Come Follow Me (April 1-7) - Talk about chastity, no mention of polygamy

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

A bit cheap and erroneous. Massachusetts and New Hampshire allow marriages of 14-year-olds today.

Without their parent's permission? To polygamist men?  Good luck trying to justify JS's actions.  I know Emma couldn't.

[ZealouslyStriving]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Benefit of the doubt with what though?  We were talking about the historicity of the prevalence of young marriages.  I'm not sure what giving Joseph the benefit of the doubt has to do with whether or not marrying young was a common thing back in the day.

Can you elaborate?

 

Sure.

The implication behind all this hand-ringing about Joseph being sealed to Helen Mar Kimball is that he was using his position as prophet to gratify his lust for underage girls- when, in fact, he was sealed to women of various ages.

The benefit of the doubt I advocate is that lust had nothing to do with why he was sealed to her (and others) but based on actual revelation that he received as the keyholder.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Good luck trying to justify JS's actions.  I know Emma couldn't.

She must have somehow since she stayed married to him and continued to believe that he was a prophet.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The benefit of the doubt I advocate is that lust had nothing to do with why he was sealed to her (and others) but based on actual revelation that he received as the keyholder.

I tend to give him the same benefit of the doubt.  But that has nothing to do with what was normal historically.  Those are two completely different arguments that have nothing to do with each other.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

he was using his position as prophet to gratify his lust for underage girls- when, in fact, he was sealed to women of various ages.

That is not a great argument when there could have been multiple reasons Joseph used plural marriage to manipulate people.  If a tool works well for one situation, why not try it for a similar one?

Not saying he did, but lousy apologetics does not help defend the faith.

Edited April 5, 2024 by Calm

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She must have somehow since she stayed married to him and continued to believe that he was a prophet.

I don't think she ever did find a way to justify it as she denied that Joseph every taught or practiced polygamy after his death and blamed it all on Brigham Young.   She always hated plural marriage and made sure that her children - the future presidents of their church - didn't teach or practice it.    I think she relied on a heavy dose of either denial or accepting that even prophets can make grave mistakes to make things work.  

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is not a great argument when there could have been multiple reasons Joseph used plural marriage to manipulate people.  If a tool works well for one situation, why not try it for a similar one?

That, and he might have had a lust for woman of different ages.  He wouldn't be the first.  

The vast majority were teens and 20's, but we can't rule out lust just because a couple were older. 

This is more directed @ZealouslyStriving than you. 

Edited April 5, 2024 by pogi

[Pyreaux]

36 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Without their parent's permission? To polygamist men?

More erroneous cheap shots. Why do you think Kimball didn't have her parent's permission? Kimball explained that her father was the one who took the initiative to arrange the marriage: "Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph". Polygamy being separate issue to the subject of the legality of underage marriages today.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

More erroneous cheap shots. Why do you think Kimball didn't have her parent's permission? Kimball explained that her father was the one who took the initiative to arrange the marriage: "Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph". Polygamy being separate issue to the subject of the legality of underage marriages today.

JS sure didn't have Emma's permission.  He didn't even follow is own sec 132 instructions.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

She must have somehow since she stayed married to him and continued to believe that he was a prophet.

Read what she said.  She was not happy.  She was hurt.

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

JS sure didn't have Emma's permission.  He didn't even follow is own sec 132 instructions.

Read what Doctrine and Covenants actually says. The keyholder doesn't need the permission of his wife:

"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife." 

Edited April 5, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Read what she said.  She was not happy.  She was hurt.

I've read it (it would be a true feat to get this many years into apologetics and not have read it).  But she stayed with him and continued to believe he was led by God so she must have justified it to herself somehow while she remained with him.

After his death she went from justifying to flatly denying, something that I don't fault her for since her second husband was unfaithful without marrying the women he slept with first (or was it just the one woman?) and I'm sure her PTSD around sharing her husbands against her will went deep.

[Pyreaux]

29 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

JS sure didn't have Emma's permission.  He didn't even follow is own sec 132 instructions.

That isn't what you said, are you moving the goal post? What does Emma's permission have to with the legality of marrying the someone underage, when it's still legal to this day? You seem to be randomly lashing out.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The implication behind all this hand-ringing about Joseph being sealed to Helen Mar Kimball is that he was using his position as prophet to gratify his lust for underage girls- when, in fact, he was sealed to women of various ages.

Not a good argument. Someone can easily reply to this that Joseph Smith gratified his lust for women of all ages.

Edit: I see others already replied similarly.

Edited April 5, 2024 by MiserereNobis

[sunstoned]

20 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

That isn't what you said, are you moving the goal post? What does Emma's permission have to with the legality of marrying the someone underage, when it's still legal to this day? You seem to be randomly lashing out.

I am looking at the "marriage" in a holistic way. JS who was 37 "married" a 15-year-old.  I was already married to many other women and girls.  Most of this was done is secret and behind  Emma's back.  You are the one using a common apologetic tactic of focusing on one little issue such as, whether was it legal for a 14-year-old to marry.   That is a minor point.  Very minor.   Why don't you address the lies and dishonesty that were used to hide his actions?  I thought God doesn't work in darkness.

[MiserereNobis]

54 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Read what Doctrine and Covenants actually says. The keyholder doesn't need the permission of his wife:

"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife." 

So if I'm understanding this correctly, this is directed towards Joseph Smith's wife? That if she doesn't accept his polygamy she is the transgressor and will be destroyed?

What is the law of Sarah that Joseph Smith (if I'm understanding it directly) is exempt from?

 

[sunstoned]

57 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Read what Doctrine and Covenants actually says. The keyholder doesn't need the permission of his wife:

"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife." 

This sounds like something a man would write.  

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I was already married to many other women and girls.

Sunstoned! You polygamist!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you saying here we shouldn’t accept reasoning that just because it may (or may not of been, doesn’t really matter for the argument) have been appropriate for a past culture a practice is automatically appropriate for our current one (like those who attempt to emulate “biblical marriage” in their relationship because they see the Bible as infallible for any time period)?  
 

Or something else?

In a way I am saying that, though I think people who do not see the Bible as infallible for any time period would also benefit from empathetic historicism in council.

When I read “biblical marriage,” I’m not sure if you mean “traditional marriage”, and if by “traditional” you mean a bride (female)-and-groom (male) couple or polygamy as practiced by the patriarchs. I'm not sure if you include “child marriage” and whether that refers to marriages arranged as children, formally betrothed as children, or a means to enter the Church of the Firstborn where the saint, once an adult, chooses their spouse (now or in the hereafter), and of course none of these consummated until adulthood?

Marriage constructs that were revelatory in biblical times (or in the early Restoration) may be appreciated through empathetic historicism, yet no longer supported by modern revelation; relationships that God once permitted, tolerated or winked at in earlier times may not be winked at now.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

The “you” here is generic, correct?  You are talking about a general approach for everyone, not just Ben?

Yes, because I now realize he may have been addressing slavery and human sacrifice, not polygamy and child marriage. But given the Lord's crucifixion and prophets' references to being purchased and slaves of Christ, there seems to be room to consider acceptable versions to these taboos.

I once heard a returned service missionary (older gentleman) speak to the congregation and explain how the cannibals were some of the most spiritual people he had ever met. I'm sure they convereted.

 

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So if I'm understanding this correctly, this is directed towards Joseph Smith's wife?

It is directed towards the wife of any keyholder directed to exercise his keys concerning plural marriage

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

That if she doesn't accept his polygamy she is the transgressor and will be destroyed?

That's what it says. I believe it is referring back to an earlier part of the revelation:

"26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God."

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What is the law of Sarah that Joseph Smith (if I'm understanding it directly) is exempt from?

Not just Joseph Smith- any keyholder directed to exercise his keys concerning plural marriage.

The necessity of seeking her permission to be sealed to additional women (after having instructed her concerning the law):

"...he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife."

[manol]

11 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

[responding to this quote from Section 132: 

"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife." 

This sounds like something a man would write.  

Agreed.

Those verses do not sound to me like something a God who is good, and fair, and no respecter of persons, would say.  They completely undermine the first wife.  (But they do sound to me like something Brigham Young could have written.)

I have friends who are polygamists, and have lived among polygamists, and among those families I got to know well enough to have an in-depth conversation with, none of them were based on those imo toxic verses.  Instead the wife (or wives) were the ones who found their sister-wife, not the husband. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, manol said:

Agreed.

Those verses do not sound to me like something a God who is good, and fair, and no respecter of persons, would say.  They completely undermine the first wife.  (But they do sound to me like something Brigham Young could have written.)

I have friends who are polygamists, and have lived among polygamists, and among those families I got to know well enough to have an in-depth conversation with, none of them were based on those imo toxic verses.  Instead the wife (or wives) were the ones who found their sister-wife, not the husband. 

Again, it is only the keyholder who is exempt after properly instructing his wife. Everyone else must receive permission from the first wife/wives.

[manol]

25 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Again, it is only the keyholder who is exempt after properly instructing his wife. Everyone else must receive permission from the first wife/wives.

Do you think those verses are consistent with a God who is good, a God who is fair, and a God who is no respecter of persons? 

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, manol said:

Do you think those verses are consistent with a God who is good, a God who is fair, and a God who is no respecter of persons? 

Since I believe God is good, fair, and no respecter of person- and that this is a revelation from that same God- who am I to say they aren't?

[The Nehor]

Also just noting personally here that the federal government should really cut off highway funds to all states allowing marriage under any circumstances for those under the age of 16 (at least, I would prefer 18).