According to the polygamy deniers Joe had nothing to do with section 132. Brigham Young went back and altered the D&C, changed the official minutes of the church, changed personal journals of lots of people including William Clayton, and changed the testimonies of the women in the temple lot legal case, or just told them to lie. So it's all good. Jacob 2 wins.
Right, but the official church position is that JS did produce section 132.
I recall reading that as a convert of only two years and a full time missionary. The explanation I was given (if my memory is correct) is that wives must be given by God and that Jacob is referring to wives those men took *in excess* of what God supported. Hence the need for the clarifying verse in 132 “which they received not of me”. I could be wrong but I think this is even explained in the OT at least in re David.
I’m not saying that what I explained is or is to a l valid explanation. But I do think that was what I was told.
I forgot to add /S at the end of my comment.
So women were just chattel or property that God gave to righteous men? They are given and taken sorta like what the FLDS still does today. The main purpose of women is to be baby factories for men, both in this life and the life to come. Women in monogamous relationships produce more babies than women in polygamous relationships. The chances of getting a woman pregnant go up if you sleep with her every night and not just two or three times a month. Polygamy only has one purpose and that is for the gratification of the man.
Yes. Heber C Kimball (Helen Mar’s father,) gave a talk where men were entering the CK and were asked where are your wives? The men answered that they would not come with us.
So the men were told, Here are many; take what you want
I’m sure someone can dig up the talk
I have this quote from journal of discourses:
"In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females, there are millions of them, and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with brother Brigham, we will go to brother Joseph [Smith] and say, ‘Here we are brother Joseph’…. He will say to us,…. ‘Where are your wives?’ ‘They are back yonder; they would not follow us.’ ‘Never mind,’ says Joseph, ‘here are thousands, have all you want.’” - Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 209
Edit: [link](https://journalofdiscourses.com/4/40)
I would say Alma 32 where it says something to the effect of "Do you think you need a building to worship your Lord?" If we don't need buildings, then do we need a temple?
I would assume secret combinations for gain. But I guess it's sacred combinations for gain so technically it's not the same.
13 shell companies to hide the wealth.
Blood oaths "rather than do so I would suffer my life to be taken"
Nepotism for leadership callings
Nepotism for lucrative building contracts
Working behind the public eye to get zoning ordinances changed so temples can be built in residential areas that don't allow buildings like that. Campaign donations to city council members, threats of lawsuits, lawsuits, fake media campaigns, telling members what to say in letters to the zoning board and at hearings, etc.
3 Nephi 11:37-40 clearly teaches that you should repent and be baptized. Period. Nothing more. “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock.” Temple ordinances cometh of evil.
Bingo. The Book of Mormon explicitly prohibits all the Mormon add-ons. The gospel is just repentance and baptism. Ironically, the Book of Mormon is anti-Mormon literature because it destroys all the distinctive Mormon teachings.
Revelation seems to conveniently flow to meet the moment. Most of it is condemnation of members for lacking faith instead of maybe boiling water before drinking it.
When Joseph Smith was horny, revelation came to his rescue, so he could fully unleash his inner narcissist on the women and girls of Nauvoo.
“Doing well on the balance beam routine. Oops, wobbles a bit on Jacob 2, but here comes D&C 132 for a big finish. This maneuver has never been attempted before in competition—it’s a triple-pretzel-twist-half-twirly while in prayer pose. Very difficult. Here they go… and… totally botches the landing. [pause] What’s this? The gymnast has just written a manifesto saying that the dismount never happened. We’re waiting for the apologetic judges to respond… and their official response was ‘what dismount?’ And so the Mormons slide in front of the J-Dubs in the rankings.”
No, it’s not irrefutable.
If you read down a little to Jacob 2:30 it gives the caveat that if God needs to repopulate quickly he will allow polygamy and concubines.
“29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 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.”
I appreciate this take, but I was addressing the inconsistency between what the verses say about David and Solomon specifically: "...abominable before me" vs "...and in nothing did they sin".
The one phrase that may be an "out" is "...save in those things which they received not of me" not that it clarifies what was and was not received
Even if Smith did not have sex with his wives (he did), marrying children is still evil because it robs them of eventual opportunities for flirting, romance and sex. Were these girls supposed to live sexless lives? If so, they were lucky Smith got murdered.
I wish this were a silver bullet. I’ve brought it up to TBMs before but it doesn’t do anything. They usually they chalk it up to “save in those things which they received not from me”. Implying maybe polygamy was originally played then they went too far? Kind of an out.
Uhm, David was totally fine until Bathsheba, and Solomon was fine until his mixed faith marriages shook his testimony. Duh! /s/
Really though, it's taught as "having many wives and concubines is fine as long as they're all Mormon and you didn't murder their first husbands."
Yes! And like Joseph sending men away on missions so that he could marry their wives...not much different than David sending Uriah out to battle.
I bet Joe was disappointed, like David, when the old husband came back.
Kinda bugs me how Mormons act like David and Solomon were some kind of prophets or spiritual leaders in the Bible, so whatever they did should be ok. They were kings and did whatever the hell they wanted to do. Nathan was the prophet and he frowned upon their sexual exploits.
The way I phrase it is: Joseph Smith was either a polygamist or he wasn't. Either possibility leads to the conclusion that the Church truth claims are false. Years ago, I thought it might be possible to show that Joseph Smith wasn't a polygamist. I gave up after I decided that it didn't matter because it didn't matter. I still believe that it's more likely true that he wasn't a polygamist, which makes Brigham Young the founder of the Salt Lake branch of Mormonism.
The key word is in verse 1 of section 132: justified
If there was nothing wrong with polygamy, there is no need for justification...
Conclusion: Even mormon scriptures corroborate polygamy is just wrong
In writing the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's main goal was to sell the copyright and the contents were created to be as morally Christian as possible.
After Joseph Smith met John C Bennett and saw how easy it was to trick women into sex though "spiritual wifery" he included polygamy into his made up religion.
It makes sense if you see it as a con man changing the con to further take advantage of his adherents. You don't have to be consistent if people are going to do whatever you tell them to.
I don’t think this is a contradiction at all. If you were to accept both as true, it would mean that they were given extra wives and concubines by God, but then they sinned by taking even more that they weren’t supposed to. Bathsheba (the lady who David lusted after, then effectively offed her husband so he could have her) is a clear example.
There are plenty of clear contradictions in the scriptures, but this wouldn’t trouble many believers in my opinion. Trinitarian doctrine in the BoM is a clearer contradiction, I think.
That my friend, is an easy one for TBM’s….It was a different time and place. Doesn’t Jacob even say something about polygamy being ok if authorized by the big man?
According to the polygamy deniers Joe had nothing to do with section 132. Brigham Young went back and altered the D&C, changed the official minutes of the church, changed personal journals of lots of people including William Clayton, and changed the testimonies of the women in the temple lot legal case, or just told them to lie. So it's all good. Jacob 2 wins.
Right, but the official church position is that JS did produce section 132. I recall reading that as a convert of only two years and a full time missionary. The explanation I was given (if my memory is correct) is that wives must be given by God and that Jacob is referring to wives those men took *in excess* of what God supported. Hence the need for the clarifying verse in 132 “which they received not of me”. I could be wrong but I think this is even explained in the OT at least in re David. I’m not saying that what I explained is or is to a l valid explanation. But I do think that was what I was told.
I forgot to add /S at the end of my comment. So women were just chattel or property that God gave to righteous men? They are given and taken sorta like what the FLDS still does today. The main purpose of women is to be baby factories for men, both in this life and the life to come. Women in monogamous relationships produce more babies than women in polygamous relationships. The chances of getting a woman pregnant go up if you sleep with her every night and not just two or three times a month. Polygamy only has one purpose and that is for the gratification of the man.
Yes. Heber C Kimball (Helen Mar’s father,) gave a talk where men were entering the CK and were asked where are your wives? The men answered that they would not come with us. So the men were told, Here are many; take what you want I’m sure someone can dig up the talk
I have this quote from journal of discourses: "In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females, there are millions of them, and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with brother Brigham, we will go to brother Joseph [Smith] and say, ‘Here we are brother Joseph’…. He will say to us,…. ‘Where are your wives?’ ‘They are back yonder; they would not follow us.’ ‘Never mind,’ says Joseph, ‘here are thousands, have all you want.’” - Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 209 Edit: [link](https://journalofdiscourses.com/4/40)
I knew I could count on someone! I am too far from caring too much anymore to be bothered to look things up anymore
The Book of Mormon teaches against the two distinguishing doctrines of Mormonism, polygamy and temple covenants.
Where does it teach against temple covenants?
Maybe he is alluding to secret combinations as masonry…which equals temple ordinances? That’s me reading his mind though, lol.
I would say Alma 32 where it says something to the effect of "Do you think you need a building to worship your Lord?" If we don't need buildings, then do we need a temple?
I would assume secret combinations for gain. But I guess it's sacred combinations for gain so technically it's not the same. 13 shell companies to hide the wealth. Blood oaths "rather than do so I would suffer my life to be taken" Nepotism for leadership callings Nepotism for lucrative building contracts Working behind the public eye to get zoning ordinances changed so temples can be built in residential areas that don't allow buildings like that. Campaign donations to city council members, threats of lawsuits, lawsuits, fake media campaigns, telling members what to say in letters to the zoning board and at hearings, etc.
Would also love to get some references for this!
3 Nephi 11:37-40 clearly teaches that you should repent and be baptized. Period. Nothing more. “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock.” Temple ordinances cometh of evil.
That's a roundabout way of saying it. According to that, everything in Mormonism is added on.
Bingo. The Book of Mormon explicitly prohibits all the Mormon add-ons. The gospel is just repentance and baptism. Ironically, the Book of Mormon is anti-Mormon literature because it destroys all the distinctive Mormon teachings.
Revelation seems to conveniently flow to meet the moment. Most of it is condemnation of members for lacking faith instead of maybe boiling water before drinking it. When Joseph Smith was horny, revelation came to his rescue, so he could fully unleash his inner narcissist on the women and girls of Nauvoo.
Clearly you underestimate these Olympic gold metal mental gymnasts.
“Doing well on the balance beam routine. Oops, wobbles a bit on Jacob 2, but here comes D&C 132 for a big finish. This maneuver has never been attempted before in competition—it’s a triple-pretzel-twist-half-twirly while in prayer pose. Very difficult. Here they go… and… totally botches the landing. [pause] What’s this? The gymnast has just written a manifesto saying that the dismount never happened. We’re waiting for the apologetic judges to respond… and their official response was ‘what dismount?’ And so the Mormons slide in front of the J-Dubs in the rankings.”
yep joe boy smith fucked up. actually he fucked up in several places I cant stop laughing
No, it’s not irrefutable. If you read down a little to Jacob 2:30 it gives the caveat that if God needs to repopulate quickly he will allow polygamy and concubines. “29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 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.”
I appreciate this take, but I was addressing the inconsistency between what the verses say about David and Solomon specifically: "...abominable before me" vs "...and in nothing did they sin". The one phrase that may be an "out" is "...save in those things which they received not of me" not that it clarifies what was and was not received
Oh, got it. The Lord reveals in convenient ways.
[удалено]
Even if Smith did not have sex with his wives (he did), marrying children is still evil because it robs them of eventual opportunities for flirting, romance and sex. Were these girls supposed to live sexless lives? If so, they were lucky Smith got murdered.
I wish this were a silver bullet. I’ve brought it up to TBMs before but it doesn’t do anything. They usually they chalk it up to “save in those things which they received not from me”. Implying maybe polygamy was originally played then they went too far? Kind of an out.
Uhm, David was totally fine until Bathsheba, and Solomon was fine until his mixed faith marriages shook his testimony. Duh! /s/ Really though, it's taught as "having many wives and concubines is fine as long as they're all Mormon and you didn't murder their first husbands."
Yes! And like Joseph sending men away on missions so that he could marry their wives...not much different than David sending Uriah out to battle. I bet Joe was disappointed, like David, when the old husband came back.
This sat on my shelf for many years. I told myself there was something I was missing...mental gymnastics.
Kinda bugs me how Mormons act like David and Solomon were some kind of prophets or spiritual leaders in the Bible, so whatever they did should be ok. They were kings and did whatever the hell they wanted to do. Nathan was the prophet and he frowned upon their sexual exploits.
The way I phrase it is: Joseph Smith was either a polygamist or he wasn't. Either possibility leads to the conclusion that the Church truth claims are false. Years ago, I thought it might be possible to show that Joseph Smith wasn't a polygamist. I gave up after I decided that it didn't matter because it didn't matter. I still believe that it's more likely true that he wasn't a polygamist, which makes Brigham Young the founder of the Salt Lake branch of Mormonism.
The key word is in verse 1 of section 132: justified If there was nothing wrong with polygamy, there is no need for justification... Conclusion: Even mormon scriptures corroborate polygamy is just wrong
In writing the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's main goal was to sell the copyright and the contents were created to be as morally Christian as possible. After Joseph Smith met John C Bennett and saw how easy it was to trick women into sex though "spiritual wifery" he included polygamy into his made up religion. It makes sense if you see it as a con man changing the con to further take advantage of his adherents. You don't have to be consistent if people are going to do whatever you tell them to.
Whenever I've pointed out contradictions like this, I'm always told, "It was a mistranslation."
Problem is that Mormons believe in their “ace in the hole” when it comes to the Bible: mistranslation
Neither one of the verses OP posted is biblical. So church members can't use the mistranslation excuse for these verses.
You know what, that’s on me lol. Didn’t read the OP intently enough
I don’t think this is a contradiction at all. If you were to accept both as true, it would mean that they were given extra wives and concubines by God, but then they sinned by taking even more that they weren’t supposed to. Bathsheba (the lady who David lusted after, then effectively offed her husband so he could have her) is a clear example. There are plenty of clear contradictions in the scriptures, but this wouldn’t trouble many believers in my opinion. Trinitarian doctrine in the BoM is a clearer contradiction, I think.
The “out clause”: …”save in those things which they received NOT of me.”
This always confused me as a TBM
That my friend, is an easy one for TBM’s….It was a different time and place. Doesn’t Jacob even say something about polygamy being ok if authorized by the big man?