Context of Polygamy in the Book of Mormon

[Finrock]

The issue in the early days of the church was that they were not progressing. They were happy to take on more wives, but they were not willing to live other celestial principles or were being hindered from doing so, and so the practiced of plurality was taken away.

So, God ended the practice of polygamy because early members "were not willing to live other celestial principles"? The hindered part is irrelevant. Because if God wanted it, people can't hinder Him. In any case, what is your proof for this assertion that this is the why?

We know the spirits who have died before us are not focused on having children, but are
focused on missionary and family history work.

We do? How?

And that is what the Church has been focused on too. Are the spirits in heaven any less worthy of blessings because they are not fulfilling the law of marriage and having children? Obviously the answer is no, that it's simply a case of different circumstances and a different law for their time and sphere. That's how I see our time. We have laws and conditions suited to our time and place, and aren't asked right now to live every law or commandment ever revealed.

Maybe and even if so, not sure why that's relevant. But, the biggest issue here is that this part of your reasoning ignores the fact that early prophets taught that this practice would never be taken away from the earth, that it was an eternal principle that members must accept and live, and that if the Church stopped practicing it (here on earth, not in heaven), the Church would be damned. The opposite happened. Faithful members couldn't convince God to support God's own decrees. Prophets with the sealing power couldn't convince God to support God's decree. Why not?

Those who find fault with this in my estimation have a rebellious spirit and are looking for reason to accuse the brethren.

Those who believe that everything the Church or Church leaders say or do is right/truth/good have a cult mentality and are living on a shaky foundation. That paradigm (Church/Church Leaders always right no matter what) is DEMONSTRABLY false. It takes a big dose of cognitive dissonance to ignore this. But, whatever, I get it.

In any case, no rebellion, no accusations from me. You'll have to prove my rebelliousness and my accusations with more than just an assertion. You can't and you won't, so don't worry about this part...

At the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we don't see world-wide missionary work and baptism going on. But the covenants were being established. Now we have an opportunity to make the same covenants because of their lives, and we are to take those covenants to all the world. Thanks to them we can make this phase of the work happen. And thanks to the sacrifice of some of those early saints who obeyed and practiced plurality, many righteous spirits were born into the covenant to help provide this missionary force. I and my husband both descend from plural wives, and many saints I talk to also do, so it really did make a difference I think, and someone mentioned how the posterity of those plural wives would be blessed for their sacrifice, and I believe that to be the case.

Conjecture and speculation created solely to support a paradigm. It would be assumption on yours and my part to say that "many righteous" spirits were born in to the covenant. At the same token, we can also assume that many unrighteous spirits were born in to the covenant. Also, many foolish traditions were passed on to these spirits who were born in to polygamous families at the time that hindered their progression. In any case, that's all speculation. Further, if you or others, didn't come from plural marriage, you'd be grateful for your monogamous heritage. Polygamy is not necessary in order to bring up "righteous" seed. Polygamy and being born in to the Church doesn't guarantee righteousness, etc. In short, its a wash. Same can be said if the situation was different (all monogamy).

-Finrock

When I was talking about those who have a problem with our leaders who have a rebellious spirit, I wasn't thinking of you but talking about those who find reason to accuse them of going astray because they are not teaching polygamy. I wasn't referring to you. But I wanted to respond to you to defend the position that it wasn't just either/or, practice totally wrong, or leaders totally wrong. It was more complicated issue in my opinion.

I don't hold to the position that everything Brigham or those leaders said was inspired. I think many of their own opinions were loosely stated, and that includes the negro/priesthood comments. I do think they were under a curse, but Brigham was mistaken in making a prediction that they would never receive the priesthood until after this life, or whatever he said. If anyone can post that quote it would be helpful. But he said pretty much the exact same thing in regards to women that he said about the black race. Women were cursed, blacks were cursed, and the curse wouldn't be taken off until their role was fulfilled. Here's a few examples of how they looked at the principle as it related to women:

Brigham Young - Do not marvel, do not wonder at it, do not complain at Providence, do not find fault with mother Eve because your desire is to your husbands. Bear this with patience and fortitude! Be reconciled to it, meet your afflictions and these little—well, we might say, not very trifling, but still they are wants, for if we desire only that that is necessary, and can govern and control ourselves to be satisfied with that, it is a great deal better than to want a thousand things that are unnecessary, and especially to the female portion of the inhabitants of the earth. But there is a curse upon them, and I cannot take it off, can you? No, you cannot—it never will be taken from the human family until the mission is fulfilled, and our Master and our Lord is perfectly satisfied with our work. It will then be taken from this portion of the community, and will afflict them no more; but for the present it will afflict them.

George Q Cannon - 1869

If there were no books in existence, if the revelation itself were blotted out, and there was nothing written in its favor, extant among men, still I could bear testimony for myself that I know this is a principle which, if practiced in purity and virtue, as it should be, will result in the exaltation and benefit of the human family; and that it will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning. I believe the correct practice of this principle will redeem woman from the effects of that curse—namely, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Joseph F. Smith -1878

Joseph Smith, on the day it was written, expressly declared that there was a great deal more connected with the doctrine which would be revealed in due time, but this was sufficient for the occasion, and was made to suffice for the time. And, indeed, I think it much more than many are prepared to live up to even now.

We can get a feel for how they viewed this issue with these comments. I don't believe it was necessarily inspired when some of the brethren said that plural marriage would never be taken from the earth. In fact, Brigham did say one time that it could be taken away, and I'll try to find that quote.

So, you were also wondering what proof I had for thinking that the reason the principle was taken away was because they were not progressing in other Celestial principles, and I'll refer you to these following quotes and revelation Brigham received:

Brigham Young 1876

You Elders of Israel, do you not see the necessity of an advance? Do you not see that we have traveled just as far as we can, without adopting the revelation the Lord gave at Independence, Jackson County, namely, that “the property of the Saints should be laid at the feet of the Bishops, etc., and unless this was done a curse would befall them?” They refused to do it, and the consequence was, they were driven from their homes. Unless we obey these first revelations, the people will decline in their faith, and they will leave the faith of the holy Gospel. Do the Elders sense this? Yes, a great many of them do—also a great many of the sisters. Were it not for the faith and prayers of the faithful ones, this Church would have

been given into the hands of our enemies. It is the faith of the Priesthood, who cling to the commandments of the Lord, that holds the people where they are.

Brigham Young

We do, every one of us. We ask the question again, Do we expect that we have already become perfect, and that we are prepared to be numbered with the sanctified, and that we are now prepared to be gathered with God's elect, and that, if we were to hear the voice tonight—“Behold the bridegroom cometh”—we should be numbered with the wise? Do we anticipate this? If we do we are wrong, for we are not prepared.

Brigham Young June 21, 1874

I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch.

Aug. 1874

1. Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham,
2. Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.

I appreciate the substantive post/response. And thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood what you were saying about those rebelling, etc.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

So you think Sister Nelson and Sister Oaks believe their condition of being sealed as second wives is not known?

You can listen to Finrock if you like...

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/10/open ... k?lang=eng President Nelson: When my grandfather A. C. Nelson was a young husband and father, just 27 years old, his father died. About three months later, his deceased father, my great-grandfather, came to visit him. The date of that visit was the night of April 6, 1891. Grandfather Nelson was so impressed by his father’s visit that he wrote the experience in his journal for his family and friends.

“I was in bed when Father entered the room,” Grandfather Nelson wrote. “He came and sat on the side of the bed. He said, ‘Well, my son, as I had a few spare minutes, I received permission to come and see you for a few minutes. I am feeling well, my son, and have had very much to do since I died.’”

When Grandfather Nelson asked him what he had been doing, his father answered that he had been busy teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit world.

“You cannot imagine, my son, how many spirits there are in the spirit world who have not yet received the gospel,” he said. “But many are receiving it, and a great work is being accomplished. Many are anxiously looking forth to their friends who are still living to administer for them in the temples.”

Grandfather Nelson told his father, “We intend to go to the temple and get sealed to you, Father, as soon as we can.”

My great-grandfather responded: “That, my son, is partly what I came to see you about. We will yet make a family and live throughout eternity.”

Then Grandfather Nelson asked, “Father, is the gospel as taught by this Church true?”

His father pointed to a picture of the First Presidency hanging on the wall of the bedroom.

“My son, just as sure as you see that picture, just as sure is the gospel true. The gospel of Jesus Christ has within it the power of saving every man and woman who will obey it, and in no other way can they ever obtain salvation in the kingdom of God. My son, always cling to the gospel. Be humble, be prayerful, be submissive to the priesthood, be true, be faithful to the covenants you have made with God. Never do anything that would displease God. Oh, what a blessing is the gospel. My son, be a good boy.”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by this Church is true. I agree that "the gospel of Jesus Christ has within it the power of saving every man and woman who will obey it, and in no other way can they ever obtain salvation in the kingdom of God." I agree that we should "always cling to the gospel. Be humble, be prayerful, be submissive to the priesthood, be true, be faithful to the covenants you have made with God. Never do anything that would displease God." I agree, "what a blessing is the gospel." We should be good, yes indeed.

All of it true. Not relevant to polygamy or what we've been discussing here, but true nonetheless. If that is what you've been trying to say all along, Arenera, then we are agreed. Didn't seem like you were talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ though. It sounded like you were supporting polygamy and teaching that whatever the Church/Church leaders say/teach/do is always right, no matter what.

-Finrock

The Gospel includes leaders. It also includes polygamy when God condones it. See Abraham, Jacob, Joseph Smith.

You remind me of DS, always having to say something negative about leaders.

That you believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ includes leaders, polygamy, and all of these others things is very informative and it is actually one reason why you are confused and have built on this fragile foundation of yours (Church/Church leader infallibility). BTW, I don't say this to mock you, but rather to inform you and to identify something for what it is that I have observed. If you were trying to build your house on a pile of rubble, I'd say that you were building on a fragile foundation and its gonna fail sooner or later. I also say this in the hopes that it will set off alarm bells in your mind. Probably won't, but, you aren't the only person who reads my posts. In any case, its important to understand the distinction here. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the same as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it is not the ALL encompassing Father's Eternal Plan of Happiness, although a part of it. The gospel is the good news that Jesus lives, He saves, we are redeemed from the fall, we can repent, and enjoy the companionship of the Holy Spirit. The Church's sole purpose is to fulfill the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What is the FULL MEASURE of our Saviors mortal purpose?

What must happen to fulfill this purpose?

I tell you that it is to fulfill GODS purpose… “To bring to pass the immortality of mankind”. To provide a way that man may be saved. This is called the Plan of Salvation.

This can only come by the means of the spiritual ordinance of “Baptism of Fire” (The Holy Ghost).

Once you have received this ordinance you are in fact in the Gate to the Celestial Kingdom (the Holy Ghost is the Gate). This is when thee Atonement purifies you, “That you may stand Blameless”. Thus completing Gods purpose stated above “To bring to pass the immortality of mankind”, the Plan of Salvation.

This is why our Saviors Gospel is, Repentance, Baptism by water, Baptism by Fire. Once you have received the “Baptism of Fire” you have in fact fulfilled Our Saviors mission. The Fullness of our Saviors Gospel is in fact the same as the Fullness of his Mortal Purpose. The meaning of Fullness is to FULFILL to make FULL

Now if you want to talk about our “Father’s Eternal Plan of Happiness”, there is much more. But that is not part of this discussion and really has no bearing on it. Because it doesn’t excise until you have opened the Gate, or until We have Fulfilled our Saviors Purpose. We know the Eternal Plan of Happiness is there but until you obtain this promise (Baptism of Fire) you can’t obtain the promises that follow.

The reason this is important is… Our Father’s house is a house of order. If we a looking at the prize after the prize you often miss. I will use a sports analogy. You never look passed your opponent in front of you, planning for your next opponent. This will almost always lead to failure and under achieving.

If we don’t know our Saviors Gospel and His Purpose how are we ever going to receive the blessings It has to offer, and if we miss the mark on It then we miss out on everything that follows.

This is Nephi’s vision of the tree of life!! The Gospel of Jesus Christ…. Remember Lehi/Nephi’s vision of the Tree of Life is the Plan of Salvation. The Purpose, Mission and the Gospel of our Savior.

I bear my witness to these Truths and I pray that every soul partakes. May the spirit bless and guide you.

Michael Davis

-Finrock

[MMbelieve]

I'm not mocking anyone and I'm not mad at anyone. Please don't accuse me of random things. The debate as to whether JS actually practiced polygamy has ample and convincing evidence on both sides. So you are making a leap to make a definitive statement to that effect, in my opinion. The next leap that you make is that if he did practice it, he received revelation from God to do so. These are your beliefs and interpretations. Regardless, even if JS did practice it, AND was commanded by God to do so, we don't have all the ifs, hows and whys about it, which would be no small part of the puzzle, and still wouldn't prove polygamy to be a celestial principle. So, yeah, the fact that it happened in the early restored church, even if JS was involved, doesn't carry a strong doctrinal punch for me.

Since we have 2 senior apostles who have been sealed to 2nd wives, that indicates it is a celestial principle. During the days of practicing, it was called Celestial Marriage.

We don't practice it today so there is no need to get into details on how to practice it.

One of those men is quoted as saying he doesn't know the condition of his 2nd marriage in the eternities. So only 50% credit here.

So you think Sister Nelson and Sister Oaks believe their condition of being sealed as second wives is not known?

Um...the apostle Oaks said it.
And I believe his second wife could feel the same if he is unsure.

Sis. Nelson...again, don't know.

If I married a widow who already had a family and had no children, I might hope for a chance to have my own husband in the eternities. She's like a 3rd wheel, has no children with him.

Perhaps she's just kinda taking care of him and serving an earthly purpose...and fully plans on letting Nelson and Mrs. Nelson have their eternity.
But, I don't know.

[MMbelieve]

I'm not mocking anyone and I'm not mad at anyone. Please don't accuse me of random things. The debate as to whether JS actually practiced polygamy has ample and convincing evidence on both sides. So you are making a leap to make a definitive statement to that effect, in my opinion. The next leap that you make is that if he did practice it, he received revelation from God to do so. These are your beliefs and interpretations. Regardless, even if JS did practice it, AND was commanded by God to do so, we don't have all the ifs, hows and whys about it, which would be no small part of the puzzle, and still wouldn't prove polygamy to be a celestial principle. So, yeah, the fact that it happened in the early restored church, even if JS was involved, doesn't carry a strong doctrinal punch for me.

Since we have 2 senior apostles who have been sealed to 2nd wives, that indicates it is a celestial principle. During the days of practicing, it was called Celestial Marriage.

We don't practice it today so there is no need to get into details on how to practice it.

One of those men is quoted as saying he doesn't know the condition of his 2nd marriage in the eternities. So only 50% credit here.

Another one.

After a three-year courtship, the couple married in the Salt Lake Temple on June 10, 1931. Claire passed away in 1983.

It was seven years later, on April 12, 1990, when President Howard W. Hunter, then president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, announced in the quorum’s weekly meeting that he was going to be married that afternoon. Aside from President Gordon B. Hinckley, to perform President Hunter’s sealing to Inis Staton, and President Thomas S. Monson, to be a witness, “no one else was invited” from the quorum, according to “Courtships of the Prophets.”.

I don’t think this is just playing around.

Of course it's not playing around. A single woman should be sealed, she needs that. Its kind of his duty according to what we know of sealings. If a widower married a never sealed woman and the church said no to a sealing they would be wrong in doing that because he's priesthood and she needs that sealing.

I do not however believe those two have to stay married and she won't ever have a chance at her own husband.

[Arenera]

If you want brief, here it is:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Gospel includes all aspects of the Kingdom of God. You show your belief by making covenants and having ordinances done. Ordinances requires authorization, hence the Priesthood.

When God commands polygamy, you do polygamy. Unless you don’t want to.

[nvr]

When God commands polygamy, you do polygamy. Unless you don’t want to.

Does that work for other areas, too? Ie. when God commands to be honest, help others, and not steal, you be honest, help others and don't steal. Unless you don't want to. ??

[Arenera]

When God commands polygamy, you do polygamy. Unless you don’t want to.

Does that work for other areas, too? Ie. when God commands to be honest, help others, and not steal, you be honest, help others and don't steal. Unless you don't want to. ??

Sure. Where you end up is another question.

[Finrock]

If you want brief, here it is:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Gospel includes all aspects of the Kingdom of God. You show your belief by making covenants and having ordinances done. Ordinances requires authorization, hence the Priesthood.

When God commands polygamy, you do polygamy. Unless you don’t want to.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ does not include all aspects of the Kingdom of God. I just demonstrated how it doesn't. Again, been there, done that. What you believe (like many Mormons do) is conflating the Father's Eternal Plan of Happiness with the central component of it. You conflating this is affecting your ability to reason/discuss/teach these principles correctly.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple and easy to understand. Polygamy isn't simple and easy to understand. Once you start trying to tie everything in to the gospel of Jesus Christ, you leave simplicity and easy to understand behind. The most simple, the most unsophisticated, the most pure, and the most innocent person can understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and fulfill it without ever needing to know or to understand your convoluted version of it.

Again, its one reason why you have this fragile foundation of "Church/Church Leaders Infallible".

You will be forever shooting beyond that mark if you don't recognize the distinction. Sincere, loving, honest, meaningful advice/counsel/suggestion to you from your brother, Finrock.

-Finrock

[nvr]

I think this conversation isn't really going anywhere because there's a significant difference in personality type and thinking patterns between Arenera and some of the rest of the skeptics who've posted here. Arenera seems to fit the pattern of ISFJ, or ESFJ ("sentinal/protector") personality type (of the Meyer-Briggs personality types) which is marked by traits such as loyalty, honoring of tradition, a tendency to take things personally, and resistance to change.
Debates such as this dealing with a religion's history seem to be difficult for those of ISFJ or ESFJ type as even objective discussions of historical people and events can be mistaken as attacks on deeply held beliefs.

[Arenera]

You use non logic and emotional reasoning. You like to say negative things about leaders, I suppose to get people to accept your non logic.

Jesus Christ. His Gospel. Covers everything. Includes Abraham, his wives and posterity. Even named a Covenant after Abraham.

[Finrock]

I think this conversation isn't really going anywhere because there's a significant difference in personality type and thinking patterns between Arenera and some of the rest of the skeptics who've posted here. Arenera seems to fit the pattern of ISFJ, or ESFJ ("sentinal/protector") personality type (of the Meyer-Briggs personality types) which is marked by traits such as loyalty, honoring of tradition, a tendency to take things personally, and resistance to change.
Debates such as this dealing with a religion's history seem to be difficult for those of ISFJ or ESFJ type as even objective discussions of historical people and events can be mistaken as attacks on deeply held beliefs.

The participants here aren't the only people reading. It isn't a competition more than it is sharing of ideas. But, I think you make some good points.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

You use non logic and emotional reasoning. You like to say negative things about leaders, I suppose to get people to accept your non logic.

Jesus Christ. His Gospel. Covers everything. Includes Abraham, his wives and posterity. Even named a Covenant after Abraham.

The term gospel is found ninety-nine times in the New American Standard Bible and ninety-two times in the NET Bible. In the Greek New Testament, gospel is the translation of the Greek noun euangelion (occurring 76 times) “good news,” and the verb euangelizo„ (occurring 54 times), meaning “to bring or announce good news.

Gospel of Jesus Christ does not mean every teaching, doctrine, idea, thought taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It is the good news of Jesus's atonement. It is simply and purely faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by water, baptism by fire. Full stop.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

I think this conversation isn't really going anywhere because there's a significant difference in personality type and thinking patterns between Arenera and some of the rest of the skeptics who've posted here. Arenera seems to fit the pattern of ISFJ, or ESFJ ("sentinal/protector") personality type (of the Meyer-Briggs personality types) which is marked by traits such as loyalty, honoring of tradition, a tendency to take things personally, and resistance to change.
Debates such as this dealing with a religion's history seem to be difficult for those of ISFJ or ESFJ type as even objective discussions of historical people and events can be mistaken as attacks on deeply held beliefs.

Thanks for the free test.

Should someone be loyal to God? Abraham showed he was loyal. Also had more than one wife. Was Nephi loyal to the prophet, his father? When Lehi murmured, Nephi still respected him and asked him where to go to find food. Christ talked to Lehi for 3 hours.

Joseph Smith was selected to be the Prophet of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, that came with a commitment and covenant with Joseph Smith and God.

Restoration of Celestial Marriage, including plural wives is part of this dispensation. This wasn’t appealing to Joseph, so God sent an angel with a sword. Joseph respected God’s command.

The skeptics haven’t provided objective information. Dislikes, mocking, name calling, distraction.

Be loyal to God, which includes sustaining our leaders.

[nvr]

You use non logic and emotional reasoning. You like to say negative things about leaders, I suppose to get people to accept your non logic.

Jesus Christ. His Gospel. Covers everything. Includes Abraham, his wives and posterity. Even named a Covenant after Abraham.

Many people make this mistake of treating stories from the bible as patterns to follow rather than stories imbued with warnings.

[R]eading the Bible for all its worth involves recognition that the narratives of Scripture are often descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. The fact that Scripture reveals the patriarchs with all their warts and moles and wrinkles is to warn us of their failures, it’s not to teach us to emulate their practices. Far from blinking at David’s polygamous behavior, the Bible reveals that as a result of his sin, the sword never left his home. http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_out/do ... -polygamy/

Jacob emphasized this point in the Book of Mormon:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[Arenera]

You use non logic and emotional reasoning. You like to say negative things about leaders, I suppose to get people to accept your non logic.

Jesus Christ. His Gospel. Covers everything. Includes Abraham, his wives and posterity. Even named a Covenant after Abraham.

Many people make this mistake of treating stories from the bible as patterns to follow rather than stories imbued with warnings.

[R]eading the Bible for all its worth involves recognition that the narratives of Scripture are often descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. The fact that Scripture reveals the patriarchs with all their warts and moles and wrinkles is to warn us of their failures, it’s not to teach us to emulate their practices. Far from blinking at David’s polygamous behavior, the Bible reveals that as a result of his sin, the sword never left his home. http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_out/do ... -polygamy/

Jacob emphasized this point in the Book of Mormon:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Covered.

And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people.

[Jesef]

Yeah, errant scripture. God didn't really say that. Men reported that he did. It's another problem with the inerrancy of scripture or prophets/leaders paradigm.

Here's a fun noodler: so, by default (even in Arenera's head) polygamy is abominable whoredom UNLESS COMMANDED BY GOD (he proposes). Why? Monogamous marriage is okay under any circumstances, regardless of commandment. What is inherently wrong with polygamy? Why isn't it okay for Warren Jeffs and company to do polygamy? Why would God command something that is inherently abominable/whoredom & harmful for women (the more wives, the more neglect of both wives and children by husband/father). So dumb.

[Finrock]

I think this conversation isn't really going anywhere because there's a significant difference in personality type and thinking patterns between Arenera and some of the rest of the skeptics who've posted here. Arenera seems to fit the pattern of ISFJ, or ESFJ ("sentinal/protector") personality type (of the Meyer-Briggs personality types) which is marked by traits such as loyalty, honoring of tradition, a tendency to take things personally, and resistance to change.
Debates such as this dealing with a religion's history seem to be difficult for those of ISFJ or ESFJ type as even objective discussions of historical people and events can be mistaken as attacks on deeply held beliefs.

Thanks for the free test.

Should someone be loyal to God? Abraham showed he was loyal. Also had more than one wife. Was Nephi loyal to the prophet, his father? When Lehi murmured, Nephi still respected him and asked him where to go to find food. Christ talked to Lehi for 3 hours.

Joseph Smith was selected to be the Prophet of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, that came with a commitment and covenant with Joseph Smith and God.

Restoration of Celestial Marriage, including plural wives is part of this dispensation. This wasn’t appealing to Joseph, so God sent an angel with a sword. Joseph respected God’s command.

The skeptics haven’t provided objective information. Dislikes, mocking, name calling, distraction.

Be loyal to God, which includes sustaining our leaders.

Stop lying about people mocking, name calling, etc. Lying for sure is wrong and we shouldn't do that even when we are losing a debate or even when we really don't like what other people are saying. You shouldn't lie that people have not provided objective responses or that all they have done is mocked and ridiculed.

I'm going to put the rational arguments and objective arguments that counter your position front and center for anyone to see:

Arenera's Argument: Everything that the Church/Church leaders teach is true/good/right, therefore polygamy must be good/right/true.

Counter Argument to Arenera's Argument (False): BY taught that black people were destined by God to be slaves to white people. BY taught that black people would not receive the priesthood until all white people received it. Brigham Young, President of the Church, was wrong based on the words of modern day prophets. Proof: "The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church" (https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church). Proof: In 1978 the priesthood was given to ALL worthy males, regardless of skin color. This objective, historical fact proves that the prophecy of BY and what he taught that blacks would not receive the priesthood until all white people did, was/is wrong.

Counter Argument Conclusion (False): NOT everything that the Church/Church leaders teach is true/good/right, therefore we can't assume that because early Church leaders taught or practiced polygamy that polygamy is therefore good.

Second Counter Argument (Fallacious): Appeal to Authority is Fallacious reasoning - "Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered" (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... -Authority). "Logical Form: According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true. Therefore, Y is true."

Counter Argument Conclusion (Fallacious):
It is not rational, reasonable, to simply assume that something is true/good/right just because an authority says it is.

Objective Evidence showing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not ALL doctrine/teachings/ideas taught by the LDS Church:

The term gospel is found ninety-nine times in the New American Standard Bible and ninety-two times in the NET Bible. In the Greek New Testament, gospel is the translation of the Greek noun euangelion (occurring 76 times) “good news,” and the verb euangelizo„ (occurring 54 times), meaning “to bring or announce good news.

Finrock's BIAS:

the Church has been like a mother and a father to me as I grew up. I didn't have the best home growing up and suffered a lot of abuse. However, the Church was/is a good place where I could go and there were people who loved/cared about me, wanted to help me, taught me, etc. The Church has also and its members have been a tremendous help to me and my family through-out the years. I've received help when times were really tough. My journey to being helped from childhood abuse started as a result of good and loving priesthood leaders and I've been helped by LDS Family Services. I've had many spiritual experiences while participating or taking part in Church meetings and activities. And many other good experiences too many to list here. I say all of this for two reasons. One, to let you and others know that I am not a Church hater. Two, I recognize that this is a bias. That means I'm going to present an argument or reasoning that is in favor of the Church and which is in favor of being involved and in remaining in the Church.

I do have a bias, which is in favor of the Church.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

You are wrong FR.

Polygamy was commanded by God in this dispensation. It is that simple.

Has nothing to do with the blacks, or your relationship with the Church, or if you dislike polygamy personally.

You start with doubt and that clouds your judgment.

Also from one of the skeptic mockers: So dumb.

[Durzan]

Has the Church been damned since it stopped practicing polygamy, as early Church leaders predicted?

I look at the groups who kept polygamy and then the Church today and it seems to me that groups that are still practicing polygamy, have been damned. They seem to be cesspools of pedophilia and cult like mentality. They haven't grown, they are secluded, their "light" doesn't shine and their voice isn't being heard and taught to the world.

Seems to me that since the Church stopped practicing polygamy, we have prospered tremendously. Seems like the opposite happened from what early prophets predicted. This makes it seem like stopping polygamy was a good thing and it was in fact polygamy that was keeping us back. Makes sense then that God would want us to stop practicing it. It took Him using the heavy hand of the U.S. government to finally get His message across to His prophets who seemed to be stuck in this cult mentality.

-Finrock

I agree with you that it seems like the church has been blessed and the polygamous groups have been cursed. The church went in the right direction in accordance with God's will, but that doesn't mean that the principle of plural marriage does not exist in eternity. It's obvious that this is a celestial principle not meant to be practiced in a large scale in a telestial sphere, and so it has not been commanded very often. The issue in the early days of the church was that they were not progressing. They were happy to take on more wives, but they were not willing to live other celestial principles or were being hindered from doing so, and so the practiced of plurality was taken away. It turned out to be a good way to weed out the rebellious when WW did the turn-around and many could not handle it.

We know the spirits who have died before us are not focused on having children, but are focused on missionary and family history work. And that is what the Church has been focused on too. Are the spirits in heaven any less worthy of blessings because they are not fulfilling the law of marriage and having children? Obviously the answer is no, that it's simply a case of different circumstances and a different law for their time and sphere. That's how I see our time. We have laws and conditions suited to our time and place, and aren't asked right now to live every law or commandment ever revealed. Those who find fault with this in my estimation have a rebellious spirit and are looking for reason to accuse the brethren. At the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we don't see world-wide missionary work and baptism going on. But the covenants were being established. Now we have an opportunity to make the same covenants because of their lives, and we are to take those covenants to all the world. Thanks to them we can make this phase of the work happen. And thanks to the sacrifice of some of those early saints who obeyed and practiced plurality, many righteous spirits were born into the covenant to help provide this missionary force. I and my husband both descend from plural wives, and many saints I talk to also do, so it really did make a difference I think, and someone mentioned how the posterity of those plural wives would be blessed for their sacrifice, and I believe that to be the case.

Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner! We were not following the commandment as instructed, nor were we following the other celestial commandments needed for the downsides of Polygamy to be compensated for. Lets look at exactly what D&C 132 actually says on the subject, to get down to the bottom this notion.

Part I (Verses 1 to 50):

1. Verses 1 to 3: The Lord opens by saying he will answer Joseph's questions on why some of His ancient servants were allowed to have multiple wives and Concubines. God implies in verse one that He justifies them under certain circumstances which he will explain later on. He tells Joseph that this is a hard topic to understand and follow, and proceeds to encourage Joseph to talk about and to prepare himself to be willing to receive the related principles and obey them. He who its told the law should obey it. Conclusion: God is about to answer Joseph's Questions about ancient polygamy, warns him that this is a hard thing to deal with, and that with its restoration will come related principles. Since God justifies his servants in Polygamy, that means that usually it is a sin in this life, unless specifically called for by God.
2. Verses 4 to 6: God is about to reveal a new and everlasting covenant and says that those who do not abide by it shall be damned. This reinforces the warning he gave to Joseph in Verse 3. God will bless those that faithfully keep this covenant, and reveals that this covenant was established before the world was made. God talks about how this law was established in the fullness of His Glory and emphasizes again that those who reject it will be damned. Conclusion: God means business here, do NOT mess with this law. Implement it correctly and you will be blessed, as it is a part of Celestial Law. Alter it and you are damned; turn away or reject it and you are damned.
3. Verse 7: God reiterates that all forms of commitment (Expressed in the verse as "... All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations..." and so forth, if any) must be officially recognized in heaven for them to have any effect in Post-Mortality (IE the Spirit World and the Degrees of Glory); any such commitments not made and recognized in heaven are rendered null and void upon the death of the parties involved. In order for a commitment to be officially recognized, it must be made, entered into, and sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise; and administered through prophecy and revelation by one appointed and anointed by the Lord to hold this sealing power. God reemphasizes that there is only ever one person on the earth at this time (the time of the revelation) that has the keys and powers of the priesthood regarding the administration of this covenant. Jospeh Smith is clearly singled out yet again as being appointed to this role. Conclusion: Priesthood power is required to oversee and administer the new covenant and have any commitments made under the new covenant be considered valid in heaven. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit must sanctify and seal the commitments. Joseph Smith is stated once more to be the one chosen by God to oversee and administer this new covenant.
4. Verses 8 to 12: The Lord's House is a house of order, and will be organized according to His will. God is not required to accept an ordinance that isn't done in His name or by the properly appointed authority (Speculation: God could easily reorganize things on a whim or accept such covenants if He so thought it neccesary). No man shall come unto God save it be through Jesus Christ and his Law. Conclusion: God is reemphasizing how He typically does things, as He has said stuff like this in previous revelations as well. Since he is about to disclose laws and rules that involve procreation (a very serious subject for the Lord), it stands to reason that he would emphasize and overemphasize following the Laws He gives. Sexual sin often has particularly devastating consequences and that must be extremely painful for Him to watch play out.
5. Verses 13 to 14: Everything in this world is temporary, and shall not last past the destruction of the world. However, those things that remain directly tied to God shall be preserved into eternity. Everything not of God shall be destroyed. Conclusion: Heavenly Father is again emphasizing the temporary nature of mortality, putting focus on the importance of keeping the commandments and covenants.
6. Verses 15 to 18: Marriage, like all other forms of commitment and covenants, must be sealed in heaven for it to be in force or to have effect beyond mortal life. It appears that God is saying that people cannot be married in the Celestial Kingdom; those not sealed for time and all eternity forever become ministering angels and servants, and cannot be fully exalted (IE they are not gods), because they did not abide by Heavenly Father's law of marriage during mortality. Verse 18 is simply a restatement and clarification of the the previous verses.
7. Verses 19 and 20: This right here covers the basics and foundations of the Marriage Covenant. This is where the meat of D&C 132 starts. Everything else that follows builds and expands upon it. God says that all those who have been married and had said marriage sealed through proper authority and the sealing of the Holy Spirit shall come forth in the First Resurrection (or interestingly enough, it also says "and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection." I wonder what the implications of that are...) and that they shall inherit "thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths..." and that it shall be written in the Lords book of life "that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world;" In other words, God is saying that even after being sealed, we must keep the commandments and endure to the end in order to be exalted. Exaltation is defined in verse twenty as becoming gods, having no end and all power. The angels shall be subject to them. Conclusion: Note how God doesn't specify the number of times you have to be sealed here, but speaks of it as though there is one sealing. This once again indicates that Monogamy is the baseline for Exaltation, and that polygamy is more supplemental in nature.
8. Verses 21 to 24: God again says that we must abide by this law to fully obtain God's glory, yet again mentions how the way is straight and narrow, but that if we do manage to follow, we will come to fully know the Father and receive exaltation like Him. He says in verse 24: "This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law." Conclusion: Fairly straight forward as to what this means. God is commanding Jospeh (and soon us as well) to receive and consider what He is about to say.
9. Verses 25-27: God warns in verse 25 that the path to destruction is broad and vast; this acts as a transition into the next point. Verse 26 says that those who are married and sealed by the Holy Spirit are covered utterly under the atonement. It says that if one shall commit any number of sins and transgressions (save it be the shedding of innocent blood), then they shall come forth in the first resurrection and shall be exalted. However, they shall be destroyed in the flesh and suffer the buffeting of satan and his minions until that day of redemption. In other words, it seems as though they will be confined in Spirit Prison, yet shall receive exaltation in the end... thats interesting. However, the Lord then goes on to exactly define what it takes to commit the unpardonable sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: one must commit the shedding of innocent blood, after having entered into the new and everlasting covenant (which includes eternal marriage as a significant part of said covenant, as thats what this whole section is talking about). Those that do so shall be damned. Conclusion: In this context, the shedding of innocent blood probably means both physical shedding of innocent blood, and the spiritual shedding of innocent blood (as defined in D&C 76, when God talks about those in Outer Darkness). If this is the case, then someone who does after being sealed has serious risk of becoming a Son of Perdition.
10. Verses 28 to 37: God gives us the law of the Holy Priesthood. God recounts how Abraham received all things and is now Exalted, and the promises He gave unto him, specifically citing the promise that Abraham would have descendants as numerous as the stars. God declares that Joseph Smith inherits the promises of Abraham also, and commands him to go and do the works of Abraham, reminding Joseph that one cannot receive the promises of the Father without following the laws set forth. God announces commanded Abraham and Sarah to take Hagar to wife (Surprise!) and that Abraham wasn't condemned for it, because it was God's command. He also says that the commandments said not to kill, yet Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Issac and was justified in his actions by the Lord (Side Note: God did command Abraham to spare Issac's life at the last moment). Likewise, Abraham was given concubines, and they bore him children, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. God further emphasizes that Abraham and his wives and concubines are now all exalted as a collective. Conclusion: God seems to be doing two things here. First, he seems to be trying to reassure Joseph that polygamy is of God, when He specifically commands it, and that he will not be damned if He is following God's commandment; this point will only again be reemphasized in the next few verses. Two, He seems to be tying polygamy to the fulfillment of Abraham's promise to have numberless descendants, even going so far as to say that Joseph is an inheritor of that promise. Thus, there is an established connection between "raising up a righteous generation" and polygamy, at least in God's eyes. While there may be other reasons why God would allow or even command polygamy at times, producing additional generations of children seems to be a very important reason.
11. Verses 38 and 39: God mentions how David, Solomon, even Moses (Surprising, cause as far as I can recall, the books of Moses only mention one wife), and many others of his ancient servants had many wives and concubines. Apparently all of these servants didn't sin in this issue either, save except the times where they "received not of me." Then the Lord clarifies by explaining what happened to David; David's sin was lusting after Uriah's wife (committing adultery in his heart), sleeping with her (actual physical adultery), and then conspiring to murder Uriah (shedding of innocent blood) so he could marry Bathsheba (when the Lord didn't specifically say he could marry her). David committed 4 sins, all of which broke the Lord's laws, with the last one being that David took a wife whom the Lord hadn't consecrated for him to marry. Conclusion: The Lord must approve of the marriage by specifically commanding the two to marry in order for it not to be considered a sin. It is not the polygamy that was the problem with David, but the fact that he committed adultery and murder, and ultimately breaching the Lord's trust regarding God's polygamy law in the process. Thus, David was condemned and damned.
12. Verses 40 and 44: God commanded Joseph to restore all things; this apparently included polygamy. God tells Joseph that He will answer all questions he puts to Him. Joseph asked about Adultery, and the Lord explains it in greater detail: "And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed." Conclusion and Commentary: God is now about to give further information on adultery, and even explain how it works with regards to Plural Marriage. He's starting by saying what happens when a woman commits adultery whether or not she is married for time and all eternity; Adultery results in destruction. Had to split these verses from the other verses due to an interesting line I never noticed before. Interestingly enough, Polyandry may have some scriptural basis for potentially being in God's kingdom after all (see the bolded part of the quoted verse above).
13. Verses 43: If a man is with another woman, he has broken his vow and committed adultry. Conclusion and Commentary: God calls male adulterers oath-breakers as well as Adulterers... interesting. He didn't call a female adulterer an oath-breaker by saying that she had broken her vows. Does this mean that men who commit adultery have the greater sin than the woman who does the same?
14. Verse 44: An innocent woman accused of Adultery is to be allowed to be married to another (phrased here as "given to another") man who has never committed adultery, and that man shall be made ruler over many (Whatever that means). If this is the case, then God will reveal it to Joseph or other worthy priesthood holders in due time (if applicable). Conclusion and Commentary: Polygamy can be used as a way to allow a woman falsely accused of cheating out of that husband's reach. She shall marry another more righteous man and he shall protect her. Logically this could also be extended to abusive husbands as well. Okay... so this is actually pretty cool!
15. Verse 45 to 47: Another statement saying that God has given Joseph the keys and priesthood and through him will restore all things, and make all things known unto him in due time. The Lord again emphasizes that what is sealed on earth shall be sealed in heaven, and those who bless Jospeh shall be blessed, and those that curse him shall be cursed.
16. Verse 48 to 50: God will honor Joseph's word on earth and in heaven, and shall be with Joseph for all of Eternity. Joseph shall be prepared for Exaltation, even as Abraham was, and is sealed unto it. God has seen Joseph's sacrifices and is pleased with him; Joseph's sins are forgiven, and God commands him to go forth, for the Lord has prepared a way for him to escape, even as He accepted Abraham's sacrifice of Issac. Conclusion: This part actually seems to feel like the end of a revelation to me. I said before that D&C 132 seems like it was two separate revelations spliced together, and this is why... God has a tendency to close up many D&C revelations with statements like we see in these verses. He's given the foundation of Celestial Marriage and Polygamy, named it the New and Everlasting Covenant (when it is likely only a significant part of the covenant), and named it as utterly essential to exaltation. He has accomplished this purpose by this point, so what more is there to say? It seems logical and right that the revelation should've ended at this point. Furthermore, the rest of the section is addressed to Emma, and further expounds on the laws regarding plural marriage. Thus it seems as though the rest is an addendum that was originally its own separate revelation to Joseph.

So, I actually got a lot out of this. God is all over the place in this revelation. He emphasizes and reemphasizes the following subjects: He is a God of Order, all things must be sealed in Heaven or else it has no effect after death and marriage is no exception, in order to become exalted you must be married and sealed for time and all eternity, and marriage is part of the new and everlasting covenant and thus celestial law; shedding of innocent blood when you are sealed up unto exaltation counts as denying the Holy Ghost, but otherwise a sealed person is immune to falling from grace (but are subject to the buffetings of satan till the resurrection); Plural Marriage is only ordained of God when he specifically approves of it and when God wants someone to take another wife he will tell the man to marry her, and if you marry anyone else without being told to by God then it is a sin and you are condemned... especially if other sins are involved in the process. Adultery is very bad, but the man takes more responsibility than the woman, being someone who broke their vows. Polygamy can be used as a way for a woman to escape abuse, with the Lord guiding a priesthood holder to nullify her marriage to the abusive husband, and having a more righteous man marry her instead. Also, there is Brief hints in the adultery section that polyandry may be a thing if approved of by the Lord, with it not counting as adultery for a wife if a man is "given unto her".

We get the foundation for celestial marriage as well as a bit of additional information about polygamy.

Part II (Verses 51 to 57):

Now we start to get into the more controversial parts of D&C 132: The parts dealing with Emma. Here we go:

1. Verse 51: Emma is commanded to "partake not of that which I commanded you to offer her;" for God asked Joseph to do this to prove "you all" as the Lord did to Abraham. The Lord did this because He wanted to have an offering by covenant and sacrifice by her hand. Conclusion/Commentary: The Lord calls Emma his Handmaid, indicating that He still respects her as an "Elect Lady." My curiosity is piqued concerning what Emma was asked not to partake of. Anyone have any idea what this is talking about? Is this another reference to Polyandry?
2. Verses 52 and 53: Emma commanded to accept all the virtuous and pure people that were given unto Joseph; God will destroy the ones who claim to be pure yet are not. The Lord gives unto Joseph because he was faithful unto Him; God will make him ruler over many things and shall strengthen him. Conclusion: God is trying to not only command Emma to follow His voice, but also is trying to soothe her soul here. Joseph was commanded to marry other women. Personal Thought: She is the Matriarch of Joseph's household, and as such all the other wives would be subject to her. This is what God means when He asks/commands her to accept them. He wants her to treat them with love and with respect, and not be further troubled by their presence.
3. Verses 54 and 55: Emma is commanded to remain faithful to Joseph Smith and to no one else, lest she be destroyed; if Emma doesn't abide this commandment, then Joseph must do all things for her as she has said; and the Lord would bless and multiply Joseph 100x more in mortality and in the eternities. Conclusion: The Lord speaks bluntly here; Emma will be damned if she no longer remains faithful to Joseph. But then he curiously gives her a way out if she wants it (by rejecting this commandment), telling Joseph that if she rejects the commandment to go ahead and do she asked of Him, and that he will be blessed 100 fold if this happens. Now, it becomes clear what the Lord is talking about: He is giving Emma a choice to take another husband (remember that line that I thought alluded to Polyandry?) or to remain exclusively faithful to Joseph. If she chooses to get another husband, then she will be damned and Joseph will be blessed additional times (ouch); If she remains faithful to him, she will likely recieve additional blessings alongside Joseph. THIS is likely the test the Lord was referring to in verse 51.
4. **Note regarding Polyamory: It seems as though from what we read so far in section 132 that Polyandry may have its place. HOWEVER, we've only received hints at it so far in this section, and it was quickly clarified in verses 51-55 that, at least in Emma's case, a woman taking a second husband would not prove to be a good thing. It seems the Lord is or was at some point toying with the idea, and ultimately decided it wasn't the best thing to encourage... especially if Polygyny is being enforced at the same time. I get the feeling that the Lord doesn't want people to have too many sexual partners, even if you are married to said partners. A Wife being married to three men, each of which who are married to three other women can also probably increase the chances sexual infections spreading and may also increase the desire to commit adultery, so I can see why the Lord would limit it to just polygyny... especially since one of the goals of restoring polygamy was stated to help fulfill Abraham's promise of limitless posterity.
5. Verse 56: The Lord asks Emma to forgive Joseph's trespasses, and her trespasses will be forgiven as well. He promises her that if she endures this trial of Polygamy to the end that He will bless her, multiply her, and multiply her own joy as well. Conclusion: The Lord is showing his tender side in this verse, having just sharply reprimanded her earlier and giving her a tough choice to make. Now he is showing his mercy and compassion here, by reemphasizing that she will be blessed for enduring through the difficulties that she was going through at this time. He asks her (let is a softer word used by the Lord, its not a commanding word, but an invitational word), not commands her, to forgive Joseph, and he will likewise forgive her as well. Remember that Emma reacted very poorly to finding out that Joseph received the revelations regarding polygamy and treated Joseph rather harshly as a result; can't say that I blame her, but still, the Lord is offering a truce here in this verse, and is trying to reason with her.
6. Verse 57: The Lord tells Emma to "let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for Satan seeketh to destroy;" in addition, the Lord reaffirms that Joseph is His servant and that He is with Joseph, even as He was with Abraham. Conclusion: Okay, this verse seems to be both very ominous and perplexing to me. What does the Lord mean by property? Is he saying that Joseph's wives are his property? The context of the revelation and the time period would seem to indicate that, although women in the 1820's weren't exactly considered property (though they did have less rights than men). Anyone got an answer to this? And that admonishment being addressed to Emma, saying not to let him lose grip of his property, lest Joseph be destroyed... is that a foreshadowing of the Martyrdom? If so, wow. I'm just speechless with this verse. Its bamboozling me, and that doesn't usually happen with scriptures.

So Wow. Just WOW! Again... I think I got a lot out of this. Emma was being reprimanded and tested by the Lord here, but at the same time He offered her a choice and told her the consequences of each. Stay exclusively with Joseph and be blessed, or walk away and take a second husband as Joseph was originally commanded to tell her as a test and have pleasure in this life, but be cut off in the hereafter. The Lord was reassuring her, even while reprimanding her and reasoning with her and even extended an olive branch, and gave her a warning designed to keep Joseph safe from something. Truely, this section of the D&C has enlightened my mind on many things! Now, onto the main selection of laws and regulations regarding plural marriage.

Part III (Verses 58 to 66):

1. Verses 58 and 59: The introduction to this selection. The Lord says there are many laws pertaining to the law of the priesthood in this instance. He starts by saying that if a Priesthood Holder is called by God and endowed with power and keys from on high, then if he doeth anything in the Lord's Name and according to God's Law and Word, then the Lord will justify him, and that man shall not have committed sin. Conclusion/Commentary: Many people do bad things in the name of God, so this verse raised some alarms in my head. However, I then remembered that the powers of priesthood are inseparably connected to the gates of heaven, and that if anyone sins, then the gates shut, closing them off from the power of God. This means that they would commit sin if they do something sinful without doing it according to God's word, law, and command. So we are in the clear here.
2. Verses 60: Verses 58 and 59 apply to Joseph Smith; God will require Joseph to do the sacrifice at his hands for his transgressions. Conclusion/Commentary: What the heck does that even mean?!? Heavenly Father, didn't you just say that you would justify him? Why would he need to sacrifice for his transgressions if you justified him? Does this mean that Joseph royally screwed up more than once?
3. Verse 61 and 62: God reveals Sarah's Law; If a man marries a virgin and wishes to marry another, then he must ask his first wife for her consent. If she says yes and he marries a second wife, and the second wife is also a virgin, then none involved have committed adultery, for the second wife was never married to begin with. The implication here seems to be that the second wife was "given" unto the man by the Lord. Likewise, if the man has married 10 virgins by use of Sarah's law, then none involved have committed adultery at all, and the man is justified. Conclusion/Commentary: Okay... seems straightforward enough so far. One question though: Does the man need approval from all the wives or just the first to take another wife? If its all the wives, that makes it very hard for him to have more than two maybe three wives, but its okay cause consent is involved for all. If its just the first wife, then what the heck? The second and all subsequent wives are not equal in authority.
4. Verse 63: If one of the 10 virgins sleeps with another man after she marries, she committed adultery. Additional wives are allowed for the man to multiply his own posterity, not the posterity of another man. Conclusion/Commentary: Again, this makes sense. It goes without saying that the man commits adultery if he sleeps with a woman that is not already his wife. This was mentioned earlier in the section, so it doesn't need to be restated here.
5. Verse 64: The wives of a man who holds the keys of the priesthood should believe and administer to their husband, or else shall be destroyed. The Lord will magnify His name through those who keep and abide by His law. Conclusion/Commentary: Again, so far this makes sense. A wife is expected to cleave unto her husband and be an help meet. A wife who doesn't believe or support him is bringing additional contention into the household. Now that doesn't mean she has to always agree with what he does or says, or that she can't ever speak her mind; however, it does mean that he should be able to rely on her when it counts and vice versa. The Lord says that if the Husband reveals that he is supposed to have multiple wives, the wives are supposed to believe him.
6. Verse 65 and 66: Now we are hitting the one verse that stirs up a lot of controversy. If the wife doesn't accept this law, then the man is justified in receiving all things which the Lord gives unto him (IE additional wives?), because she did not believe or administer unto the husband according to the Will of the Lord, and thus he is exempt from Sarah's law. At this point, the Lord decides He said enough on the subject for now and says He will say more on the subjects of Sarah's Law and the laws of Plural Marriage at a later time. Conclusion/Commentary: A lot of people seem to interpret verse 65 as though it were a catch 22 for the wives, especially when backed by verse 64. Honestly, I'm not sure that such is completely the case. The Lord doesn't appear to be saying that the wife must accept an additional wife if the husband asks or else be damned (the catch 22)... He's saying that all wives must acknowledge Sarah's law as legitimate or else be damned. Meaning, that if the Husband reveals Sarah's Law to her and she rejects it, then the man is exempt from Sarah's law and can do according to the Will of the Lord (which in the context, means that the man could marry women that the Lord specifically selected for him to marry), and the woman becomes the transgressor. However, even with this interpretation, there is still a catch 22 there, which I will discuss in my overall commentary for the end of this part of the analysis.

Okay, so I'm surprised that the actual laws regarding polygamous marriage are so short. All that was revealed here was Sarah's Law, which requires the husband and the wives to be righteous in order to work properly.

If the husband is righteous and the Lord commands him to marry another woman (any women, virgin or not it seems), then the man's current wives effectively must consent or end up damned (this is the catch 22) with the husband taking her to wife anyway. I think this is the case because it would be the Lord directly setting up the marriage, and interfering with the commandments of the Lord is a bad idea. In such cases, it seems as though this is a general exception to the general rule of Sarah's law, and is likely in place to allow for the care of divorced women and widows (as demonstrated at least a few times in the old testament), abused women (touched on in the part that specifically talks about adultery), and other specific cases which the Lord would personally oversee. Remember, that up until fairly recently, women didn't exactly have property rights, while men did. On top of that, there was no programs established for relief and thus marrying a woman off to a man was the best way to ensure that she would have land and a place to stay (she might have to do the farming herself though, in the case of the bigger polygamous families).

In the case of Sarah's Law, however, it actually seems very progressive, especially when considering the time period it originally came from. I see it working as such: The Husband, if righteous presents the law for his wives to acknowledge. If the wives are righteous and accept Sarah's Law, then they will be blessed for it; if not, they will wither away in time and be damned wether they are unrighteous or they don't accept the law. If the wife (wives) accepted the law, then they may freely accept or reject potential wives the Husband wishes to marry, and he is required to follow their consent. However, if the Lord specifically commands the righteous man to marry, then he's gonna do so regardless of what his wives say, and the first situation mentioned will occur. The point of confusion regarding Sarah's law and the catch 22 stems from the fact that the Lord saying that all virgin wives gained through Sarah's Law are considered "given" to him by the Lord. I think what the Lord is trying to say here is that the Lord approves of a man freely choosing to marry additional women, so long as all the righteous man's wives consent to the marriage, and that the additional wife is an unmarried virgin; in the case of other women that do not meet these requirements, the Lord needs to be directly consulted to see if he commands (or at least approves of) the man to marry that other woman. In my opinion if the man in question is unrighteous, then the sin is upon his head, and he commits adultery, thus allowing for the wives to potentially remarry.

Another concern that people have is the wording regarding the men who may do this are men endowed with priesthood keys. It appears that only those with priesthood keys can enact the law of polygamy, meaning that there could be a power dynamic where the priesthood holder could excersise unrightous dominion and use said power to their advantage. We see something like this occur within the polygamous splinter groups that reside all over the salt lake area.

All in all, this law can easily be abused or twisted it seems, but it fits very well with the other celestial laws in form and function. I think Joseph did receive both halves of the revelation, though I wouldn't be surprised if this law (like the law of consecration) wasn't applied correctly after being revealed.

Last but not least, I wonder where those other revelations alluded to in verse 66 that shed additional light on these things.

Welp, thats all I have for you guys at the moment. Hope it gives some good food for thought concerning the subject.

[nvr]

You use non logic and emotional reasoning. You like to say negative things about leaders, I suppose to get people to accept your non logic.

Jesus Christ. His Gospel. Covers everything. Includes Abraham, his wives and posterity. Even named a Covenant after Abraham.

Many people make this mistake of treating stories from the bible as patterns to follow rather than stories imbued with warnings.

[R]eading the Bible for all its worth involves recognition that the narratives of Scripture are often descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. The fact that Scripture reveals the patriarchs with all their warts and moles and wrinkles is to warn us of their failures, it’s not to teach us to emulate their practices. Far from blinking at David’s polygamous behavior, the Bible reveals that as a result of his sin, the sword never left his home. http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_out/do ... -polygamy/

Jacob emphasized this point in the Book of Mormon:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Covered.

And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people.

The Oriental tradition was for the conqueror take over the conquered's land, house, servants, everything. By Jewish laws (Genesis 2:22-24, Deuteronomy 17:17, Matthew Matt 19:9) , David would not have been justified in actually marrying or having relations with any of these women. He would have been expected to be responsible for their well-being, at most. This passage in Samuel you're paraphrasing is pointing out the irony that David, despite all of those who, according to the tradition of the times, 'belonged' to him, yet still went out and took another man's wife, and had the husband killed. This passage was NOT a tacit approval of polygamy as Jacob in the Book of Mormon explicitly points out.

Here's the actual quote of Jacob 2:30 you partially quoted, as it appeared in 1840 edition:
For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people: otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.

The context of this passage has been covered and very clearly details that God will lead his people when he wants to establish and raise his seed by doing things like leading them to promised lands, guiding them (as alluded to in earlier passages). If he fails to do this (otherwise:), they will end up hearkening unto these things ("things" are the abominations of concubines and multiple wives referred to earlier throughout the chapter). The Book of Mormon was written for our day - it is applicable to the time it was written, the present day, and future. This passage was not just meant for the Nephites at that time as the chapter heading implies.

[Finrock]

You are wrong FR.

Polygamy was commanded by God in this dispensation. It is that simple.

Has nothing to do with the blacks, or your relationship with the Church, or if you dislike polygamy personally.

You start with doubt and that clouds your judgment.

Also from one of the skeptic mockers: So dumb.

If I'm wrong, you haven't demonstrated it. At all.

You really, really, believe that polygamy was commanded by God and you really think its that simple, but, you don't know. You're sharing your perspective, not objective absolute facts. You haven't been able to demonstrate that you are speaking objective truth and facts.

I know where I'm starting from, and it is not doubt. I started from where you are, Arenera. Please, don't ever claim this again because you will be lying (I've now clarified and made my position explicitly clear. For you to claim otherwise is a dishonest tactic because you are losing the rational debate). I started from the position where you are right now: Church/Church leaders always right, no matter what. That is where I started. I guess I could say that if anything, I doubted Jesus when I believed Church/Church leaders always right, no matter what, but I certainly didn't start with doubting the Church.

I get it, you "know" that what you believe is true because you have a confirmation from the Holy Ghost. I felt that way too. I also have a confirmation from the spirit that although I don't know or understand everything, I'm on the right path and I'm considering this from a perspective that is faithful, reasonable (like God), good. My foundation is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Your assumption/accusation is false.

It has to do with blacks because you have argued, repeatedly, that Church/Church leaders always right, therefore polygamy good. BY and blacks is just an example (objective, historical, real, true) of when the Church/Church leaders taught something that was false. My relationship to the Church is countering your lies about me being like DS and you calling me unfaithful, etc. It informs you that I'm not. I don't personally dislike/like polygamy. Truth be told when I had your perspective, I secretly fantasized how fun it might be to have a lot of women who were my wife. I've repented from the perspective. I dislike the way our Church and Church leaders seemed to have practiced it, but I'm still open to the idea that poly-types of relationships are not intrinsically evil. Your assumption/accusation is false again.

I've been to therapy. When I was first started going to therapy, I took offense when my therapist told me that I'm fragile (easily offended, lol, irony). In any case, my therapist was just speaking the truth. From my perspective it seemed like I was being ridiculed/mocked/put down. So, perhaps you're just being a bit sensitive. Also, saying that polygamy is dumb is not mocking a person. Just like saying racism is dumb doesn't mock people. I can understand that people who are racist might get offended at that.

So, you can't accuse me of mocking, belittling, etc. and then not take in to account my motivations and say they don't matter. If I love the Church, if I'm trying to strengthen the Church, if I'm presenting arguments that would appeal to people so they would stay in the Church, then it doesn't make sense that I'm coming from doubt, mocking, ridiculing, people. BTW, I have no issues mocking and ridiculing IDEAS. Mocking and ridiculing people is another thing. And, I have seen some of that in this thread on a couple of occasions and I felt that had crossed the line and I made my feelings known on that and I won't go there.

In any case, you've born your testimony. You've done a lot of mocking and belittling yourself. You haven't even attempted to rationally support your position. Your posts will appeal to people who are in the choir, but you aren't going to help any person who has sincere and legitmate concerns about these things and who might be questioning whether they can remain/support the Church.

-Finrock

[Durzan]

Yeah, errant scripture. God didn't really say that. Men reported that he did. It's another problem with the inerrancy of scripture or prophets/leaders paradigm.

Here's a fun noodler: so, by default (even in Arenera's head) polygamy is abominable whoredom UNLESS COMMANDED BY GOD (he proposes). Why? Monogamous marriage is okay under any circumstances, regardless of commandment. What is inherently wrong with polygamy? Why isn't it okay for Warren Jeffs and company to do polygamy? Why would God command something that is inherently abominable/whoredom & harmful for women (the more wives, the more neglect of both wives and children by husband/father). So dumb.

Umm. I literally explained it to you and MMbelieve here. Yes its a long post and filled with typos, but its a good one. Read it all for flips sake.

Also on the previous page, I posted a verse by verse analysis of D&C 132 here. You might wanna read that as well.

[Finrock]

You are wrong FR.

Polygamy was commanded by God in this dispensation. It is that simple.

Has nothing to do with the blacks, or your relationship with the Church, or if you dislike polygamy personally.

You start with doubt and that clouds your judgment.

Also from one of the skeptic mockers: So dumb.

Also, you should apologize for falsely asserting that nobody has provided objective arguments/evidence and that the only response you have gotten to your position is ridicule, mocking, put downs.

There have been all sorts of rational counter arguments, appeals to historical facts, etc. as evidence against your chosen position. This is demonstrably true. My post where I put my counter arguments front and center is not the first or the only one.

In fact, the objective truth is that you have done nothing to counter these reasonable arguments that call your position in to question. In response you have been dismissive and just continued to assert your position. In fact you have acted like an internet troll. This is demonstrably true as well.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

You use non logic and emotional reasoning. You like to say negative things about leaders, I suppose to get people to accept your non logic.

Jesus Christ. His Gospel. Covers everything. Includes Abraham, his wives and posterity. Even named a Covenant after Abraham.

Many people make this mistake of treating stories from the bible as patterns to follow rather than stories imbued with warnings.

[R]eading the Bible for all its worth involves recognition that the narratives of Scripture are often descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. The fact that Scripture reveals the patriarchs with all their warts and moles and wrinkles is to warn us of their failures, it’s not to teach us to emulate their practices. Far from blinking at David’s polygamous behavior, the Bible reveals that as a result of his sin, the sword never left his home. http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_out/do ... -polygamy/

Jacob emphasized this point in the Book of Mormon:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Covered.

And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people.

Oriental tradition was for the conqueror take over the conquered's land, house, servants, everything. By Jewish laws (Genesis 2:22-24, Deuteronomy 17:17, Matthew Matt 19:9) , David would not have been justified in actually marrying and having relations with any of these women. He would have been expected to be responsible for their well-being at most. This passage in Samuel you're paraphrasing shows the irony that David, despite all of those who, according to the tradition of the times, 'belonged' to him, yet went out and took another man's wife, and had the husband killed. This passage was NOT a tacit approval of polygamy as Jacob in the Book of Mormon explicitly points out.
Here's the actual quote of Jacob 2:30 you partially quoted, as it appeared in 1840 edition:
For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people: otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.
The context of this passage has been covered and very clearly details that God will lead his people when he wants to establish and raise his seed by doing things like leading them to a promised land (as alluded to in earlier passages). If he fails to do this (otherwise:), they will end up hearkening unto these things ("things" are the abominations of concubines and multiple wives referred to earlier throughout the chapter). The Book of Mormon was written for our day. It is consistent and can be applied to past, present and future. This passage was not just meant for the Nephites at that time as the chapter heading implies.

Your interpretation is not consistent with the Church’s and leaders positions.

[Arenera]

You are wrong FR.

Polygamy was commanded by God in this dispensation. It is that simple.

Has nothing to do with the blacks, or your relationship with the Church, or if you dislike polygamy personally.

You start with doubt and that clouds your judgment.

Also from one of the skeptic mockers: So dumb.

Also, you should apologize for falsely asserting that nobody has provided objective arguments/evidence and that the only response you have gotten to your position is ridicule, mocking, put downs.

There have been all sorts of rational counter arguments, appeals to historical facts, etc. as evidence against your chosen position. This is demonstrably true. My post where I put my counter arguments front and center is not the first or the only one.

In fact, the objective truth is that you have done nothing to counter these reasonable arguments that call your position in to question. In response you have been dismissive and just continued to assert your position. In fact you have acted like an internet troll. This is demonstrably true as well.

-Finrock

See, you name called.