Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[drums12]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

That doesn't follow.
The doctrine of eternal marriage was revealed in D&C 132.  That is the source document for the restoration of the doctrine and practice.
Yes, the FP separated the doctrine of eternal marriage and plural marriage.  But if we eliminate D&C 132 they had no source doctrine to extrapolate on.

They can say eternal marriage and plural marriage are separate, but the source of both doctrines is D&C 132.  We get rid of D&C 132 as a false revelation and we lose both.
 

This is what I'm referring to in my question to Gray.   In my understanding, there is no other revelation about eternal marriages/sealings outside of section 132

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Who denied anything or disagreed with anything you said?
I merely provided an accurate explanation of that verse and the anointing it refers to.  Relax.

[Bobbieaware]

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I'm well aware of all the arguments about fallible prophets. However, polygamy was such a defining and lasting doctrine that I don't believe that it can be a mistake and Joseph Smith still be a prophet.

I’m wondering how many active members there are out there who believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction and the First Vision never actually occurred but still believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God? From what I’ve been able to gather, there are a pretty fair number of such people. So it seems to me that if there are members who can reject the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and also reject the reality of the First Vision,  but still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, it seems to me it would be an easy stretch for such members to reject Section 132 and still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Remember, without God anything is possible

Edited January 6, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Atheist Mormon]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I’m wondering how many active members there are out there who believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction and the First Vision never actually occurred but still believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God? From what I’ve been able to gather, there are a pretty fair number of such people. So it seems to me that if there are members who can reject the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and also reject the reality of the First Vision,  but still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, it seems to me it would be an easy stretch for such members to reject Section 132 and still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Remember, without God anything is possible

Is this your opinion?

 

[Bobbieaware]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

IIRC, last I talked to Don Bradley, even he wasn't sure what the anointing referred to. But according to the verse, whatever it is gives the go ahead for a married woman to be with another man without it being considered adultery. Given this, I highly suspect it was a very specific anointing for that purpose. 

In the temple endowment we learn in plain English that the valiant men and women of the Church will be anointed Kings and Queens and Priests and Priestesses unto God, a rather obvious allusion to eternal marriage.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

In the temple endowment we learn in plain English that the valiant men and women of the Church will be anointed Kings and Queens and Priests and Priestesses unto God, a rather obvious allusion to eternal marriage.

OK. Is there a point to this comment?

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

OK. Is there a point to this comment?

Bobbieaware smarter than all.  Duh.

[Bobbieaware]

18 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Is this your opinion?

 

No, I’ve conversed with some of them. Some of them right here on this board. But in all fairness, I must say that their definition of what constitutes a prophet is quite ambiguous and vague, not at all in harmony with the official Church criteria for what constitutes a prophet of God. I guess it’s a creative way of being able to believe and not believe at the same time. “Are you a Mormon?” “Yes, I am a practicing Mormon, but I believe only about 1.5 percent of it.”

Edited January 6, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

1 hour ago, drums12 said:

What about eternal marriage?  If plural marriage was a mistake, isn't section 132 false, and by extension doesn't that make eternal marriage false?  or at least unknown?

That's very all or nothing.

Every prophet's body of work is something like this parable:

"... a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered some fish of every kind, which, when it was filled, they drew up on the beach. They sat down, and gathered the good into containers, but the bad they threw away. "

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That is still the most moronic term I've ever come across.  It is as sexist as they come and a weak defense for any position.
Its usage by feminists is the very definition of hypocrisy.

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I'm well aware of all the arguments about fallible prophets. However, polygamy was such a defining and lasting doctrine that I don't believe that it can be a mistake and Joseph Smith still be a prophet.

I guess it all depends on what a prophet is to you. To me a prophet is a spiritual teacher and leader. No more or less than that.

[Bobbieaware]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

OK. Is there a point to this comment?

An effort on my part to help you understand what the anointing is actually referring to. 

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That is still the most moronic term I've ever come across.  It is as sexist as they come and a weak defense for any position.
Its usage by feminists is the very definition of hypocrisy.

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

An effort on my part to help you understand what the anointing is actually referring to. 

So you offer a lecture? How about putting up some documentation? (Hint: there isn't any, there is no agreement on what it means.) Not to mention it is completely, thoroughly, fully irrelevant to my point.  Make it anything you want it to be! Doesn't matter!

So again.....what is your point? 

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

LOL

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Something tells me if I were to post misogynistic drivel like this I'd be banned quickly.  Again, hypocrisy.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

An effort on my part to help you understand what the anointing is actually referring to. 

Tried that.  Unfortunately I'm the wrong gender to have an opinion on anything to do with plural marriage.  Maybe you'll have more luck.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Something tells me if I were to post misogynistic drivel like this I'd be banned quickly.  Again, hypocrisy.

Wow.  You really are tone deaf on this...

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Tried that.  Unfortunately I'm the wrong gender to have an opinion on anything to do with plural marriage.  Maybe you'll have more luck.

Again, the meaning of anointing in that particular verse is irrelevant to it giving approval for a woman to be with more than one man and it not be adultery.  I've explained that about 3 times now. If you want to talk about what you think anointing means, how about a new thread for the two of you? 

Quote

Something tells me if I were to post misogynistic drivel like this I'd be banned quickly.  Again, hypocrisy.

That wasn't misogyny. It was making fun of misogyny. And come on, it was funny. So now we have two off-topic items. The difference is...I can provide tons of documentation/stats that "mansplaining" does exist. On the other hand, you have offered nothing but opinion when it comes to what anointing means in that verse....even if it did matter. 

Again, 132 gives women the go-ahead, after an unexplained and irrelevant to this point anointing, to "be with" two men, and if that isn't clear enough, it even uses the word adultery in case anyone missed what "be with" means. 

Edited January 6, 2018 by juliann

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Tried that.  Unfortunately I'm the wrong gender to have an opinion on anything to do with plural marriage.  Maybe you'll have more luck.

Oh, good grief.  It's not about having an opinion.  It's about telling a woman to "relax" while you tell her the "right" way to think about the topic.  It's not that difficult to figure out.

[Eek!]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

It AMAZES me how many members tiptoe past the graveyard on that in your face verse. Since most of JS's first picks were polyandrous, this certainly wasn't out of the question....he had allowed for it. Seriously, soooooo mind boggling that anyone can pass that by with a straight face, which is why the whole polygamy discussion has turned into a tasteless who did it with whom to avoid the obvious meaning of "be with another....." 

Imo another interesting verse is the very last one of Section 132, verse 66:

"And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen." [emphasis Eek!'s]

I tried in vain to locate the text of that implied subsequent revelation, finally concluding that my best bet was to look for circumstantial evidence:

I no longer have my modest collection of books, but at one point I plotted out a timeline of Joseph Smith's plural marriages in relation to various other things.  What stood out was that he virtually ceased entering into plural marriages once he had organized the Quorum of the Anointed (only one, and that was to an elderly woman).  So IF that subsequent revelation implied by verse 66 was received, imo it MAY have been the reason for Joseph's apparent shift in focus away from plural marriage and to the Quorum of the Anointed.  But I don't know of any documentation directly supporting this hypothesis. 

If polygyny as a large-scale societal institution is unsustainable, which I think is the case because of the surplus of unmarried young men if for no other reason, then perhaps a course-correction was inevitable regardless of whose idea such correction was to begin with. 

(And just for the record, I am not at all sure Brigham Young's version of plural marriage was the same as Joseph Smith's.)

Edited January 6, 2018 by Eek!

[Bobbieaware]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

So you offer a lecture? How about putting up some documentation? (Hint: there isn't any, there is no agreement on what it means.) Not to mention it is completely, thoroughly, fully irrelevant to my point.  Make it anything you want it to be! Doesn't matter!

So again.....what is your point? 

Go to the temple and listen with your own ears if you want documentation. But if you don’t want to believe that the anointing spoken of in the temple is one and the same with the anointing you’re talking about, that’s your privilege. But to me it’s more than obvious that since the anointing spoken of in the endowment pertains to eternal marriage (you can’t be a king or queen in heaven without being eternally married) it must be one and the same with the anointing under discussion. After all, we are discussing plural eternal marriage, are we not?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Something tells me if I were to post misogynistic drivel like this I'd be banned quickly.  Again, hypocrisy.

You are doing at least the equivalent of what you appear to think others were doing right now or so it comes across to me.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, good grief.  It's not about having an opinion.  It's about telling a woman to "relax" while you tell her the "right" way to think about the topic.  It's not that difficult to figure out.

DEL.

Edited January 6, 2018 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Go to the temple and listen with your own ears if you want documentation. But if you don’t want to believe that the anointing spoken of in the temple is one and the same with the anointing you’re talking about, that’s your privilege. But to me it’s more than obvious that since the anointing spoken of in the endowment pertains to eternal marriage (you can’t be a king or queen in heaven without being eternally married) it must be one and the same with the anointing under discussion. After all, we are discussing plural eternal marriage, are we not?

No, the topic is D&C 132 giving married women permission to "be with" another man without it being adultery.   Start a new thread for whatever it is you are talking about.