Is polygamy necessary for exaltation?

[Nothing]

I guess there are no good answers to my three concerns.

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, Nothing said:

I guess there are no good answers to my three concerns.

Of course there are...  You simply have shown that you refuse to accept them.

We have repeatedly discussed the logical and rational results of your rejection of section 132...  You seem very selective as to what you are willing to hear.

Since every topic in the Gospel comes back to Faith... it means ultimately that for you (like for everyone else) is comes down to making a choice.  As long as you make the choice to reject it that is all the evidence you will be willing to see.

In a way at this point it like arguing with an atheist about God...  A discussion that ultimately goes no where

 

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

You seem very selective as to what you are willing to hear.

I agree, we can only repeat things so many times.  
"What we have learned to look for in a situation determines mostly what we see." —Ellen Langer

[Nothing]

Did someone specifically address the three concerns I brought up? I'm sorry if I missed it. 

[Guest]

On 8/11/2016 at 2:01 PM, Nothing said:

If I understand that correctly, this means that if a man and woman get married “and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise,” then they can commit any sin except murder and still be exalted....

I don’t see how that is compatible with the Plan of Salvation I have been taught. What about enduring to the end?

You've failed to understand two things about sin and covenants:

1. The above statement has always been true of anything except murder or denying the Holy Ghost.  That is why we have repentance.  "the Plan of Salvation (you) have been taught" does include repentance in the formula, right?
2. This is a promise made with the covenant.  A covenant with the Lord always requires that we hold up our end of the covenant -- and enduring to the end.  If we fail, see item #1 above.

If anything, this is a stricter requirement for those under the covenant.  We have no excuse about shedding of innocent blood.  The Ammonites were forgiven for their murders under the condition that they never take up arms again -- even in the defense of their own lives.  We will not be given such an opportunity if we are under this covenant.

On 8/11/2016 at 2:01 PM, Nothing said:

That simply means that David having “many wives and concubines” was abominable to the Lord. Now consider this:

No conditions are placed on the first statement. It doesn’t say anything like “It was okay for David to have many wives and concubines except Bathsheba”. I don’t see how those two verses could not be contradictory, despite how apologists try to twist it.

Now you're guilty of cherry picking.  Consider the whole gospel and the statements made in other parts of scripture for proper background and understanding of the principle.  You know what they are.  But because this section doesn't have the exact wording that you desire with every exception and condition known to God, you are willing to throw out the entire section.  That doesn't sound like a good filtering process to me.

On 8/11/2016 at 2:04 PM, Nothing said:

Joseph and other after him definitely did not follow these rules. Emma was not even given the opportunity to consent to Joseph’s marriage to Fanny Alger. Richard L. Bushman wrote that Chauncey Webb “reportedly took Alger in when Emma learned of the marriage” (emphasis added, Rough Stone Rolling, chapter 18).

This was during a phase when Emma had already given blanket permission to Joseph and specifically told him that she did not want to know about any more wives.  Basically "Just go ahead, just don't tell me about it."  It sounds like she gave permission and he was respecting her wishes on the topic.

On 8/11/2016 at 2:04 PM, Nothing said:

Verse 61 specifies that a man can take only virgins as plural wives in order for it to not be adulterous. It is well documented that many plural wives were not virgins. I see three possible explanations:

1. The word “virgin” doesn’t really mean virgin. This is almost certainly not possible considering the understood definition of the word now and in the 19th century.

See Revelation 14:4.  These are high priests who are virgins?  No, high priests are married men.  Obviously, there is another meaning here.  D&C 132 doesn't necessarily go along with the language of the 19th century.  It was the language that the Lord chose for his own purposes.  The meaning is that they are virtuous women, not given to licentiousness or low moral repute.

On 8/11/2016 at 2:04 PM, Nothing said:

I fail to hear God's voice in D&C 132. Can anyone help me understand it?

The entire section is God's voice.  Your failure to hear it is between you and the Lord.  Understanding it has nothing to do with it.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This was during a phase when Emma had already given blanket permission to Joseph

As much as I want to be on your side of it, this is a primary thing I grapple with as well. As I know it, Joseph was taking wives before he told Emma about it, and before she had opportunity to even know enough to get permission. Am I incorrect in this? (I hope so.) 

I go through phases of wondering why he, an imperfect man, handled it as he did... and then phases like the one I've been in currently where it stretches my faith. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

As much as I want to be on your side of it, this is a primary thing I grapple with as well. As I know it, Joseph was taking wives before he told Emma about it, and before she had opportunity to even know enough to get permission. Am I incorrect in this? (I hope so.) 

I go through phases of wondering why he, an imperfect man, handled it as he did... and then phases like the one I've been in currently where it stretches my faith. 

 I think that (bolded) is the crux of it.

I don't know about the permission aspect of all the wives he had.  But I was addressing Fanny specifically.  I do believe she was taken as a wife during that phase.  But I might be mixing some names up.  It's been a while since I studied it and a short while less since I stopped caring.  I'm sorry it is still a difficulty for you, though.  I hope you can find peace with it.

[estradling75]

48 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Did someone specifically address the three concerns I brought up? I'm sorry if I missed it. 

Perfect example of you only seeing what you want to see...

You say this

 

On 8/11/2016 at 1:01 PM, Nothing said:

 I don’t see how those two verses could not be contradictory, despite how apologists try to twist it.

 

 

Which means you have already seen and gotten answers...  But you simply refuse to accept because you have already made up your mind.

Nor do you seem willing to address the logical paradox that your refusal to accept Section 138 presents...  So instead of a true discussion we have you dropping what you think are  "bomb shells" then evading any attempt you truly discuss the issue.  So why should any one on this forum feel all that inclined to "jump through" your hoops to tell you what you have already heard only to reject... That lead no where.

Edited August 15, 2016 by estradling75

[Guest]

Freudian slip, I guess, because I meant to say I go through phases where I understand.  I don't struggle with the necessity of it (though I believe it wasn't executed perfectly, and I'm not sure how it could have been, considering how new things were and how mortal we are) at that time; my primary hurt is the possibility of it being re-instituted. It's the area where I have to employ the biggest measure of faith that Heavenly Father knows me and wants my happiness. 

[Nothing]

Quote

Carborendum: You've failed to understand two things about sin and covenants:

1. The above statement has always been true of anything except murder or denying the Holy Ghost.  That is why we have repentance.  "the Plan of Salvation (you) have been taught" does include repentance in the formula, right?

2. This is a promise made with the covenant.  A covenant with the Lord always requires that we hold up our end of the covenant -- and enduring to the end.  If we fail, see item #1 above.

 

I guess you and I understand verse 26 differently. It sounds like it’s saying one could commit any sin except murder and then be exalted even if they don’t repent during mortality. If they did repent, they wouldn’t be “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption,” right? So it seems that it’s talking about people reveling in sin, not repenting, and not enduring to the end.

 

Quote

Carborendum: Now you're guilty of cherry picking.  Consider the whole gospel and the statements made in other parts of scripture for proper background and understanding of the principle.  You know what they are.  But because this section doesn't have the exact wording that you desire with every exception and condition known to God, you are willing to throw out the entire section.  That doesn't sound like a good filtering process to me.

 

I am considering scripture from the Book of Mormon, which is translated correctly. If Jacob 2 does not agree with stuff from the Old Testament, doesn’t the Book of Mormon trump it? It’s very simple: Jacob 2 and D&C 132 do not agree, regardless of what the Old Testament says.

 

Quote

Carborendum: This was during a phase when Emma had already given blanket permission to Joseph and specifically told him that she did not want to know about any more wives.  Basically "Just go ahead, just don't tell me about it."  It sounds like she gave permission and he was respecting her wishes on the topic.

 

Sorry, but this just isn’t accurate. Fanny Alger was Joseph’s first plural wife and Emma was completely surprised by it.

 

Quote

Carborendum: D&C 132 doesn't necessarily go along with the language of the 19th century.  It was the language that the Lord chose for his own purposes.  The meaning is that they are virtuous women, not given to licentiousness or low moral repute.

 

“For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3). I think God did go along with the language understood in the 19^th century, and they understood “virgin” the same way we do. Do you have any support for the idea that it means “virtuous women, not given to licentiousness or low moral repute”?

Edited August 15, 2016 by Nothing

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Nothing said:

 I guess you and I understand verse 26 differently. It sounds like it’s saying one could commit any sin except murder and then be exalted even if they don’t repent during mortality. If they did repent, they wouldn’t be “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption,” right? So it seems that it’s talking about people reveling in sin, not repenting, and not enduring to the end.

 You're right.  We do understand it differently.  I see that as a warning that if you're going to accept this covenant, you're going to be held to a higher standard.  Others may repent.  But even if you repent, because you really should know better, you're still going to feel some punishment before you're finally redeemed.

 

I am considering scripture from the Book of Mormon, which is translated correctly. If Jacob 2 does not agree with stuff from the Old Testament, doesn’t the Book of Mormon trump it? It’s very simple: Jacob 2 and D&C 132 do not agree, regardless of what the Old Testament says.

I don't even understand how that is a counter to what I said.  You said "I don't see anything about..."  My response was that you were cherry picking.  

 

None of these references contradict each other.  They're all to be taken together as a complete doctrine.  But you chose one single reference to trump the others.  This is incorrect.  Take them altogether and find the interpretation that fits all of the scriptures rather than accepting one passage over another and discarding what we don't agree with.  

Sorry, but this just isn’t accurate. Fanny Alger was Joseph’s first plural wife and Emma was completely surprised by it.

 Whatever.  Like I told Eowyn, it's been a while since I looked at this.  And I may have been getting some names mixed up.  But here's my recollection.  Emma told Joseph to go ahead BUT JUST DON'T TELL HER about it.  And he was to keep all of the other wives in a separate home so she never had to know about it.  Remember, this was her request.

 

The fact that she was surprised by it had nothing to do with permission, but that she heard about it through third parties anyway and Fanny was a close friend of hers.

 

If I'm mixing things up, then forgive me.  But there was something in the history that fits my memory.  I know I read that happening with someone.  If it wasn't Fanny, then someone else.  I mixed up the people.

 

In any case, the point of the line of questioning was that you claimed that D&C 132 was not of God.  How does a man incorrectly practicing God's commandments somehow invalidate the commandment?  You're throwing that in there because...?

 

“For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3). I think God did go along with the language understood in the 19^th century, and they understood “virgin” the same way we do. Do you have any support for the idea that it means “virtuous women, not given to licentiousness or low moral repute”?

Many people spoke Biblical passages as part of their everyday discourse back then.  And it was understood that when they did so, such language (and any accompanying definition) was Biblical.  It did not necessarily maintain the same meaning as the vernacular of the day.  If you need evidence, look up some writings of the day.

 

It would be like quoting Shakespeare.  Some such passages would be improper English today.  But it is considered correct and with different definitions than saying the same words in common parlance today.

 

And I gave you the Rev reference.  The Book of Mormon quotes the Bible word for word in many passages.  Why do that if it's in Man's language of the 1800s?  No, it's given in a manner that can be understood by men in an earthly tongue.  And 132 was no different.  But any passage of scripture isn't going to have all the conditions and exceptions in it.  You have to read all passages that apply.  Then you can see what words fit the overall picture rather than the obvious one from a single reading of an isolated verse.

 

Consider the meaningS of the word "virtue".  If you refuse to get it, I can't do anything more for you on that.  You'll just have to accept that others have looked at it and found peace with it after much thought and study.  You're just going to disagree anyway.

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Guest

[estradling75]

Lets take Jacob discussion on the taking of many wives in context.

Jacob has his errand from the Lord and he says this

"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."

So when Jacob gets to the subject the very first thing he said... They are misunderstanding the scriptures and twisting them to their own ends.  Clearly they were selectively taking scriptures to justify their own desires while finding reason to ignore or otherwise discount the ones that disagreed with what they wanted to hear.  (Who do we see doing that here?)

Then there is the crux of the matter   "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."  That seems to be a very clear Thus saith the Lord from a Prophet.  Unfortunately too many stop there and get really confused... because they ignore the rest of the context.

Two verses later we get this  "Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old."

That is pretty clear... the Lord was not going to "suffer" the Nephites having more then one wife.  In this case it is pretty clear we can use the word "Suffer" as "Allow"  You know what else is pretty clear in this verse... that the Lord did "suffer/allow" them of old to do it.  Now people might quibble with this but they only have to look a few more verses before the Lord makes it abundantly clear.

"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. "   Boom there it is... Jacob as a prophet of God declaring thus saith the Lord... That God can and will command a man to take more then one wife despite God calling it an "abominable before him" just a few verses earlier.

If someone wants to accept Jacob 2... then they need to accept all of Jacob 2 not just the parts that agree with what they would like to see.

So now we see that Jacob 2 has plenty of room (now and always) for Section 132.   So why the difference in describing the relationships of David and Solomon?  You could ask God (that is highly recommended after all)  But a very easy answer is that God knows his audience.  The Nephites where already trying to pervert the scriptures to get their way... that is not a time for subtlety or nuance, that is a time to drop the hammer on them.  Jacob drops that hammer nice and hard.  The only nuance he gives the Nephites is that it Might be commanded it to happen elsewhere/elsewhen.

Now lets forward to a time when the Lord will "suffer/allow",  a time when the Lord will command his people (as he says he will).  That audience is wildly different.  They need to be taught how.  They need to be able to discern the Lord's way when he "suffers/allows" it.  Therefore greater detail and examples of how it  worked and how it failed become highly important details for instructions...  Details that the Nephites did not need. 

Thus the difference between the descriptions of David and Solomon can easily both be true once we take it in all context of the situations they were in when given

 

   

Edited August 15, 2016 by estradling75

[zil]

Fabulous explanation, estradling75!  I've never seen it more clearly laid out.  And these two bits make it even better:

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Boom there is is...

..elsewhen..

Are fist-bumps passé, cuz I feel the need for a virtual fist-bump here.   (Can I get a ::fistbump:: emoji, please?)

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

Fabulous explanation, estradling75!  I've never seen it more clearly laid out.  And these two bits make it even better:

Are fist-bumps passé, cuz I feel the need for a virtual fist-bump here.   (Can I get a ::fistbump:: emoji, please?)

Can I get an AMEN!?!

[Nothing]

 

Quote

Carborendum: Whatever.  Like I told Eowyn, it's been a while since I looked at this.  And I may have been getting some names mixed up.  But here's my recollection.  Emma told Joseph to go ahead BUT JUST DON'T TELL HER about it.  And he was to keep all of the other wives in a separate home so she never had to know about it.  Remember, this was her request.

 

The fact that she was surprised by it had nothing to do with permission, but that she heard about it through third parties anyway and Fanny was a close friend of hers.

 

Maybe you are thinking of the Partiridge sisters or the Lawrence sisters.

 

Quote

While Joseph was alive, there were times when Emma countenanced plural marriage. In May 1843 she approved two wives, Eliza and Emily Partridge, daughters of Edward Partridge and helpers in the Smith household. The sisters were an awkward selection because Joseph had already married them two months earlier in March without Emma’s knowledge. When Joseph proposed, Emily and Eliza, nineteen and twenty-three, went through the usual turmoil. At first they turned Joseph down, but by the time he told Emily that “the Lord had commanded him to enter into plural marriage and had given me to him,” she was prepared. They married on March 4, 1843. “Well I was married there and then,” she wrote many years later. “Joseph went home his way and I going my way alone. A strange way of getting married wasent it?” Eliza Partridge married him four days later. In May, they both went through the ceremony again with Emma present. About the same time, Emma agreed to accept Maria and Sarah Lawrence, two other young women living in the Smiths’ house.

 

Emma’s concurrence brought about a reconciliation, which led in turn to her and Joseph’s priesthood marriage. Joseph probably would not have had the sealing performed while Emma opposed the plural-marriage revelation. But on a cold Sunday evening, May 28, 1843, in the upper room of Joseph’s redbrick store, Joseph and Emma were “sealed” for eternity by the power of the priesthood.

 

Unfortunately, the reconciliation did not last. Emma had agreed to the plural marriages, but she immediately regretted it. “Before the day was over she turned around or repented of what she had done and kept Joseph up till very late in the night talking to him,” Emily Partridge wrote in the 1880s, when revealing Emma’s faults was thought to aid the Utah Church. “She kept close watch of us. If we were missing for a few minutes, and Joseph was not at home, the house was searched from top to bottom and from one end to the other, and if we were not found, the neighborhood was searched until we were found.” One day Emma heard Joseph talking to Eliza Partridge in an upstairs room. Joseph closed the door and held it shut, while Emma called Eliza’s name and tried to open the door. “She seemed much irritated,” he reported to William Clayton.

 

The situation deteriorated. In her 1884 reminiscence, Emily wrote of Emma:

She sent for us one day to come to her room. Joseph was present, looking like a martyr. Emma said some very hard things—Joseph should give us up or blood should flow. She would rather her blood would run pure than be poluted in this manner. Such interviews were quite common, but the last time she called us to her room, I felt quite indignant, and was determined it should be the last, for it was becoming monotonous, and I am ashamed to say, I felt indignant towards Joseph for submitting to Emma.

 

Emma wanted the marriages to the Partridge girls ended. Emily said, “Joseph asked her [Emma] if we made her the promises she required, if she would cease to trouble us, and not persist in our marrying some one else. She made the promise. Joseph came to us and shook hands with us, and the understanding was that all was ended between us.” Later he said to Emily privately, “You know my hands are tied. And he looked as if he would sink into the earth.” Emma wanted the girls out of the house and the city. Emily said later that “my sister and I were cast off.”

(Richard L. Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 27)

 

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Nothing

[Nothing]

46 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

...Then there is the crux of the matter   "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."  That seems to be a very clear Thus saith the Lord from a Prophet.  Unfortunately too many stop there and get really confused... because they ignore the rest of the context.

Two verses later we get this  "Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old."

That is pretty clear... the Lord was not going to "suffer" the Nephites having more then one wife.  In this case it is pretty clear we can use the word "Suffer" as "Allow"  You know what else is pretty clear in this verse... that the Lord did "suffer/allow" them of old to do it.  Now people might quibble with this but they only have to look a few more verses before the Lord makes it abundantly clear...

So let's say God did allow "them of old" to practice polygamy. Let's say that's referring to Abraham and Jacob and maybe some others. That does not change the fact that the scripture says "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." Again, no conditions were placed on that statement. It doesn’t say anything like “It was okay for David to have many wives and concubines except Bathsheba.” Then D&C 132:39 says "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife..."

Quote

"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. "   Boom there it is... Jacob as a prophet of God declaring thus saith the Lord... That God can and will command a man to take more then one wife despite God calling it an "abominable before him" just a few verses earlier.

This doesn't change the fact that God specifically said that David's and Solomon's (not Abraham or anyone else's) practice of having many wives and concubines was abominable. D&C 132:39 says God actually gave David's wives and concubines to him and it was not a sin (not abominable). God says the only was sin was "the case of Uriah and his wife." I still don't see how they are compatible.

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Nothing said:

So let's say God did allow "them of old" to practice polygamy. Let's say that's referring to Abraham and Jacob and maybe some others. That does not change the fact that the scripture says "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." Again, no conditions were placed on that statement. It doesn’t say anything like “It was okay for David to have many wives and concubines except Bathsheba.” Then D&C 132:39 says "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife..."

This doesn't change the fact that God specifically said that David's and Solomon's (not Abraham or anyone else's) practice of having many wives and concubines was abominable. D&C 132:39 says God actually gave David's wives and concubines to him and it was not a sin (not abominable). God says the only was sin was "the case of Uriah and his wife." I still don't see how they are compatible.

That was already answered if you bothered to read... nothing you said was not covered

[Nothing]

Quote

Carborendum: In any case, the point of the line of questioning was that you claimed that D&C 132 was not of God.  How does a man incorrectly practicing God's commandments somehow invalidate the commandment?  You're throwing that in there because...?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe D&C 132 is from God. It specifies the conditions to be met in order to have plural wives and not commit adultery. It's very clear that a plural wife must be a virgin "and have vowed to no other man," meaning she's not married to another man. In answer to that, I have heard only conjecture that "virgin" can mean "virtuous woman." So if Joseph didn't meet those conditions, was he committing adultery?

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Nothing

[Nothing]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That was already answered if you bothered to read... nothing you said was not covered

I read your explanation and responded to it. Jacob 2 does not say "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord, but I allowed it so it was actually okay." That's an odd interpretation.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Nothing said:

 Maybe you are thinking of the Partiridge sisters or the Lawrence sisters.

No.  That story has no resemblance to the story I outlined.  But again, what does it have to do with the topic at hand (i.e. Section 132)?

If your point is that 132 was false, then state that Joseph was a fallen prophet at that point.  If you don't believe that, then what are you saying about his practice of plural marriage?  It is one thing to say that Joseph made some mistakes in how he went about the practice.  It is quite another to say that a purported prophet feigned the voice of the Lord in a revelation that was to be canonized.

So, what are you saying?

15 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe D&C 132 is from God. It specifies the conditions to be met in order to have plural wives and not commit adultery. It's very clear that a plural wife must be a virgin "and have vowed to no other man," meaning she's not married to another man. In answer to that, I have heard only conjecture that "virgin" can mean "virtuous woman." So if Joseph didn't meet those conditions, was he committing adultery?

 

OK.  Let's go with this.  So you believe Joseph committed adultery.  Was he a fallen prophet?  yes or no?  If he was, then let that be the end and be happy with it.  If not, then you have to assume that something in your interpretations is in error or incomplete.  What would that be?

4 minutes ago, Nothing said:

...Again, no conditions were placed on that statement. It doesn’t say anything like “It was okay for David to have many wives and concubines except Bathsheba.” ...

Another example of your picking and choosing.  Must EVERY sentence or verse or passage have a complete explanation of a given doctrine with absolutely NOTHING missing from it?  Or can we assume that those who study this are also well versed in other similar passages that talk about similar topics in a slightly different circumstance and therefore give us a more full and complete understanding?

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Nothing said:

I read your explanation and responded to it. Jacob 2 does not say "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord, but I allowed it so it was actually okay." That's an odd interpretation.

And a few verses after saying it was Abominable the Lord said he could command it.  As far as we have any reference in the scripture only Solomon and David are on record as have broken God's command on the issue... Thus very clearly deserving the title of Abominable...

But you totally ignore the idea of who God was talking to in Jacob.  He was not talking to us... he was not talking to a people he had authorized the practice for.  He was not talking to people that had a pressing need to understand the nuances of the practice.  He was talking to a people to whom is was forbidden, so like David and Solomon they were also breaking the commandments, and like David and Solomon their disobedience on the matter is what made it abominable.  There was no need for explicit parsing because it would do them no good

When it was necessary God gave it (D&C 132)

 

16 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe D&C 132 is from God. It specifies the conditions to be met in order to have plural wives and not commit adultery. It's very clear that a plural wife must be a virgin "and have vowed to no other man," meaning she's not married to another man. In answer to that, I have heard only conjecture that "virgin" can mean "virtuous woman." So if Joseph didn't meet those conditions, was he committing adultery?

 

And do you believe and adulterer would remain a prophet of God leading his Church?   You claim that you believe Joseph Smith is a prophet...but then you make claims that clearly mean that he was practicing abominations... This has been repeatedly pointed out and you have never bothers to even try to discuss it

[NeedleinA]

On 8/11/2016 at 2:04 PM, Nothing said:

Verse 61 specifies that a man can take only virgins as plural wives in order for it to not be adulterous. It is well documented that many plural wives were not virgins. I see three possible explanations:

1. The word “virgin” doesn’t really mean virgin. This is almost certainly not possible considering the understood definition of the word now and in the 19th century.

2. There was another revelation or another justification for taking non-virgins as plural wives. I don’t know of any support for this, though.

3. Joseph and others did not follow the rules prescribed by God and were committing adultery.

4. Section 132 is not inspired by God and Joseph and others were committing adultery.

I have to wonder: Did God not want the men to take care of widows?

I fail to hear God's voice in D&C 132. Can anyone help me understand it?

Nothing, is the above quote your personal wording or did you copy & paste it from a source other than yourself?

[Nothing]

14 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And do you believe and adulterer would remain a prophet of God leading his Church?   You claim that you believe Joseph Smith is a prophet...but then you make claims that clearly mean that he was practicing abominations... This has been repeatedly pointed out and you have never bothers to even try to discuss it

Actually this discussion has helped convince me that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. Until, now I have been asking questions and trying to work things out. Thanks for the help.

13 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Nothing, is the above quote your personal wording or did you copy & paste it from a source other than yourself?

I wrote it on my own.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Nothing

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Actually this discussion has helped convince me that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. Until, now I have been asking questions and trying to work things out. Thanks for the help.

I wrote it on my own.

None so blind as they who will not see

 

 

[NeedleinA]

25 minutes ago, Nothing said:

I wrote it on my own.

Thanks. I read your blog today, the same one you have been copying and pasting from. You appear very set in your "concerns" and unchanging in your thoughts the entire time you have been here. Your blog is not one of innocent gospel exploration and confusion, instead you are very critical of the Church in many aspects and appear to be trying to spread those thoughts here too. So, honestly, what did you hope to accomplish here?

Edited August 15, 2016 by NeedleinA