Mystery Meat Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 3 hours ago, ALarson said: When someone knows the intent of the question they are being asked and they intentionally answer in a manner to hide the truth and give the wrong impression, it is lying. Interesting that you say this, especially considering how you would not admit as much during our conversation about answering temple recommend questions. A topic for another thread. 1
USU78 Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 10 hours ago, Alan said: I notice your great-grandmother didn't have the dream. I wonder why? She wasn't a diarist. So we don't know whether she had a vision or if she received some other manifestation of G-d's desires for her. And why would that matter? Section 46 of the D&C says we all have different gifts: some to know; others to believe when they say they know. You can disagree about Joseph's polygyny all day, and that's your right and pleasure as COC member. You can't rewrite spiritual gifts out of the scriptures or people's lives.
ALarson Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: Interesting that you say this, especially considering how you would not admit as much during our conversation about answering temple recommend questions. Maybe because I have absolutely nothing to "admit". Not that it's any of your business, but I have never lied to get my temple recommend. Maybe we disagree on the intent of the questions asked in the interview? I answer them all open and honestly. I've never once had any trouble being completely honest and completely worthy to attend the temple. But then again, this is not up to you to judge, is it? Edited March 8, 2016 by ALarson
USU78 Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 2 hours ago, cdowis said: JLFProf quoting John D. Lee No, you are quoting his biographer, and Lee was unavailable to comment when it was published. It does kinda make a difference, doesn't it?
cinepro Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, T-Shirt said: Why do people always choose to ignore the statements of the women in these matters? Do you think these women were just weak and easily manipulated? Here is what Zina said about the matter: "When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationship in the worlds to come I searched the scripture & by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his church. I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman by those I dearly loved. How could I compromise conscience and lay aside the sure testimony of the spirit of God for the Glory of this world?" Do you not believe her? This line of argument mystifies me, as if there were some number or degree of testimonies that could be offered by the wives in existing polygamous marriages in southern Utah that would convince you that they were righteous. We (including you) "choose" to ignore these statements because we recognize them for what they are, and it's possible for women to be sincerely but totally wrong about whether or not God wants them to enter into a polygamous marriage. Even thousands of women, and even after fervent prayer and seeking. Edited March 9, 2016 by cinepro 4
T-Shirt Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 9 minutes ago, cinepro said: This line of argument mystifies me, as if there were some number or degree of testimonies that could be offered by the wives in existing polygamous marriages in southern Utah that would convince you that they were righteous. We (including you) "choose" to ignore these statements because we recognize them for what they are, and it's possible for women to be sincerely but totally wrong about whether or not God wants them to enter into a polygamous marriage. Even thousands of women, and even after fervent prayer and seeking. Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 12 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I believe he is referring to all of the women in Southern Utah who are currently living polygamy. 1
sunstoned Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 13 hours ago, cdowis said: At this time JS had already started the practice of taking other wives, and had been doing so since Kirkland. I believe the angel with the flaming sword story was to convince Zina to come to him. It is unimaginable to me that God would want to break up a marriage so that JS could have one more women. OK, this is the "Joseph Smith was a con man" interpretation. Now let's look at it from the "Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" interpretation. It was to demonstrate to her that this principle was from God, and not of man -- that he was himself very reluctant to practice it, as she was also reluctant. THEN he told her that the Lord said that she was to become one of his celestial wives. The angel and sword incident had occurred prior to his taking on any of the wives and had no direct relationship to Zina. Zina was already married to another man. A faithful man. This is not polygamy. It is not how the practice was laid out in section 132. In fact it goes directly against it. JS couldn't even follow his own rules. I don't know what it takes to rationalize something like this and to spin it into some God approved action. I sure can't do it. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 9, 2016 Author Posted March 9, 2016 Jeffrey Holland tonight said there are more women than men joining the church, going to the temple and staying in the church than men, so it might wind up true with the assumption that there will be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom needing companions.
rodheadlee Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 On 3/7/2016 at 0:55 PM, Alan said: There was no angel threat. The story is ridiculous. Yeah almost as ridiculous as being raised from the dead.Do you believe in the Resurrection?
cdowis Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) 54 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Zina was already married to another man. A faithful man. This is not polygamy. This may be helpful to get more information on the historical facts. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young Edited March 9, 2016 by cdowis
JLHPROF Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 9 hours ago, sunstoned said: Zina was already married to another man. A faithful man. This is not polygamy. It is not how the practice was laid out in section 132. In fact it goes directly against it. JS couldn't even follow his own rules. I don't know what it takes to rationalize something like this and to spin it into some God approved action. I sure can't do it. Zina was civilly married to Henry. They were never sealed for eternity, which is what D&C 132 refers to. By God's authority she only had one marriage. The other was not considered valid to God according to their view. Even Henry understood that. That's why he sought out his own eternal companion.
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: Zina was civilly married to Henry. They were never sealed for eternity, which is what D&C 132 refers to. By God's authority she only had one marriage. The other was not considered valid to God according to their view. Even Henry understood that. That's why he sought out his own eternal companion. Where does that leave her marriage to Brigham Young then, if she "only had one marriage"? She was still civilly married to Henry when Brigham married her and she was sealed to Joseph (the "one marriage"). So, how would you classify her marriage to Brigham then? They definitely lived as man and wife since they had a daughter together (Brigham and Zina). 1
JLHPROF Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Where does that leave her marriage to Brigham Young then, if she "only had one marriage"? She was still civilly married to Henry when Brigham married her and she was sealed to Joseph (the "one marriage"). So, how would you classify her marriage to Brigham then? They definitely lived as man and wife since they had a daughter together (Brigham and Zina). A priesthood levitate marriage for time. I've already shown how the saints viewed civil marriages at the time. There are many examples in this thread. We cannot understand "polyandry" correctly until we view marriage as the saints at that time did. Take civil marriage out of the equation and you will begin to see what they saw.
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: A priesthood levitate marriage for time. I've already shown how the saints viewed civil marriages at the time. So they altered the definition or qualifications for when a Levirate marriage should take place (from the Bible)? (Yes, I know your beliefs regarding civil marriages at that time and it is backed up by statements from back then too.)
JLHPROF Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 1 hour ago, ALarson said: So they altered the definition or qualifications for when a Levirate marriage should take place (from the Bible)? (Yes, I know your beliefs regarding civil marriages at that time and it is backed up by statements from back then too.) Duplicating post from other thread: March 1841 - Zina marries Henry in civil marriage October 1841 - Zina marries Joseph for time and eternity June 1844 - Joseph dies June 1845 - Zina conceives her last child with Henry Probable late 1845 - Zina admitted to anointed quorum and placed under covenant of chastity (no relations except with priesthood husband) January 1846 - Zina is reendowed in Nauvoo temple and placed under covenant of chastity a second time (no relations except with priesthood husband) February 1846 - Zina is resealed to Joseph for eternity in Nauvoo temple and Brigham for time in a Levirate marriage March 1846 - Zina and Henry have their last child I do not know if Zina and Joseph ever had relations, but I do believe that once she was placed under the covenant of chastity her relations with Henry (her civil husband only) ended. To really understand what appear to be polyandrous marriages, we have to understand how the early saints at this time viewed civil marriage vs priesthood marriage. As long as we apply modern concepts and weight civil marriage and priesthood marriage equally we will never understand how the relationships worked.
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Duplicating post from other thread: March 1841 - Zina marries Henry in civil marriage October 1841 - Zina marries Joseph for time and eternity June 1844 - Joseph dies June 1845 - Zina conceives her last child with Henry Probable late 1845 - Zina admitted to anointed quorum and placed under covenant of chastity (no relations except with priesthood husband) January 1846 - Zina is reendowed in Nauvoo temple and placed under covenant of chastity a second time (no relations except with priesthood husband) February 1846 - Zina is resealed to Joseph for eternity in Nauvoo temple and Brigham for time in a Levirate marriage March 1846 - Zina and Henry have their last child I do not know if Zina and Joseph ever had relations, but I do believe that once she was placed under the covenant of chastity her relations with Henry (her civil husband only) ended. To really understand what appear to be polyandrous marriages, we have to understand how the early saints at this time viewed civil marriage vs priesthood marriage. As long as we apply modern concepts and weight civil marriage and priesthood marriage equally we will never understand how the relationships worked. Yes, I was referring to the fact that Zina already had a son (one of the stipulations for a brother needing to marry his brother's widow is that there was no son to carry on his name). Zina and Henry Jacobs had a son (which would have been sealed to Joseph, correct?). I'm just curious if they just didn't follow all the laws in the Bible for when a Levirate marriage was necessary. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 Laws Concerning Levirate Marriage 5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 9 then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.’ 10 And the name of his house[a] shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’ Edited March 9, 2016 by ALarson
cdowis Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) ALarson, You have us confused with another church. The historic Christian church has replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers. The LDS church is the restored church of Jesus Christ, and has a foundation of apostles and prophets (See Eph 4:11-14) We have a living prophet of God who has the keys and authority to receive revelation and who was able to apply the Levite marriage law to a specific circumstance and situation. Happy to clear this up. Edited March 9, 2016 by cdowis
ksfisher Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 For days now I've been wanting to respond to the title of this thread "Let's just say the Angel with a drawn sword story is true" by responding, "ok, the angel with a drawn sword story is true." I'm pretty sure I've watched too many Leslie Nielsen movies. 2
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, cdowis said: ALarson, You have us confused with another church. The historic Christian church has replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers. The LDS church is the restored church of Jesus Christ, and has a foundation of apostles and prophets (See Eph 4:11-14) We have a living prophet of God who has the keys and authority to receive revelation and who was able to apply the Levite marriage law to a specific circumstance and situation. Happy to clear this up. LOL. Thanks. But no, I'm not confused as I perfectly understand the situation. I'm just asking JLHPROF's take on it as I value his judgement and knowledge of church history. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but he is a wealth of knowledge regarding the history. Edited March 9, 2016 by ALarson
cinepro Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 16 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Yeah almost as ridiculous as being raised from the dead.Do you believe in the Resurrection? Well, some LDS believe the story of the resurrection isn't literal, but more of a metaphor, or symbolic of the rebirth we all encounter when we come unto Christ. So it's entirely possible that the literal story of the resurrection is ridiculous, and one day LDS Church leaders will see the error of their literal interpretation and we'll evolve our doctrine in that direction.
cinepro Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 20 hours ago, T-Shirt said: Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. How many testimonies from polygamous wives would it take for you to believe that the polygamy now being practiced in Southern Utah is according to God's will? 10? 100? 1,000? 1
JLHPROF Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 1 hour ago, cinepro said: Well, some LDS believe the story of the resurrection isn't literal, but more of a metaphor, or symbolic of the rebirth we all encounter when we come unto Christ. So it's entirely possible that the literal story of the resurrection is ridiculous, and one day LDS Church leaders will see the error of their literal interpretation and we'll evolve our doctrine in that direction. Gosh, now even the resurrection isn't literal. Wonder how literal it will be when the resurrected Christ returns in glory and puts an end to all our progressive ideals.
consiglieri Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 18 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Yeah almost as ridiculous as being raised from the dead.Do you believe in the Resurrection? So a belief in the Resurrection requires belief in all miraculous stories from whatever source and however unlikely?
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 10, 2016 Author Posted March 10, 2016 One of my questions is how can polygamy be illegal and immoral on Earth, but legal and moral in Heaven?
Recommended Posts