What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage?

[MormonMason]

4 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

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

See D&C 132:52, 65 as to where Emma was commanded to receive all those already given to Joseph and that a man can be exempted from the law of Sarah (that of consent).

I'm not the only one who sees the meaning of the latter verse this way.  Following is the Senate testimony of President Joseph F. Smith during the Reed Smoot hearings.

Quote

Senator PETTUS. Have there ever been in the past plural marriages without the consent of the first wife?
Mr. SMITH. I do not know of any, unless it may have been Joseph Smith himself.
Senator PETTUS. Is the language that you have read construed to mean that she is bound to consent?
Mr. SMITH. The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord will destroy her, but I do not know how He will do it.
Senator BAILEY. Is it riot true that in the very next verse, if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent.
Senator BAILEY. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement?
Mr. SMITH. Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law.
Senator BEVERIDGE. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing ?
Mr. SMITH. It amounts to nothing but her consent.

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by MormonMason
Edited to add Reed Smoot hearings text.

[Alan]

7 hours ago, ttribe said:

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

It's either that or the women lied.

Are you aware that a woman sealed to Joseph, especially if she claimed to be the mother of his child, was entitled to financial support from the church in Utah? Maybe that was the motivation.

I was just trying to think the best of the women, whereas, given the 100% failure rate of the DNA research, you appear to believe they were liars.

[SJR3t2]

8 hours ago, MormonMason said:

See D&C 132:52, 65 as to where Emma was commanded to receive all those already given to Joseph and that a man can be exempted from the law of Sarah (that of consent).

I'm not the only one who sees the meaning of the latter verse this way.  Following is the Senate testimony of President Joseph F. Smith during the Reed Smoot hearings.

 

law of Sarah is not of consent

Here is another quote from that hearing, and yet people still say the BoM teaches polygamy.

“The Chairman: That is the Book of Mormon?
Joseph F. Smith: Yes, sir; that is the Book of Mormon.
The Chairman: Is the doctrine of polygamy taught in that revelation?
Mr. Smith: Taught in it?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Smith: It is emphatically forbidden in that book.
The Chairman: In that book it is emphatically forbidden?
Mr. Smith: It is.”
- Reed Smoot Case, v. 1, p. 480

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, Alan said:

It's either that or the women lied.

Are you aware that a woman sealed to Joseph, especially if she claimed to be the mother of his child, was entitled to financial support from the church in Utah? Maybe that was the motivation.

I was just trying to think the best of the women, whereas, given the 100% failure rate of the DNA research, you appear to believe they were liars.

No, I believe they were mistaken in their belief as to who fathered their children. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

law of Sarah is not of consent

Here is another quote from that hearing, and yet people still say the BoM teaches polygamy.

“The Chairman: That is the Book of Mormon?
Joseph F. Smith: Yes, sir; that is the Book of Mormon.
The Chairman: Is the doctrine of polygamy taught in that revelation?
Mr. Smith: Taught in it?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Smith: It is emphatically forbidden in that book.
The Chairman: In that book it is emphatically forbidden?
Mr. Smith: It is.”
- Reed Smoot Case, v. 1, p. 480

The Book of Mormon does teach polygamy when God requires it.  Jacob 2 is a  complex chapter that should be looked at in context of that Book of Mormon group to which it refers and as a complete chapter, not a prooftext verse.

And a recognition of those likely polygamists in the Book of Mormon like the Brother of Jated who were favored of God is also important.

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

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

Not true.  He only excommunicated those who followed Bennett and went rogue with the spiritual wifery.

Did he excommunicate Heber C. Kimball who had children with his plural wives (at least one while Joseph was alive)?

Did he excommunicate William Clayton who had a child with his plural wife while Joseph was still living?

Did he excommunicate Brigham Young who had 4 plural wives at the time of Joseph's death?

I could go on and on because there were many who practiced plural marriage and who remained active members and leaders in the church.  Joseph excommunicated none of them.

[Alan]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

No, I believe they were mistaken in their belief as to who fathered their children. 

I don't believe that for a nanosecond.

So here's question for you. Do you believe Joseph Smith was a liar?

Also, do you believe Eliza Snow was a liar? (Actually, that's not a fair question because it is easily proved that she was).

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, Alan said:

Do you believe Joseph Smith was a liar?

Do you believe Abraham was a liar?

Quote

 

22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon;

23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise:

24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.

25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee.

 

- Abraham 2:22-25 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/2.11

 

 

[MormonMason]

10 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

law of Sarah is not of consent

Joseph F. Smith certainly saw it the same way I did.  I'll side myself with him unless I have a good reason not to do it.  Read the text more carefully as to what it is that the man is exempt from. 

Quote

Here is another quote from that hearing, and yet people still say the BoM teaches polygamy.

“The Chairman: That is the Book of Mormon?
Joseph F. Smith: Yes, sir; that is the Book of Mormon.
The Chairman: Is the doctrine of polygamy taught in that revelation?
Mr. Smith: Taught in it?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Smith: It is emphatically forbidden in that book.
The Chairman: In that book it is emphatically forbidden?
Mr. Smith: It is.”
- Reed Smoot Case, v. 1, p. 480

By the way, the Book of Mormon forbids plural marriage to its peoples by direct command but allows for it to be practiced at other times.  People love to quote the above from the Reed Smoot proceedings but they tend to do it out of context, just like you did.  Following is the context that you omitted.

Quote

            The CHAIRMAN. Do you recognize these words? I read from page 132, verse 24:

            “24. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

            Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

            The CHAIRMAN. (Reading:)

            “25. Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

            “26. Wherefore, I the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

            “27. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord, for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and concubines he shall have none.”

            Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

            The CHAIRMAN. You recognize that?

            Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

            The CHAIRMAN. You recognize it as the teaching of your church?

            Mr. SMITH. Yes sir. Will the chairman please read a little further?

            The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I will be very glad to read the next verse:

            “28. For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women.”

            Mr. SMITH. Yes, Sir.

            The CHAIRMAN. (Reading:)

            “And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.”

            Mr. SMITH. A little further, please. There is still more in connection with that.

            The CHAIRMAN. (Reading:)

            “29. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts”—

            Mr. SMITH. That is right.

            The CHAIRMAN. (Reading:)

            “Or cursed be the land for their sakes.”

            Mr. SMITH. Still further, if you please.

            The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to read the whole book.

            Mr. SMITH. You have to read the context to find out what it means.

            The CHAIRMAN. I will allow you to read it in explanation.

            Mr. SMITH. If you will be kind enough to pass me the book I will do so.

            The CHAIRMAN. Yes; in a moment. Was that doctrine overruled or annulled by the revelation of polygamy?

            Mr. SMITH. No, Sir.

            The CHAIRMAN. It was not?

            Mr. SMITH. No, sir. If you will be kind enough to let me have the book, I will show you.

            The CHAIRMAN. I want to know when that doctrine of the Mormon bible was repudiated.

            Mr. SMITH. It is not the Mormon bible. It is the Book of Mormon.

            The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Book of Mormon. You know what I mean. When was that repudiated or modified in any way, and by whom?

            Mr. SMITH. If you will permit me, I will read a little further.

            The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

            Mr. SMITH. It is this:

            “29. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts. or cursed be the land for their sakes.

            “30. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”

            All you need to do, sir, is to read the whole thing, and it explains itself. - The revelation to Joseph Smith does not repeal this. It is, simply a commandment of the Lord to him, and received by him and accepted by him to enter into plural marriage by His law and by His commandment and not by their own volition.

            The CHAIRMAN. Then you construe that which you have read as the commandment of the Lord to practice polygamy when—

            Mr. SMITH. He commands it.

            The CHAIRMAN. When He commands it.

            Mr. SMITH. That is exactly what the words say.

([Reed Smoot] Proceedings, 1906, 1:480-481)

Another aside is that people tend to call it a case or trial but it was neither.  It was a series of hearings.  It wasn't a legal trial and it wasn't legal case.  It was a series of hearings to determine whether a Mormon could hold a Senate seat.  While my quotation contains the same text in the quote by Joseph F. Smith above, I'll quote it again directly from the Book of Mormon.

Quote

Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
(Jacob 2:29–30)

In verse 29 the commandments spoken about are the commands not to practice plural marriage or have concubines.  The 30th verse says that if the Lord will "raise up seed unto me" he will command his people to practice it, and that in the absence of such a command they are forbidden to practice "these things" referring to the discussion of plural marriage previous.  It specifically referred to the Nephites and Lamanites but makes allowance for others.  With reference to David and Solomon it was specific and both Solomon and David went too far.  Where they went too far it was an abomination.  We can rephrase and clarify this passage without changing the meaning like this rephrase:

Quote

For if I will raise up seed unto me, saith the Lord of Hosts, I will command my people [to practice plural marriage]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [the above commandments against marriage to more than one wife and taking of concubines].

Here's the thing.  God himself said through a prophet that he gave David all his other wives, though.  See 2 Sam. 12:7-8.  Did God lead David into sin and abomination? God also said that all David had to do was to ask for more and God would have given him twice as much as what he had.  That's what the Hebrew idiom means in verse 8.  He would have added such an amount as what he already had and added more to what had he asked rather than David acting apart from God to commit his abomination.

Edited April 28, 2018 by MormonMason
Spelling and diction error corrections. Added a couple thoughts on reflection.

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, Alan said:

I don't believe that for a nanosecond.

So here's question for you. Do you believe Joseph Smith was a liar?

Also, do you believe Eliza Snow was a liar? (Actually, that's not a fair question because it is easily proved that she was).

A liar about what?

[Alan]

23 hours ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe Abraham was a liar?

 

You are aware, are you not, that Abraham and his wife were technically siblings?

[Alan]

19 hours ago, ttribe said:

A liar about what?

Eliza signed an affidavit in Nauvoo testifying she knew of no polygamy practiced in the church. She later claimed she was married to Joseph Smith at the time.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Alan said:

You are aware, are you not, that Abraham and his wife were technically siblings?

Yup (half).  He was still being told to deceive and not admit that she was his wife.  Definitely a lie of omission.

Edited April 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Yup (half).  He was still being told to deceive and not admit that she was his wife.

☺️Huh...some things never change.

[Alan]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yup (half).  He was still being told to deceive and not admit that she was his wife.  Definitely a lie of omission.

So he didn't lie.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Alan said:

So he didn't lie.

So, you believe a lie of omission is not a lie?  

Many state that's what Joseph was doing as well.  He did only have ONE legal wife at the time he made the statement he did.  He just failed to mention all the plural wives he'd been sealed to by then.

[ttribe]

43 minutes ago, Alan said:

Eliza signed an affidavit in Nauvoo testifying she knew of no polygamy practiced in the church. She later claimed she was married to Joseph Smith at the time.

Yes, so? Pretty sure there were a number of lies being told to hide polygamy. 

[MormonMason]

41 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yes, so? Pretty sure there were a number of lies being told to hide polygamy. 

Sham marriages also were being set up for the public books during the period.  They did it to throw people off the scent but today some of those look like polyandrous marriages.  I read a journal account about that some years ago involving one of Joseph's plural wives.  He referred to it as a pretend marriage. Unfortunately I don't fully recall the names of either the man or the plural wife at this moment.  Joseph Kingsbury being the name of the man, maybe?

Edited April 29, 2018 by MormonMason

[Alan]

46 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yes, so? Pretty sure there were a number of lies being told to hide polygamy. 

So she lied on oath.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Alan said:

So she lied on oath.

Everyone lied.  Joseph, Eliza, Emma, Brigham, Abraham.  Peter denied he knew Christ three times.

I've just finished up studying Matthias Cowley and the period around the Reed Smoot trial and  Second Manifesto.  The sheer amount of deception and prevarication is absolutely mindboggling.

[MormonMason]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

...the Reed Smoot trial...

I know of no Reed Smoot "trial".  I know of Senate hearings by that name but no trial.

Edited April 29, 2018 by MormonMason

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

I know of no Reed Smoot "trial".  I know of Senate hearings by that name but no trial.

Pedantic much?

A quick Google shows the colloquial term "Reed Smoot Trial" is frequently used for the hearings.  Dialogue Magazine, PBS, and others.

Yes, the Senate hearings.  Where a large number of General Authorities were called to testify.  And much tap dancing occurred.

Edited April 29, 2018 by JLHPROF

[MormonMason]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Pedantic much?

Yes, the Senate hearings.  Where a large number of General Authorities were called to testify.  And much tap dancing occurred.

Pedantic? Someone needs to be.  So many people these days referring to Senate hearings as a "case" or "trial" and all.  Tap dancing? Well I guess that's one interpretation. 

Edited April 29, 2018 by MormonMason

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Pedatic? Someone needs to be.  So many people these days referring to Senate hearings as a "case" or "trial".  Tap dancing? Well I guess that's one interpretation. 

I'm open to a better description.

[MormonMason]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm open to a better description.

I'd have to read the entire proceedings again to do that properly.  That's thousands of pages of material.  I don't have time for that at this precise moment.  Did you read all the material, thousands of pages of text, from end to end? Or, did you study someone else's filtered summary interpretation of said material? I ask because people who use the words "case" and "trial" to describe the Reed Smoot hearing proceedings tend to have done the latter rather than the former.