Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

D&C 101:4. 1835 - 1876 forbade polygamy


Guest joepalmeto

Recommended Posts

JLH,

I have been following this thread somewhat and have stayed out largely because I didn't want to take the time to respond. Well, I have changed my mind.

You seem to be deflecting everything that is brought up. Your research seems to be rather superficial, and you don't seeem to be interested in acknowledging many of the valid points that have been brought up. I want to make this post as short as possible by trying to give brief, factual statements in a chronilogical order. If you disagree with my facts, you are free to refute them.

September 27, 1834: A committee is apointed by a general assembly of the church to review and prepare the revelations for publication. This committee consists of Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G. Williams.

February 17, 1835: Committee completes their work and write a preface to be orinted in the front of the publication. It is here that an explaination of the book is given. The Article on Marriage did not exist yet, at this time so the statement by the committee about the second part of the book being taken from revelations does not apply. You claimed that this preface spoke of, by inclusion, the Article on Marriage, which is simply not true. The Article on Marriage was not introduced until seven months after this preface was written. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

August 17, 1835: General assembly convened to vote on the acceptance of the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph Smith is absent. Sidney Rigdon conducts. Oliver Cowdery introduces the book on behalf of the committee. Rigdon then explains the voting procedure. Presidents of each quorum and auxilliary ion the church bear testimony of its truth and each group individually casts a unanamous vote. Then the combined groups and the general assembly cast a unanamous vote. Then W.W. Phelps reads the Article on Marriage to the general assembly, since this was not previously included in the compilation of revelations prepared by the committeee. A seperate vote was held for the Article on Marriage.

After the Doctrine and Covenants was published, each section was preceeded by a brief statement such as: Revelation received (specified date). The Article on Marriage comes at the end and is not preceeded by the statement of "revelation" It is quite obvious that it was included as a statement of belief but was not considered a revelation. Many since then have attributed the Article on Marriage to Oliver Cowdery.

Now I have few thoughts about your statements concerning the Times and Seasons

February 15, 1842: Joseph Smith is listed for the first time as editor of the Times and Seasons.

John Taylor assists Joseph and becomes the Managing Editor. Most of the editing is likely done by John Taylor, under the direction of Joseph Smith.

October 1, 1842: In order to repudiate the actions and false accusations of John C. Bennett, several church leaders sign a letter, refuting the claims of John C. Bennett. This letter is printed in the Times and Seasons. Joseph Smith's name is not included among the names attached. You claimed these were Joseph's own words, which is simply not true, yet you refuse to correct yourself and acknowledge this error. Joseph Smith's name is printed at the end of the issue as editor, just as is the case in all previous issues. There is no signature of Joseph Smith. Two issues later, John Taylor takes over as official editor as Joseph does not have time to devote to the duty. It is very likely that John Taylor was functioning on behalf of Joseph long before this.

Maybe I'll add more later. Why don't you address these issues first?

T-Shirt

Link to comment

T-shirt....

I appreciate that you've done some work in assembling those dates...but (as a dummy, Duh) I've just got to ask..what's your point? that the article on marriage was 'revelation', was 'accepted as revelation' or what?

(Sorry if I didn't pick up on that from earlier)

I think many of these things are a waste of time...

Are ALL of us in compliance to/with the Savior's First Commandment?

Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all your Heart,Soul, and Mind...

Then, move onto the next/second...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself...

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets...l

I guess Im too naive....

Link to comment
Since Bigamy was back then (and still is today) against the law in the State of Illinois those women that Joseph Smith married were not really his plural wives.
You seem to have a valid point about the Illinois law. Perhaps someone with more information about the law at that time and the way it was understood by the Church at that time could shed some more light on this issue.
Why can
Link to comment
Since Bigamy was back then (and still is today) against the law in the State of Illinois those women that Joseph Smith married were not really his plural wives.
You seem to have a valid point about the Illinois law. Perhaps someone with more information about the law at that time and the way it was understood by the Church at that time could shed some more light on this issue.
Why can
Link to comment
Joseph taught that we should obey, honor and sustain the law. If polygamy was illegal, why then was it practiced?
It appears that it was taught and practiced because it was believed to be the command of God to do so.
Wouldn't it be a contradiction?
Yes, it would be a contradiction to teach to obey the law of the land while at the same time teaching something that was illegal.

However, it wouldn't be without precedent. That is, it appears that God is willing to make exceptions to the rule. For example, the God of scripture is recorded as having commanded His people not to kill while He Himself is recorded as wiping out nearly the entire planet (the Flood). Also, the God of scripture is recorded as having commanded his people to destroy other people.

Also, remember that the following letter (likely to Nancy Rigdon regarding plural marriage) is attributed to Joseph Smith (emphasis added):

Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know, unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,
Link to comment
Guest joepalmeto
Joseph taught that we should obey, honor and sustain the law. If polygamy was illegal, why then was it practiced?
It appears that it was taught and practiced because it was believed to be the command of God to do so.
Wouldn't it be a contradiction?
Yes, it would be a contradiction to teach to obey the law of the land while at the same time teaching something that was illegal.

However, it wouldn't be without precedent. That is, it appears that God is willing to make exceptions to the rule. For example, the God of scripture is recorded as having commanded His people not to kill while He Himself is recorded as wiping out nearly the entire planet (the Flood). Also, the God of scripture is recorded as having commanded his people to destroy other people.

Yeah, our Heavenly Father sure seems like mean father, killing not just the supposed bad adults, but all of the innocent children too... And we are supposed to be desirous to become like him? To be able to KILL our children because they did not understand the message in your riddles...

Also, remember that the following letter (likely to Nancy Rigdon regarding plural marriage) is attributed to Joseph Smith (emphasis added):
Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know, unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,
Link to comment
Yeah, our Heavenly Father sure seems like mean father,  killing not just the supposed bad adults, but all of the innocent children too... And we are supposed to be desirous to become like him? To be able to KILL our children because they did not understand the message in your riddles...
It can seem that way at times. The concept that this life is a test and that physical death is not the end of life (nor that birth is the beginning) helps me understand these issues better.
Link to comment
Sorry, we will need to dismiss that quote. Personal letters to members definitely fall into the category of PERSONAL OPINION.
Well, I didn't intend to present it as binding doctrine on all the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this day and age, only as insight as to the question of why plural marriage would have been implemented even if it seemed to be contradictive to earlier commandments and the law of the land.
Link to comment

JLH writes:

Don't want to get too far ahead of unanswered questions. I noticed you skipped this part of the conversation.
Because it has little interest for me until we get past the factual issues I have with your claims.

A) You have been challenged on the notion of whether or not what he did was illegal.

B) You switch contexts for the word "binding" (which you then suggest that I need to redefine the term).

C) What the purpose was for Smith practicing it seem largely irrelevant to your claims that he endorsed the Article on Marriage. (Although perhaps this was his Abrahamic test).

But, like I said, let's get back to the erroneous claims you made with which you started this discssuion. Emotionally loading the discussion isn't going to help you make your point.

Ben

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...