What if Joseph was killed by his Jailhouse friends because of Nephi 4

[Shawn Henry]

In Isaiah 4 verse 1, the seven women, then, may be a literary metaphor to the seven CHURCHES which find themselves in a desolate condition. Remember how in the previous chapter the haughty daughters of Zion (which aren't just women) find themselves cursed and exposed and have lost all their glory... In short, ALL the churches have become polluted (see 2 Nephi 28, Mormon 8)... Then finding themselves desolate and desperate, the women/daughters of Zion/churches finally begin to call on the BRIDEGROOM to take away their reproach... So desperate are they to TAKE UPON THEMSELVES HIS NAME at they present an offer similar to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-28 (desiring just the scraps of the Master's table) or that of the prodigal son when returning to his Father (offering to just be one of the servants)... Nonetheless, their humble hearts now appear acceptable before the Lord because starting in the very next verse and throughout the chapter, "the filth of the daughters of Zion" begins to be cleansed and the Holy city is FINALLY redeemed.... The barren woman finally produces spiritual fruit…. spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God.

This interpretation feels right to me, thanks.

Christ is the only man whose name it makes sense to take upon ourselves and call ourselves by.

[FrankOne]

I would pose the question to you, Shawn Henry, in a time where men are scarce, women and women with children seek protection from you and ask to be called by your name, will you call them blasphemers and turn them into the street? I use that term because I think I recall that you labeled polygamy "blasphemy" in these discussions.

You "wonder' what the men said in return to the women as if good men denied them. Are you implying that you would turn them away for their blasphemy?

You can just call me by my first name, but I'm still not sure we know the interpretation of this verse.

I'll feed my ten year food supply to all women and children, but I'm not sticking any of them.

What is this reproach they are under?

They can all have my name, as long as they understand I'm a firm believer in Jacob chapter 2.

thanks for the response, Shawn.

I believe the reproach is found extensively described in chapter 3. Perhaps I'm a bit critical, but for the most part, excepting just a few items, match up with the average LDS woman today. I'm in no way excusing men in this because men have their own modern problems. We ALL have become worldly to some extent. We ALL have our idols. It's just that the subject of Chapt 3 is about the women , so that is what I am addressing. The extent of dress, make up, hair doos (lol, sp?). It's gone to the extreme and we all know it. Appearance has become paramount! The disposition of a woman is highly controlled by the appearance she has created. So... Isaiah goes against our current taboos of political correctness and says it as.it.is.

The reason that I developed the idea above is to create the scene of what I perceive is going to happen, and it isn't any reach at all to consider it as highly likely.

The Scenario:

food shortages , natural calamities lead to famine. War flares up and men go to fight. The war is very intense, and a large number of men perish. The economy has completely collapsed. and stores are completely empty. Cities are burning and anarchy is the norm. Well...it's easy to see what Isaiah saw.... the women, whether good Christians or not won't have anything to improve their appearance. Salt Lake itself will be in total mayhem as has been foreseen by many LDS leaders. A very large number of women of all kinds, including LDS mothers will be trying to fend for themselves.

This will result in a complete change of society. Nothing like we can now imagine.

You won't 'stick' any of them? If I am understanding your meaning correctly, I am a bit surprised at the vulgarity. I don't take offense, nor would a stream of cuss words bother me in the least, I've been around it all of my life. I am just surprised at the term you chose in context with how you represent yourself. Perhaps I don''t understand.

[Alexander]

In Isaiah 4 verse 1, the seven women, then, may be a literary metaphor to the seven CHURCHES which find themselves in a desolate condition. Remember how in the previous chapter the haughty daughters of Zion (which aren't just women) find themselves cursed and exposed and have lost all their glory... In short, ALL the churches have become polluted (see 2 Nephi 28, Mormon 8)... Then finding themselves desolate and desperate, the women/daughters of Zion/churches finally begin to call on the BRIDEGROOM to take away their reproach... So desperate are they to TAKE UPON THEMSELVES HIS NAME at they present an offer similar to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-28 (desiring just the scraps of the Master's table) or that of the prodigal son when returning to his Father (offering to just be one of the servants)... Nonetheless, their humble hearts now appear acceptable before the Lord because starting in the very next verse and throughout the chapter, "the filth of the daughters of Zion" begins to be cleansed and the Holy city is FINALLY redeemed.... The barren woman finally produces spiritual fruit…. spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God.

This interpretation feels right to me, thanks.

Christ is the only man whose name it makes sense to take upon ourselves and call ourselves by.

See Isaiah 54. The similarities with Isaiah 4 are striking.

[Nevervaxxed]

Polygamy has never and will never be accepted by the Lord. Evil men changed section 101 of the original "Book of Commandments", in which JS stated it was wrong, that marriage was only to be 1 man and 1 woman. Section 132 wasnt inclued in the D&C until 9 years after JS's death! BY stated that Emma burned the original, but somehow BY found a copy... 9 years later. There are numerous documents showing JS and Hrym Smith were both very against polygamy. And the Book of Mormon states the same. In my opinion, there is no way to reconcile that polygamy is accepted of the LORD. it's just plain wrong, so where does that leave the modern church?? I just don't know - I'm still looking for that answer...

[Niemand]

Polygamy has never and will never be accepted by the Lord.

Most of the Old Testament is written by polygamists.

[FrankOne]

Polygamy has never and will never be accepted by the Lord.

Most of the Old Testament is written by polygamists.

The OT is fake.
Anything that may substantiate polygamy is either fake, a lie, non-historical, a forgery, propaganda, a fabrication, the words of the devil, created by evil horny men, or never happened at all.

these debates always get more entertaining the longer they go on.

hahahahahaha

[Nevervaxxed]

Remember, those in power always write the history, including scriptures! It is true the practice of the day, acceptable by the culture of the day, practiced polygamy. However, the Lord was pretty clear, especially through Joseph Smith's retranslations of certain verses in the Bible that the Lord was NOT pleased with David and his son Solomon for the practice of multiple wives and concubines. Can we assume that he was also displeased with Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham? Can we assume that those writings weren't interfered with by the powers that be at the time, and/or during the centuries that followed? The Book of Mormon is the " most correct book" ever, and it is clearly against poligamy

[Allison]

I would pose the question to you, Shawn Henry, in a time where men are scarce, women and women with children seek protection from you and ask to be called by your name, will you call them blasphemers and turn them into the street? I use that term because I think I recall that you labeled polygamy "blasphemy" in these discussions.

You "wonder' what the men said in return to the women as if good men denied them. Are you implying that you would turn them away for their blasphemy?

You can just call me by my first name, but I'm still not sure we know the interpretation of this verse.

I'll feed my ten year food supply to all women and children, but I'm not sticking any of them.

What is this reproach they are under?

They can all have my name, as long as they understand I'm a firm believer in Jacob chapter 2.

Yet, why make it conjugal at all?

[BeNotDeceived]

This interpretation feels right to me, thanks.

Christ is the only man whose name it makes sense to take upon ourselves and call ourselves by.

You sir are correct.

March 8 and 18 made me do it.

Capisci.

[Nevervaxxed]

As is often the case, I wonder if this parable has duel meaning. Applicable to individual "women" and as Shawn Henry states above, applicable to the churches in the last days - an interpretation that I've heard before and recently. I agree it does make sense as you (Shawn Henry) describe.

The one note that I might add, and maybe someone on here can verify or not, I have heard somewhere that almost 8 in 10 women vote democratic, especially because of the abortion issue.is that true? I think that percentage is nation wide... is so, why is that? Is it because women are more sensitive emotionally, which, in general is a good quality? If it's true, are women in general more susceptible to "propaganda", or the brainwashing in our colleges, because they tend to be more emotional as the "nurterer's"? And please, this is not an attack on women - like stated above in this string, I am fully aware that we as men have our own weaknesses, in my opinion, more so than women, and just as many of us are vain and turned from God in these last days. Like the rest of you, I'm just trying to understand Isaiah's meaning here. Please share your thoughts, whether in agreement or not!

[Shawn Henry]

I would pose the question to you, Shawn Henry, in a time where men are scarce, women and women with children seek protection from you and ask to be called by your name, will you call them blasphemers and turn them into the street? I use that term because I think I recall that you labeled polygamy "blasphemy" in these discussions.

You "wonder' what the men said in return to the women as if good men denied them. Are you implying that you would turn them away for their blasphemy?

You can just call me by my first name, but I'm still not sure we know the interpretation of this verse.

I'll feed my ten year food supply to all women and children, but I'm not sticking any of them.

What is this reproach they are under?

They can all have my name, as long as they understand I'm a firm believer in Jacob chapter 2.

Yet, why make it conjugal at all?

The more I think about it, the more the interpretation of this Isaiah verse makes sense that 7 women, representing the 7 churches in Revelation, take hold of one man, Christ himself, and he takes away their reproach.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Yet I’ve witnessed more happiness in plural marriage than in any other situation.

What you have witnessed doesn't change the statistical data that there is less.

Didn't the prophet Jacob describe this clearly, how it broke hearts and made them lose faith in their husbands and fathers.

The lord can't tell the prophet Jacob it is an abomination and then tell the next prophet it is a higher law. What kind of God can't his mind up?

The statistical data which doesn’t exist.

It’s not an abomination. If it was, then Abraham and Jacob would not be in Heaven! And don’t start using the “it’s just proof of the miracle of forgiveness” line because they never repented and continue taking more wives until they died!!

The founders of the House of Israel, the Holy Men whom God made His covenants with were polygamists, and yet we hear not one single word of rebuke from Jehovah.

These are facts.

"...they never repented and continue taking more wives until they died!!"

I've been thinking about this and actually think the OT may indicate the opposite. Now, I'm hardly a scholar of the Old Testament, but this is my understanding.

Abram

• no seed, harkens to wife and take other mates as a result (not commanded)

• makes covenant w/ God, who gives him a new name Abraham

• takes no more wives (I can't see where he "continues taking more wives until they died") -- EDIT from Allison's post below: he took Keturah as wife only after Sarah had passed away.

Isaac

• no seed, rather than he and Rebecca taking matters into their own hands, Isaac harkens to the Lord ("intreats the Lord" in the matter)

• Rebecca with child, didn't take additional wives

• Isaac never had to have his name changed

Jacob

• tricked into marrying Leah (not commanded), Rachel is barren, harkens to wife and mates with another

• makes covenant w/ God, who gives him a new name Israel

• takes no more wives (as far as I can tell)

[simpleton]

I have friends who seem really happy in their homosexual relationships. You’d probably agree that it’s nonetheless a sad situation, wouldn’t you?

Completely different things.

First, I’ve never met a happy homosexual.

Second, there is a difference between fleeting pleasure and the Spirit of God so clearly and genuinely present in polygamous situations.

You haven’t known enough homosexuals then. I know a lot in the theater world. Just like you’d argue that I don’t know enough polygamists.

At least homosexuals get to make a choice. A young girl brought up in a polygamist culture, however, seems to have far less autonomy - it’s all she knows.

And I don’t believe that’s the spirit of God “so clearly present” in polygamy.

Finally figured out why cab hates pm... been hanging around to many sodomites.

[Allison]

Yet I’ve witnessed more happiness in plural marriage than in any other situation.

What you have witnessed doesn't change the statistical data that there is less.

Didn't the prophet Jacob describe this clearly, how it broke hearts and made them lose faith in their husbands and fathers.

The lord can't tell the prophet Jacob it is an abomination and then tell the next prophet it is a higher law. What kind of God can't his mind up?

The statistical data which doesn’t exist.

It’s not an abomination. If it was, then Abraham and Jacob would not be in Heaven! And don’t start using the “it’s just proof of the miracle of forgiveness” line because they never repented and continue taking more wives until they died!!

The founders of the House of Israel, the Holy Men whom God made His covenants with were polygamists, and yet we hear not one single word of rebuke from Jehovah.

These are facts.

"...they never repented and continue taking more wives until they died!!"

I've been thinking about this and actually think the OT may indicate the opposite. Now, I'm hardly a scholar of the Old Testament, but this is my understanding.

Abram

• no seed, harkens to wife and take other mates as a result (not commanded)

• makes covenant w/ God, who gives him a new name Abraham

• takes no more wives (I can't see where he "continues taking more wives until they died")

Isaac

• no seed, rather than he and Rebecca taking matters into their own hands, Isaac harkens to the Lord ("intreats the Lord" in the matter)

• Rebecca with child, didn't take additional wives

• Isaac never had to have his name changed

Jacob

• tricked into marrying Leah (not commanded), Rachel is barren, harkens to wife and mates with another

• makes covenant w/ God, who gives him a new name Israel

• takes no more wives (as far as I can tell)

Don’t forget, Abraham’s polygamous disaster ended in divorce, and he sent Hagar into the wilderness with only a knapsack of food for herself and her now fatherless son. Hardly an inspiring example. And what additional wife did he take after Hagar? None, as long as Sarah was alive. The original D&C stated that when one spouse dies, the other is free to marry again, which is what Abraham did when he married Keturah.

[FrankOne]

This interpretation feels right to me, thanks.

Christ is the only man whose name it makes sense to take upon ourselves and call ourselves by.

You sir are correct.

March 8 and 18 made me do it.

Capisci.

you and that date...
and you posted that at 11:11... (11:56)

march 8 2027 . 11/11 ?

alot of talk out there right now that something is supposed to happen this coming week. but since nothing ever happens if everyone is talking about it, then i'm going with a 5% chance that israel strikes Iran in a big way.

[BeNotDeceived]

This interpretation feels right to me, thanks.

Christ is the only man whose name it makes sense to take upon ourselves and call ourselves by.

You sir are correct.

March 8 and 18 made me do it.

Capisci.

you and that date...
and you posted that at 11:11... (11:56)

march 8 2027 . 11/11 ?

alot of talk out there right now that something is supposed to happen this coming week. but since nothing ever happens if everyone is talking about it, then i'm going with a 5% chance that israel strikes Iran in a big way.

I didn't know 3/8 is also 0.357

Three divided by eight is 0.375000

Somehow this relates to keyword ASHH

Re: ❝silence in heaven about the space of half an hour❞
viewtopic.php?p=1198409#p1198409

2025 to 2040 is when said half hour ends. Well after July 2023, April 2024, and the ring of fire eclipse this October. July Fourth has also been identified by The Wicker Man.

The timekeeper is the keeper of the time.

https://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=861

There’s a link to me latest attempt to keep good time.

Who’s post was at 11:11, and why 2027?

[FrankOne]

This interpretation feels right to me, thanks.

Christ is the only man whose name it makes sense to take upon ourselves and call ourselves by.

You sir are correct.

March 8 and 18 made me do it.

Capisci.

you and that date...
and you posted that at 11:11... (11:56)

march 8 2027 . 11/11 ?

alot of talk out there right now that something is supposed to happen this coming week. but since nothing ever happens if everyone is talking about it, then i'm going with a 5% chance that israel strikes Iran in a big way.

I didn't know 3/8 is also 0.357

Three divided by eight is 0.375000

Somehow this relates to keyword ASHH

Re: ❝silence in heaven about the space of half an hour❞
viewtopic.php?p=1198409#p1198409

2025 to 2040 is when said half hour ends. Well after July 2023, April 2024, and the ring of fire eclipse this October. July Fourth has also been identified by The Wicker Man.

The timekeeper is the keeper of the time.

https://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=861

There’s a link to me latest attempt to keep good time.

Who’s post was at 11:11, and why 2027?

your post that I quoted was made at 11:56
5+6 = 11

3+8=11
2+0+2+7 = 11

[cab]

I have friends who seem really happy in their homosexual relationships. You’d probably agree that it’s nonetheless a sad situation, wouldn’t you?

Completely different things.

First, I’ve never met a happy homosexual.

Second, there is a difference between fleeting pleasure and the Spirit of God so clearly and genuinely present in polygamous situations.

You haven’t known enough homosexuals then. I know a lot in the theater world. Just like you’d argue that I don’t know enough polygamists.

At least homosexuals get to make a choice. A young girl brought up in a polygamist culture, however, seems to have far less autonomy - it’s all she knows.

And I don’t believe that’s the spirit of God “so clearly present” in polygamy.

Finally figured out why cab hates pm... been hanging around to many sodomites.

Stupid

[BeNotDeceived]

your post that I quoted was made at 11:56
5+6 = 11

3+8=11
2+0+2+7 = 11

Yeah whatever.

Another amazing timing pattern became evident for a 5.7 magnitude earthquake that struck the Salt Lake valley at 9 minutes after the hour:
3 = C = Month
8 = H = Skipped as Moroni Ate It
18 = R = Day
9 = I = Minute
19 = S = Hour at a point on the opposite side of the world
20 = T = Year or Century
The number fifty-seven may be said to be emblematic of a mysterious poster, that would go on to invite his Truthful Spirit, to answer naysayers with a 7.3 magnitude quake.

The above anomaly is absolutely worthy of an honorable mention.

[FrankOne]

your post that I quoted was made at 11:56
5+6 = 11

3+8=11
2+0+2+7 = 11

Yeah whatever.

Another amazing timing pattern became evident for a 5.7 magnitude earthquake that struck the Salt Lake valley at 9 minutes after the hour:
3 = C = Month
8 = H = Skipped as Moroni Ate It
18 = R = Day
9 = I = Minute
19 = S = Hour at a point on the opposite side of the world
20 = T = Year or Century
The number fifty-seven may be said to be emblematic of a mysterious poster, that would go on to invite his Truthful Spirit, to answer naysayers with a 7.3 magnitude quake.

The above anomaly is absolutely worthy of an honorable mention.

as a note, my post was not to be taken seriously. it was a joke. Using gematria to predict anything is as accurate as 'throwing the bones' which is as accurate as throwing paper notes in the air which is as accurate as all of the march 8th madness.

[Thinker]

Don’t forget, Abraham’s polygamous disaster ended in divorce, and he sent Hagar into the wilderness with only a knapsack of food for herself and her now fatherless son. Hardly an inspiring example…

And this man from Ur/Iraq is the religious foundation of Judaism, Christianity & Islam.

[Thinker]

... Polygamy is naturally oppressive, inequitable, and unfair to women. …

Polygamy is also very cruel and unjust to the many boys thrown out because there can only be so many men having all of the women…

First 9 min Apx… Pg:

Something pro-polygamist ignore:
WHAT HAPPENS TO ALL THE “EXCESS” BOYS/MEN??

[larsenb]

It's no coincidence that Stake President William Marks claims that Joseph told him just before the martyrdom that the church had been deceived regarding polygamy and that he was going to help President Marks excommunicate the offenders. The believers in the practice had to do something at that point. Either abandon the principle or get rid of Joseph.

Kill the earthly author of all they had come to believe in??!! The one favored of God with open visions, the production of the Book of Mormon, etc., etc., and the one chosen to restore Christ's ancient church on the earth for the Last Days?

I personally can't begin to imagine the mind, reality and disposition of anyone, especially the leaders so accused, of doing such a thing vs. abandoning a practice already held in opprobrium by their surrounding society.

[Shawn Henry]

Kill the earthly author of all they had come to believe in??!! The one favored of God with open visions, the production of the Book of Mormon, etc., etc., and the one chosen to restore Christ's ancient church on the earth for the Last Days?

I personally can't begin to imagine the mind, reality and disposition of anyone, especially the leaders so accused, of doing such a thing vs. abandoning a practice already held in opprobrium by their surrounding society.

Yet Brigham claimed Joseph lost the spirit and didn't have one particle of light left in him. If BY actually believed that who knows to what degree he was susceptible to being influenced by dark spirits. He and one or two others may have truly believed that the principles were more important than Joseph.

[larsenb]

Kill the earthly author of all they had come to believe in??!! The one favored of God with open visions, the production of the Book of Mormon, etc., etc., and the one chosen to restore Christ's ancient church on the earth for the Last Days?

I personally can't begin to imagine the mind, reality and disposition of anyone, especially the leaders so accused, of doing such a thing vs. abandoning a practice already held in opprobrium by their surrounding society.

Yet Brigham claimed Joseph lost the spirit and didn't have one particle of light left in him. If BY actually believed that who knows to what degree he was susceptible to being influenced by dark spirits. He and one or two others may have truly believed that the principles were more important than Joseph.

Do you have the citation for that claim?