Keeping Covenants Without Understanding

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, changed said:

whosoever would save his soul would lose it... salvation is the realization that we have no way of saving ourselves.

You're right. That's why we don't believe in that.

I have only been in the church about 40 years but every representation you make about our doctrine is about 180 degrees off in my opinion.

How how does that happen?

 

Edited May 7, 2019 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, changed said:

whosoever would save his soul would lose it... salvation is the realization that we have no way of saving ourselves.

True, salvation in Christ is the only way back out of the grave into the presence of God.  It's what our role there will be that is determined by our obedience.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

True, salvation in Christ is the only way back out of the grave into the presence of God.  It's what our role there will be that is determined by our obedience.

To clarify I thought she was saying we are saved by grace alone. That is why I said we don't believe in that. And of course for us there's a difference between salvation and exaltation, as you imply.

[6EQUJ5]

On 5/5/2019 at 11:15 AM, SouthernMo said:

Can one keep a covenant if one doesn’t understand it?

I think so, yes.  What matters to the Lord is obedience to the Gospel.  

And, after all, what human being really understands any of their covenants with God?  Tall order.

[changed]

On 5/6/2019 at 3:39 AM, RevTestament said:

I am living the everlasting covenant right now with one wife. I don't need two to receive the promised blessings. You are reading into 132 what is not there. You are reading Warren Jeffs into it. He never followed 132, and probably doesn't even know what it says. He is an adulterer and a child molester. These girls don't give consent for what he's done. It's an unconsensual crime. Even if he only did one of his "marriages" to one of these girls, it would be a crime, because the ones I have heard about didn't consent to marry. That is not a covenant. It is just a crime. It's a crime with one, and a crime with more than one. Polygamy doesn't have anything to do with that. 

So - the difference between Warren Jeffs and B.Y. is...???  I suppose you think Emma gave her consent for all of it?  Not for me - I would find another man.

 

“I was married to Joseph Smith on the 4th of March 1843... My sister Eliza was also married to Joseph a few days later. This was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith.”

- Historical Record, v. 6, p. 240

 

 

“Senator Pettus. Have there been any past plural marriages without the consent of the first wife?
Mr. [Joseph F.] 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 not 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.”

- Reed Smoot Case, v. 1, p. 201

 

“It is the duty of the first wife to regard her husband not with a selfish devotion... she must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy... we believe in the good old custom by which marriages should be arranged by the parents of the young people.”- Zina Huntington, wife of Prophet Brigham Young, New York World, November 17, 1869, as cited in The Lion of the Lord, pp. 229-230

“Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, ‘My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife; No, not a happy day for a year,' says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not he liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men together with their own folly. 
“I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, No go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. ‘What, first wife too?' Yes, I will liberate you all....
“I wish my women, and brother Kimball's and brother Grant's to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel – the whole of it.... say to your wives, ‘Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too without any murmuring and whining. You must fulfill the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to walk up to the mark without any grunting.' Now recollect that two weeks from tomorrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, ‘It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;' then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children....
“Sisters, I am not joking, I do not throw out my proposition to banter your feelings, to see whether you will leave your husbands, all or any of you. But I do know that there is no cessation to the everlasting whining of many of the women in this Territory; I am satisfied that this is the case. And if the women will turn from the commandments of God and continue to despise the order of heaven, I will pray that the curse of the Almighty may be close to their heels, and that it may be following them all day long....
“Prepare yourselves for two weeks from tomorrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I have set you free, you must bow down to it, and submit yourselves to the celestial law. You may go where you please, after two weeks from tomorrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, pp. 55-57, also printed in the Deseret News, v. 6, pp. 235-236

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by changed

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, changed said:

So - the difference between Warren Jeffs and B.Y. is...???  I suppose you think Emma gave her consent for all of it?  Not for me - I would find another man.

 

“I was married to Joseph Smith on the 4th of March 1843... My sister Eliza was also married to Joseph a few days later. This was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith.”

- Historical Record, v. 6, p. 240

I'm sure you would find another man. I'm sure some did. Then the onus is on him I believe. Some didn't like this and left the Church to form polygamous colonies. But this was not your original statement I responded to. Your original statement was: "Polygamy is hell, adultery is hell, what Emma went through and what BY's wives went through, and all of Warren Jeff's wives went through is hell." It's a blanket statement which is just not true and unfairly lumps polygamy in with adultery. A number of OT servants had polygamous marriages, but Yeshua said the Jews were not righteous like them. Yeshua did not say Abraham was guilty of adultery, because Sarah consented. The Lord said He gave David his wives. You have now shifted your argument to arguing that early Church leaders did not enter consensual relationships, which is almost impossible to prove. It depends who you believe. Emma never said she didn't consent. It gets implied. If she did not consent then the onus is on Joseph Smith, but really only they know what they did. 

How was Church polygamy different from Warren Jeffs? The Church did not make a habit of marrying 14 year olds who did not consent to being "married." How can one enter a covenant before the Lord if one party does not consent nor make that covenant? A covenant is a consensual promise. The Church did not pin down these innocent maidens on an altar to be penetrated in front of a bunch of witnesses holding her down to ensure the act is completed. I just don't see how you could put the Church in the same vein as Warren Jeffs the rapist and adulterer. According to several young men, he also molested them. The dude has made himself subject to Satan.

Quote

“Senator Pettus. Have there been any past plural marriages without the consent of the first wife?
Mr. [Joseph F.] 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 not 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.”

- Reed Smoot Case, v. 1, p. 201

That is an interpretation of Sec 132. It actually does not say what Joseph F is claiming. I believe 132 is saying Emma must accept the law. The law is that polygamy is legal before the Lord given certain circumstances. Nowhere does 132 say Emma must consent to Joseph having another wife, unless directly commanded by the Lord. In fact it says if the wife does not consent, then the man can be the sinner or adulterer. So the interpretation that if she does not consent the man is exempt from getting consent is contrary to verse 61.

 

Quote

“It is the duty of the first wife to regard her husband not with a selfish devotion... she must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy... we believe in the good old custom by which marriages should be arranged by the parents of the young people.”- Zina Huntington, wife of Prophet Brigham Young, New York World, November 17, 1869, as cited in The Lion of the Lord, pp. 229-230

“Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, ‘My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife; No, not a happy day for a year,' says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not he liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men together with their own folly. 
“I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, No go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. ‘What, first wife too?' Yes, I will liberate you all....
“I wish my women, and brother Kimball's and brother Grant's to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel – the whole of it.... say to your wives, ‘Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too without any murmuring and whining. You must fulfill the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to walk up to the mark without any grunting.' Now recollect that two weeks from tomorrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, ‘It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;' then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children....
“Sisters, I am not joking, I do not throw out my proposition to banter your feelings, to see whether you will leave your husbands, all or any of you. But I do know that there is no cessation to the everlasting whining of many of the women in this Territory; I am satisfied that this is the case. And if the women will turn from the commandments of God and continue to despise the order of heaven, I will pray that the curse of the Almighty may be close to their heels, and that it may be following them all day long....
“Prepare yourselves for two weeks from tomorrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I have set you free, you must bow down to it, and submit yourselves to the celestial law. You may go where you please, after two weeks from tomorrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, pp. 55-57, also printed in the Deseret News, v. 6, pp. 235-236

I note that Zina did not say she did not consent. Her statement largely implies she accepted the polygamy of BY, had consented to it, even if she felt she didn't love him. She apparently felt her marriage had been arranged by the Lord. I believe my marriage was arranged by the Lord, but I love my wife. I wouldn't have married her otherwise. It seems with these quotes that you disagree with the principle of polygamy in general, and the Church's belief that the Lord assented to it to promote the growth of the Church. I think it is this very belief that the Lord was saying must be assented to. He was saying I gave Moses a law of inheritance if a man have two wives, because I specifically allowed polygamy. He is also saying a man can sin by abusing this law, as did David. He is saying the principle must be accepted - not that a woman must consent to enter into a polygamous marriage in general. It is just not so. I can tell you have hard feelings about this subject, but your criticisms are off target. The Church is not the culprit for trying to live polygamy. Many families lived it with full consent. Would I be happy living it like them? Probably not. Most in the Church did not live in polygamous marriages probably for this reason. Warren Jeffs and people like him are the culprit for insisting on it despite the Lord's repeal of His consent of the practice.