Trying to make sense of Joseph Smith

[Anonymous]

Just me, I was a little sloppy with my terminology. I agree with Bruce in Montana in that

Quote:

I don’t see how anyone can read Section 131 2-4 (which speaks of the conditions of exaltation) and then read Section 132 and not see that the New and Everlasting covenant IS celestial plural marriage.

Yes, I’m sure Bruce and I will have a big difference of opinion here. In short,

Quote:

one is free to believe that Joseph Smith erred and that Section 132 is not a true revelation.

I’m not trying to argue with Bruce either, but let me explain my reasoning here a bit, and then I’ll let the issue drop. I just don’t accept that the scriptures referencing Abraham/David, etc in this section match the context of the Bible. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe God really did command polygamy, but let me explain my reasons for believing God did not.

In D&C 132:1, it says, I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines

If we accept temple marriage and polygamy as divinely inspired, then theoretically, David and Solomon’s wives would have have needed to be temple worthy. Since some of these wives clearly worshiped other gods than Jehovah, I don’t know how God could justify David and Solomon in particular, which is why I reject the reasoning in D&C 132. The justifications in 132 just make no sense to me in light of David and Solomon marrying “non-members.” If Peter, or Nathan, had the sealing power, why would God have Solomon marry 700 wives and 300 concubines many of whom weren’t even Jewish? If God is a jealous God, and thou shalt worship no other gods before me, how on earth can God claim to have justified these marriages–it is breaking the 1st of the 10 commandments? I can’t comprehend God accepting eternal marriages to people who worshiped Zeus, Asherah, or the multitude of other gods these women worshiped. How could God justify Solomon in this? And why don’t we accept concubines for eternal partners in the LDS church?

[Anonymous]

Well, I’m not sure that women in a celestial plural marriage would need to be temple worthy. Maybe God had plans for the children/grandchildren/great grandchildren that superceded their mothers’ religions? … Especially in a patriarchal society like was the rule back then.

As to why concubines aren’t accepted in the LDS church….I would submit that since the beginning of the institution of the New and Everlasting covenant, any wife other than the first wife has been a spiritual sealing (a concubine in ancient times) with no secularly-legal marriage “license”. It’s just terminology…these days we would refer to a non-civily-married spouse as a plural wife….back then when women were regarded just a little bit higher than property, they were called “concubines”.

You are so correct that the scriptures regarding this don’t match the context of the Bible. With respect…that, among many other things, was the reason for the restoration.

Please keep in mind that I have fundamentalist views that differ from the present mainstream church on certain issues.

My opinion only…

Mileage may vary.

[Anonymous]

I think these two statements are the root cause of why we disagree.

HiJolly wrote:

NO, I’m not ignoring these things, I’m saying that they are not a problem, ultimately. Sure they exist. I don’t see the problem, though.

Just curious – did that harm you?

The first statement is so subjective that no amount of logic that you or I bring up will be enough to convince the other. I am a firm believer in personal freedom, and allowing people to make their decisions with as much information as possible. Coercion of any kind with mature adults is not welcome in my book. I recognize this as a bit of an absolute, it is just one of the things I firmly believe in. I don’t believe in imposing my moral opinions on others, even if it means the world will go to hell in a handbasket.

So did it harm me? Yes, to me, it did. You may not agree with it, and it may not even be practical, but that isn’t really the point. It harmed me because it led me to believe in something in a very literal way, which led me to make decisions I otherwise would not have made, and treat people differently than I otherwise would have, had I had a less literal view instilled in me when I was younger. We will probably just have to agree to disagree on this. In my mind, the comparisons with various cults of all stripes are very telling, and the methods of mind control, whether to a good end or not, is simply not acceptable to me. If the true church of God is coercive, to me it is no different than a group like Jim Jones, and I wouldn’t want to be a part of it. The ends do not justify the means.

HiJolly wrote:

Do you suppose it possible that the belief may actually prove effectual in reality? Since I actually saw positive effects from wearing garments (for someone caught in an explosion), I have to count myself a believer in it, and for the life of me I can’t see a negative in it. Mind you, I don’t *have* to believe in it. But since I have personal positive evidence, I feel ok with *choosing* to believe it. Is that the result of manipulation? If so, why should that bother me?

It shouldn’t if you don’t want it to. And yes, I consider it a possibility that the belief may actually prove effectual in reality. I would love to see a scientific study of some kind done on the effectiveness of garments in protecting people from various bodily injury or harm.

HiJolly wrote:

I see you as having mentally constructed a problem that has no basis in life, or at least, is no more a problem that other things we can’t control, like being born into an abusive family or living in a country controlled by religious or governmental extremists, who kill or torture people frequently and sometimes without provocation. No doubt these are terrible things.

Well, the only defense I have is that I am glad there are people who want to rise up, and disavow those who are coercive of their power. These are the people who bring us things like America.

HiJolly wrote:

Getting back to coersion and psychological control, and not that you’ve said this, but I think it is such a cop-out to argue that phsychological effects are “just in the mind”. There is a connection to reality, as anyone studying the placibo effect can attest to. So what’s the beef? Is it in the intent and purposes of the ‘cult’ leaders, as you have suggested? If so, I think it is clear that Joseph’s intent has by this time been validated by it’s fruits, as benign, if not godly, IMO.

Well, I think I can agree that overall the LDS church has yielded good fruit, but many of the ideas have definitely led to a great amount of sorrow. Various polygamist abuses, boys kicked out of fundamentalist groups with totally dysfunctional worldviews, homosexual teen suicide in large numbers, etc. etc. It’s these types of things I worry about. The garments thing was just an example, and not a very good one.

HiJolly wrote:

As you can already no doubt see, I’m not making that argument. What do you think caused those who left, to leave? How did they manage it?

I can’t say for every case, but I have read some people’s personal stories. Many of the teenage boys are simply kicked out because they’re not useful. There’s not enough women to go around, and the boys are just a nuisance. And they don’t manage it. They are involved in crime, and have very dysfunctional views. They can’t even get along in modern society.

HiJolly wrote:

Evidence of experience is the only thing, though, that will lead me to *knowledge*.

This may be another place we disagree. I would be much more interested in examining as much information, evidence, personal stories, schools of thought, and theories and then draw conclusions coupled with my own experience. I am simply not that confident in my own experience, ideas, feelings, and/or memory.

Thank you though for your words, I appreciate another point of view.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Also, I have a REALLY hard time with people who accept gay marriage as fine and dandy for consenting adults but not polygamy. I understand totally the reasoning people use to say that, and this isn’t the thread to go into details, but, for me, that dog don’t hunt.

For the record, while I personally am not interested in polygamy (not my cup of chowder as Ray says), I am not opposed to legal consenting adults practicing it. As I’ve said before, I am not in favor of pushing my moral views on others. Same goes for homosexuals.

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

As to why concubines aren’t accepted in the LDS church….I would submit that since the beginning of the institution of the New and Everlasting covenant, any wife other than the first wife has been a spiritual sealing (a concubine in ancient times) with no secularly-legal marriage “license”.

I just wanted to point out that in the temple, in the law of chastity, I believe there is something about “with whom you are legally and lawfully wedded” or something to that affect. If Joseph had sexual relations with any of these women to whom he was “sealed” would this not contradict this covenant? Maybe I would need to understand the nature of the endowment from Joseph’s day.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

I just wanted to point out that in the temple, in the law of chastity, I believe there is something about “with whom you are legally and lawfully wedded” or something to that affect. If Joseph had sexual relations with any of these women to whom he was “sealed” would this not contradict this covenant? Maybe I would need to understand the nature of the endowment from Joseph’s day.

I think you are showing that you recognize the problem of presentism here. I am pretty sure that I remember when the wording was changed to what you are quoting.

And I recall reading journal entries of Nauvoo-era members referring to leaders teaching the concept that government-sanctioned marriages were meaningless in the eyes of God, thus opening the way for polygamy and polyandry. Today with SSM and the like, this all takes on a new light, but again we have to be cautious of presentism, or, judging them in their day by our 21-century views/morals/standards.

jmb, I read your comments above to me, thanks. Will respond, but right now I have to head downtown. Later, dude. (is that dating me?) 🙄

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

If Solomon had 700 wives, and 300 concubines, there must be some other distinction for concubines. There were 699 wives after the first, and 300 concubines.

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

I just wanted to point out that in the temple, in the law of chastity, I believe there is something about “with whom you are legally and lawfully wedded” or something to that affect. If Joseph had sexual relations with any of these women to whom he was “sealed” would this not contradict this covenant? Maybe I would need to understand the nature of the endowment from Joseph’s day.

I think you are showing that you recognize the problem of presentism here. I am pretty sure that I remember when the wording was changed to what you are quoting.

Fair enough. That’s why I said “Maybe I would need to understand the nature of the endowment from Joseph’s day.” What was the previous wording (or is that not appropriate for the forum)?

[Anonymous]

Well, the complete revealed version of “the endowment” was recorded at the request of Brigham Young by L. John Nutall in his journals.

It’s a bit “meatish” for today’s average Church members and is probably nothing one would want to explore who is having doubts regarding the gospel.

It seems the nature of many of us to want to skip ahead to the “mysteries of the gospel” when we have not build a firm foundation in the essential principles.

At least that has always been my problem

My opinion only…

Mileage may vary.

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

Well, the complete revealed version of “the endowment” was recorded at the request of Brigham Young by L. John Nutall in his journals.It’s a bit “meatish” for today’s average Church members and is probably nothing one would want to explore who is having doubts regarding the gospel.It seems the nature of many of us to want to skip ahead to the “mysteries of the gospel” when we have not build a firm foundation in the essential principles.At least that has always been my problem.

No, I already know all about the original endowment and it’s “meat,” I just wasn’t sure about this particular covenant, that is the LoC. I didn’t pay attention in my study of the original endowment to that particular covenant.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I don’t see how anyone can read Section 131 2-4 (which speaks of the conditions of exaltation) and then read Section 132 and not see that the New and Everlasting covenant IS celestial plural marriage

I’ve read that over and over the past couple weeks as we’ve discussed this. It just seems like v1 says regarding wives and concubines, prepare to hear what I have to say…

There is an everlasting covenant that you must be sealed to gain the highest degree of exaltation.

That’s my paraphrasing and understanding of all it says. Can you infer that the everlasting covenant IS polygamy. It seems to follow. But it really isn’t that clear to me (don’t roll your eyes). It seems like it could be that the revelation was generated by the question of studying the bible and that in that prophets has all these wives and concubines. So how could they go to heaven if they lived in sin? Well, if they were sealed to them all, it was not sin. Therefore the new and everlasting convenant is the sealing…not the number of partners sealed. God ALLOWED them to have wives, but did not command it as necessary for salvation…only that they be sealed as necessary for exaltation. That is the way I can see one explanation is.

Two reasons I believe this:

1) modern prophets have declared this

2) Adam and Eve were our first parents. There is no indication that Adam and Eve and a bunch of others sealed to Adam.

It just wasn’t a necessary principle for Adam or all the other prophets, including BoM prophets. But it may have been allowed if the sealing powers and keys were properly used to build up the kingdom of God on the earth. That’s one possiblity?

[Anonymous]

Heber,

Are you saying that God allows mankind to practice polygamy/polyandry-ie it isn’t commanded, but not a sin if done properly? And because He is a loving God he won’t break apart families that we have chosen-thus the sealing ordinance?

See, I could go along with that. Personally, I believe in more of a all people sealed together as One by the power of the Holy Spirit of Promise or something like that. But for those who believe in sealed family units in the hereafter I can’t see God splitting people apart who love eachother.

It’s the whole “get as many wives as you can to build your personal kingdom-exaltation” concept that really, really bothers me.

The sealing ordinance is interesting to look into. While studying the polygamy timeline I noticed something peculiar. Joseph and Emma were the first couple sealed in marriage for eternity on 28 May 1843. This was 5 days after she gave her first consent to polygamy. However, Joseph had already taken wives before this. No sealing for eternity? No temple? These are women who testified they had “relations.” None of these women had received “the endowment.”

Exactly what were the words of these marriage ceremonies? I always thought they were for “eternity.” The timeline does call these other marriages “sealings” most of the time but then goes on to say the above about JS and Emma. It’s a real head scratcher!

God commanded the saints to build the temple in Nauvoo so they could have something that was lost restored to them. They were promised enough time to finish it in. If they failed the church would be rejected along with “your dead.”

If building the temple was so important than why were all these “sealings” performed before it was completed?

Read D&C 124

Quote:

28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

40 And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;

41 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times.

What was God going to reveal in the temple to his people??? Why had the Saints lost the “fulness of the priesthood?”

AND if they had lost the fulness of the priesthood how could they be performing legit sealings??? It was to be restored in the completed Nauvoo Temple…

[Anonymous]

Heber,

I like your interpretation–it seems more modern and palatable. However, I must agree with Bruce in Montana here. As a fundamentalist, I believe he is giving the proper perspective here. Mary Lightner was one of Joseph’s polygamist wives. She gave an interview at BYU which can be found here http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm

Here are some impressions of mine.

(1) Quoting from the link, “An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him.” I have always found this difficult to believe (and even self-serving to Joseph.) It does not seem to square with Biblical practices of polygamy, IMO. Now I know that “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”, yet to my knowledge, Joseph made no changes to the Bible regarding polygamist practices, nor did he say that Sarah giving Hagar as another wife to Abraham to be inaccurate. Joseph corrected 2 verses in chapter 21 of Genesis, but they have nothing to do with polygamy. He changed verses 31 and 32, and seem completely insignificant regarding Hagar.

(2) Hagar was an Egyptian. As we know from Abr 1:26-7

“26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely … but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry

Why is Abraham mixing his seed with a cursed woman? Better yet, why is Ishmael also promised to be a great nation in Gen 21:18, even though he comes from the cursed Egyptian line?

(3) If Lightner received this angelic visit, why didn’t Emma? (or Hagar, or Leah, or all the other polygamist wives.) Certainly Joseph said the same thing to Emma. If Emma had received a visitation, surely she would have felt the same way as Lightner. If this was such an important principle, why didn’t Emma receive a visit like Paul on the road to Damascus, or Alma the Younger?

(4) Mary made a very interesting reference to Joseph having children with other wives. “I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.” I found this very interesting. Glen Leonard (who wrote a book about Nauvoo) made a similar reference. I have no idea who she is referring to, but DNA evidence has failed to produce evidence of Joseph’s offspring except through Emma’s line.

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

Heber,

Are you saying that God allows mankind to practice polygamy/polyandry-ie it isn’t commanded, but not a sin if done properly? And because He is a loving God he won’t break apart families that we have chosen-thus the sealing ordinance?

See, I could go along with that. Personally, I believe in more of a all people sealed together as One by the power of the Holy Spirit of Promise or something like that. But for those who believe in sealed family units in the hereafter I can’t see God splitting people apart who love eachother.

It’s the whole “get as many wives as you can to build your personal kingdom-exaltation” concept that really, really bothers me.

Just me, yes… I’m kind of just thinking out loud (on the keyboard) because I am trying to make sense of Joseph Smith, but this idea did hit me, and it makes sense. Just like you said, God would be more concerned with the Immortality and Eternal Life of His children, and sealing families together is what is important…not necessarily one man and one woman.

It has always bothered me (as a man) that polygamy would suggest men need multiple wives to build their own glory and kingdom as Gods, but women are 2nd class and have the purpose of being baby machines for the men. This is obviously overly exaggerated, but I think you get my drift.

So what if the sealing power is important, not how many wives, nor if the wife has multiple husbands. Not have it be about sex or about power, but about sealing families to an authority that can bring as many children to heaven as possible. God wants His children back. I do admit, D&C 132 doesn’t seem to be sending that message, but all scripture is intended to be interpreted by the Spirit.

[Anonymous]

MH wrote:

Here are some impressions of mine.

(1) Quoting from the link, “An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him.” I have always found this difficult to believe (and even self-serving to Joseph.) It does not seem to square with Biblical practices of polygamy, IMO.

An interesting story, and I’m not in a position to say that really happened or not. But I agree with you it doesn’t seem to go along with any other scripture. In the bible, when it was happening, it wasn’t presented as a doctrine or teaching, only that it was happening (which goes back to my “God allows it not commands it” prior posting). So what to make of the angel with the flaming sword revelation?

1) It is false, and like many angels, can come from God or from the Adversary. Or in less TBM terms, could be inspired or could be a complete fabrication in one’s mind, like a dream. One way JS taught to know if an angel is from God or not is if the message goes against prior revealed doctrine, it is false.

2) It is true, and like many angels, the message must be interpreted by the person receiving the revelation. Modern prophets have been silent on this issue. So it must not be critical to my salvation or exaltation. Maybe the story is right, maybe it was misunderstood or retold over the years, but we just don’t know. So it could be true.

Being open-minded once again, is this a commandment to live polygamy, or a command that these other families needed the saving ordinances to be sealed to JS, and in the infancy of the church, there were few options for that to happen, polygamy being one option. You could then argue that today with temples dotting the land, there are other options. That would again state that polygamy is allowed when a vehicle to bring saving ordinances to families, but not a commandment because it can also be done by other means.

I’m trying to look at other explanations, to make sense of it all. But I do think Bruce makes a lot of sense on it, and seems to have the simplest explanation…don’t read into too much, just take it for face value.

[Author]

Posts