What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage?

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

I don't believe he called others to live it ect, and the evidance I've already covered that multiple times.

So, do you believe the other leaders (who remained in good standing) who lived polygamy when Joseph was alive, just went rogue?  Heber C. Kimball?  Parley P. Pratt?  Brigham Young?  Hyrum Smith?

Or what do you believe happened there?

[Alan]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Clearly, they had reason to believe the children were Joseph's.

Yes they did, but it isn't what you think.

Remember when Christ was teaching about the resurrection. The Sadducees gave him a scenario concerning a married man who died without offspring. They said that his brother took the man's wife in order to "raise seed unto him". You know the story; she went through all 7 brothers. What is often missed is the fact that any offspring from any of the marriages would have been considered the children of the original or pre-eminent husband.

Now, think about the situation in Nauvoo. Women, who were married legally to their husbands for time, were also sealed to Joseph for eternity. They could perhaps surmise that their children were actually Joseph's because of the nature of the bond they had with him, even though they were biologically fathered by their husbands.

Just a thought.

[Alan]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

People have the right to believe differently.
I don't think there is "evidence" for both sides at all.  I have never seen a speck of viable evidence that indicates in any way that Joseph's sealings to these numerous women weren't marriages.

Really? Even though they couldn't possibly have been marriages according to the State of Illinois and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Whatever you want to call them, they were not marriages according to the law of the land and the law of the church. So, logically, they must have been something else. Like I said before, this isn't rocket science.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Alan said:

Yes they did, but it isn't what you think.

Remember when Christ was teaching about the resurrection. The Sadducees gave him a scenario concerning a married man who died without offspring. They said that his brother took the man's wife in order to "raise seed unto him". You know the story; she went through all 7 brothers. What is often missed is the fact that any offspring from any of the marriages would have been considered the children of the original or pre-eminent husband.

Now, think about the situation in Nauvoo. Women, who were married legally to their husbands for time, were also sealed to Joseph for eternity. They could perhaps surmise that their children were actually Joseph's because of the nature of the bond they had with him, even though they were biologically fathered by their husbands.

Just a thought.

And the ones who weren’t legally married to other men?  What reason would they have to lie under oath?

[Marginal Gains]

Quote

 

Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

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

It seems the Church is convinced that Joseph practiced plural marriage, including sexual relations.

Quote

But Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings

That sounds a lot like infidelity.

[SJR3t2]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So, do you believe the other leaders (who remained in good standing) who lived polygamy when Joseph was alive, just went rogue?  Heber C. Kimball?  Parley P. Pratt?  Brigham Young?  Hyrum Smith?

Or what do you believe happened there?

First of all if I remember correctly Heber was practicing it on his mission to London, same with Brigham. I don't remember Parly off the top of my head. And Hyrum fought against it with JS.

[SJR3t2]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

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

It seems the Church is convinced that Joseph practiced plural marriage, including sexual relations.

That sounds a lot like infidelity.

espcially considering the supposed section 132 says you need your first wife's permission. If Emma didn't know she didn't give permission.

[JulieM]

14 hours ago, Alan said:

Really? Even though they couldn't possibly have been marriages according to the State of Illinois and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Whatever you want to call them, they were not marriages according to the law of the land and the law of the church. So, logically, they must have been something else. Like I said before, this isn't rocket science.

So all the other church leaders in Nauvio who lived polygamy were living in sin or commiting adultery? 

Edited April 28, 2018 by JulieM

[SJR3t2]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So all the other church leaders in Nauvio who lived polygamy were living in sin or commuting adultery? 

JS exd those who he found out there were living it, so I'd say yea.

[SJR3t2]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So, do you believe the other leaders (who remained in good standing) who lived polygamy when Joseph was alive, just went rogue?  Heber C. Kimball?  Parley P. Pratt?  Brigham Young?  Hyrum Smith?

Or what do you believe happened there?

To be honest I don't believe much of the continually changing narrative from the LDS church anymore. Sadly mostly all I see them doing now a days is promoting faith in the leaders. If you have not heard Bushman has stated that the narrative is not correct, and the church has said that they will give an honest one this time (I don't remember the exact quote).

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

First of all if I remember correctly Heber was practicing it on his mission to London, same with Brigham. I don't remember Parly off the top of my head. And Hyrum fought against it with JS.

Parley P. Pratt was murdered by the legal husband of one of his plural wives.  So of course he lived polygamy.

His legal wife divorced him over him living polygamy and she became one of Joseph's plural wives (while Joseph was alive).  Her name was Mary Ann Frost.  Her sister Olive was also Joseph’s wife.

Hyrum originally fought polygamy as many did, but he married his wife’s sister and others.  He lived polygamy.

Edited April 27, 2018 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Alan said:

Really? Even though they couldn't possibly have been marriages according to the State of Illinois and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Whatever you want to call them, they were not marriages according to the law of the land and the law of the church. So, logically, they must have been something else. Like I said before, this isn't rocket science.

Really. Marriage is a law of God.  The land and the administrative Church are irrelevant to the validity of a marriage.
All that matters is the authority joining the man and woman as husband and wife - the keys of the priesthood to bind on earth and in heaven.

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Really. Marriage is a law of God.  The land and the administrative Church are irrelevant to the validity of a marriage.
All that matters is the authority joining the man and woman as husband and wife - the keys of the priesthood to bind on earth and in heaven.

You’re clearly wrong. For a marriage to be valid on earth, the law of the land on the matter applies, regardless of what God may or may not think about it.

[ttribe]

41 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

There are multiple reasons, first off truth, I want the truth not all these half truths and faith promoting myths that we are told. Truth is what build faith in God not lies ect. On top of that if a house is built upon a sandy foundation it will be washed away when the rains and floods come, and they will come.

What difference does it mean to you?

For me?  Nothing, at this point.  I'm just trying to figure out the devotion you have to denial.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

To be honest I don't believe much of the continually changing narrative from the LDS church anymore.

I’d recommend doing some really serious research on this topic.  All those men who lived polygamy in Nauvoo left records and journals and a couple had children with their polygamous wives.  This isn’t the church’s “continually changing narrative”.

Look at the actual documention.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

JS exd those who he found out there were living it, so I'd say yea.

No he didn't.  William Clayton and Heber C. Kimball had children by plural wives in Nauvoo and Joseph never disciplined either of them.
He is the one who received the revelatory vision of Robert Thompson telling Hyrum to marry Mercy when he was already married to her sister Mary.  Hyrum was never disciplined.

There were dozens of men living polygamy in Nauvoo during Joseph's life.  Not one of them were disciplined.
You may be confusing them with the men like Bennett, Foster, etc  who had relations with women without any sealings of marriage.  They were disciplined.
 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

You’re clearly wrong. For a marriage to be valid on earth, the law of the land on the matter applies, regardless of what God may or may not think about it.

Marriage is the joining of male and female by God.  All else is a pale imitation of the term.

[ttribe]

29 minutes ago, Alan said:

Yes they did, but it isn't what you think.

Remember when Christ was teaching about the resurrection. The Sadducees gave him a scenario concerning a married man who died without offspring. They said that his brother took the man's wife in order to "raise seed unto him". You know the story; she went through all 7 brothers. What is often missed is the fact that any offspring from any of the marriages would have been considered the children of the original or pre-eminent husband.

Now, think about the situation in Nauvoo. Women, who were married legally to their husbands for time, were also sealed to Joseph for eternity. They could perhaps surmise that their children were actually Joseph's because of the nature of the bond they had with him, even though they were biologically fathered by their husbands.

Just a thought.

Wow.  Those are some serious gymnastics.  Good luck with that. 

15 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

JS exd those who he found out there were living it, so I'd say yea.

No, he ex'd those who were living it who also threatened to out him or did things without his permission.

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Marriage is the joining of male and female by God.  All else is a pale imitation of the term.

Well that’s not strictly true now, is it....

God (according to Mormonism) also approves of the joining of male to multiple females and female to multiple males.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

Well that’s not strictly true now, is it....

God (according to Mormonism) also approves of the joining of male to multiple females and female to multiple males.

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.
 

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

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

It seems the Church is convinced that Joseph practiced plural marriage, including sexual relations.

That sounds a lot like infidelity.

More like he was afraid of Emma at times.  There is an interesting piece of evidence of that.  When he went into hiding, in 1842, Emma was part of the reason for that at one point.  After she knew where he was and would come around from time to time, Joseph warned a family related by one such plural marriage, by letter, that they "cannot be safe" if Emma was around.

Kind of adds a new dimension to his "You don't know Emma" comment (and 'rumors' around Nauvoo that she out of anger had pushed one of Joseph's plural wives down some steps and caused a miscarriage of a child produced by said union) when Hyrum suggested Joseph write his second revelation on the covenant of marriage and plural marriage, and have someone show it to Emma.  She threw a fit, gave Hyrum the worst tongue-lashing he'd ever received, and afterwards destroyed the original (luckily copies were made and kept by others beforehand).

Edited April 28, 2018 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, SJR3t2 said:

espcially considering the supposed section 132 says you need your first wife's permission. If Emma didn't know she didn't give permission.

See my above post as to why he might have been afraid to ask her at first.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

More like he was afraid of Emma at times.  There is an interesting piece of evidence of that.  When he went into hiding, in 1842, Emma was part of the reason for that at one point.  After she knew where he was and would come around from time to time, Joseph warned a family related by one such plural marriage, by letter, that they "cannot be safe" if Emma was around.

That is one interpretation of the letter.  Another possible reason was those who were looking to do harm to Joseph were following Emma around to get her to lead them to him.

[SJR3t2]

21 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

See my above post as to why he might have been afraid to ask her at first.

See D&C 132 as why you need the first wife permission first

[MormonMason]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

That is one interpretation of the letter.  Another possible reason was those who were looking to do harm to Joseph were following Emma around to get her to lead them to him.

Maybe.  But then I think he would have said something about the risk her possibly being followed.  He was pretty specific that Emma was the reason they wouldn't be safe but that if she wasn't there they could be safe.