Eternity Only Sealings?

[Rain]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

It only applies to temporal wives.  Sealing in a temple as a spiritual f(eternity) couple does not require consummation with sex after they leave the temple, as is the case with a sealing of a temporal (mortal and spiritual) marriage.

I find it ironic that critics of the church are so eager and willing to give their perverse interpretation of latter day scriptures, when they themselves disclaim the validity of those scriptures and prophets.  Please tell us how much you have studied these scriptures == how many times, for example, have you read the Book of Mormon.  Just curious since you want to teach someone who has given his entire life to reading and studying them == over 40 times reading the Book of Mormon.

Tell us your expertise and let's see if we should pay you any attention at all.

Where did you get that any sealing requires consummation?  Are you saying that a couple who die in a car accident right after being sealed are not sealed? Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread,  but I've never heard of this idea before. 

[JulieM]

22 hours ago, cdowis said:

I do not believe that in such matters of the heart and emotion, logical and rational thought cannot always be expected.  I assume you are familiar with the concept of hyperbole.  You use one phrase to build your whole argument, but I see it as dramatic hyperbole, and you see it as an admission of adultery.

The FACT is that she was not the biological daughter of JS, and all of the twists and turns of your argument cannot dispute that simple fact.  The antiMormon view is that JS was an adulterer with the knowledge of the community and they accepted that relationship.  And that the Lord Himself continued to maintain JS prophetic role in the church.  IOW, just another false prophet, false religion.

You can choose that JS was a immoral adulterer, or that this was a sealing only relationship.

I have made my choice, and apparently you have done so as well..

Where have I stated that???

Why does believing that Joesph had marital relations with Sylvia mean one believes he was an "immoral adulterer" anymore than him having marital relations with any of his plural wives?  

Why do you make that distinction?

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

Dup 

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

Dup

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

22 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM
Dup

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

It only applies to temporal wives.  Sealing in a temple as a spiritual f(eternity) couple does not require consummation with sex after they leave the temple, as is the case with a sealing of a temporal (mortal and spiritual) marriage.

But we don't know if any of Joseph's plural wives were eternity only sealings:. Read JLHPROF's entire post back on page 3.

Here is part of it:

"Were there eternity only sealings?  Documentation appears to say there were.
Did Joseph have any?  Documentation is sketchy and most of his marriages ceremonies were not documented as to the type or wording used.
So all we are doing by claiming any of Joseph's marriages were for eternity only because they trouble people for various reasons (polyandry, teenagers etc) is attempting to remove our own cognitive dissonance.
Did Joseph have relations with Helen Kimball?  Fanny Alger?  Zina Huntington?  Mary Rollins Lightner?
Or were they eternity only sealings with no relations?
We don't know, and stating that any we don't like were eternity only with no record of the ceremony isn't history, it's false rationalizing."

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Where have I stated that???

Why does believing that Joesph had marital relations with Sylvia mean one believes he was an "immoral adulterer" anymore than him having marital relations with any of his plural wives?  

Why do you make that distinction?

 

Did I miss something?  She was married.

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Did I miss something?  She was married.

So you believe that makes Joseph an adulterer?   If you believe that, then you must believe he committed adultery with his other plural wives too (that he had relations with).  The woman doesn't need to be married for it to be classified as adultery.

If you believe the sealing was valid, it was no more committing adultery than it was with any of his other plural wives.

Or do you have a double standard and believe it was fine for the men to have relations with more than one wife but it's adultery when a woman had relations with more than one husband?

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Where did you get that any sealing requires consummation?  Are you saying that a couple who die in a car accident right after being sealed are not sealed? Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread,  but I've never heard of this idea before. 

 

gosh...I would hope not..that was an old seminary film..where a young couple dies but go separately because they weren't sealed.  Car accident right after the ceremony.  Did you see that? Don't mind me.  This thread has been so confusing to me.

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So you believe that makes Joseph an adulterer?   If you believe that, then you must believe he committed adultery with his other plural wives too (that he had relations with).  The woman doesn't need to be married for it to be classified as adultery.

If you believe the sealing was valid, it was no more committing adultery than it was with any of his other plural wives.

Or do you have a double standard and believe it was fine for the men to have relations with more than one wife but it's adultery when a woman had relations with more than one husband?

 

Though I am confused...I get the impression that JS and men in general get a pass on adultery.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Though I am confused...I get the impression that JS and men in general get a pass on adultery.

It should be no different for Sylvia to have a legal husband, then get sealed to another husband who she has relations with vs. Joseph having a legal wife (Emma), then get sealed to other wives who he has relations with. 

I'd like cdowis or someone to explain why it's ok for Joseph but not ok for Slyvia to do the same as he did.

Also I'm not sure that cdowis knows the definition of adultery.

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

gosh...I would hope not..that was an old seminary film..where a young couple dies but go separately because they weren't sealed.  Car accident right after the ceremony.  Did you see that? Don't mind me.  This thread has been so confusing to me.

There were a slew of '70s movies and film strips that were manipulative and tried to make use of "negative reinforcement" (i.e., keep the commandments and covenants, and be nice to people, or terrible things will happen and you'll fee really, really bad). 

"Cipher in the Snow," "Tom Trails" (his girlfriend tries to stop him from going on a mission so they can get married, and she dumps him when he goes and is immediately killed in a car crash. He feels bad, but is comforted because of the plan of salvation), "The Letter," the one where the man is supposed to prime the pump with the rusty water in the beer bottle, but drinks it instead and dies of thirst; the father who must choose between switching the tracks and wrecking the train or saving the train but letting his son get run over, etc. 

I actually like the message of many of these, but man, what an era of "downer" approaches!  

And, I really like "I'll build you a rainbow." I used to play the record to make my kids cry in a cute way ("Mom, dad played the record that makes us sad"). I do like the message, even though it's very dated and wouldn't have an impact now. 

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It should be no different for Sylvia to have a legal husband, then get sealed to another husband who she has relations with vs. Joseph having a legal wife (Emma), then get sealed to other wives who he has relations with. 

I'd like cdowis or someone to explain why it's ok for Joseph but not ok for Slyvia to do the same as he did.

Also I'm not sure that cdowis knows the definition of adultery.

i agree..thank you for your clarification of thoughts.  Yeah..what is good for the goose is good for the gander....or not.  I just have a problem with the whole thing.  See, my Dad is sealed to Mom...and all of us were sealed together when I was nine.  Now, he has instructed TBM family to have his present wife (who is not LDS)  baptized, sealed and the whole nine yards.  As an unbeliever, I find it so disrespectful to both wives.   I just don't get the whole thing.  I will remove myself from the thread because it just hurts the hell out of me.

[Ouagadougou]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

It only applies to temporal wives.  Sealing in a temple as a spiritual f(eternity) couple does not require consummation with sex after they leave the temple, as is the case with a sealing of a temporal (mortal and spiritual) marriage.

I find it ironic that critics of the church are so eager and willing to give their perverse interpretation of latter day scriptures, when they themselves disclaim the validity of those scriptures and prophets.  Please tell us how much you have studied these scriptures == how many times, for example, have you read the Book of Mormon.  Just curious since you want to teach someone who has given his entire life to reading and studying them == over 40 times reading the Book of Mormon.

Tell us your expertise and let's see if we should pay you any attention at all.

I didn't realize this was a contest to see who has read the BoM the most, but since you asked, I have read the BoM  ~20 times (cover to cover) in my life.  I've also read the New Testament about 5 times, 3/4 of the Old Testament and D&C and BoA about 5 times.

Now...back to discussing polygamy -- why would JS not be required to practice this important commandment?

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” 1

The family unit is such an important part of LDS teachings (along with creating life); however, JS was exempt from it all with the other 30 plus wives he married?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/strengthening-the-family-multiply-and-replenish-the-earth?lang=eng

And from the church's essay:

"God declared in the Book of Mormon that monogamy was the standard; at times, however, He commanded plural marriage so His people could “raise up seed unto [Him].”⁴⁴ Plural marriage did result in an increased number of children born to believing parents.^45"

Even in the BoM (which you have read 40 times) it says that polygamy could "raise up seed unto him;" however, that didn't apply to JS.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng&old=true

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Ouagadougou]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Where do church leaders deny Joseph had "any physical relations" with any of his plural wives?

"During the era in which plural marriage was practiced, Latter-day Saints distinguished between sealings for time and eternity and sealings for eternity only. Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone.

Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings. The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown because the evidence is fragmentary.²⁴ Some of the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith later testified that their marriages were for time and eternity, while others indicated that their relationships were for eternity alone.^25"

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng&old=true

This isn't an official church website but it says the following:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexuality-2/#SexualRelationswithPluralWivesWereaRarityforJosephSmith

"All public interactions were conducted without divulging the clandestine sealed marriages. While it is not possible to establish an accurate picture of his relations with his polygamous wives, several observations suggest that sexual relations occurred infrequently, at best."

Clearly apologists are trying to paint a picture that Joseph a Smith didn't engage in sexual relations with his other 30 plus wives.  

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

So you believe that makes Joseph an adulterer?  

He did not have intimate relations with her, unless you are able to prove otherwise.  He was not the biological father, but I patiently await your documentation.

If you believe that, then you must believe he committed adultery with his other plural wives too (that he had relations with).  The woman doesn't need to be married for it to be classified as adultery.

You and I are in fundamental disagreement.  Again we inhabit very different planets.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by cdowis

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

You do know that a married man is committing adultery if he had relations with another woman (single or married), don't you?  The other woman doesn't need to be married for the man to commit adultery (if he's a married man).

I'm just wondering why you think it's adultery if he had relations with Syvia but not adultery if he had relations with some of his plural wives who were single?

I see no difference. (Regarding whether or not Joseph was committing adultery.  The only difference is if the woman involved is committing adultery).

 That depends on if you believe the sealings were valid and real marriages.  

As JLHPROF has stated, we have no documentation that any of Joseph's sealings were for eternity only. They were his wives and I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the thought that he consummated some of the marriages? (And if you believe he committed adultery if this took place with Sylvia but then believe it wasn't adultery with other wives, that's not the definition of adultery.)

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

He did not have intimate relations with her, unless you are able to prove otherwise. 

Whether or not he had intimate relations with her is completely independent of whether or not we believe it, can prove it, can't prove it, etc. 

None of us can know for sure, or prove it, one way or another --- I think we all agree on that. But, your assertion that the historical fact or incident itself (or its non-existence) depends on whether or not it can be proven is . . . flawed?

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You do know that a married man is committing adultery if he had relations with another woman (single or married), don't you?  The other woman doesn't need to be married for the man to commit adultery (if he's a married man).

I'm just wondering why you think it's adultery if he had relations with Syvia but not adultery if he had relations with some of his plural wives who were single?

I see no difference.

 

Hence..my confusion!

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

 

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You do know that a married man is committing adultery if he had relations with another woman (single or married), don't you?

I'm just wondering why you think it's adultery if he had relations with Syvia but not adultery if he had relations with some of his plural wives who were single?

The meaning of "adultery" is not as clear cut as people seem to think.  It has be redefined repeatedly over the centuries.
What is considered adultery today is different than what was considered adultery in other ages.  For example according to one definition adultery included "sex between husband and wife for recreational purposes".  And don't get me started on what the "Peacemaker" has to say about adultery.
What the Lord considers adultery has much to do with what the Lord considers marriage.
 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

He did not have intimate relations with her, unless you are able to prove otherwise. 

Completely irrelevant.
And this does nothing to prove an "eternity only" sealing.
If the sealing was for "time and eternity" he COULD have had intimate relations, whether he did or not.  She was his wife.

[cdowis]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You do know that a married man is committing adultery if he had relations with another woman (single or married), don't you?  

You asked two questions.  The answer for "married woman" is yes.

I will let the Bible answer the second question, whether polygamy is adultery:

2 Sam 12 [7] And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
[8] And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

I have now answered this question, and have no interest in repeating myself.  I give you, an the others, the last word.

Edited February 10, 2017 by cdowis

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You asked two questions.  The answer for "married woman" is yes.

I will let the Bible answer the second question, whether polygamy is adultery:

2 Sam 12 [7] And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
[8] And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Ok.

But you didn't answer the question.

Why would Joseph be committing  adultery if he had relations with Sylvia but not be committing adultery if he had relations with a single woman?  If you believe he was married (sealed) to both, why would only the one be considered adultery?

You are trying to redefine the word adultery.  You can't possibly believe a married man isn't committing adultery if the other woman is single, do you?

Because it appears you are using this redefinition when discussing Joseph and his plural wives.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok.

But you didn't answer the question.

Why would Joseph be committing  adultery if he had relations with Sylvia but not be committing adultery if he had relations with a single woman?  If you believe he was married (sealed) to both, why would only the one be considered adultery?

You are trying to redefine the word adultery.  You can't possibly believe a married man isn't committing adultery if the other woman is single, do you?

Because it appears you are using this redefinition when discussing Joseph and his plural wives.

 

He is saying that polyandrous marriages are adultery if they aren't eternity only sealings with no intimate relations.
This is because of the assumption that the participants believed the civil/legal marriages were as legitimate as the eternal ones.

However, there is no direct proof that all of Joseph's polyandrous marriages were eternity only or free of intimate relations.   It is pure rationalization.
There is also no direct evidence that the participants viewed their polyandrous civil marriages in this way.

If Sylvia's sealing to Joseph was for time and eternity (and there is no record of the ceremony either way) then there could have been intimate relations.
And since she wasn't sealed to Windsor her view of the two "marriages" may have been very different from our view.

[cdowis]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He is saying that polyandrous marriages are adultery if they aren't eternity only sealings with no intimate relations.
This is because of the assumption that the participants believed the civil/legal marriages were as legitimate as the eternal ones.

Thank you.

However, there is no direct proof that all of Joseph's polyandrous marriages were eternity only or free of intimate relations.   It is pure rationalization.
There is also no direct evidence that the participants viewed their polyandrous civil marriages in this way.

Sealing ceremony does not erase the exclusive right of the husband to intimate relations with his wife. The sealing does not give the eternal husband the right to sex with a married woman.  This is a violation of the law of morality.

As a prophet of God, with God Himself giving JS the continued revelation and administration of the church, it is clear to me that he did not commit adultery.

If Sylvia's sealing to Joseph was for time and eternity (and there is no record of the ceremony either way) then there could have been intimate relations.
And since she wasn't sealed to Windsor her view of the two "marriages" may have been very different from our view.

"If", "perhaps", etc
Each of us will come to our own conclusion on whether JS was a prophet of God and lived a moral life.  I have made that decision.