Related Information to Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 33

Well finally, one thing in which we agree. So far all that you have said seems to agree with what the thread has also shown, but you should read it especially the first few pages... there are some questions there none of us have yet been able to answer. I would be interested to know your response.

Offtopic but, This board requires that when posting to external links or sources that you specify if it is an LDS based resource and something about the authors or administrators so members are not led astray. See this board's Read Me First thread. Thanks.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

On page 20 of this thread I posted this:

So far we have established...

- Plural marriage is happening in the Celestial Kingdom
- It may be restored to the Earth again
- It is indirectly still practised in the form of sealings
- Heavenly Father also has many wives

Things still to be determined...

- Did Joseph have physical relations with anyone but Emma
- Why Emma denied Joseph participating in plural marriage
- Is it doctrinal to be sealed to someone who is lawfully married
- Is it doctrinal to be sealed to someone already sealed to someone else

We still have not been able to answer the 'to be determined' part and thought I would renew the discussion on this basis. On a personal note LDS_forever came from anti the concept of plural marriage to one of very accepting because of this thread, but she also added: 'There are plently of single 80 year old ladies that need a husband out there '

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... Studies Doctrine Mormon

We discuss this a little bit before, based on some journals of early members, yes, he did...and he even had children with those wives. Mary Lightner's testimony says he did have other children 'but they were known by other names'. Now, if we analyze Emma's attitude about Plural Marriage and her total opposition towards it, it would indicate a normal jealousy that a woman feels when her husband is having an affair or when a woman feels threathen by somebody else. I think that if the relationship that Joseph Smith had with these wives were merely 'spiritual' I don't see the need of Emma getting so angry and upset about it. It is obvious to me in my humble opinion that he did have physical relations with some of those wives. There is also an affidavit that would prove he had at least one daughter.

Page 33 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

Let us say he did, would that be acceptable seeing that he was sealed to them, would that be unacceptable since some of them were still in a civil union? Maybe the Lord granted to him 'every' woman? Without much to go on it is hard to say. Could you imagine discussing this in Church? I am wondering if we need to move this to the Mature LDS Board?

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

It would be acceptable in my humble eyes if those women were single, but since we know that he was sealed to women already married then I don't understand the purpose of it and I don't think it is right if he had physical relations with those married ladies.

The Lord is the one who gave us the Ten Commandments in the first place. So if a man (even if he's the Prophet) has physical relations with somebody who is ALREADY married, I call it 'Adultery'. So I could not possible understand the concept that the Lord will grant him every woman, including the married ones. I may understand he will grant them for the sealing purpose but other than that, I think the Lord would respect the marriage of these ladies.

No! I can imagine people looking me weird or maybe the Branch President calling me for an interview!.

I don't see the need so far

Edited: LDS_forever on 11th Apr, 2004 - 1:42am

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...

Did Joseph have physical relations with anyone but Emma? I have no idea.

Why Emma denied Joseph participating in plural marriage? Uh, it was a natural, normal, female response? That's my best guess. Heck, it'd even be a natural, normal, male response if it was the other way around (she got to be with other men.)

Is it doctrinal to be sealed to someone who is lawfully married? Is it doctrinal to be sealed to someone already sealed to someone else? Let's look at the scriptures (emphasis mine):

• a = Man 1 and Woman 1 are eternally married to each other.
• b = Man 2 is "not appointed" to Woman 1 "by the holy anointing."
• c = Woman 1 sleeps with Man 2.
• a + b + c = Woman 1 has committed adultery.
  

• d = Man 1 and Woman 1 are married to each other, but not eternally. (The Lord is still talking about the same married couple in verse 41, except they're not eternally married.)
• e = Woman 1 is not married eternally to anyone else. (She's "not in the new and everlasting covenant.")
• f = Woman 1 sleeps with Man 2.
• d + e + f = Woman 1 has committed adultery.
  

• g = Man 1 and Woman 1 are married to each other, but not eternally. (The Lord is still talking about the same married couple in verse 42. Notice the use of the connective "and.")
• h = Man 1 has made a vow to Woman 1 (that he would cleave unto her and to no one else. The temple marriage ceremony contains no such vow.)
• i = Man 1 sleeps with Woman 2.
• g + h + i = Man 1 has broken his vow and has committed adultery.

Anyway, I don't have the time to go through the entire revelation, but the algebraic equations are there. Just put in your variable at the appropriate spot and do the math. At any rate, Doctrine and Covenants 132 is not the entire law. There is more to it, as mentioned by the Lord in the final verse (verse 66.)

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 33

I was recently reading this and thought it was quite interesting. From this we can gather how the topic was moved across the Saints in 1852. Other excerpts hint at the general feeling both inside and out of the Church towards the doctrine. Notice some of the parts I highlighted in bold.

A discourse delivered by Elder Orson Pratt, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, August 29, 1852.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.53 - p.54, Orson Pratt, August 29, 1852

It is quite unexpected to me, brethren and sisters, to be called upon to address you this forenoon; and still more so, to address you upon the principle which has been named, namely, a plurality of wives.

It is rather new ground for me; that is, I have not been in the habit of publicly speaking upon this subject; and it is rather new ground to the inhabitants of the United States, and not only to them, but to a portion of the inhabitants of Europe; a portion of them have not been in the habit of preaching a doctrine of this description; consequently, we shall have to break up new ground.

It is well know, however, to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives, as a part of their religious faith. It is not, as many have supposed, a doctrine embraced by them to gratify the carnal lusts and feelings of man; that is not the object of the doctrine.

We shall endeavour to set forth before this enlightened assembly some of the causes why the Almighty has revealed such a doctrine, and why it is considered a part and portion of our religious faith. And I believe that they will not, under our present form of government, (I mean the government of the United States,) try us for treason for believing and practising our religious notions and ideas. I think, if I am not mistaken, that the constitution gives the privilege to all the inhabitants of this country, of the free exercise of their religious notions, and the freedom of their faith, and the practice of it. Then, if it can be proven to a demonstration, that the Latter-day Saints have actually embraced, as a part and portion of their religion, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, it is constitutional. And should there ever be laws enacted by this government to restrict them from the free exercise of this part of their religion, such laws must be unconstitutional.

---

Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.166 - p.167, Heber C. Kimball, April 6, 1863
To refer again to what I know, what I have seen and experienced in my travels and my associations with the Prophet of the living God, I will remark that you have here with you a few of us that have travelled with him from the beginning, and we know his trials and sufferings, and we know that the greatest torment he had and the greatest mental suffering was because this people would not live up to their privileges. There were many things he desired to reveal that we have not learned yet, but he could not do it. He said sometimes that he felt pressed upon and as though he were pent up in an acorn shell, and all because the people did not and would not prepare themselves to receive the rich treasures of wisdom and knowledge that he had to impart. He could have revealed a great many things that we could not receive because we lacked that diligence and faithfulness that were necessary to entitle us to those choice things of the kingdom. He revealed the doctrine of celestial marriage, and the abuse of this holy principle caused many to stumble and fall away from the Church of the living God, but that was their own fault and they have nobody else to blame.

---

Journal of Discourses, Vol.12, p.312, Brigham Young, November 29, 1868
Our sisters need not be worried about any doctrine. Brother Penrose said it would be better for them if they believed in the doctrine of polygamy. But they do believe it; they know it is true, and that is their torment. It perplexes and annoys many of them, because they are not sanctified by the spirit of it; if they were there would be no trouble. I want to say this much-the sisters do believe it. Where is the proof? You take a woman in this Church who does not believe in the doctrine of celestial marriage or plurality of wives, and she does not believe anything at all about the Gospel, and she will soon manifest this by her unwise course, and by and by she drops off and away she goes. But our sisters believe and know that this doctrine is true, and consequently they feel bound to abide it.

---

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.40 - p.41, George Albert Smith, October 8, 1869
The opposers of Celestial Marriage sometimes quote a passage in the seventh chapter of Romans, second and third verses, to show that a plurality of wives is wrong; but when we come to read the passage it shows that a plurality of husbands is wrong. You can read that passage for yourselves. In the forcible parable used by the Saviour in relation to the rich man and Lazarus, we find recorded that the poor man Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom-Abraham the father of the faithful. The rich man calls unto Father Abraham to send Lazarus, who is afar off. Who was Abraham? He was a man who had a plurality of wives. And yet all good Christians, even pious church deacons, expect when they die to go to Abraham's bosom. I am sorry to say, however, that thousands of them will be disappointed, from the fact that they cannot and will not go where any one has a plurality of wives; and I am convinced that Abraham will not turn out his own wives to receive such unbelievers in God's law. One peculiarity of this parable is the answer of Abraham to the application of the rich man, to send Lazarus to his five brothers "lest they come into this place of torment," which was-"they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them; and if they hear not Moses and the prophets neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Moses' law provided for a plurality of wives, and the prophets observed that law, and Isaiah predicts its observance even down to the latter days. Isaiah, in his 4th chap. and 1st and 2nd verses, says, "Seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach. In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent."

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 33

I'll write one of the equations I wrote above a little bit different and maybe it will answer two of the questions that were posed: Is it doctrinal to be sealed to someone who is lawfully married? Is it doctrinal to be sealed to someone already sealed to someone else?

The original equation I gave was:

• a = Man 1 and Woman 1 are eternally married to each other.
  
• b = Man 2 is not "appointed" to Woman 1 "by the holy anointing."
  
• c = Woman 1 sleeps with Man 2.
  
• a + b + c = Woman 1 has committed adultery.
  
  

However, if we say that x = the opposite of b we get:

• a = Man 1 and Woman 1 are eternally married to each other.
  
• x = Man 2 is "appointed" to Woman 1 "by the holy anointing."
  
• c = Woman 1 sleeps with Man 2.
  
• a + x + c = Woman 1 has not committed adultery.
  
  

If we interpret Man 2 being "appointed unto" Woman 1 "by the holy anointing" as being a temple sealing, then the answer to your question, Is it doctrinal to be sealed to someone already sealed to someone else? is yes, because Man 2 is getting sealed to Woman 1 who is already sealed to Man 1.

As it is, temple sealings are done with multiple people anyway. We get sealed to our parents, we get sealed to our spouse, we get sealed to our children.

The scripture does not specify whether Man 2 is married or unmarried. If the scripture is interpreted to apply to both a married and an unmarried Man 2, and an "appointment by the holy anointing" is interpreted to mean a temple sealing, then the answer to your question, Is it doctrinal to be sealed to someone who is lawfully married? is yes, because Woman 1 is being sealed to a married Man 2.

It all depends upon how you interpret the scripture. Some biblical definitions of the words "adultery" and "fornication" may help to interpret these scriptures.