Raise Up Seed Unto Me

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that remark is made from a standpoint of ignorance. 

Care to expound?  I am too ignorant to know what you are talking about, apparently. 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think he had more than ample opportunity to fulfill the purpose of the law in the nearly 10 years that he practiced it.  It seems clear that the purpose of multiplying was fully revealed to him in section 132, after all.  

You make it sound like it was evenly spread out over those ten years (Fanny Alger to Nauvoo), when, in fact, 99% of it was in Nauvoo when he was constantly in hiding and evading vigilantes from Missouri and Illinois. 

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

The deceit, to me, is truly sad.  I feel so bad for Emma, and I can't understand how this is not in violation of section 132 which says:

It seems that the first wife must consent for it to be justified.  Clearly, Emma did not consent to this and it was all done behind her back, for the safety of the Whitney's - and Joseph.  

Emma vaccilated between permission and revoking of permission after the sealings took place. **If** God really commanded him to undertake those sealings, then he was really in a tough spot with Emma's yo-yoing on the matter (and her fury when she was against it). To fulfill the commandment, it had to be without her approval or knowledge. 

I agree, it wasn't ideal, but the circumstances were very unideal. 

[Olmec Donald]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

While we are on the subject of 132, I have a question about these passages:

It seems that the Lord is leaving open the possibility for sanctioned polyandry via "the holy anointing" in the "new and everlasting covenant".  Am I misreading that?  If so, why then is not a widow allowed to be sealed to a new husband?  

You noticed that verse too, did ya??

Not that I'm exactly "in the loop" these days, but I think that currently a widow is allowed to be sealed to her deceased husband(s) as well as her living husband.  But not to two living husbands (one presumably being an "ex") at the same time. 

And my understanding is that for a while now deceased women have been sealed to all the deceased men with whom they lived as husband and wife during their lifetimes. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

You make it sound like it was evenly spread out over those ten years (Fanny Alger to Nauvoo), when, in fact, 99% of it was in Nauvoo when he was constantly in hiding and evading vigilantes from Missouri and Illinois. 

Yet somehow he made time and arrangements to marry 40 wives in that time period of "constant hiding".  In reading his history in rough stone rolling, I get a different idea about his last 10 years.  He didn't seems to be in constant hiding to me for the whole time period.  He was building and governing a city, entertaining guests, running a church in mostly full view of local citizens.  The amount of time that he was in full hiding or prison, amounts to months.  There was more than ample opportunity to consummate those marriages and fulfill the purpose of the law.  

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

Emma vaccilated between permission and revoking of permission after the sealings took place. **If** God really commanded him to undertake those sealings, then he was really in a tough spot with Emma's yo-yoing on the matter (and her fury when she was against it). To fulfill the commandment, it had to be without her approval or knowledge. 

I agree, it wasn't ideal, but the circumstances were very unideal. 

We are taught that God will not give commandment contrary to the revelations in the scriptures.  I can't explain it.  It seems to be more than not ideal, but in violation of the revelation and law as outlined in section 132.

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

You noticed that verse too, did ya??

Not that I'm exactly "in the loop" these days, but I think that currently a widow is allowed to be sealed to her deceased husband(s) as well as her living husband.  But not to two living husbands (one presumably being an "ex") at the same time. 

And my understanding is that for a while now deceased women have been sealed to all the deceased men with whom they lived as husband and wife during their lifetimes. 

Yes, you are right.  I misspoke.  I think I was thinking more in the lines of - why can't a divorced women be sealed to two men, but a divorced man can, given this passage?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying that the Lord couldn’t have found 12 righteous men somewhere? I mean I am familiar with the Bible and Jacob’s sons. It’s not like they were the epitome of righteousness. And to get to 12, we are talking Abraham’s grandchildren and great grandchildren. My parents are monogamous and they have 21 grandchildren. So not really seeing why polygamy is necessary here. At all. 

If they were all to come from Israel then no, he couldn't just use 12 men to create the Tribes of Israel.  They needed to all have Israel as a father, but different mothers.

And I'm not really commenting on righteousness or unrighteousness (in the verse in question, righteousness of the children does not seem to be an issue the Lord uses polygamy to address).  

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Care to expound?  I am too ignorant to know what you are talking about, apparently. 

I’ll wait for you to “expound” on your a priori assertions. If I think it worth my time, I might reply then. 

[Olmec Donald]

 

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

The deceit, to me, is truly sad.  I feel so bad for Emma, and I can't understand how this is not in violation of section 132 which says:

"And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified."

It seems that the first wife must consent for it to be justified.  Clearly, Emma did not consent to this and it was all done behind her back, for the safety of the Whitney's - and Joseph.  

One hopes that few men today rationalize following Joseph's apparent example here.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Olmec Donald]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think I was thinking more in the lines of - why can't a divorced women be sealed to two men, but a divorced man can, given this passage?

If a man can be sealed to two living women at the same time, that's news to me. 

My understanding is that both men and women can be sealed to their deceased spouses as well as one living spouse.

I find the final verse of Section 132 intriguing:

"And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter..."

To the best of my knowledge there is no record of a subsequent revelation on the subject, but then I'm not an historian.  And early church history hasn't been my focus for many years, but it sure was an exciting roller-coaster ride while it was. 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

If a man can be sealed to two living women at the same time, that's news to me. 

My understanding is that both men and women can be sealed to their deceased spouses as well as one living spouse.

I find the final verse of Section 132 intriguing:

"And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter..."

To the best of my knowledge there is no record of a subsequent revelation on the subject, but then I'm not an historian.

 

I am pretty sure my brother is still sealed to his first wife, while being sealed also to his second.  For a women to be sealed to someone else, they would have to have a cancellation of sealing. 

After doing a little reading, I think it is also true that if a woman is sealed to a husband then widowed, she can't be sealed again in this life.  A man can.  

[Olmec Donald]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am pretty sure my brother is still sealed to his first wife, while being sealed also to his second.  For a women to be sealed to someone else, they would have to have a cancellation of sealing. 

After doing a little reading, I think it is also true that if a woman is sealed to a husband then widowed, she can't be sealed again in this life.  A man can.  

Thanks for correcting me.  I've been out of the loop for a while now. 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ll wait for you to “expound” on your a priori assertions. If I think it worth my time, I might reply then. 

Here is what I said:

1 hour ago, pogi said:

This doesn't explain why he didn't raise any seed during the nearly 10 years he practiced polygamy.  If that was indeed the purpose of the practice I don't think it can be said that he "set the example" of how to live it. 

What "a priori assertions" are you talking about? 

What have I said in "ignorance"?  I am simply asking you to explain why he couldn't fulfil the purpose of the law in having children as explained in section 132 and the BoM.  You seem to be deflecting and avoiding the question.  

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good for him. I hope you get my point that it’s a bad comparison to place Jesse James alongside faithful Latter-day Saints in terms of the propensity to influence future generations. 

I agree with your point. Never said I did not. I was trying for a bit of levity on the subject. Oh well. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Yet somehow he made time and arrangements to marry 40 wives in that time period of "constant hiding".  In reading his history in rough stone rolling, I get a different idea about his last 10 years.  He didn't seems to be in constant hiding to me for the whole time period.  He was building and governing a city, entertaining guests, running a church in mostly full view of local citizens.  The amount of time that he was in full hiding or prison, amounts to months.  There was more than ample opportunity to consummate those marriages and fulfill the purpose of the law.  

That's kind of my point. When he wasn't hiding, he was "building and governing a city, entertaining guests, running a church in mostly full view of local citizens," as you say. None of any of these activities (in addition to the hiding out) are conducive to "more than ample opportunity to consummate those marriages." It only takes a few minutes to perform a sealing; "consummating marriages" (hopefully) takes longer than that. 

As I've said, I have no problem with him having sex with any of his wives, but I think the reason there are no extra-Emma progeny is because he was largely unable to spend much time with his wives at all --- not because he was willfully flouting the law the angel with the drawn sword commanded him (via coitus interruptus or other means). His own family didn't see him much, I'm trying to picture how many opportunities for sex a man who was often in hiding, and when out in the open "building and governing a city, entertaining guests, running a church in mostly full view of local citizens" is going to have. 

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

We do know that most of the women he was sealed too were for eternity only

CFR

"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. 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."  (Gospel Topics)

At least we know some were. The word "others" might be a larger number.

Edited November 16, 2021 by JAHS

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The deceit, to me, is truly sad.  I feel so bad for Emma, and I can't understand how this is not in violation of section 132 which says:

I have heard the rationale that Joseph said that because he was in hiding at the time and antimormons were trying to find him by following Emma around. 
 

I am not sold on the idea, but it might be possible. Would like to see the evidence that Joseph was definitely in hiding at the time of the letter. 
 

There are enough other situations where it is very likely Joseph lied to her (the replay of his sealings to young women in his home) that at this point that is the more likely scenario in my mind. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

One of the things that makes me think Joseph had actually received a revelation and not made it up is he could have left out the verses that he appeared to have violated and he could have included stronger language that excused his more questionable behaviour. I realize some think he did that already, but why include any conditions that would limit his choice or make it appear he was in violation. Also could have included language that dispenses with any Old Testsment restrictions easily enough. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

At least we know some were. The word "others" might be a larger number.

So you would agree that you misspoke when you said we “know” that “most” were eternity only. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

when out in the open "building and governing a city, entertaining guests, running a church in mostly full view of local citizens" is going to have

More likely, one of greatest restrictions would have been not wanting to upset Emma as how much business is conducted in the middle of the night, so he would need to have a valid reason to be a distance from home overnight to avoid awkward situations of Emma showing up in the middle of the night to have at him (though maybe she was too dignified to resort to such tactics).  With the kids needing care, she wouldn’t have been able to travel as much as he though, even if there were a nanny to help her. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

It could be that the "long game" with lineages is influenced by polygamy, even when it doesn't look that way in the short term. 

The question is why such lineage would actually matter. I am not saying it doesn’t, just saying I think we are clueless about it. If it is about a bloodline somehow being more open to the truth, then why did the original deconverting ancestor ever leave the faith?

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you would agree that you misspoke when you said we “know” that “most” were eternity only. 

The article also says:

"Following his marriage to Louisa Beaman and before he married other single women, Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone."
 

Several sounds like most to me, but I guess it would be more accurate to say we don't know for sure how many were for eternity only. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

The article also says:

"Following his marriage to Louisa Beaman and before he married other single women, Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone."
 

Several sounds like most to me, but I guess it would be more accurate to say we don't know for sure how many were for eternity only. 

That is speaking to his polyandrous sealings “before he married other single women”. So even if we assume most of those (again we most certainly don’t *know) it says nothing about the majority of Smiths sealings since most of those were to single sisters. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I am pretty sure my brother is still sealed to his first wife, while being sealed also to his second.  For a women to be sealed to someone else, they would have to have a cancellation of sealing. 

After doing a little reading, I think it is also true that if a woman is sealed to a husband then widowed, she can't be sealed again in this life.  A man can.  

In the past men didn’t even need cancellations to be sealed to a second wife if divorced, but of course no sexual relations would be allowed with the First as he was only legally married to one of them.  

Not sure about needing it now if widowed.
 

Shorty after my sister was divorced and her husband remarried, First Presidency permission was required for men to be sealed to another wife. My sister was furious about her husband’s  second Temple marriage because the reason for the divorce was physical and emotional abuse and no one bothered to contact her to see if he was truly temple worthy or fulfilling his responsibilities with child support (he wasn’t).  Thankfully more care is now taken with temple clearances for men.

Typically living women are allowed to be sealed only once, so their first sealing is canceled with FP permission. My sister was not allowed to get her sealing cancelled as she was not intending to be remarried at the time and was only thinking of it as an option. She later learned her potential fiancé who was also in the ward asked the bishop not to process her request as he wasnt ready for marriage. His reluctance was understandable from my viewpoint, but the situation with the bishop secretly agreeing with him and denying her a cancellation given the abusive first marriage and later abuse of her children under his care, I find very wrong. I would hope it is easier to get cancellations today under such circumstances where women need to cut any emotional links and prevent further abuse, such as my exbrother in law gloating over her as they left the divorce proceedings that she belonged to him and would be his wife in the eternities.  I understand the desire to keep the woman’s covenant in place, but think it better at times to cancel if it keeps her under stress and offers a chance for emotional abuse. 
 

Also, exceptions have been made for widows to be sealed to both a living and a dead husband with first presidency approval. Nothing in writing yet, it is word of mouth only apparently.  I think there is a member of the board where it happened with his grandmother (webbles perhaps?), so the exception has been around perhaps from the beginning.  I have heard of several more recent occasions as it seems to be occurring more now than before. 

I remember at least one friend applying and getting clearance for a woman when he was a bishop (I think at least one other friend had a relative have a second sealing, but no name occurs to me) and have heard of other occasions thirdhand.

But still qualifies as rare. And if your bishop isn’t willing to make an appeal as I have heard some aren’t because they don’t believe it is possible, not hearing of other avenues for the typical member.

Usually one waits till all involved are dead and then it is SOP to seal a woman to all her husbands. And the explanation that there would be a choice of only one husband for the eternities has been removed from the handbook, which seems to suggest requiring her to choose is now seen as an assumption and not a revelation. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Calm

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, exceptions have been made for widows to be sealed to both a living and a dead husband with first presidency approval. Nothing in writing yet, it is word of mouth apparently.  I think there is a member of the board where it happened with his grandmother (webbles perhaps?), have heard of more recent occasions as it seems to be occurring more now than before. 

I remember at least one friend applying and getting clearance for a woman when he was a bishop and have heard of other occasions second and thirdhand.

But still qualifies as rare. And if your bishop isn’t willing to make an appeal, not hearing of other avenues for the typical member.

Usually one has to wait till all involved are dead and then it is SOP to seal a woman to all her husband. And the explanation that there would be a choice of only one husband in the eternities has been removed from the handbook, which seems to suggest requiring her to choose is now seen as an assumption and not a revelation. 

Perhaps these exceptions might happen more often since they are no longer performing marriages in the temple "for time only".  (General Handbook 27.3.3)

Edited November 16, 2021 by JAHS

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

His own family didn't see him much,

Enough that he had four more children with Emma during those years.