowadays all they'd have to do is hire a surrogate mother with our technology.  Does the Bible go into detail about the woman Sarah ok'd him to sleep with.  Did he marry her?  I'm terrible with the scriptures.

Genesis 16:1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

So simply saying damned rather than destroyed is supposed to make it all better?

But you are changing what the words are in the alleged revelation and they mean different things.  It is not your right to do so.

No, but understanding what is meant by "destroyed" is probably a good idea.

I'll say again, what do YOU think God means when he threatens destruction on someone for not following his law and commandment?
You accuse me of changing the meaning - I'd like to know what you think the original word destruction means if not damnation.
 

[T-Shirt]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I can't help but wonder if Joseph Smith hadn't inquired of God if polygamy should be lived as it is in the Bible, if Mormonism would be a different church today.

Joseph didn't ask if polygamy should be lived again.  He inquired of the Lord as to why Abraham and others, in the Bible, were able to have multiple wives without committing adultery.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not force.  Revealing the consequence of using agency to make the wrong choice.

You have the agency to fire or not fire a loaded gun.
You don't have the agency to fire a loaded gun at someone's head and not have a very nasty result.
Agency has limits.

Genesis 16:1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Thanks!

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think he followed it perfectly.  I know others disagree.
Perspective matters.

CFR that he followed it.  Use Section 132 as your guide.  Were his polyandrous wives virgins?

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, but understanding what is meant by "destroyed" is probably a good idea.

I'll say again, what do YOU think God means when he threatens destruction on someone for not following his law and commandment?
You accuse me of changing the meaning - I'd like to know what you think the original word destruction means if not damnation.
 

It is much more than to damn as in stop progression.  Words have meaning. If God really authored Section 132 (which is highly doubtful) then why not say damned instead of destroy?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/destroy

verb (used with object)

1.

to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.

2.

to put an end to; extinguish.

3.

to kill; slay.

4.

to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.

5.

to defeat completely.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Teancum said:

It is much more than to damn as in stop progression.  Words have meaning. If God really authored Section 132 (which is highly doubtful) then why not say damned instead of destroy?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/destroy

verb (used with object)

1.

to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.

2.

to put an end to; extinguish.

3.

to kill; slay.

4.

to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.

5.

to defeat completely.

So what does it look like when God does this to one of his children?
Are you saying #3 was implied in D&C 132?
#2 could easily mean damnation.
#4 & #5 also seem appropriate in context.

Emma was threatened with destruction for rejecting God's law.  There are many interpretations of destruction as you have just shown.  And damnation falls into that category in my opinion - #2 on your list being the closest.

 

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

CFR that he followed it.  Use Section 132 as your guide.  Were his polyandrous wives virgins?

Virgin can have many meanings and you know it.
Scripturally and etymologically it doesn't have to mean unmarried or never had sex.

[USU78]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Sorry, not a good reference for that   (Nice try though....)

Sarah gave Abraham Hagar to produce a child for him.  He did not have to marry her or even sleep with her if he chose not to.  God did not force him to accept Sarah's offering of Hagar, just as God will not force any of us to live polygamy.

Or do you believe people are forced into living polygamy?

Not a "nice try" at all.  Some people are commanded to undertake some pretty awful things.  I'm surprised this is not clear to you:  Abraham is depicted in Section 132:29 as having been commanded both to sacrifice Isaac and enter into polygyny with Sarah's slave:  "Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord."

Most critical are verses 32-36:

Quote

Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.   But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.   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.   Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.   Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

How is this unclear?  I need help understanding the thinking process where one professes belief in JSJr as prophet and Abraham as patriarch/prophet, except for this one thing.  It is so crucial to an understanding of what Judaism is  ...  and Christianity is  ...  and Mormon Christianity is:  the faithful are always commanded/compelled to undergo hardship, heartbreaking trials, betrayals and horrors beyond imagining.

I can understand feeling unready and unable to undertake the required trial  ...  but to claim Abrahamic religions demand only those things of us which don't tax us or break our hearts  ...  this I cannot fathom.  Help a brother out.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

She did have a testimony of plural marriage, but when it came time to actually practice it, she just couldn't fully embrace it.  

Do you a quote from Emma to support this?  (I'm sincere as I'd love to read what you've seen that caused you to believe this.)   It's obvious that she couldn't fully embrace it (or embrace it much at all, IMO), but I really doubt that she had a testimony of plural marriage.

[USU78]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not force.  Revealing the consequence of using agency to make the wrong choice.

You have the agency to fire or not fire a loaded gun.
You don't have the agency to fire a loaded gun at someone's head and not have a very nasty result.
Agency has limits.

Genesis 16:1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Cf also the Assyrian language tablet from Nuzi:

 

Quote

 

Nuzi is not a biblical site, but it was discovered in 1925 where over 1,000 different cuneiform tablets have been found. The tablets mostly deal with business and family affairs. The tablets are mostly written in Akkadian with some Hurrian words as well. Patriarchal customs that are supported include:

-   Abraham was concerned that his servant Eliezer, not a son, was his heir (Genesis 15:1-4). The Nuzi tablets show it was normal for childless parents to adopt a servant as a son; he would serve then until they died and became their heir.

-   In the case of a childless couple, the wife could locate another woman for the husband. One of the tablets state, “If Gilimninu (the wife) will not bear children, Gilimninu shall take a woman of Lulluland as a wife for Shennma (the husband).” In Genesis we see that Sarah provided Hagar to Abraham (Genesis 16:3) for the purposes of bearing children. Should the first wife later bear a son, he would rank over the son born to the second wife. Such was the case when Isaac was born in Genesis 21:1-10.

 

 

http://www.truthnet.org/Biblicalarcheology/2/Patriarchalperiod.htm

The Sarah/Hagar/Abraham/Eleazar situation was accounted for in the reference marriage contract:  Rather than be sent back home doweryless, an infertile woman could "bear" children through her slave.  The slave becomes through exercise of this contractual provision a concubine of the husband.  And the wife becomes, by contract, fertile and undivorcible.

 

 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not a "nice try" at all.  Some people are commanded to undertake some pretty awful things.  I'm surprised this is not clear to you:  Abraham is depicted in Section 132:29 as having been commanded both to sacrifice Isaac and enter into polygyny with Sarah's slave:  "Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord."

There is no record of Abraham being commanded to live polygamy (until Joseph claimed this and wrote about it).

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by ALarson

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There is no record of Abraham being commanded to live polygamy (until Joseph claimed this and wrote about it).

If you don't believe JSJr was a prophet, that's fine.  Nothing requires you to believe he was a prophet, or that Abraham was an actual person, or that G-d exists.

HOWEVER, if JSJr was a prophet, it should be unsurprising he and we might be commanded/compelled to undertake awful trials, like polygyny, where, sometimes, no ram is found except in death.  A ram was found for Vilate Kimball.  None but JSJr's death released poor Joseph and Emma.