Bill Reel's Sunstone Presentation and a Path to the Disavowal of D&C 132

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That's where Joseph got it IMO, he got many things from the KJV.

Or maybe, just maybe, God is more consistent than we think.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

All those women who had children after they were sealed to Joseph were bearing Joseph's children, whether he was the biological father or not. 

Then it wasn't polygamy that "raised up seed".  It was the wives' return to monogamy.

Sorry, I am not seeing how Joseph fulfilled Jacob 2 reason for commanding polygamy.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

If the goal was to raise up seed, Joseph shouldn't have been marrying women that he couldn't impregnate.

Further, if he didn't have time to bear children with any of his existing wives, it doesn't make sense that he kept adding new ones... roughly two dozen in the last two years of his life.

But he was being sealed to them, so if the point was solelyto have children, he succeeded whether or not he was the biological father.  I don't think raising up seed unto God means having a lot of kids, merely pointing out if that is the argument we are making, that it is not talking about plural marriage alone, but celestial marriage with these women (except for Fanny probably) who were sealed to him with their children his eternally.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Then it wasn't polygamy that "raised up seed".  It was the wives' return to monogamy.

Sorry, I am not seeing how Joseph fulfilled Jacob 2 reason for commanding polygamy.

They weren't in a covenantal relationship through monogamy.  They were in covenant through their relationship with Joseph.

If (and I grant it is not settled, but the interpretation makes the most sense to me given how God speakes of raising up seed and other things to him throughout the scriptures) we are speaking of children being born in the covenant through Joseph's covenantal relationships, then his plural marriages provided many children.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If every generation has one of those things at various times in history, do you see anything challenging us as Saints today in 2016 or in the near future? Is ours the handbook policy from November?

By "one of those things" I assume you refer to Calm's statement that " It seems that if a society stays too long in a certain path, it becomes a rut, so God presents other pathways for those who put spiritual progression as their highest desire even if it means their physical and emotional needs have to take second or third place in attention for awhile. "

I think if the test is to put aside our physical and emotional needs in favor of God's plan, then we as a generation are failing miserably.
It's all about what makes us happy nowadays.  Not saying people don't suffer or sacrifice.  Of course they do.  We hear stories every day.  But I am not talking about the struggles of life.

I am saying that nobody seems willing to accept that the gospel (ie, God's word and teaching) could ever be the intentional trigger for making us uncomfortable or unhappy.  According to many the flaw it seems is always with the Church/Gospel/"Man's" interpretation of God's will.  The flaw according to many can never be that we don't like what God is actually saying.

Is the idea that God could ever give a commandment or law that makes us unhappy due to our fallen natures or societal norms really such a strange idea?
 

[Calm]

http://biblehub.com/matthew/3-9.htm

It is the righteous acceptance of God's covenant that makes us his children and those humans through which we are joined also our covenantal parents:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/3-9.htm

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

But he was being sealed to them, so if the point was solelyto have children, he succeeded whether or not he was the biological father.  

So, the biological fathers were denied the opportunity of being sealed to their own children?

If they were worthy, why shouldn't they be sealed to their (and their wife's) children?  Didn't they deserve to raise up seed too?

This could have happened without plural marriage (raising up seed).

Edited August 3, 2016 by JulieM

[VideoGameJunkie]

At Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife's funeral in 2007, Gordon B Hinckley testified that President Hunter would be with both his wives in heaven:

President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister [Inis] Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery.

Inis Hunter "will now be laid to rest on the other side," he said. "They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity," he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990. ("Sister Hunter's humor and cheerfulness remembered as she is laid to rest," Deseret News, Oct. 22, 2007).

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the LDS Church, remarried twice after the death of his first wife, and in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 67, he remarked: "...my wives will be mine in eternity."

Harold B. Lee, the eleventh president of the church, also remarried after his wife's death and was sealed to another woman and was looking forward to being with both women in heaven. He, in fact, wrote a poem in which he reflected that his second wife, Joan, would join his first wife, Fern, as his eternal wives:

My lovely Joan was sent to me: So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity.
"O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee"
(Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p. 17)

 

After being widowed, Apostle Dallin Oaks remarried in the temple and believes he will be married eternally to both women. In 2002 he commented on his second sealing:

When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later—a year and a half ago—I married [in the LDS temple] Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side. (Dallin Oaks, "Timing," speech delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, January 29, 2002

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Then it wasn't polygamy that "raised up seed".  It was the wives' return to monogamy.

Sorry, I am not seeing how Joseph fulfilled Jacob 2 reason for commanding polygamy.

SO tired of this stupid argument.

Joseph lived plural marriage (with any degree of consistency) from 1841-1844.  A grand total of 3 years.
During that time he married probably 25+ women.
Given what we know of his life in Nauvoo, how his time was spent, time in hiding, in public, with Emma, travelling, preaching, administration, and on and on, just when do we think he had any time to spend the night with these women?
If Joseph ever more than consummated his plural marriages I'd be shocked, and given the statistics on wedding night pregnancies after one attempt, I am not surprised at all.

I guarantee that if Joseph had lived until Utah he would have sired dozens of children.  The fact that in 3 years he had little chance means nothing.
Willard Richards married his first plural wife in 1843 and another 2 in 1845 and 5 in 1846.
His first plural child wasn't born until 1847.  So he didn't have a plural child until he had been married to 8 plural wives for at least a year.

 

[Calm]

I don't know, Julie, but guessing from the history and psychology, I come up with this... .  I think at the time the symbolic need for the Church family to be tied into one Patriarch in the form of the Prophet was very strong due to the very strong Protestant biblical upbringing.  After all, this is people were drawn to the faith primarily because they saw it as a restoration, a restoration of what they saw in the Bible...which was the People of Covenant circled around a strong man, often a father of all of them, especially in the beginning days (Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob). In essence, in order to recreate sense of the ancient clan/tribe, sealings tied everyone together in a web with Joseph at the center.

Once the community had created a greater sense of family, it was able to transfer the same sort of binding without direct sealings, though we still make much of Priesthood lines and sealing into the Covenant itself and pioneer heritage.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

At Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife's funeral in 2007, Gordon B Hinckley testified that President Hunter would be with both his wives in heaven:

President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister [Inis] Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery.

Inis Hunter "will now be laid to rest on the other side," he said. "They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity," he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990. ("Sister Hunter's humor and cheerfulness remembered as she is laid to rest," Deseret News, Oct. 22, 2007).

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the LDS Church, remarried twice after the death of his first wife, and in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 67, he remarked: "...my wives will be mine in eternity."

Harold B. Lee, the eleventh president of the church, also remarried after his wife's death and was sealed to another woman and was looking forward to being with both women in heaven. He, in fact, wrote a poem in which he reflected that his second wife, Joan, would join his first wife, Fern, as his eternal wives:

My lovely Joan was sent to me: So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity.
"O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee"
(Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p. 17)

 

After being widowed, Apostle Dallin Oaks remarried in the temple and believes he will be married eternally to both women. In 2002 he commented on his second sealing:

When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later—a year and a half ago—I married [in the LDS temple] Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side. (Dallin Oaks, "Timing," speech delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, January 29, 2002

 

If we believe marriage is eternal, then plural marriage is likewise eternal.
No way around that.
If we are invited to whatever mansion President Hunter inherited in the next life for a dinner, I guarantee that his family will consist of both wives.
We cannot say with certainty that polygamy will ever return as a requirement (assuming it ever stopped to begin with).
But we CAN say that if we believe in the gospel of Mormonism that polygamy will be a part of the Celestial society we anticipate living in.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I see your point.  These sealings would also mean in the doctrine that he would be able to have families in the eternities.  Bluebell, I have learned on this thread that you have more faith than almost anybody I know!

That's very sweet, but I doubt it!

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Quote

All those women who had children after they were sealed to Joseph were bearing Joseph's children, whether he was the biological father or not.

So, the biological fathers were denied the opportunity of being sealed to their own children?

If they were worthy, why shouldn't they be sealed to their (and their wife's) children?  Didn't they deserve to raise up seed too?

You know full well this is both scriptural and historically referenced.
These "biological fathers" all knew and covenanted when they married Joseph's wives for time that any offspring would belong to Joseph.
They are not being punished.  They agreed to this covenant and chose it willingly.  They expected nothing less than to give their biological children to the eternal companion of their temporal wives.
And they will be blessed for it.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

These "biological fathers" all knew and covenanted when they married Joseph's wives for time that any offspring would belong to Joseph.
They are not being punished.  They agreed to this covenant and chose it willingly.  They expected nothing less than to give their biological children to the eternal companion of their temporal wives.
And they will be blessed for it.

Sorry, but that's messed up.

I know you believe in polygamy, but that still messed up!

 

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

All those women who had children after they were sealed to Joseph were bearing Joseph's children, whether he was the biological father or not. 

I hadn't thought of that.  Good observation.

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Then it wasn't polygamy that "raised up seed".  It was the wives' return to monogamy.

Sorry, I am not seeing how Joseph fulfilled Jacob 2 reason for commanding polygamy.

Without polygamy, none of the children of those wives would have been JS's.  I'm not sure how it can be claimed that polygamy did not raise up seed to JS that otherwise would not have existed if he had remained monogamous?

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Without polygamy, none of the children of those wives would have been JS's. 

What is wrong with that?  Without polygamy, they wouldn't have even been his wives.

Joseph would still have had his own biological children and those other children could have been sealed to their fathers (if worthy).  Do those fathers not deserve to raise up their own seed?

Edited August 4, 2016 by JulieM

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What is wrong with that?  Without polygamy, they wouldn't have even been his wives.

Joseph would still have had his own biological children and those other children could have been sealed to their fathers (if worthy).  Do those fathers not deserve to raise up their own seed?

I don't think it has anything to do with who deserves what.

It's still church doctrine today.  If a wife is sealed to a man and he dies and she remarries, any children she has with her second husband belong to the first husband eternally.  I have no idea why that is.  It's definitely something i don't understand.

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it has anything to do with who deserves what.

It's still church doctrine today.  If a wife is sealed to a man and he dies and she remarries, any children she has with her second husband belong to the first husband eternally.  I have no idea why that is.  It's definitely something i don't understand.

None of that makes sense or seems right.  But I know that's what is taught.

I can't imagine there aren't many fathers who take issue with this and hope it will be made right in the next life.

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by JulieM

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Sorry, but that's messed up.

I know you believe in polygamy, but that still messed up!

 

I don't believe in polgamy, I believe it is a messy earthly step on the way to a much, much higher law.  I believe the way it was practiced was riddled with mistakes but was such were tolerated because just like other things in life, God can turn it to our good and because during that time period, somehow it helped cement the Saints as a imperfect Zion community.  

To us in our current state of intelligence, it comes across as painful and damaging, but we don't know the fears and hopes of these people who were living on the edge of the restoration, that were bringing all their baggage, including some horror stories of the afterlife and pretty grim eternities for the family.  We don't know the type of hope that was able to blossom, that perhaps created security and confidence to live the kinds of lives that would invite more revelation and more spiritual progress into the family of God and Man.

After all our children don't belong to us anyway, we are not possessions of each other.  Whatever sealings mean it is something far beyond ownership.  Do we really need to be the person who stands in that role in what is likely a ritual that is incomplete and just barely at the beginning?  Isn't what is most important is in the end we all have the Covenant to stand in as we stand before God?

It might have been very emotionally comforting to know that one and one's family were directly tied by covenant to be a family member of the man who God chose to lead his people, This hope, this sense of belonging in a unique (to the community) and very biblical (covenant making is throughout the Bible)may have been what was needed by many to not give up, to be able to focus on the hardships of life without seeing them as a negative but as blessings because not only was one being purified by God oneself, one was enabling a better spiritual heritage for one's family and even if one wasn't tied to them as a father or husband, they were still tied to them (many husbands were adopted as sons by JS, By, etc through the law of adoption, it would be interesting to see if it was common for the husbands of plural wives to be sealed as sons).  Remember that the greater Protestant culture they came from would have taught that there were no continuing family ties in the eternity, they were not expecting to have their wives and children at all save as generic type spirits if I understand correctly (I may not).  Perhaps that made not being sealed to their wives and children as husband and father for eternity while still being sealed in some fashion quite acceptable.  Maybe they reasoned 'we will all be adults anyway, what matters whether I am father as long as I am brother?'.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

None of that makes sense or seems right.  But I know that's what is taught.

I can't imagine there aren't many fathers who take issue with this and hope it will be made right in the next life.

 

There are a number of men who refuse to marry a sealed woman for that very reason.  Makes the sacrifice of the early Saints and those who do make that choice now so remarkably faithful---as in full of faith, not just worthy (even with the promise of being sealed after death, most still assume a choice must be made).

[Calm]

Wow, did I actually catch up, lol?

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

None of that makes sense or seems right.  But I know that's what is taught.

I can't imagine there aren't many fathers who take issue with this and hope it will be made right in the next life.

 

I agree it's hard to understand. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

SO tired of this stupid argument.

Joseph lived plural marriage (with any degree of consistency) from 1841-1844.  A grand total of 3 years.
During that time he married probably 25+ women.
Given what we know of his life in Nauvoo, how his time was spent, time in hiding, in public, with Emma, travelling, preaching, administration, and on and on, just when do we think he had any time to spend the night with these women?
If Joseph ever more than consummated his plural marriages I'd be shocked, and given the statistics on wedding night pregnancies after one attempt, I am not surprised at all.

I guarantee that if Joseph had lived until Utah he would have sired dozens of children.  The fact that in 3 years he had little chance means nothing.
Willard Richards married his first plural wife in 1843 and another 2 in 1845 and 5 in 1846.
His first plural child wasn't born until 1847.  So he didn't have a plural child until he had been married to 8 plural wives for at least a year.

 

I recently read a comment in the comments section of an article on LDS Living, which had nothing to do with polygamy. But as often happens, people were saying things against the church. The subject of polygamy came up and one woman said that women were having themselves sealed to Joseph Smith and that's why there were so many.

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Sorry, but that's messed up.

I know you believe in polygamy, but that still messed up!

As with any covenant, you enter it of your own free will and choice.
And it is scriptural.

I don't think Hyrum Smith considered it messed up when he entered that covenant with Mercy Thompson.