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

[VideoGameJunkie]

Again I'll ask, can't the continuation of the seeds forever be accomplished with 1 wife or does multiple make spirit children come faster?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

She most likely loved Henry as they courted for some time prior to their marriage.  She initially turned Joseph down when he approached her asking her to marry him (after her marriage to Henry).

From Fairmormon:

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

Wikipedia records:

• Zina recorded in her autobiography that when she was eighteen she was courted by Henry Bailey Jacobs. During this time, Joseph Smith, also taught her about plural marriage in private conversations; he proposed that she become his spiritual wife on at least three different occasions. Zina declined the proposals out of her respect for Emma Smith and for traditional Christian monogamy, and because such a union would require secrecy.  On March 7, 1841, she married Jacobs, believing she had thus avoided future proposals from Smith. Nauvoo mayor John C. Bennett conducted the ceremony. Her journal from the day of the wedding reads:

  I was Married to Mr. Henry Bailey Jacobs. He had been a missionary preaching the Gospel for some time. His Father Henry Jacobs was one of the first elders in the Church, faithful and true until the last.

  Zina become pregnant shortly after her marriage. However, she continued to feel concern that she had rejected God by rejecting Joseph, whom she considered a prophet and God's spokesperson. Later she recorded, "I received a testimony for myself from the Lord of this work, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God before I ever saw him, while I resided in the state of New York, given in answer to prayer. I knew him in his lifetime, and know him to have been a great true man and a servant of God."  Smith wrote to her in October 1841 that he had "put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle [plurality of wives] upon the earth I would lose my position and my life." She and Smith were married on October 27, 1841.

 

EDITED TO REMOVE OVERLY HARSH BAD TASTE STATEMENT

Edited August 4, 2016 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I assume that most adults understand that what a person means when they say "the church is true" is that the church is Christ's church, teaches His gospel, has His authority, and is otherwise everything it claims to be.  I suppose i shouldn't assume that anymore, but it's just such a pain to type it out the long way.

Beyond that, i don't think you are understanding my point but I don't want to belabor it (that rarely ends well) so we'll just agree to disagree.

We can drop it, no problem.  I disagreed with what I read from your post as I thought of people I know.  I gave you a brief of one example.  I think it applies.  Taking issue with the Church because of one issue/teaching is not, in my mind, childish or problematic. 

I will say I think one barrier we ran into is seeing membership and allegiance or agreement with the Church as black and white.  I've found a lot of people don't see it that way.  We can both love the Church and be a critic of certain aspects.  We can both not attend Church, think ourselves Mormons, and reject a certain principle or two. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We can drop it, no problem.  I disagreed with what I read from your post as I thought of people I know.  I gave you a brief of one example.  I think it applies.  Taking issue with the Church because of one issue/teaching is not, in my mind, childish or problematic. 

I agree.  Taking issue with the church over one teaching isn't childish or problematic.  That's why i never said it was.  What I said was that disagreeing with the church on one issue and deciding that the church is false because of that one issue is a symptom of an immature testimony in the church (and by that i mean the gospel which the church teaches) to begin with.

I asked you questions concerning your friend in order to further demonstrate my meaning, but you declined to answer them.

Quote

I will say I think one barrier we ran into is seeing membership and allegiance or agreement with the Church as black and white.  I've found a lot of people don't see it that way.  We can both love the Church and be a critic of certain aspects.  We can both not attend Church, think ourselves Mormons, and reject a certain principle or two. 

Yes, i know a lot of people seek to live in the gray areas where the church is both true and false at the same time.  I don't think membership in the kingdom of God works that way.  Christ had some harsh things to say about people who were neither hot nor cold-lukewarm He called them-in regards to the gospel.  He said He would rather have people who either obeyed the gospel completely or didn't at all than have lukewarm disciples.

I admit that lukewarm is often the easier place to be (and i'm saying that about myself.  It's not a judgement of anyone else).

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Wikipedia records:

• Zina recorded in her autobiography that when she was eighteen she was courted by Henry Bailey Jacobs. During this time, Joseph Smith, also taught her about plural marriage in private conversations; he proposed that she become his spiritual wife on at least three different occasions. Zina declined the proposals out of her respect for Emma Smith and for traditional Christian monogamy, and because such a union would require secrecy.  On March 7, 1841, she married Jacobs, believing she had thus avoided future proposals from Smith. Nauvoo mayor John C. Bennett conducted the ceremony. Her journal from the day of the wedding reads:

  I was Married to Mr. Henry Bailey Jacobs. He had been a missionary preaching the Gospel for some time. His Father Henry Jacobs was one of the first elders in the Church, faithful and true until the last.

  Zina become pregnant shortly after her marriage. However, she continued to feel concern that she had rejected God by rejecting Joseph, whom she considered a prophet and God's spokesperson. Later she recorded, "I received a testimony for myself from the Lord of this work, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God before I ever saw him, while I resided in the state of New York, given in answer to prayer. I knew him in his lifetime, and know him to have been a great true man and a servant of God."  Smith wrote to her in October 1841 that he had "put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle [plurality of wives] upon the earth I would lose my position and my life." She and Smith were married on October 27, 1841.

 

Sounds like her marriage to Henry was a bit of buyers remorse.  She married Henry partly to end Joseph's proposals.  So she was being courted by both men at the same time.  She chose Henry civilly prior to receiving a testimony of plural marriage and chose Joseph as her husband after.
Did she love Henry?  Sure.  But she also loved Joseph.  She picked Henry until she realized she should have picked Joseph.  And with no priesthood authority binding her to Henry she went ahead and married Joseph.

Wow.  "Buyer's remorse"?

You make a whole lot of assumptions above and state them as fact (ie: "She married Henry partly to end Joseph's proposals.")   Do you have a reference for this other than Wikipedia? Because she does not state that above in her journal (she wrote: "I was Married to Mr. Henry Bailey Jacobs. He had been a missionary preaching the Gospel for some time. His Father Henry Jacobs was one of the first elders in the Church, faithful and true until the last.").

I believe that Zina loved Henry (they courted for quite awhile...a year?....she then married and lived with him and had children with him).  But, I also believe that she trusted and loved Joseph.  She believed in Joseph and was eventually converted to the principle of plural marriage.  I cannot imagine that she didn't still have love for Henry over the years and compassion for him because of what was asked of him (first by Joseph and then by Brigham).  

She would have to have been very unfeeling to not have sympathy for Henry and I believe she was a good woman.

.

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Based on that one thing, added to my other spiritual witnesses, I couldn't say right away.

But it would certainly cause me to do some deep searching, study, and prayer because I would not agree with something like that and would need God to confirm it to me.  I would wait for further revelation before deciding though. 

If I didn't wait for that before deciding it would mean my testimony was founded upon my husband and not Christ. 

Thanks for your reply.  I respect your thoughts; that being said, my husband is true!!

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Wikipedia records:

• Zina recorded in her autobiography that when she was eighteen she was courted by Henry Bailey Jacobs. During this time, Joseph Smith, also taught her about plural marriage in private conversations; he proposed that she become his spiritual wife on at least three different occasions. Zina declined the proposals out of her respect for Emma Smith and for traditional Christian monogamy, and because such a union would require secrecy.  On March 7, 1841, she married Jacobs, believing she had thus avoided future proposals from Smith. Nauvoo mayor John C. Bennett conducted the ceremony. Her journal from the day of the wedding reads:

  I was Married to Mr. Henry Bailey Jacobs. He had been a missionary preaching the Gospel for some time. His Father Henry Jacobs was one of the first elders in the Church, faithful and true until the last.

  Zina become pregnant shortly after her marriage. However, she continued to feel concern that she had rejected God by rejecting Joseph, whom she considered a prophet and God's spokesperson. Later she recorded, "I received a testimony for myself from the Lord of this work, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God before I ever saw him, while I resided in the state of New York, given in answer to prayer. I knew him in his lifetime, and know him to have been a great true man and a servant of God."  Smith wrote to her in October 1841 that he had "put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle [plurality of wives] upon the earth I would lose my position and my life." She and Smith were married on October 27, 1841.

 

Sounds like her marriage to Henry was a bit of buyers remorse.  She married Henry partly to end Joseph's proposals.  So she was being courted by both men at the same time.  She chose Henry civilly prior to receiving a testimony of plural marriage and chose Joseph as her husband after.
Did she love Henry?  Sure.  But she also loved Joseph.  She picked Henry until she realized she should have picked Joseph.  And with no priesthood authority binding her to Henry she went ahead and married Joseph.

I don't read buyers remorse in those statements.  I read remorse that is unconnected with Henry and all about her and her relationship with God.  Neither is it obvious to me that Zina married Henry just to get JS off her back.  

I think we have to be careful not to embrace specific interpretations of words when the words themselves are ambiguous.  We here know just how incredibly difficult it is to write something so that people understand what we mean to say.  Even after pages of back and forth replies trying to clarify, misunderstandings are still more the norm than not!

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  "Buyer's remorse"?

You make a whole lot of assumptions above and state them as fact (ie: "She married Henry partly to end Joseph's proposals.")   Do you have a reference for this other than Wikipedia? Because she does not state that above in her journal (she wrote: "I was Married to Mr. Henry Bailey Jacobs. He had been a missionary preaching the Gospel for some time. His Father Henry Jacobs was one of the first elders in the Church, faithful and true until the last.").

I believe that Zina loved Henry (they courted for quite awhile...a year?....she then married and lived with him and had children with him).  But, I also believe that she trusted and loved Joseph.  She believed in Joseph and was converted to the principle of plural marriage.  I cannot imagine that she didn't still have love for Henry over the years and compassion for him over what was asked of him (first by Joseph and then by Brigham).  She would have to have been very unfeeling to not have sympathy for Henry and I believe she was a good woman.

.

 

Actually...this whole thing would make a great romance novel; tacky but quite romantic...the woman always loves the man who is already married!

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  "Buyer's remorse"?

You make a whole lot of assumptions above and state them as fact (ie: "She married Henry partly to end Joseph's proposals.")   Do you have a reference for this other than Wikipedia? Because she does not state that above in her journal (she wrote: "I was Married to Mr. Henry Bailey Jacobs. He had been a missionary preaching the Gospel for some time. His Father Henry Jacobs was one of the first elders in the Church, faithful and true until the last.").

I believe that Zina loved Henry (they courted for quite awhile...a year?....she then married and lived with him and had children with him).  But, I also believe that she trusted and loved Joseph.  She believed in Joseph and was eventually converted to the principle of plural marriage.  I cannot imagine that she didn't still have love for Henry over the years and compassion for him because of what was asked of him (first by Joseph and then by Brigham).

She would have to have been very unfeeling to not have sympathy for Henry and I believe she was a good woman.

.

 

Wikipedia referenced her autobiography.
And yes, perhaps I phrased things too harshly (a weakness of mine).
All I am saying is that it appears to me that she was courted by both men at the same time, married Henry in March because she hadn't received a witness of plural marriage, and then less than 8 months later she married Joseph.

So if she was courted by both men, chose Henry and then a few months later decided upon Joseph for her eternal companion clearly that implies something other than the great romance between her and Henry that is often portrayed.
 

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't read buyers remorse in those statements.  I read remorse that is unconnected with Henry and all about her and her relationship with God.  Neither is it obvious to me that Zina married Henry just to get JS off her back. 

Again, "buyers remorse" was perhaps too harsh a statement.  I agree that any remorse was not about choosing Henry but about not choosing the companion God had intended for her.
I apologize for the harsh statement, but rather than a great romance that Joseph inserted himself within, I see a much more complex woman attempting to choose a husband from two suitors, and to do so according to God's plan for her.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Again I'll ask, can't the continuation of the seeds forever be accomplished with 1 wife or does multiple make spirit children come faster?

Given we are taught that monogamy is as much of exaltation as plural marriage, does it really matter what that answer is?  Would you love your children less or be disappointed if you had only two in the time that others had 8?  Speaking from experience, it made no difference to me how soon I got my kids.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Calm

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  Taking issue with the church over one teaching isn't childish or problematic.  That's why i never said it was.  What I said was that disagreeing with the church on one issue and deciding that the church is false because of that one issue is a symptom of an immature testimony in the church (and by that i mean the gospel which the church teaches) to begin with.

I asked you questions concerning your friend in order to further demonstrate my meaning, but you declined to answer them.

Well this went nowhere, whatever the case.  I thought I clarified by suggesting the questions you asked seemed loaded. 

Quote

Yes, i know a lot of people seek to live in the gray areas where the church is both true and false at the same time.  I don't think membership in the kingdom of God works that way.  Christ had some harsh things to say about people who were neither hot nor cold-lukewarm He called them-in regards to the gospel.  He said He would rather have people who either obeyed the gospel completely or didn't at all than have lukewarm disciples.

I admit that lukewarm is often the easier place to be (and i'm saying that about myself.  It's not a judgement of anyone else).

 

Quote

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

It doesn't feel like it's a good idea to put this concept of lukewarm on people for what you describe.  It seems to be about the work of the individual as judged by God.  Not whether or not we totally align with the Church's ideology, or whether we think God is the Church, or whether we really good at being pharisaical or not. 

At least to me it seems much different. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given we are taught that monogamy is as much pf exaltation as plural marriage, does it really matter what that answer is?  Would you love your children less or be dissapointed if you had only two in the time that others had 8?  Speaking from experience, it made no difference to me how soon I got my kids.

Good point. As someone who has no kids or wife I shouldn't be picky.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well this went nowhere, whatever the case.  I thought I clarified by suggesting the questions you asked seemed loaded. 

 

It doesn't feel like it's a good idea to put this concept of lukewarm on people for what you describe.  It seems to be about the work of the individual as judged by God.  Not whether or not we totally align with the Church's ideology, or whether we think God is the Church, or whether we really good at being pharisaical or not. 

At least to me it seems much different. 

Christ says this to the church in laodicea. A whole church. 

He told them He would rather have their works in the church be cold than be lukewarm. 

That's a very intriguing concept to ponder.  

Your pharisaical comment is really weird since it should be obvious that no one on this thread is advocating that.  

 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Christ says this to the church in laodicea. A whole church. 

He told them He would rather have their works in the church be cold than be lukewarm. 

That's a very intriguing concept to ponder.  

Your pharisaical comment is really weird since it should be obvious that no one on this thread is advocating that.  

 

Just tried to point out it's tough to apply this lukewarm concept to people who see things in gray rather than black and white.  It's not about perspective, or how much we align with the Church, but is about good works. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Just tried to point out it's tough to apply this lukewarm concept to people who see things in gray rather than black and white.  It's not about perspective, or how much we align with the Church, but is about good works. 

I agree, it's about how much we align with Christ.  He'd rather we were all in as disciples, or all out.   Hanging around in the middle of the two options get's you kicked to the curb (spiritually speaking).

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

When I read the Old Testament, I'm confused why Adam and Noah weren't living polygamy. Or Noah's sons Shem, Ham, and Japheph. In both cases they were the only beings left on earth and needed to multiply and replenish the earth. It would make more sense for Adam to be joined by multiple wives to get the population of the world started and so those born wouldn't have to rely on pure incest to keep going. And Noah was kind of old when the ark happened, but his sons could have had multiple wives to make repopulating the world seem easier. I just figured it's weird when looking at polygamy in the OT you see prophets and men living it, but not the 2 times in all of scripture when it would've made the most sense.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

When I read the Old Testament, I'm confused why Adam and Noah weren't living polygamy. Or Noah's sons Shem, Ham, and Japheph. In both cases they were the only beings left on earth and needed to multiply and replenish the earth. It would make more sense for Adam to be joined by multiple wives to get the population of the world started and so those born wouldn't have to rely on pure incest to keep going. And Noah was kind of old when the ark happened, but his sons could have had multiple wives to make repopulating the world seem easier. I just figured it's weird when looking at polygamy in the OT you see prophets and men living it, but not the 2 times in all of scripture when it would've made the most sense.

Maybe it's because, theologically speaking, Adam would have had to marry one of his daughters or granddaughters in order to have another wife.  That's just icky.  As for Noah's sons-could be that there weren't that many worthy women to bring along.

Edited August 4, 2016 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it's because, theologically speaking, Adam would have had to marry one of his daughters or granddaughters in order to have another wife.  That's just icky.  As for Noah's sons-could be that there weren't that many worthy women to bring along.

If God can place Eve in the garden to be his wife, why not also place Jane, Martha, Katy, and Delores as well to really kick things off quickly? I think that's what he meant.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it's because, theologically speaking, Adam would have had to marry one of his daughters or granddaughters in order to have another wife.  That's just icky.  As for Noah's sons-could be that there weren't that many worthy women to bring along.

Yes but don't forget the story of Lot with his 2 daughters.

[VideoGameJunkie]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If God can place Eve in the garden to be his wife, why not also place Jane, Martha, Katy, and Delores as well to really kick things off quickly? I think that's what he meant.

 

Thanks that is what I meant!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Good grief (who is really an example here of "hair-trigger sensitivity"?).  

Your initial posts seemed to be defending the usuage of the word "possession" when describing wives or children:

And this from you:

 

You've now clarified.  Let's move on....

 

It mystifies me that you would have jumped to the conclusion you did. If my wife and I regard ourselves as each belonging to the other, it's not logically coherent to infer that one dominates the other. 

If you're now accepting that the conclusion you jumped to is not what I meant, that's progress, I suppose, but it took some effort to extract that from you. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If God can place Eve in the garden to be his wife, why not also place Jane, Martha, Katy, and Delores as well to really kick things off quickly? I think that's what he meant.

When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken–HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.  - Brigham Young

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Scott, Brigham Young was one of them.

I'm not contradicting you. 

But Jeanne posed a what-if scenario to me. I replied that, based on my understanding, I don't expect such a thing to happen to me. 

That's all I'm saying. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Are Jesus and Heavenly Father living plural marriage? That's what I want to know. Are we trying to be like Jesus and Heavenly Father or are we trying to be like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Or are they all living Celestial polygamy in heaven?

[Calm]

No problem.  I don't have a clue how it is all going to work out and given it can take a wonderfully special kind of man to marry a sealed woman knowing in the eyes of the Church there is a general belief that his children will be seen in eternity as the children of another man plus all those who adopt or fostered as their own children of those who have died worthy, I suspect over the years there are many loving, worthy parents who share their children's relationship with other loving, worthy parents, neither of them somehow loving the children more than the other, I see it as quite unlikely that the family structure will end up linear as we currently portray it in sealings.

Iow, I believe your trust is very reasonable and fully deserved.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Calm