ttribe Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 5 hours ago, Alan said: So she lied on oath. She would hardly be the first. What's your point?
Alan Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 8 hours ago, ttribe said: She would hardly be the first. What's your point? Which one was the lie? She is regularly trotted out as proof of Joseph's polygamy because she said she was his wife. However, she also said that she wasn't. And these are the characters we're supppsed to believe and base our judgment upon. Whereas Joseph was completely consistent in all contemporary accounts in denying he had any involvement whatsoever in practicing polygamy. So do we believe Eliza, who we know is prepared to publicly lie and has done so, or Joseph? For me, the choice is clear.
LittleNipper Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 What if Brigham Young didn't practice polygamy? He learned it at the knee of someone --- and it wasn't Jesus !
ttribe Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 7 hours ago, Alan said: Which one was the lie? She is regularly trotted out as proof of Joseph's polygamy because she said she was his wife. However, she also said that she wasn't. And these are the characters we're supppsed to believe and base our judgment upon. Whereas Joseph was completely consistent in all contemporary accounts in denying he had any involvement whatsoever in practicing polygamy. So do we believe Eliza, who we know is prepared to publicly lie and has done so, or Joseph? For me, the choice is clear. So, all the women who claimed marriages to Joseph Smith lied? All the subsequent prophets and apostles lied about him instituting and practicing polygamy? The Church's current acknowledgments of his practice are also lies? How many witnesses do you need before you believe you are wrong?
nuclearfuels Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 On 4/17/2018 at 11:40 AM, rongo said: I think the biggest implication is the effect that it had on the Church (net effect, generations later, like ripples radiating outward in a pool from a rock dropped in). This is the primary stated reason for it in Journal of Discourses: to raise righteous seed, and to consolidate fatherhood and patriarchy into chosen hands (not volume or number of seed, as people sometimes assume). Even today, with all of our generations of converts, if you ask people in a class to raise their hand if they have polygamy in their heritage, an overwhelming majority raise their hands. Even today. Even first generation converts often find that they had polygamist Mormons several generations back. For all of the complaints about nepotism and inbreeding among the upper leadership of the Church, that is a tangible legacy of polygamy (almost all of the general authorities are related in many ways). I think the greatest benefit cannot be quantified: spiritual power and blessings through generations. I think to a large extent, we ride on those coattails, even today. In a Seminary teacher training, more than 75% of the class raised their hands when asked if their ancestors practiced polygamy. Mine did not, that I know of, but I'd be proud to learn they did. Just me but I don't think Moses and Abraham were spiritually amiss in their marital practices. Curious as to when this practice might be legalized and reinstituted as an optional practice? Seems like it might easily separate the LDS from the rest of the world, like when the early Saints migrated West. 1
ttribe Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 20 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: In a Seminary teacher training, more than 75% of the class raised their hands when asked if their ancestors practiced polygamy. Mine did not, that I know of, but I'd be proud to learn they did. Just me but I don't think Moses and Abraham were spiritually amiss in their marital practices. Curious as to when this practice might be legalized and reinstituted as an optional practice? Seems like it might easily separate the LDS from the rest of the world, like when the early Saints migrated West. Seriously? I can't think of a worse idea.
Jeanne Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Seriously? I can't think of a worse idea. Me too...a bad idea..but I have to wonder how many Saints would jump to this and say..."how far"?
Atheist Mormon Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 Quote What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage? What if Moonlanding was fake? 1
Marginal Gains Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 On 4/28/2018 at 12:11 AM, JLHPROF said: Multiple marriages are a different issue than the nature of marriage. Even in polygamy each husband and wife have an individual marriage and sealing ceremony. And in that ceremony someone holding sealing authority pronounces them husband and wife by priesthood (God's authority). That's the true nature of marriage. So you agree that plurality of wives and husbands is within the “true nature of marriage”?
rodheadlee Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 On 4/30/2018 at 4:51 AM, LittleNipper said: What if Brigham Young didn't practice polygamy? He learned it at the knee of someone --- and it wasn't Jesus ! CFR
LittleNipper Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) Matthew 12:31 ► And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. The Holy Spirit told the Pharisees that Jesus was the Messiah the ONLY son of GOD---- they chose to not believe it. The person who rejects Jesus can not enter into heaven... Edited May 3, 2018 by LittleNipper
Alan Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 On 4/30/2018 at 4:10 PM, ttribe said: So, all the women who claimed marriages to Joseph Smith lied? All the subsequent prophets and apostles lied about him instituting and practicing polygamy? The Church's current acknowledgments of his practice are also lies? How many witnesses do you need before you believe you are wrong? I have already covered this. Dynastical sealings became "marriages" in Utah newspeak hindsight.
ALarson Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Alan said: I have already covered this. Dynastical sealings became "marriages" in Utah newspeak hindsight. You seem to keep dodging the question regarding the children born to plural wives in Nauvoo. If they were not marriages to be consummated, then Joseph should have disciplined these other church leaders and men he'd called to live the same principle he was restoring and living, but weren't living it properly. How do explain those? Edited May 3, 2018 by ALarson 1
MormonMason Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 1 hour ago, LittleNipper said: Matthew 12:31 ► And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. The Holy Spirit told the Pharisees that Jesus was the Messiah the ONLY son of GOD---- they chose to not believe it. The person who rejects Jesus can not enter into heaven... CFR that "the Holy Spirit told the Pharisees that Jesus was ... the ONLY Son of God". The Bible speaks of sons of God rejoicing in heaven at the creation of Earth. Job 38:4-7, for example. The oldest readings of Deut. 32 also spoke of sons of God before scribes rewrote them. Please note that "only begotten" cannot answer the CFR because of Heb. 11:17.
Alan Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 33 minutes ago, ALarson said: You seem to keep dodging the question regarding the children born to plural wives in Nauvoo. If they were not marriages to be consummated, then Joseph should have disciplined these other church leaders and men he'd called to live the same principle he was restoring and living, but weren't living it properly. How do explain those? I'm not dodging the question at all. I said previously that I would be very interested to see DNA evidence identifying the paternity of the children born in Nauvoo. We have it for the alleged children of Joseph Smith (which, of course, proved he was not the father of any of them), but so far no one seems to have investigated the others. So, to claim these children were the offspring of Brigham or Clayton etc is, I would suggest, a little unsafe given the Joseph DNA evidence.
ALarson Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Alan said: I'm not dodging the question at all. I said previously that I would be very interested to see DNA evidence identifying the paternity of the children born in Nauvoo. We have it for the alleged children of Joseph Smith (which, of course, proved he was not the father of any of them), but so far no one seems to have investigated the others. So, to claim these children were the offspring of Brigham or Clayton etc is, I would suggest, a little unsafe given the Joseph DNA evidence. It's not the same. Heber C. Kimball acknowledged they were his children born to his plural wife and so did William Clayton (to his legal wife's sister). There is no doubt regarding this. There were many more children born in Nauvoo and they were known to be the children of plural marriages. You don't have a leg to stand on regarding this part of your theory. It's an area that causes it fall apart, IMO (among many other areas). The only way your theory would still work is if Joseph lived the principle differently than the other men he called to live it in Nauvoo, or he looked the other way when they consummated their plural marriages. Edited May 3, 2018 by ALarson 1
ttribe Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Alan said: I have already covered this. Dynastical sealings became "marriages" in Utah newspeak hindsight. Let's assume you're right; why did this happen, then? Also, are you okay with the practice of polygamy by Brigham Young, et al in Utah? What do you make of the Church's essay which appears to indicate that Joseph did actually engage in plural marriage? Why do you think Emma was so vehemently opposed to Joseph on the issue if these weren't real marriages going on? What do you make of Fanny Alger? Edited May 3, 2018 by ttribe
stemelbow Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 Hey everyone I haven't participated in this thread and dont' really know what's going on. I just wanted to answer the question, which is probably obvious, asked in the title. If Joseph never practiced plural marriage all of us would be in a better place in the world. The Church would be better off, and all of us associated with it, would be better off.
Alan Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 38 minutes ago, ttribe said: Let's assume you're right; why did this happen, then? Also, are you okay with the practice of polygamy by Brigham Young, et al in Utah? What do you make of the Church's essay which appears to indicate that Joseph did actually engage in plural marriage? Why do you think Emma was so vehemently opposed to Joseph on the issue if these weren't real marriages going on? What do you make of Fanny Alger? I am right. I don't know why it happened; I can speculate as well as the next guy, but I don't know. Regarding the activities of Brigham & Co, this thread is about Joseph not Brigham. But seeing as you ask, I believe that taking the sealing beyond it's dynastical purpose was unfortunate. Certainly the church's progress has suffered significantly as a result. The fact that the Lord had to intervene to stop it, despite the determination of the leadership to continue no matter what, suggests to me they were out of line. The church's essay is incorrect. There are no contemporary accounts of a rift between Joseph and Emma. Indeed Emma (the Elect Lady) repeatedly stated that there wasn't, and that Joseph never had marital relations with any other woman. Joseph did not have an affair with Fanny Alger.
LittleNipper Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 1 hour ago, MormonMason said: CFR that "the Holy Spirit told the Pharisees that Jesus was ... the ONLY Son of God". The Bible speaks of sons of God rejoicing in heaven at the creation of Earth. Job 38:4-7, for example. The oldest readings of Deut. 32 also spoke of sons of God before scribes rewrote them. Please note that "only begotten" cannot answer the CFR because of Heb. 11:17. The context are angels vs. THE MESSIAH. Jesus the Christ/Messiah is the ONLY one ever referred to as the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. Man is also referred to as sons of GOD but that is among the select or chosen only and refers to the fact that the select or Chosen were to represent GOD and be HIS ambassadors to the rest of the world. This unfortunately, is something the Israelites would mess up again and again, because they wanted to be like everyone else and not GOD's peculiar people. They wanted an earthly king and look where that got them! They worshipped a golden calf (an idol) and look where that got them!
ALarson Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Alan said: There are no contemporary accounts of a rift between Joseph and Emma. Sure there are. William Clayton's and Maria Jane Woodward's are just two that I can think of right off the top of my head. Edited May 3, 2018 by ALarson 1
LittleNipper Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 Heb. 11:17.refers to the child of the union of Abraham and Sarah --- of which there was but one child. Ismael was of the servant Hagar and was the result of finagling by Sarah and not through the trust in GOD. 1
Alan Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: Sure there are. William Clayton's and Maria Jane Woodward's are just two that I can think of right off the top of my head. This is commonly believed, but it isn't so. The clue is in the word "contemporary". Some will say that Clayton's diary is contemporary to the alleged events, but recent examination has thrown that into doubt. It appears historical revisionism, which was absolutely rife in the 19th century, may well have compromised Clayton's account. But I come back to the obvious problem here. Those who claim Joseph was involved in polygamy have to believe that he was a liar. If he was, then his account of the foundational events of the Restoration are suspect at best. For me, Joseph was a truthful man and that is my bottom line. Therefore, when he said he saw a vision of the Father and the Son, I believe him. When he said he had gold plates and translated them, I believe him. When he says he saw John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, Elijah, Moses and others, I believe him. And when he said he was not a polygamist and had only one wife, I believe him. This is my position.
ALarson Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Alan said: This is commonly believed, but it isn't so. The clue is in the word "contemporary". Yes, I know what the word contemporary means. Have you read the account written by Maria Jane Woodward? She worked in the mansion for Emma and Joseph. 3 minutes ago, Alan said: Some will say that Clayton's diary is contemporary to the alleged events, but recent examination has thrown that into doubt. CFR
Recommended Posts