LDS transparency: J Smith marriage to 14 yr old

[LivingWaters7]

Ok. I’ll accept that you don’t understand how the LDS concept of eternal marriages works. To me, it appears that you’re going out of your way to bang up a perfectly simple concept. If you don’t know how families are connected (sealed), then I’d suggest looking at your family tree.

Sorry, I understand the Mormon concept of eternal marriages just fine, and no, I’m not going out of my way to do anything. I am pointing out the logical implications of the belief. It simply does not work out like how it is portrayed (i.e. an eternal nuclear family unit).

At least we agree that we become like God in heaven. The problem here is that you’d have to have a correct idea of God, who He is and what he does, in order to have a correct idea of what becoming like God is.

That is very true. Fortunately, we Catholics have the correct understanding of the nature of God, as revealed by Him.

Joseph Smith saw God and challenged that the correct idea of God has been lost from Christianity.

Yet we see absolutely nothing that can demonstrate that the correct idea of God was lost from Christianity and subsequently restored by Joseph Smith. Instead, we see a number of invented ideas about God found nowhere at any time in Christianity (as well as caricatured understandings of the orthodox doctrines surrounding the nature of God, such as the frequent misportrayal of modalism instead of the actual Trinity doctrine). Ideas foreign to Christianity that have been taught in official LDS manuals, magazines, conferences, etc. include:

-the idea that the Father was once a man that progressed to/achieved Godhood
-the idea that the Father is married to at least one Heavenly Mother goddess (some LDS prophets have taught that the Heavenly Father has multiple wives)
-the idea that the Father and Mother begot spirit children with Jesus being their literal first born offspring.

I will wait for you to demonstrate that Joseph Smith did indeed restore concepts of God that were lost from Christianity, and that he did indeed bring back the true understanding of God.

I find your concept of God to be difficult to understand and thus your concept of being pure love like God’s pure love makes no sense. It appears to be practiced in a vacuum. God’s love is what it is because he shares it with us imperfect, mortal beings. Who would we share our love with? Each other? With God? How is that being like Him?

I think that many LDS make the Trinity doctrine more complicated and difficult than it actually is. The concept that I am talking about is simple. In Heaven, we see God as He is (i.e. unmediated), and we become like Him. This means, in part, that we learn to love like God loves (obviously, if we become like Him and participate in His divine nature). God’s perfect love is indeed shared amongst all of His children (and not just one part of His children, like one family), which is the point that I’m making.

I think you guys have part of it right, but; without the correct idea of who God is, it’ll never be complete.

Fortunately, we do have the correct idea of who God is, as evidenced by revealed scripture and history.

 

[LivingWaters7]

But your version of God doesn’t include is wife, so living the life that God lives doesn’t necessarily include a wife or wives. Mormons teach that exaltation, which requires marriage to obtain, is living the life that God lives.

And again, that is an idea found nowhere in the Bible, let alone anywhere else in ancient Christianity (along with the idea that we will be having spirit children offspring). It is completely invented by Joseph Smith. Christians have never believed that God the Father is married to a wife, or wives, nor that marriage is required for eternal life.

I just wanted to clarify this portion. One other thing, I get my understanding of what Catholic’s believe through Catholics I have known. What I have learned here is that either they didn’t know what they were talking about or things have changed (or been clarified). You may have to clarify things for me as we go along, but to indicate that I am intentionally disregarding your beliefs is just wrong. That is not my intention.)

Yet you seem to want to ignore what actual Catholics on this forum say about our own beliefs, as if you know better (like when you claim that such and such may be a personal belief, but it isn’t what our Church teaches). You say such things without any actual evidence presented to corroborate your implied better understanding.

But, by all means, if you have marriages that are bound after death, how do you handle the polygamy issue?

This demonstrates that you’re not actually paying attention to what we’re saying about how we understand Heaven, our relationships, and the purpose of Heaven. There is no polygamy issue.

 

[lax16]

BrotherofJared - What about marriages where family members don’t get along or husbands are abusive? I have heard Mormons say “oh I so don’t want be sealed to so and so for all eternity.”

That doesn’t sound like Heaven to me. Does it to you?

 

[glendab]

Hello BOJ.

There are two things which lead me to believe there is some basis, and certainly enough for it to be sufficient reason to excommunicate William Law. 1) Joseph refused to seal William to his wife and the reason was, according to Joseph: Law “was an adulterous man” and 2) Hyrum testified that Law confessed to him that he had committed adultery. All of this happened on the heels of Dr. Bennett’s trollop through Nauvoo teaching spiritual-wifery, running a brothel and performing abortions all while being in the same circle of association with Joseph Smith and William Law. I am speculating here, that is entirely possible that Law bought Bennett’s brand of spiritual-wifery before Joseph could put an end to it.

Jan 8, 1844:

I find this type of talk fascinating. Coming from a man who had many “wives” and considered this as a holy thing, calling another man an adulterer is too much. A tossed pot calling a kettle black! J. Smith was not a faithful man and the mockery of true marriage his “sealed” marriages made is an insult to any and all who do take their marriage vows seriously. He was an adulterer himself, many times over. It seems like the horse thief calling the bank robber a bad man and looking down on him! All of the serious sins and crimes done by the Mormons in the name of religion cannot be hidden no matter what pains get taken to give the outside world a Hallmark image to their sect. I agree that great pains do get taken to clean up their image, but those of us who know Jesus Christ and live His Way, His Truth and His Life, see the obvious. We cannot be blinded. Mormonism has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ and the fact that His Holy Name is included in the name of this less then two hundred year old sect does not bring His blessings to its members nor His teaching within its doors. It is a bit of false advertising if you ask me.

Glenda

 

[Phntm]

Just curious about something:
BoM, Jacob 2:24: " Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."
vs.
D&C 132:38: “David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me”

Jacob doesn’t appear to have wiggle room or exception. But the D&C appears to completely undermine it or at the least create a proviso for exception (as detailed further on in D&C). This is the BoM as translated by Joseph Smith and then the D&C as revealed by Joseph Smith talking about the same persons in the OT. <Jacob 2:30 only claims that God can do whatever God wants, it does not imply an exception to polygamy anymore than creating humans anew to accomplish His goals - never mind the fairly straight-forward plain language of condemnation to David and Solomon that are then contradicted in the D&C> So, Joseph contradicts himself in his own works. It is hard to keep all the details of a lie straight.

??

 

[glendab]

Hello BOJ.

Correct. The words cancel themselves out. I meant serial polyandry. A classic example of serial polyandry is in the New Testament (This requires a lot of explanation and discussion, but I bring it up here only to demonstrate the meaning of serial polyandry. Some of you will surely bring up Matt 22:30 as the reason there are no marriages in heaven, but to do so would contradict the “good feelings” that God wouldn’t separate us after death even though it appears to be what that passage says. I’ll post a link if I ever find any good discussion on it.) In order for this to operate “fairly” the Jews had to practice polygamy. It would be unfair to the surviving kinsman because he would cut off his own inheritance as soon as he married his brother’s wife. Therefore, his brother’s wife would to have been his second wife so that he could have his own heir by his own wife.

I can’t iron out all the details for the next life. I know that we have created some bad situations that rips-apart relationships and marriages, ie. unwed mothers, divorce, marital abuse, orphans, etc. Even if we practiced a perfect Christian society, there would still be issues to contend with which include things like death of spouse or child, infertility or impotence, same gender attraction or remaining unmarried for whatever reason. Who can connect all the dots? God’s insistence that Joseph introduce polygamy solves a few of these problems. Perhaps the biggest one is the one introduced by eternal marriage. Is it good for man to be alone? No. If my wife dies and I marry another, will I lose the first wife? No. Will my second wife not receive exaltation? No. I know many people do not like polygamy, but not everyone dislikes it. But men of God practiced it. God sanctioned it. So provision for it must be provided. Would it be fair to Hagar if only Sarah were allowed to remain married to Abraham? Should Hagar be cut off from the blessings that come through Abraham?

Two things come to mind regarding your Biblical example. The woman involved is widowed BEFORE she marries the next brother, so no polyandry at all, just a widow freed to marry again. The other is that polyandry is one woman having several living husbands at the same time, she being wife to them at the same time. So, your example doesn’t hold water.

You are also wrong in thinking God sanctions polygamy because there are Biblical accounts of it. Just because it is found in the Bible doesn’t mean it is right. Jesus Christ said Himself that man and woman were to be monogamist, one man with one woman, same as in Eden. He also said the He’d permit divorce because Moses permitted it because of the hardness of people’s hearts or for reasons of unlawful marriage. The New Testament is very clear on the expectations placed on Christians for marriage. No where does God state there is a requirement of polygamy. This is a fiction written by a polygamist to justify his deviant lifestyle in the eyes of those who would fall for such nonsense. Most people naturally know to shy away from those who claim the things about God that J. Smith did. Why is that BOJ?

Glenda

 

[Porknpie]

It was not unusual at that time for girls to marry at 14.

Schaeffer, I’m just starting to read this thread. What is your source in support of the above statement?

Joseph Smith also married over ten women who were married at the time (this is objectively most unusual … “adultery”). The William Law quote (Joseph Smith’s close confidant and LDS Church First Councilor, William Law, Interview in Salt Lake Tribune, July 31, 1887) below gives insight as to his polygamy motivations although it’s not clear if he was speaking about one of his over thirty wives or another woman who was not his wife.
“Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this.”

 

[Porknpie]

In the interview Salt Lake Tribune interview with William Law, I also read the Q&A below.

Which “escapades”, “pretended revelation” and “crimes” is Emma describing?

“What do you remember about Emma’s relations to the revelation on celestial marriage?”

"Well, I told you that she used to complain to me about Joseph’s escapades whenever she met me on the street. She spoke repeatedly about that pretended revelation. She said once: “The revelation says I must submit or be destroyed. Well, I guess I have to submit.” On another day she said: “Joe and I have settled our troubles on the basis of equal rights.” * * * Emma was a full accomplice of Joseph’s crimes.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Two things come to mind regarding your Biblical example. The woman involved is widowed BEFORE she marries the next brother, so no polyandry at all

Correct. I am not refuting the fact she is widowed. That is why it’s called serial polyandry: one husband at a time, but still, many husbands, one wife.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Hello BOJ.

Two things come to mind regarding your Biblical example. The woman involved is widowed BEFORE she marries the next brother, so no polyandry at all, just a widow freed to marry again. The other is that polyandry is one woman having several living husbands at the same time, she being wife to them at the same time. So, your example doesn’t hold water.

You are also wrong in thinking God sanctions polygamy because there are Biblical accounts of it. Just because it is found in the Bible doesn’t mean it is right. Jesus Christ said Himself that man and woman were to be monogamist, one man with one woman, same as in Eden. He also said the He’d permit divorce because Moses permitted it because of the hardness of people’s hearts or for reasons of unlawful marriage. The New Testament is very clear on the expectations placed on Christians for marriage. No where does God state there is a requirement of polygamy. This is a fiction written by a polygamist to justify his deviant lifestyle in the eyes of those who would fall for such nonsense. Most people naturally know to shy away from those who claim the things about God that J. Smith did. Why is that BOJ?

Glenda

So, by what your saying, Abraham was a deviant and that his heart was hardened against the commandments of the God. That makes no sense on any level. He was neither hard hearted nor was he a deviant.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Correct. I am not refuting the fact she is widowed. That is why it’s called serial polyandry: one husband at a time, but still, many husbands, one wife.

There is no such thing as serial polyandry.

dictionary.reference.com polyandry
Polyandry definition, the practice or condition of having more than one husband at one time.

When a spouse dies, the marital relationship ends. Sorry, that is a reality of death. The person who has died is not here, and a dead person cannot be in a marital relationship. Therefore, marriage vows end at death and the surviving spouse is free to remarry. This doesn’t mean the love one had for a deceased spouse needs to end.

Polyandry is being married to more than one person, in a relationship with all at the same time, here and now.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So, by what your saying, Abraham was a deviant and that his heart was hardened against the commandments of the God. That makes no sense on any level. He was neither hard hearted nor was he a deviant.

Once again…

Abraham lived before Moses and was not under the law. “Deviant” is a word used to describe what is unacceptable in a society. Polygamy is unacceptable in a Christian society. Granted, once Christian societies are reverting to paganism, including pagan ideas of marriage such as polygyny and polyandry.

Abraham did not live in a Christian society. He lived in a society where concubinage was allowed. He was not married to Hagar,

 

[glendab]

Hello BOJ.

Correct. I am not refuting the fact she is widowed. That is why it’s called serial polyandry: one husband at a time, but still, many husbands, one wife.

EXACTLY. Why is it you don’t see how easily you change the Scriptures to suit your own purpose? That is NOT the purpose of Scriptures. The example is a hypothetical example presented to God for His Judgement. They made it up to test Jesus. They failed the test, not God. How about you? Clue: it doesn’t help to twist the Scriptures to say what they don’t. Polyandry is more than one husband at the same time, not after the death of the first husband. It is deviant. It is not okay. It is wrong. It is that simple. The woman in the example isn’t a polyandrist and BTW that would have been totally disgusting to the Jews of Jesus’ day, even as corrupt as they were. They wouldn’t stoop that low. And another thing, there is NO justification for J. Smith’s lifestyle choices in the Bible, only condemnation. THAT is why he had to write his own and it is a matter of record on more than one occasion he said himself that if person outside his own community knew what he was doing they’d lynch him. He knew how seriously troubling his behaviors were.

Glenda

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Once again…

Abraham lived before Moses and was not under the law. “Deviant” is a word used to describe what is unacceptable in a society. Polygamy is unacceptable in a Christian society. Granted, once Christian societies are reverting to paganism, including pagan ideas of marriage such as polygyny and polyandry.

Abraham did not live in a Christian society. He lived in a society where concubinage was allowed. He was not married to Hagar,

Christ Jesus makes ALL things new. This includes marriage traditions of the earliest tribes.

Christ is the perfect, eternal heavenly bridge groom, The Church (us) is the bride. There is no “other” marriage for Christ. He is not an adulterer folks. The only “marriage” in heaven is that of Christ and his Church, not literal marriages between humans. This LDS marriage in heaven thing is a man-made device utilized by serial adulterers

What part of NT: “there is no marriage in heaven” & we “live as the angels” don’t sects
(especially early LDS & corresponding splinter groups) understand? These “leaders” ignored sound Biblical truths so as to get what they wanted: power, control, $ & lots & lots of women. The likes of Smith & B Young (reputed to have 23 duped wives) both left a swath of “marital” carnage behind them.

By their fruits you shall know them.

 

[Sarcelle]

Christ Jesus makes ALL things new. This includes marriage traditions of the earliest tribes.

Christ is the perfect, eternal heavenly bridge groom, The Church (us) is the bride. There is no “other” marriage for Christ. He is not an adulterer folks. The only “marriage” in heaven is that of Christ and his Church, not literal marriages between humans. This LDS marriage in heaven thing is a man-made device utilized by serial adulterers

What part of NT: “there is no marriage in heaven” & we “live as the angels” don’t sects
(especially early LDS & corresponding splinter groups) understand? These “leaders” ignored sound Biblical truths so as to get what they wanted: power, control, $ & lots & lots of women. The likes of Smith & B Young (reputed to have 23 duped wives) both left a swath of “marital” carnage behind them.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Indeed.

Polygyny, let’s face it, when polygamy is being talked about, it is usually polygyny, is nothing more than treating women as objects. I don’t care how you dress it up. It is usually women who are at the losing end of this arrangement.