Polygamy

[NoGreaterLove]

Than can we agree that if this talk was given at conference and was transcribed accurately, then the wife could not choose to go to a more exalted man unless three things happen?
1. she desires it
2. Her husband gives her up
3. God endorses it.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

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.

So your argument is that Joseph Smith acted in ignorance. Wow I wouldn't be comfortable making that assertion!

Your above quote proves the point. It proves that you believe that they in fact did believe such as what was written and acted upon it. Of course you think they did so in ignorance and error, but you do believe that they thought, said and acted so, that much is clear!

So whether or not the quote is accurate the practice clearly occurred and was endorsed. What then makes you doubt the quote? Are you disputing what was said or who said it? Clearly your above quote proves that you are not disputing what was said, just that you think they were ignorant.

Your hazard I guess.

[NoGreaterLove]

I personally want my wife to be happy. If she is not happy with me, then she needs to be with someone else. So if this statement is accurate, I would let her go to someone else.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Is that also true if your wife thought that she could be more happy, more blessed to be with another of higher authority?

[NoGreaterLove]

So your argument is that Joseph Smith acted in ignorance. Wow I wouldn't be comfortable making that assertion!

In the beginning the practice of sealing women to Joseph Smith was widespread. Later that practice was done away with by direction from the First Presidency. The FP clarified it was the proper thing to do and outlined the proper way.
If you feel you have examples of Joseph Smith that you would like to share, please post them, so we can discuss them.

[NoGreaterLove]

I will give my wife anything she desires if it is in line with our Lord.
That includes your statement.

[NoGreaterLove]

Than can we agree that if this talk was given at conference and was transcribed accurately, then the wife could not choose to go to a more exalted man unless three things happen?
1. she desires it
2. Her husband gives her up
3. God endorses it

Can we agree on this???????????

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

If we cannot trust transcriptions, and we cannot trust Joseph's early teachings and practice, where does that leave us? Brigham Young said (or did he?) that never was any revelation received in perfection. That said, all are, to some degree, in error. Where does that leave us?

Well it's clear what was taught and practiced. My faith, nor my practice hangs upon it.

Polygamy and current preparation for such is being justified here using the words of the brethren. Who gets to pick which ones are valid?

The fact that the man who copied the talk down as Brigham Young's personal secretary 8 years later was disfellowshipped is of little interest.
-----------------
I'm not looking to argue the fine points as I maintain that polygamy is a forbidden practice in any way shape or form to us now. I don't have, nor want anything to do with it now or in the eternities.

[NoGreaterLove]

Quote:
Than can we agree that if this talk was given at conference and was transcribed accurately, then the wife could not choose to go to a more exalted man unless three things happen?
1. she desires it
2. Her husband gives her up
3. God endorses it


Can we agree on this???????????

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

You stated that you were well aware of Joseph's multiple sealings etc... If you are then you should be well aware of those done without the permission of the husband. I am not going to post examples as I do not wish to drag Joesph through the mud. He wasn't perfect nor do I think that is relevant. He did better than the lot of us despite his errors. I don't deify the brethren. Therefore what Joseph did does not make the law.

If you really want to figure it out, then you reconcile it because I can't. But again I don't seek to emulate that portion (polygamy) of his example.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

It is clear that Joseph Smith did not believe that permission was necessary. It is also clear that Brigham Young taught that if a wife would not give her permission then the husband was justified anyways in taking another wife. I am not sure why the same wouldn't apply when the other way around.

[NoGreaterLove]

I have tried to address most of your inquiries and statements. However you have not address two things that I have asked. Can we agree on the last post and do you have specific instances where Joseph Smith was involved with Wife Stealing?

[BlueSky]

If a woman and a man of "higher authority" wanted to be together, I don't really see how the lesser man's desires could override that. And I don't think there's any examples of it doing so in Church History... but there might be.

[BlueSky]

It's not stealing, it's taking, okay? Gosh, why do you have to be such a downer?

[NoGreaterLove]

Wilford Woodruff, April 8, 1894

THE LAW OF ADOPTION

DISCOURSE
Delivered by President Wilford Woodruff,
at the Sixty-fourth Annual General Conference
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
held in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City,
Sunday Morning, April 8, 1894



I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt, as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption. Well, what are these changes? One of them is the principle of adoption. In the commencement of adopting men and women in the Temple at Nauvoo, a great many persons were adopted to different men who were not of the lineage of their fathers, and there was a spirit manifested by some in that work that was not of God…………………

1. On 5 April 1894, previous to the opening of the April General Conference, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve met and discussed the proposed changes to be made to the sealing ordinances of the Temple. Abraham H. Cannon, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, recorded in his journal that President Woodruff said that

I have felt we are too strict in regard to some of our temple ordinances. This is especially the case in regard to husbands and parents who are dead. Heretofore we have not permitted wives to be sealed to their dead husbands unless such husbands were in the Church, nor have we permitted children to be sealed to dead unbaptized parents. This is wrong I feel. I was sealed to my father, and then had him sealed to the Prophet Joseph. Erastus Snow was sealed to his father though the latter was not baptized after having heard the Gospel. He was, however, kind to the Prophet, and was a Saint in everything except baptism. The Lord has told me that it is right for children to be sealed to their parents, and they to their parents just as far back as we can possibly obtain the records, and then have the last obtainable member sealed to the Prophet Joseph, who stands at the head of this dispensation. It is also right for wives whose husbands never heard the Gospel to be sealed to those husbands, providing they are willing to run the risk of their receiving the Gospel in the Spirit world. There is yet very much for us to learn concerning the temple ordinances, and God will make it known as we prove ourselves ready to receive it. In searching out my genealogy I found about four hundred of my female kindred who were never married. I asked Pres. Young what I should do with them. He said for me to have them sealed to me unless there were more than 999 of them. The doctrine startled me, but I had it done. When in St. George I found I had more dead for whom I desired to do a work than I could possibly attend to. I had none of my family with me, and one day the Lord told me to get the young people of that city to give me a birthday present by coming into the temple and being endowed for my dead. Pres. Young approved of the plan, and in this way I got my work done, some of Pres. Young's family helping me to do it.

Following the remarks of President Woodruff, President George Q. Cannon arose and said:

I am thankful for what has been revealed. This matter has weighed for a long time on my mind. There has been a disposition since the days of Nauvoo for men to seek to add to their future kingdoms by having dead persons sealed and adopted to them. . . . Now, however, the danger of clannishness and divisions is averted, and we can show respect to the parents which God gave us, and through whom we doubtless chose to come before we were born into this world.

President Lorenzo Snow, concurring with the remarks of Presidents Woodruff and Cannon, added that "very, very few of those who die without the Gospel will reject it on the other side of the veil" (Abraham H. Cannon Journal, 5 April 1894, spelling and punctuation standardized).


(Brian H. Stuy, ed., Collected Discourses, 5 vols. [Burbank, Calif., and Woodland Hills, Ut.: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992], 4: .)

[patriotsaint]

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.

There doesn't need to be any secret motive here. The motive is to better understand the doctrine and role of polygamy in God's plan for us.

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)?

This is also flawed logic. Who says ZL won't qualify for such an exaltation? Anyway, the idea of a woman needing to leave her husband for one of higher position doesn't hold much water. If that were the case, why wouldn't every woman just become the wife of Christ in the hereafter?

Polygamy plays some part in God's plan. I'm not sure what that part is exactly, but I'm confident its more that "rutting" as you termed it.

[NoGreaterLove]

Wilford Woodruff addressed this more than once. I have some of those addresses. He plainly states that changes were made according to new revelation concerning sealings in the temple. He says that we are to remain in the families we were born in. I am not going to post them all here, but if someone wants to continue this discussion, we can open a new thread and I will post them.

[NoGreaterLove]

There need be none to say, "Well, I am sealed or adopted to a greater man than you. I am adopted to Joseph, or to Brigham, or to John Taylor, or to Wilford Woodruff, or to this man or the other man." There will be no need to pride and plume ourselves on the fact that we are adopted to these various men, and thus divide the people asunder in their feelings, creating to a certain extent a feeling of rivalry which does not belong to the Gospel of the Son of God. Every man that reflects upon it can see that this revelation which God has given through his servant Wilford Woodruff removes that danger out of our pathway and prepares us to go forward and honor our kindred and do everything we can for their salvation, concentrating our feelings upon our ancestors, and not upon somebody else's ancestors
Discourses of Wilford Woodruff page 158

[BlueSky]

He plainly states that changes were made according to new revelation concerning sealings in the temple.

Yes but that's all temporary... polygamy's making a comeback, right?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Yes, that is as pertaining to adoption.

And why wouldn't all the women be sealed to Christ? I've raised that here, the polygamists cannot answer it as it fits with their logic.

[NoGreaterLove]

I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people. I want all men who preside over these temples in these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind. What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this?. No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared he would send Elijah the prophet in the last days. Elijah the prophet appeared unto Joseph Smith and told him that the day had come when this principle must be carried out. Joseph Smith did not live long enough to enter any further upon these things. His soul was wound up with this work before he was martyred for the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ. He told us that there must be a welding link of all dispensations and of the work of God from one generation to another. This was upon his mind more than most any other subject that was given to him.

Patriarchal ChainAdoption, Law ofa-Woodruff, WilfordTPIn my prayers the Lord revealed to me that it was my duty to say to all Israel to carry this principle out, and in fulfilment of that revelation I lay it before this people.

Patriarchal ChainAdoption, Law ofa-Woodruff, WilfordTPI say to all men who are laboring in these temples, carry out this principle, and then we will make one step in advance of what we have had before


(Wilford Woodruff, The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, edited by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969], 156.)

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

As to section 132:
http://www.eldenwatson.net/3JT1886Rev.htm

Section 132 is one of the most misunderstood sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. Most of the confusion comes from reading verse one and assuming that the entire section is about plural marriage; it is not. The section is a concatenation of several revelations received at different times and places, and as is indicated in the title, was not received, but recorded on July 12, 1843.(11) There are three distinct laws discussed in section 132. First the Lord discusses the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, which is eternal marriage, temple marriage, marriage for time and eternity. Secondly the Lord speaks of "the law of my holy Priesthood" (verse 29) which begins the topic and explanation of plural marriage. The third law, which is mentioned in verse 65, is the Law of Sarah.

Again, I don't have a problem with it. It requires no contortions to fit my belief into the law and doctrine.

[NoGreaterLove]

If you move a women from one man to another man, you change the children's priesthood lineage and are messing with the family unit.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Yes, but that is pertaining to lineage and adoption not to marriage. See folks wanted to be sealed to Joesph (men, women, and children) to be his kin.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Don't you believe the Law of Sarah?

Does it go both ways? Or is it just for wives that refuse to let their husbands be polygamous? It was taught that if a woman refused permission that the brother should have the brethren counsel her and if she still refused then he was justified in taking another wife (Ie. permission wasn't really operable). Why would that not be true if a woman wanted to leave for greener pastures and marry up?

If you are a proponent of polygamy, you must reconcile this.