Question regarding wives of JS

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

My theory is that polygamy in the latter day was not ordained by God, and that Joseph got his wires crossed thinking it was from God when it wasn't. God fixed the problem a couple prophets later. No harm no foul. This isn't the strongest opinion I have and if someone like Tex was going to fight with me over it, I probably don't have much conviction to fight back. I don't know how else to explain what seems so inconsistent and weird.

I'll believe this when it's removed from canon. Until such time, I have to take a "I don't get it but I guess I don't have to approach".

[BYUruss]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Once your post gets deleted and you get suspended, which should take about 5 minutes, come on back.

lol...yes, I was joking.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Adam

What pisses me off about the Church today is the consistent dishonest reading of DC 132. It commands us to do the works of Abraham in regards to marriage.

A prophet has the right to interpret scripture for the church. That's not the only interpretation of that verse. We accept canon for doctrine as interpreted by a living prophet. I've never heard any prophet interpret that scripture that way for a long time.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by BYUruss

Jodeph Smith had a couple 14 year old wives, and also married a couple women after sending their first husbands away on a mission. So here's the question....do most of you believe that he was called of God to marry what are essentially still children, and other already married women? Or do you think that a better explanation is that nobody is perfect, including JS, and this was just being human? Or was it something else? Having not found out about that stuff until my mission, it's something that I've always wondered about.

Actually, there were four teens in the span of just one month (17, 17, 14, 19). His second wife (Fanny Alger, age 16 at the time) was essentially an adopted daughter who was working in his house as a caretaker --see http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org Considering all that, and the propositions to wives of people he sent overseas, I can't believe that was ordered by a God that I believe in.

[Indy Coug]

Until they disallow a man from being sealed to more than one woman in the temple, polygamy is still actively being practiced in the church.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

So IMHO you have to believe that 1) Joseph was just a horn-dog satisfying his lusts (possible but not likely), 2) Joseph implemented the true principle perfectly and it was God's will that he marry young teenagers and take other men's wives as his own, or 3) you believe that the principle is correct but the implementation was a bit (maybe a lot) off. I'm in the third group. And it is OK that Joseph screwed it up a bit--if I were Joseph and Hyde had a smokin hot wife and he was gone to the Holy Land for a 2-3 year mission, I might decide she should get a good fogging from me occasionally in the meantime too. I can forgive Joseph for a weakness I possess myself. (Having no authority or native appeal to convince my neighbor's wife to go to bed with me, this isn't a realistic temptation, but you get the point.)

didn't you just put yourself in both camps 1 and 3? i get what you're saying, but it seems to me that camp 1 is really the most logical definition of "the implementation was a bit off" part of camp 3. i fit in both camps 1 and 3 - inspired revelation imperfectly implemented b/c we, including js, are sexual beings.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yes yes yes, but what we are doing in the church today isn't "interpretation" it is clear and obvious meaning-changing.

It is one thing to say a fortelling applys to our time when a former prophet said it applied to their time--both could be correct. Or when a prophet interprets "hot drinks" to mean green tea and coffee.

It is quite another to say the revelation given by God to Joseph authorizing and explaining plural marriage is really talking about a single marriage. There is no way to slice it otherwise honestly. The new and everlasting covenant is plural marriage in DC 132. Today it is taught as any temple marriage. Totally different meaning.

This is akin to a prophet reading retaining Paul's status as an apostle and his writings as scripture, but saying that circumcision really is part of the new covenant of Christ.

Interpretation can only be strained so far.

If Joseph didn't want anyone misinterpreting him, he should have been more clear. If the new and everlasting covenant is only about plural marriage not monogamous temple marriage, then he shouldn't have said A man and A woman over and over.

[Archaea]

So Adam, you're being a binary here, because you appear to believe there's only one way to undo scripture or a prophet's mistake cloaked as scripture.

He must either state it in canon, or never reveal it. Do you not make provision for other methodology?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Adam

I honestly don't know how it could have been more clear what the New and Everlasting Covenant is:



I think you are reading out of context. For instance:



does say A man and A woman, but it is "in the new and everlasting covenant" of plural marrage.

The key verse in the whole section is the the following.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:15 Therefore, if a man marry him a
wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and
he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with
him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are
dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not
bound by any law when they are out of the world.

Why does it seemingly refer to one man and one woman in the key verse if the new and everlasting covenant = plural marriage not monogamous temple marriage. Why did they perform monogamous temple sealings from the beginning of the temple ceremony to now?

Is it possible a prophet might have even intended one meaning when he entered verse into canon but God influenced the prophet to write it in a way that would be interpreted a different way? Is there something important about canon that may even supercede a prophet's intention? I don't know--honest questions.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

I would agree that JS didn't implement the true principle perfectly because of weaknesses which included lust. But that isn't to say he invented the doctrine out of thin air because of his lust--which I don't believe. This is what I intended by belief 1.

then i believe that we are of similar mind-sets on this issue.