Polygamy

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

And the very next thing in teachings is...da da da da:

Women may leave a husband to marry a man higher in authority

"But there was a way in which a woman could leave a man lawfully--when a woman becomes alienated in her feelings and affections from her husband, it is his duty to give her a bill and set her free--it would be fornication for a man to cohabit with his wife after she had thus become alienated from him. . . . Also, there was another way in which a woman could leave a man-- if the woman preferred a man higher in authority and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up. There is no bill of divorce required, in [this] case it is right in the sight of God." - Conference Reports, 8 Oct. 1861, reported by George D. Watt, LDS archives; also found in the journal of James Beck, 8 Oct. 1861, LDS archives, as cited in Campbell and Campbell, New Mormon History, ed. Quinn, p 195 n 45

[patriotsaint]

And the very next thing in teachings is...da da da da:

Women may leave a husband to marry a man higher in authority

"But there was a way in which a woman could leave a man lawfully--when a woman becomes alienated in her feelings and affections from her husband, it is his duty to give her a bill and set her free--it would be fornication for a man to cohabit with his wife after she had thus become alienated from him. . . . Also, there was another way in which a woman could leave a man-- if the woman preferred a man higher in authority and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up. There is no bill of divorce required, in [this] case it is right in the sight of God." - Conference Reports, 8 Oct. 1861, reported by George D. Watt, LDS archives; also found in the journal of James Beck, 8 Oct. 1861, LDS archives, as cited in Campbell and Campbell, New Mormon History, ed. Quinn, p 195 n 45

Holy Crap.....I'd never heard that quote before. I'm going to have to let that one marinate.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

So ZL, I hope that you acknowledge the preeminence of Christ, the 12 apostles, 12 disciples, modern day prophets and apostles and patriarchs of old, and the great many spirits who died before the age of accountability in perfection, and let your wives go to them. We know there aren't enough for everyone to have plural, so it is the right thing to do. We'll coach you through it.

And ZL's Wife. It is time to start preparing to live this glorious higher law. Time for you to prepare to be sealed to one of these great eminent men. Preparation precedes power you know! If you wouldn't feel right about it, just read back through your husbands logic and rest at ease in comfort knowing that he gives his blessing (as he stated that he would support you if the shoe were on the other foot, well now it is!).

[patriotsaint]

So ZL, I hope that you acknowledge the preeminence of Christ, the 12 apostles, 12 disciples, modern day prophets and apostles and patriarchs of old, and the great many spirits who died before the age of accountability in perfection, and let your wives go to them. We know there aren't enough for everyone to have plural, so it is the right thing to do. We'll coach you through it.

And ZL's Wife. It is time to start preparing to live this glorious higher law. Time for you to prepare to be sealed to one of these great eminent men. Preparation precedes power you know! If you wouldn't feel right about it, just read back through your husbands logic and rest at ease in comfort knowing that he gives his blessing (as he stated that he would support you if the shoe were on the other foot, well now it is!).

Not quite Swiss. The quote says if a woman preffered. Not that it was required.

[ChelC]

Oh how I wish I had time to read back through this whole thing! Maybe Friday...

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Where in my post did I say it was required?

Why wouldn't she prefer a more glorious and exalted husband?

Is she (to use ZL's argument) willing to pass up the higher exaltation God is offering her?

Wouldn't that make her an unwise steward (to use his arguments again)?

[LukeAir2008]

So ZL, I hope that you acknowledge the preeminence of Christ, the 12 apostles, 12 disciples, modern day prophets and apostles and patriarchs of old, and the great many spirits who died before the age of accountability in perfection, and let your wives go to them. We know there aren't enough for everyone to have plural, so it is the right thing to do. We'll coach you through it.

And ZL's Wife. It is time to start preparing to live this glorious higher law. Time for you to prepare to be sealed to one of these great eminent men. Preparation precedes power you know! If you wouldn't feel right about it, just read back through your husbands logic and rest at ease in comfort knowing that he gives his blessing (as he stated that he would support you if the shoe were on the other foot, well now it is!).

Are you suggesting that the Prophet and the Twelve will take our wives for themselves? Thats what happened earlier in this dispensation. Could you happily hand your wife over to Thomas Monson or David Bednar and do so willingly and submissively. Now were talking real testing and wrenching!

Hope I haven't let the cat out of the bag!

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

No, but I don't believe in polygamy for me and mine. Like Brigham Young said, THE purpose for it was to crank out the kids. To each their own. Just not for us. It would definitely take away from what we share. I will be content to only have a few billion to add to my glory, I was never into competition, never will be. I will be content to build my seed slower through the eternities, take my time with my one wife. But we're just that way.

I'm just playing around with this argument because ZL is so zealous about this. If his logic is sound it should stand up, but it doesn't because he isn't willing to have his wife preparing now to be somebody else's eternal companion if asked (admittedly an assumption on my part). I do think he is breaking covenants now by "preparing," but I also don't care, that's between he and the Lord. And I don't pretend to know nor care what the consequences of that error will be, of that I am not to judge.

[NoGreaterLove]

"But there was a way in which a woman could leave a man lawfully--when a woman becomes alienated in her feelings and affections from her husband, it is his duty to give her a bill and set her free--it would be fornication for a man to cohabit with his wife after she had thus become alienated from him. . . . Also, there was another way in which a woman could leave a man-- if the woman preferred a man higher in authority and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up. There is no bill of divorce required, in [this] case it is right in the sight of God." - Conference Reports, 8 Oct. 1861, reported by George D. Watt, LDS archives; also found in the journal of James Beck, 8 Oct. 1861, LDS archives, as cited in Campbell and Campbell, New Mormon History, ed. Quinn, p 195 n 45

George Darling Watt (May 12, 1812 – October 24, 1881

In 1869, Watt was disfellowshipped from the LDS Church for following the teachings of dissident William S. Godbe. Watt was identified as one of the leaders of the "Godbeites" and was disciplined by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Although Watt was initially repentant and desired to return to full fellowship in the LDS Church, by 1874 he was a devoted Godbeite and was excommunicated from the LDS Church on May 3.

Do you really believe that is true? How many prophets in our modern day have testified that if we both keep our covenants on this earth we will continue the same family relationship in the eternities. It would not be hard to find quotes stating such.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I absolutely believe that Brigham Young said that.

[clarkkent14]

"But there was a way in which a woman could leave a man lawfully--when a woman becomes alienated in her feelings and affections from her husband, it is his duty to give her a bill and set her free--it would be fornication for a man to cohabit with his wife after she had thus become alienated from him. . . . Also, there was another way in which a woman could leave a man-- if the woman preferred a man higher in authority and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up. There is no bill of divorce required, in [this] case it is right in the sight of God." - Conference Reports, 8 Oct. 1861, reported by George D. Watt, LDS archives; also found in the journal of James Beck, 8 Oct. 1861, LDS archives, as cited in Campbell and Campbell, New Mormon History, ed. Quinn, p 195 n 45

George Darling Watt (May 12, 1812 – October 24, 1881

In 1869, Watt was disfellowshipped from the LDS Church for following the teachings of dissident William S. Godbe. Watt was identified as one of the leaders of the "Godbeites" and was disciplined by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Although Watt was initially repentant and desired to return to full fellowship in the LDS Church, by 1874 he was a devoted Godbeite and was excommunicated from the LDS Church on May 3.

Do you really believe that is true? How many prophets in our modern day have testified that if we both keep our covenants on this earth we will continue the same family relationship in the eternities. It would not be hard to find quotes stating such.

I always trust excommunicated members quotes.

[NoGreaterLove]

To insinuate that this quote is accurate, you are insinuating that a women has the right to break her temple covenants she made in the temple. Think about those covenants. If she breaks those covenants, she will not be sealed to any husband in the next life if she does not repent.
The covenants are eternal, not just for this life.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

To insinuate it is not, is to insinuate that Joseph Smith (among others) is an apostate!

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

So you don't ever quote Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, or John Whitmer I hope. I hope you tore the testimony of 3 and of 8 witnesses right out of your BoM! Wouldn't want to take their word for it!

He was quoting Brigham Young and he wasn't responsible for publishing that in the "Journal of Discourses" nor "Teachings of the Prophet Brigham Young."

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Did he write it before he apostatized or after (hint, it was 8 years before)? You can't have it both ways, either tear out the testimony of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, or accept what the church published in the two above publications.

[clarkkent14]

So you don't ever quote Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, or John Whitmer I hope. I hope you tore the testimony of 3 and of 8 witnesses right out of your BoM! Wouldn't want to take their word for it!

Actually I don't quote them, come to think of it, and I don't need their word for it, the spirit will suffice.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Watt was a secretary to Brigham Young, the primary editor of the Journal of Discourses

I guess we should just throw out any indirect correspondence from Brigham Young and the Journal of Discourses altogether following your logic!

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

It's funny to see people fight tooth and nail on the one side and then back down the other side in the other direction. Goes a long way to illustrate folks true motives.

[clarkkent14]

Comparing the BOM witnesses with this is a stretch at best. Nephi and Moroni are my two witnesses that affirm the testimony of the men you mention. I have no reason to trust this Watt fellow.

[clarkkent14]

It's funny to see people fight tooth and nail on the one side and then back down the other side in the other direction. Goes a long way to illustrate folks true motives.

You thought this was a fight?

[NoGreaterLove]

To insinuate it is not, is to insinuate that Joseph Smith (among others) is an apostate!

I am very well versed on Joseph Smith multiple sealings and the role they play in history both during his life and after his death. They have nothing to do with what you are insinuating. The role of sealings was not completely understood in the beginning by those performing them. As they more understood the role, it changed. I have numerous resources to draw from to substantiate what I just said.
The quote you are using was made by a church historian under Brigham Young, purporting to be what was said in conference. Although those records are normally accurate, errors occurred when transcribing.
So when something seems to be in question, the best thing to do is research what other prophets have said about the matter.
In this case we know what the temple covenants are. We are commanded to not break them. If you are not aware of the temple covenants, then I can not discuss them here. But those who are aware of the sealing covenants and ordinances will know this statement is inaccurate.

Clark
I do not see this as a fight. But we are both stating why we believe the way we do.
As far as the eight witnesses goes. All things are to be considered when trying the accuracy of a quote. That was just one of the items. The other item I used is the temple covenants as they stand today and modern day revelation.

You are basing your belief that a women can decide which man she wants to be with upon a transcribed statement supposedly made at conference. Who gave the talk? Why is it not in the journal of Discourses? I have looked for further info on this and I do not see it in the Church archives. Even if it is in the Church archives, it does not mean it is accurate.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Use logic here. If you reject anything that this man was source to, then you are advocating casting out everything he did as Brigham Young's secretary and the entire Journal of Discourses he edited. Are you advocating this or just using it as an excuse to argue against what Brigham Young said?

[NoGreaterLove]

Even if this was transcribed accurately, then it still includes the husband in the decision. The way you worded some of your comments suggests that he has no say in the matter.

"and her husband gives her up"

[NoGreaterLove]

then you are advocating casting out everything he did as Brigham Young's secretary and the entire Journal of Discourses he edited

The Adam god theory is in the Journal of Discourses as edited by this man. It was later quoted as a misquote by the First Presidency of the Church. So one bad transcription does not made the whole thing wrong.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

The way you worded some of your comments suggests that he has no say in the matter.

The way you worded some of your comments suggests that she has no say in the matter.