Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
just me wrote:
It is possible that the “doctrinal” portion of D&C 132 were added after the death of JS. This is according to an interview with William Law. He said he was interested to see the published version because it was so much longer than the original he had read in Nauvoo.
Quote:Q “You returned the revelation to Hyrum?”
A “Yes, I did. I was astonished to see in your book that the revelation was such a long document. I remember DISTINCTLY that the original given me by Hyrum was MUCH SHORTER. It covered not more than two or three pages of foolscap. The contents are substantially the same, but there was not that theological introduction. The thing consisted simply in the command of doing it, and that command was restricted to the High Priesthood and to virgins and widows. But as to Joseph, himself, the Lord’s chosen servant, it was restricted to virgins only, to clean vessels, from which to procure a pure seed to the Lord.”
I wonder if the version passed along for others to read didn’t have the portion that was addressed to Emma. It would make sense that JS would remove that portion when passing the “revelation” along to others. I think JS was pressuring his wife into accepting polygamy with the “revelation”, but I don’t think he wanted to publicly shame her or let others know she was having a difficult time with the revelation. Removing the parts directed at Emma would certainly make it shorter.
allquieton wrote:
Tradition says JS wrote 132, but evidence suggests BY wrote it.
What is the evidence that BY wrote 132?
My previous quote from the Nauvoo Expositor provides some evidence contemporary to the time that the revelation later known as D&C:132 was written by JS. Here, published before JS was martyred, is an account that there was a purported revelation proclaiming polygamy was of God, which is attributed to JS. The description by William Law sounds similar to 132. This description was given before BY would have written any supposed revelation that he could claim was from JS.
Quote:AFFIDAVITS.
I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. the revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.–And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines.
WM. LAW.
allquieton wrote:
Notice that the people accusing JS are polygamists themselves. I wonder if there are there any people innocent of polygamy, with first hand knowledge of JS that accuse him?
What type of person, exactly, do you believe to be a credible witness of polygamy? Polygamists, apparently don’t count, because they are biased (I assume this includes the many women who claim to have married JS, but later entered other polygamous relationships.) “Apostates” don’t count because they were out to get JS? It seems only RLDS sources count because they claim JS was a prophet, but didn’t enter into polygamy? One must remember that if JS was practicing polygamy and someone did not want to enter into it, they would likely be labeled an apostate. Such is the case with William Law, publisher of the Expositer, which JS destroyed because it accused him of polygamy and setting up a theocracy, the destruction of which lead to the trials of JS that resulted in his murder. History suggests that William Law had first hand knowledge of polygamy, but refused to believe it was of God.
In the Nauvoo Expositer, he published:
Quote:We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a language which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep into the heart of every honest man.–Its precepts are invigorating, and in every sense of the word, tend to dignify and ennoble man’s conceptions of God and his atributes. It speaks a language which is heard amidst the roar of Artillery, as well as in the silence of midnight: it speaks a language understood by the incarcerated spirit, as well as he who is unfettered and free; yet to those who will not see, it is dark, mysterious, and secret as the grave.
We believe that all men, professing to be the ministers of God, should keep steadily in view, the honor and glory of God, the salvation of souls and the amelioration of man’s condition: and among their cardinal virtues ought to be found those of faith, hope, virtue and charity; but with Joseph Smith, and many other official characters in the Church, they are words without any meanings attached–words as ornaments; exotics nurtured for display; virtues which, throwing aside the existence of a God, the peace, happiness, welfare, and good order of society, require that they should be preserved pure, immaculate and uncorroded.
We most solemnly and sincerely declare, God this day being witness of the truth and sincerity of our designs and statements, that happy will it be with those who examine and scan Joseph Smith’s pretensions to righteousness; and take counsel of human affairs, and of the experience of times gone by. Do not yield up tranquilly a superiority to that man which the reasonableness of past events, and the laws of our country declare to be pernicious and diabolical. We hope many items of doctrine, as now taught, some of which, however,
are taught secretly, and denied openly,(which we know positively is the case,) and others publicly, considerate men will treat with contempt; for we declare them heretical and damnable in their influence, though they find many devotees. How shall he, who has drank of the poisonous draft, teach virtue? In the stead thereof, when the criminal ought to plead guilty to the court, the court is obliged to plead guilty to the criminal. We appeal to humanity and ask, what shall we do? Shall we lie supinely and suffer ourselves to be metamorphosed into beasts by the Syren tongue? We answer that our country and our God require that we should rectify the tree. We have called upon him to repent, and as soon as he shewed fruits meet for repentance, we stood ready to seize him by the hand of fellowship, and throw around him the mantle of protection; for it is the salvation of souls we desire, and not our own aggrandizement. We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles; and for that purpose, and with that end in view, with an eye single to the glory of God, we have dared to gird on the armor, and with god at our head, we most solemnly and sincerely declare that the sword of truth shall not depart from the thigh, nor the buckler from the arm, until we can enjoy those glorious privileges which nature’s God and our country’s laws have guarantied to us–freedom of speech, the liberty of the press, and the right to worship God as seemeth us good.–We are aware, however, that we are hazarding every earthly blessing, particularly property, and probably life itself, in striking this blow at tyranny and oppression: yet notwithstanding, we most solemnly declare that no man, or set of men combined, shall, with impunity, violate obligations as sacred as many which have been violated, unless reason, justice and virtue have become ashamed and sought the haunts of the grave, though our lives be the forfeiture.
Many of us have sought a reformation in the church, without a public exposition of the enormities of crimes practiced by its leaders, thinking that if they would hearken to counsel, and shew fruit meet for repentance, it would be as acceptable with God, as though they were exposed to public gaze,
“For the private path, the secret acts of men, If noble, far the noblest of their lives.”
but our petitions were treated with contempt; and in many cases the petitioner spurned from their presence, and particularly by Joseph, who would state that if he had sinned, and was guilty of the charges we would charge him with, he would not make acknowledgment, but would rather be damned; for it would detract from his dignity, and would consequently ruin and prove the overthrow of the Church. We would ask him on the other hand, if the overthrow of the Church was not inevitable, to which he often replies, that we would all go to Hell together, and convert it into a heaven, by casting the Devil out; and says he, Hell is by no means the place this world of fools suppose it to be, but on the contrary, it is quite an agreeable place; to which we would now reply, he can enjoy it if he is determined not to desist from his evil ways; but as for us, and ours, we will serve the Lord our God! It is absurd for men to assert that all is well, while wicked and corrupt men are seeking our destruction, by a perversion of sacred things; for all is not well, while whordoms and all manner of abominations are practiced under the cloak of religion. Lo! the wolf is in the fold, arrayed in sheep’s clothing, and is spreading death and devastation among the saints: and we say to the watchmen standing upon the walls, cry aloud and spare not, for the day of the Lord is at hand — a day cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate. It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place? — They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the Lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father and mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God. — They are visited again, and what is the result? They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front — Positively NO admittance. The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep-laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable, but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God, when in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached, that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that
she should be his (Joseph’s) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently, and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings from the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it — but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder-struck, faints, recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects. She thinks of the great sacrifice, and of the many thousand miles she has traveled over sea and land, that she might save her soul from pending ruin, and replies, God’s will be done, and not mine. The Prophet and his devotees in this way are gratified. The next step to avoid public exposition from the common course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all is well; after which they return, as from a long visit. Those whom no power or influence could seduce, except that which is wielded by some individual feigning to be a God, must realize the remarks of an able writer, when he says, “if woman’s feelings are turned to ministers of sorrow, where shall she look for consolation?” Her lot is to be wooed and won; her heart is like some fortress that has been captured, sacked abandoned, and left desolate. With her, the desire of the heart has failed — the great charm of existence is at an end; she neglects all the cheerful exercises of life, which gladen the spirits, quicken the pulses, and send the tide of life in healthful currents through the veins. Her rest is broken. The sweet refreshment of sleep is poisoned by melancholy dreams; dry sorrow drinks her blood, until her enfeebled frame sinks under the slightest external injury. Look for her after a little while, and you find friendship weeping over her untimely grave; and wondering that one who but so recently glowed with all the radiance of health and beauty, should so speedily be brought down to darkness and despair, you will be told of some wintry chill, of some casual indisposition that laid her low! But no one knows of the mental malady that previously sapped her strength, and made her so easy a pray to the spoiler. She is like some tender tree, the pride and beauty of the grove — graceful in its form, bright in its foliage, but with the worm praying at its heart; we find it withered when it should be most luxuriant. We see it drooping its branches to the earth, and shedding leaf by leaf until wasted and perished away, it falls in the stillness of the forest; and as we muse over the beautiful ruin, we strive in vain to recollect the blast or thunder-bolt that could have smitten it with decay. But no one knows the cause except the foul fiend who perpetrated the diabolical deed. Our hearts have mourned and bled at the wretched and miserable condition of females in this place; many orphans have been the victims of misery and wretchedness, through the influence that has been exerted over them, under the cloak of religion and afterwards, in consequence of that jealous disposition which predominates over the minds of some, have been turned upon a wide world, fatherless and motherless, destitute of friends and fortune; and robbed of that which nothing but death can restore. Men solace themselves by saying the facts slumber in the dark caverns of midnight. But Lo! it is sudden day, and the dark deeds of foul fiends shall be exposed from the house-tops. A departed spirit, once the resident of St. Louis, shall yet cry aloud for vengeance. It is difficult — perhaps impossible — to describe the wretchedness of females in this place, without wounding the feelings of the benevolent, or shocking the delicacy of the refined; but the truth shall come to the world. The remedy can never be applied, unless the disease is known. The sympathy, ever anxious to relieve, cannot be felt before the misery is seen. — The charity that kindles at the tale of wo, can never act with adequate efficeiency, till it is made to see the pollution and guilt of men, now buried in the death-shades of heathenism. — Shall we then, however painful the sight, shrink from the contemplation of their real state? We answer, we will not, if permitted to live. As we have before stated, it is the vicious principles of men we are determined to explode. It is not that we have any private feelings to gratify, or any private pique to settle, that has induced us to be thus plain; for we can respect and love the criminal, if there is any hope of reformation: but there is a point beyond which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. . . . Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many other official characters in the Church of Jesus Christ, (conceiving it a duty incumbent upon us so to bear,) and having labored with them repeatedly with all Christian love, meekness and humility, yet to no effect, feel as if forbearance has ceased to be a virtue, and hope of reformation vain; and inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe, and his liability to fall with all his creations;
the plurality of wives, for time and eternity, the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of sheding innocent blood, by a perversion of their priestly authority, and thereby forfeiting the holy priesthood, according to the word of Jesus: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned,” St. John, xv. 6. “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God, he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son; if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that bideth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds;” we therefore are constrained to denounce them as apostates from the pure and holy doctrines of Jesus Christ.. . . AFFIDAVITS.
I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day.
the revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.–And also that he should administer to others.Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines. WM. LAW. (emphasis mine)
allquieton wrote:Lol–Okay, I have practically re-read 1/2 the book trying to answer y’all’s questions. I needed a refresher anyhow.
I tried to get the book through inter-library loan at my university, so hopefully it is available and I can read it too.
allquieton wrote:
Here is an excerpt from the book. (Higbee was another member of Bennett’s circle, who confessed in writing to fornication and telling the lie that JS secretly preached polygamy. Like Bennett he later went back to the lie.)JSFP wrote:Even though the case against Chauncey L. Higbee did not come to trial at Carthage on October 3, 1842, it was a very significant factor in Joseph Smith’s fight against polygamy. It showed that Joseph vigorously contended against that evil doctrine in private and in public. If Joseph had been guilty, he certainly would not have sued a competent lawyer and insisted that the case be tried at Carthage among his enemies. Would a man with plural wives sue a lawyer—in the state of Illinois, where polygamy was a crime at that time (see Statutes of Illinois, Criminal Code,Section 121–122)? If Joseph had been guilty, Chauncey could have easily proven it, and no doubt Joseph would have gone to jail for that crime.
Because Joseph was innocent, he did not hesitate to have Chauncey arrested and charged. The case of The People vs. Chauncey L. Higbee attests to the innocence of the Prophet, and to his courageous fight to clear his and Emma’s names of the fraudulent charges that he had received a polygamous revelation and had plural wives.
I view this argument (JS wouldn’t have sued if he were guilty) to be poor logic. I do not believe it clears JS of involvement in polygamy. I lump it together with Elder Holland’s poor logic from this last general conference, “In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth?” I can think of a half dozen reasons why JS may have sued Higbee, even if guilty of polygamy.
allquieton wrote:
One of the things that stood out to me in JSFP is how often, how clearly and how publicly the Prophet and his associates denied these accusations. You can say maybe JS was lying and not Bennett, but there are certain undisputed facts concerning Bennett’s character that overwhelmingly discredit him. Also, there is a sworn statement by Bennett confessing his guilt and declaring JS’s innocence. When JS sued him though he went back to blaming Joseph. In fact, Bennett continued to publicly attack Joseph’s character after being excommunicated, contributing greatly to anti-mormon sentiment in the area.
All of the real Mormon history books I have read recognize that Bennett was a bad character and are skeptical of his statements about JS. They do not believe what Bennett said unless it can be corroborated by other non-antagonistic sources. His over-the-top statements about JS definately discredit him somewhat. On the other hand, JS did trust Bennett and Bennett was quickly promoted to a very high rank within the church, where he would have first-hand knowledge of polygamy. Most scholars believe that Bennett was introduced to polygamy by JS, but that he then tried to practice it without the knowledge of JS and subverted for his own sexual gratification. JS was not happy to have polygamy getting out of hand and he denounced Bennett. Bennett was upset because (1) he wanted to satisfy his own sexual desires, (2) he knew JS was practicing polygamy, and (3) he was humiliated in front of people. His statements about JS were quite exagerated, but scholar’s have found much evidence to support many of Bennett’s claims. Bennett’s confession of guilt was an attempt to salvage his position of power in the church, which JS promised to return to him if he would give the confession. When it didn’t work out that way, Bennett got upset and went back to his claims about JS, embellishing them even further. Bennett was definately a seedy character, but I view all of the events around Bennett as consistent with his character, (1) he was out for his own gratification and tried to use polygamy to those means, (2) he outed JS, with embellishment, because he was upset, (3) he “confessed” of JS innocence in a ploy to get back his power in the church, and (4) when it didn’t work we went back to his slander of JS.
So, here is a diary entry contemporary to the time that is a great visual and very interesting. It can be viewed at http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot.com/2009/11/brigham-youngs-cipher.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot.com/2009/11/brigham-youngs-cipher.html Brigham wrote a journal entry dated January 6th, 1842, in secret Masonic code. When finally translated, it read:
Quote:I WAS TAKEN INTO THE LODGE
J SMITH W.A.S. AGNESS
I suppose this is slightly conjecture, but W.A.S. has been interpreted to mean “Wedded and Sealed”. Certainly this entry meant something significant if it was written in secret code.
Agnes was the widow of Don Carlos Smith, the youngest brother of Joseph Smith.
I start with this evidence, just because it is so visual and I think secret codes are cool.
Some caveats on the DNA evidence: (1) Only positive evidence is definitive for answering the general question of whether JS was involved in polygamous/extra-marital relationships. Negative evidence, while definitive for a specific question (such as was this child fathered by JS), is not definitive for the general question. JS could have been in polygamous relationships even without descendants. JS’s supposed early polygamous marriages were often to married women (who continued to live with their first husbands after the marriage), getting the timing right for fathering a child while splitting his time between multiple women, and trying to keep these relationships secret, would have made fathering children difficult.
(2) Y chromosome testing is only useful for direct, male descendants of JS (descended through an all-male line from JS). Y chromosome testing cannot answer whether daughters were fathered by JS or descendants of daughters. If a female comes between JS and the descendant, Y chromosome testing is useless. Y chromosome testing is also useless if the paternity of any of the descendants is questionable. Thus, multiple, male descendants from several tiers of the ancestry would be most useful. It appears that they Y chromosome of JS is fairly well established (through descendants of JS and Emma, as well as through descendants of Hyrum Smith – who shared the same dad as JS and thus has the same Y chromosome). All of these descendants have the same Y chromosome, so there is a high probability that we know JS Y chromosome.
(3) mtDNA is useless in determining paternity because only females pass on mtDNA.
(4) Autosomal testing is difficult as there are no known autosomal DNA specimens from JS, but is the only way to test for female descendants (and descendants through potential daughters or granddaughters of JS). Autosomal DNA testing would be much improved with an actual sample from JS.
I like the DNA argument, so let’s be sure to post the sources here so we can discuss them. First Deseret News article about the DNA research:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,600137517,00.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,600137517,00.html Second Deseret News article about the DNA research and provides a good layman description of the research done:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html?pg=1 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html?pg=1 Website alluded to in the article:
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htmhttp://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm” class=”bbcode_url”> Sorenson Molecular Geneology Foundation – layman description of Y chromosome:
http://www.smgf.org/pages/ychromosome.jspxhttp://www.smgf.org/pages/ychromosome.jspx” class=”bbcode_url”> Sorenson Molecular Geneology Foundation – layman description of mtDNA:
http://www.smgf.org/pages/mitochondrial.jspxhttp://www.smgf.org/pages/mitochondrial.jspx” class=”bbcode_url”> Are there other sources about the DNA evidence for JS paternity that you are aware of?
allquieton wrote:Mister Curie,
I am aware that none of these single facts proves their claim. But taken together, I find the evidence very convincing. I know there is evidence JS was a polygamist, but I think the evidence against is stronger. I also think people are generally unaware of it. I actually enjoy debating the matter, but also I think you would do better reading the book and debating it as you read. I did an awful lot of research as I read it. I honestly can’t remember half of what was in the book, and I can’t present their arguments as well as they did.
I looked up the DNA research a while ago. It’s called the Joseph Smith DNA Project or something like that. I think it’s funded by BYU, and it seemed to me that the guy doing it fully expects to find these descendants. I emailed the guy and he wrote me back–he seems like a regular Mormon with regular Mormon beliefs about polygamy.
Perhaps I’ll try to get the book through inter-library loan. It could be interesting to debate it’s claims, particularly as I’m reading “In Sacred Loneliness” by Todd Compton.
I am currently reading “In Sacred Loneliness”, which give detailed biographies for each of Joseph’s plural wives. I think the evidence for plural wives is much more compelling than evidence that JS fought against plural wives. The FLDS church seems to have a history of denying JS involvement in polygamy, so I’m not sure they are the most reliable source. allquieton wrote:
Some of the points/claims (as I remember them) made in the book:1. No descendent of JS has been found–except by Emma.
I looked into this. The 8 or so most likely candidates have been DNA tested with negative results. Their family legends are proven to be false.
It may have been difficult for some women to know exactly who the father was, as many of the first women JS married were already married to other men and they continued to live with their first husband after their polygamous marriage to JS. As a budding geneticist, I would be interested to see what DNA testing has actually been carried out on the potential decendants of JS. This many generations out, it would be quite difficult to interpret the standard “paternity” tests. There are some genetic tests that may be informative, but once you are about three generations removed even the most sophisticated genetic tests become difficult to interpret (or course if they are actually using JS actual DNA it would make it somewhat easier). The results are likely to be more subjective, with the non-believer interpretting the tests as proving family legends false, where the believer would likely say it doesn’t exclude paternity, but neither does it prove paternity. Some accounts have suggested that JS may have used the services of an abortionist if any of his wives became pregnant.
allquieton wrote:
2. Joseph denied he had more than one wife just 2 months before he died. Many close to him denied it as well–his mother, Emma, and his son Joseph.
His son is hardly a reliable source due to his age at JS death. There are also quotes by Emma and his mother that suggest he was involved in polygamy. There are also private journal entries and sworn affidavits by his polygamous wives (who would be considered close to JS). JS phrasing of his denial was parsed in a particular manner to maintain his integrity without revealing his doctrine of Celestial (plural) marriage.
allquieton wrote:3. The Book of Mormon (which JS produced) preaches against polygamy. In all 3 instances where it is mentioned, it is condemned. Also, the original 101st Section of the D+C soundly condemns polygamy.
D&C 101 was written and ratified when JS was not at the church conference. D&C 132 supports plural marriage. The Book of Mormon speaks positively of wine, does this prove JS did not reveal the WoW? The BoM presents a trinitarian view of God, does this refute God, Christ and HG being distinct personages in the Godhead?
allquieton wrote:
4. There are no original documents recording marriages to other women. Most of the claims of JS practicing polygamy originate many years after his death.
This is not true. There are multiple diary accounts of plural marriage written at the time of the plural marriages. BY and Richards both record marriages of JS to other women. There are records of multiple sealings to other women (often after they were married).
allquieton wrote:
Obviously there is much more to the story. But this book settled my misgivings about Joseph and cleared up a lot of murky Church history for me. I was surprised again and again when I realized many things I “knew” about Church history and the people involved were essentially foundationless.Unfortunately, I think you may need to re-evaluate JS and polygamy, if you are interested in historical accuracy. I highly recommend “In Sacred Loneliness”.
Elder Christofferson wrote:What they forget is that the intelligent use of agency requires knowledge of the truth, of things as they really are (see D&C 93:24). Without that, young people can hardly be expected to understand and evaluate the alternatives that come before them.
It seems to me that the church also forgets about this by presenting it’s white-washed version of history and excommunicating those that try to present a more historically-accurate version of events.
MapleLeaf wrote:You both appear to be abandoning the notion that empirical truth exists or is important, and are more concerned with the experience that the religion brings. . . .when we seek to understand “truth” as something that is not objective or changing, then it becomes important to peg down the answers to questions like “Does Limbo exist?” And “What is the identity of God the Father in LDS theology?”
Is it even possible for humans to find answers to such supposedly objective and unchanging “truths”? Do humans have the capacity to answer questions about Divine Truths? Or are Divine Truths outside the realm of a rational scientific approach? I’ve gone back to the basics and tried to answer the question “Does God exist?” I’m still struggling to determine if humans have the tools to answer that question and the answer is a resounding “No.” so I must be athiest, or if humans are incapable of answering the question I must be agnostic.
Just more stage 4 ramblings as I hope I’m moving toward stage 5, but it’s so dark in the “dark night of the soul” that I’m not sure where I’m heading . . .
just me wrote:I’m curious about the symbolism behind a woman needing her husband to know her temple name. Then there is the part where she does not become privy to his-it is a secret kept from her.
So here are the main questions up for discussion. I’d be interested in both the negative and positive symbolism we can derive.
*Symbolism of the new name
*Why the man is given his wife’s new name
*Why the man keeps his new name secret from his wife
I’ve liked the positive symbolism of the new name being similar to Saul being renamed Paul as he accepted Christ and dedicated his life to God.
The man needs to know her name so he can allow her into heaven.
He doesn’t reveal his name because it is a “keyword”.
I like the conclusion you have drawn from your parsing, Ray. I have a couple of questions related to it though, since you admit that it may seem a bit radical:
(1) Do you think the GAs had this meaning in mind when they issued the proclamation?
(2) If yes, why is it so difficult to arrive at the “correct” interpretation and most people arrive at the incorrect conclusions? Couldn’t they have been more clear?
(3) If no, can this passage be inspired if it goes against the intent of the authors?
(4) Related to my parsings post, is it better to use parsing to arrive at a personally agreeable conclusion, or to arrive at original intent?
It was once explained to me that Mormon Doctrine is such that we believe there is never an end to the eternal increase of our Heavenly Parents – thus, they are still having kids. I’ve had it explained that we believe there are multiple earths and that Christ only came here, but that his sacrifice extends to all of those other earths.
I’ve also heard that we believe in waves of creations – where there is a war in heaven, a christ and satan chosen (or self-selected as the case may be), and then worlds populated with the children that participated in the war in heaven. After all those pass away, and God continues to have more kids, there is another war in heaven, with another Christ chosen, etc. worlds without end.
