SamuelTheLamanite Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 New Testament scholar and historian Dale C. Allison wrote in his book, "When his mother Mary had become engaged to Joseph. To judge from the rabbinic sources, betrothal or engagement in ancient Judaism took place at a very early age, usually at twelve to twelve-and-a-half years" So God himself was probably sealed to Mary when she was very young. I am not saying child marriage is okay or godly, child marriage is not okay, but I wonder why our Christian friends have a double standard?
juliann Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 What does utter speculative guessing have to do with anything JS did? And God "sealed" to Mary? CFR. 2
jpv Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 A better one is that Governor Ford of Illinois, we pledged to protect Joseph from the moon that killed him, married his cousin when she was younger than any of JS's wives... and consummated, which there is no evidence JS did with any of the younger wives.
Calm Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, jpv said: A better one is that Governor Ford of Illinois, we pledged to protect Joseph from the moon that killed him, married his cousin when she was younger than any of JS's wives... and consummated, which there is no evidence JS did with any of the younger wives. CFR please, looks like she was 12 years younger than him and their first child was born when she was 22 (born in 1812, child born 1834). Haven't found a marriage date yet, but was no more than 21 most likely. The five children were on average about 3 years apart. https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/frances-hambaugh_140582649 Never mind, found: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40193411?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents Married June 1828, she would have been 15 or 16. He would have been 27 at the time, and this was a monogamous marriage. Helen Mar Kimball was younger as she was 14. Also another whose name I have forgotten was likely 14, iirc. Joseph was 37, I believe. And it was a plural marriage. Edited February 10, 2018 by Calm 3
JLHPROF Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 9 hours ago, juliann said: What does utter speculative guessing have to do with anything JS did? And God "sealed" to Mary? CFR. There is no official teaching to CFR as you are well aware. But it was taught by early Church leaders as a reference. "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully." (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158 "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:268)
MiserereNobis Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 8 hours ago, jpv said: we pledged to protect Joseph from the moon that killed him Those must have been some strong tidal forces 2
Tacenda Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: There is no official teaching to CFR as you are well aware. But it was taught by early Church leaders as a reference. "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully." (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158 "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:268) This quote from Orson Pratt, seems to be anti-Christian.
Storm Rider Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, Tacenda said: This quote from Orson Pratt, seems to be anti-Christian. Tacenda, can you explain in what way it is anti-Christian? I see some issues with definitions, but in what way is it Anti-Christian?
rpn Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 Why wouldn't Mary be sealed to Joseph in marriage, that is done on earth and it is a pretty safe bet that no one is standing in for God by proxy in temple ordinances.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: New Testament scholar and historian Dale C. Allison wrote in his book, "When his mother Mary had become engaged to Joseph. To judge from the rabbinic sources, betrothal or engagement in ancient Judaism took place at a very early age, usually at twelve to twelve-and-a-half years" So God himself was probably sealed to Mary when she was very young. I am not saying child marriage is okay or godly, child marriage is not okay, but I wonder why our Christian friends have a double standard? This is the worst. People have problems with Joseph Smith so you suggest that they should also have the same problem with God. Why would you want to suggest people struggle with God the same way they struggle with a man. Seems counterproductive. I see this argument for a lot of things. Don't be upset with Brigham for his racist policy, it was God's fault. Don't blame Joseph for abuses of power and manipulation of young girls. He was only doing what God told him to do. IOW- don't blame the prophet, blame God. I think it becomes very natural for a person to want to blame God because the prophet and God have been so conflated in the church. IMO- this is a major shortcoming of church culture and one that you seem to be exacerbating, or at least encouraging. 1
Tacenda Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 29 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Tacenda, can you explain in what way it is anti-Christian? I see some issues with definitions, but in what way is it Anti-Christian? Because Christians don't believe it was a physical relationship that got Mary pregnant.
Storm Rider Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Because Christians don't believe it was a physical relationship that got Mary pregnant. That is not "anti"-Christian - that is heresy. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 12 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Because Christians don't believe it was a physical relationship that got Mary pregnant. That is not anti-Christian in any way. "Traditional" Christians don't have the monopoly on what beliefs are Christian. This Christian believes it was a physical relationship.
Calm Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 2 hours ago, USU78 said: Plural marriages are shameful? Why? If you are asking that of me, I did not say that or think it.
JLHPROF Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 30 minutes ago, rpn said: Why wouldn't Mary be sealed to Joseph in marriage, that is done on earth and it is a pretty safe bet that no one is standing in for God by proxy in temple ordinances. Following the same logical line of speculation: She would have been sealed to Joseph for time, as Mercy Fielding was to Hyrum. Mary was only engaged to Joseph when she became pregnant with the only begotten son of God. Following the line of thought that would require marriage for Christ to be begotten as a legitimate rather than illegitimate son, then God was the first husband, not Joseph.
USU78 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, Calm said: If you are asking that of me, I did not say that or think it. It is implicit in the entire thread.
Jeanne Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Following the same logical line of speculation: She would have been sealed to Joseph for time, as Mercy Fielding was to Hyrum. Mary was only engaged to Joseph when she became pregnant with the only begotten son of God. Following the line of thought that would require marriage for Christ to be begotten as a legitimate rather than illegitimate son, then God was the first husband, not Joseph. Why does this sound creepy????
JLHPROF Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 Just now, Jeanne said: Why does this sound creepy???? False tradition deeply ingrained. Makes anything else feel uncomfortable.
MiserereNobis Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That is not anti-Christian in any way. "Traditional" Christians don't have the monopoly on what beliefs are Christian. This Christian believes it was a physical relationship. Do you consider all the various sects that came from Joseph Smith Mormon? Or does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get to determine who is or is not Mormon? Is it acceptable for a member of the FLDS church to say they are Mormon? Or some of those more obscure sects? This is not a "gotcha" thing. I'm asking to see what LDS believe about the sects that claim Joseph Smith as founder.
JLHPROF Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Do you consider all the various sects that came from Joseph Smith Mormon? Or does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get to determine who is or is not Mormon? Is it acceptable for a member of the FLDS church to say they are Mormon? Or some of those more obscure sects? This is not a "gotcha" thing. I'm asking to see what LDS believe about the sects that claim Joseph Smith as founder. I have heard members espouse the opinion that only Church members are Mormon. I disagree. I personally believe anyone who accepts the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture and Joseph Smith as prophet of the restoration are Mormon. Just as I believe that all who accept Christ as Lord, accept his atoning sacrifice, and try to follow his teachings are Christian.
juliann Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: There is no official teaching to CFR as you are well aware. But it was taught by early Church leaders as a reference. "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully." (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158 "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:268) Really JLH? As you are well aware, The Seer was repudiated by the First Presidency. Quote "The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." Deseret News, Aug. 23, 1865, 373
MiserereNobis Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 10 minutes ago, juliann said: Really JLH? As you are well aware, The Seer was repudiated by the First Presidency. Sounds like you guys need the equivalent of the nihil obstat, imprimi potest, and imprimatur 1
theplains Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 11 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: So God himself was probably sealed to Mary when she was very young. I am not saying child marriage is okay or godly, child marriage is not okay, but I wonder why our Christian friends have a double standard? It seems you believe Heavenly Father (with a physical body of flesh and bones) left his place of habitation and had some form of physical relationship with Mary? Jim
JLHPROF Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, juliann said: Really JLH? As you are well aware, The Seer was repudiated by the First Presidency Of course. But as you can see this line of doctrinal thought was common in the Church of this period. Pratt, Young, Kimball, Cannon, Joseph F., Jedediah Grant, and othe early leaders. They all taught a variety of doctrines about Adam, Christ, Mary, and cosmology that would have circulated through the much smaller membership. Brigham and Orson both taught that God and Mary were married. Therefore we can conclude that it was NOT one of the doctrines in The Seer that caused Brigham to repudiate it.
Recommended Posts