That’s considered shouting and bad internet manners.
After Sarai died, Abraham took a second wife. It wasn’t Hagar. He also had concubines who bore him children.
None of that changes the fact that Abraham was either an adulterer or a polygamist. In either case, Joseph and Abraham are in the same company. You have to make his love child go away for this not to be an issue. Joseph Smith has no children by anyone other than Emma.
Adultery.
Not likely. Abraham listened to his wife, Joseph Smith didn't come up with any policies that resemble what Abraham did.
Again. Sara made that happen.
That's what makes it an issue, and spotlights that Abraham and Joseph Smith are in no way similar at all.
Charles Manson didn't kill anyone, but that doesn't negate the fact that he's responsible.
I would say, in LDS terms, Abraham obeyed the Law of Sarah, and Joseph Smith didn't.
That may very well be true. I would say that the Law of Sarah was not the only law that governs polygamy. I don't think marrying your deceased brother's wife falls under the law of Sarah. No mention of getting the current wife's approval. Taking a wife from the spoils of war also doesn't fall under the Law of Sarah. Sure, it would be great if the wife agreed or even offered, I suppose. But that doesn't mean she has to, obviously. I'm pretty sure that the law of Sarah doesn't apply to a widower seeking a second wife either, do you think?
I agree the Law of Sarah wasn't the only law to govern polygamy. Section 132 says there's more to explain on the subject, but it was never revealed.
No, it would fall under the Law of Moses. Neither Abraham nor JS is subject to this
I'm not familiar with this ever being a commandment anywhere. Maybe you could cite the source on this?
Here's the text giving the law, and conditions upon polygamy is justified, and not adultery:
All I can say is ask, seek, and knock. I've heard stories of spouses communing beyond the veil. I imagine that if I'm faced with that situation, I'll be doing my best to find someone my wife would get along with and imagine she'd approve of. I believe the law is wisdom for our eternal happiness.
There doesn’t need to be a child involved for it to be adultery.
I disagree. It's been under our nose the whole time. There are things that have yet to be revealed though some of these are obvious as well. Some people refuse to see.
Two things, One, I don't remember that question. Did you just make it up? Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. He didn't practise the law of Sarah, Neither did Isaac or Jacob or Moses or David or Solomon or the thousands of Israelitish men who practiced it, one of which, very likely, could have been Jesus himself.
The law of Moses didn't exist in Abraham's day. However, the purpose the Law of Sarah fulfilled is not much different. It was simply one justification. It was based upon the reasonable grounds that the woman was apparently barren and couldn't provide an heir for her husband. The only difference was Sarah saw the value in it. It appears that Abraham was reluctant. In the Law of Moses, it was codified but served the same purpose.
"but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. (Duet 20:14)"
Again, like the law of Sarah, there are many facets of legal polygamy and where it is legal, it is not adultery.
Where do you see in this statement that any of this is the only way? That is just one way. As I have pointed out, Where there was no requirement to get the first wife's consent. I just showed you two that don't require it. I don't see anything in that law that specifies that if the wife doesn't give her consent, or even if the second wife is not a virgin, plural marriage would be considered adultery. Clearly, that wouldn't be the case when someone is marrying his brother's widow. You are looking at one thread of a very complex situation. I think we can safely assume that Hagar was a virgin and certainly wasn't given to anyone else. But, as you can see, the virginity check and permission clause were not part of the law that Moses codified. In addition, in the circumstances of war and its spoils, there was no guarantee that the woman was a virgin. Neither is required. It is just one facet of justified polygamy. Here's another, If God tells you to practice polygamy, it doesn't matter what your wife has to say about it.
Not required.
Not required.
I don't know what "vowed" means in this context. Does it mean married or betrothed? Does it mean for this life alone or for eternity? D&C 132 only describes one form of justified polygamy, not the whole law. Obviously, Joseph wrote it after he had been practicing it, you don't think he was stupid enough to condemn himself did you? He would have violated all of these and yet, after it was written, the leaders of the church went right along not paying attention to any of that. One law trumps all. If God commands it, then it doesn't matter what your wife has to say about it.
Wrong. Both men were commanded by God to accept and practice plural marriage.
But there does have to be sex. With Abraham, we know they had sex because they had a child. So such evidence exists where Joseph Smith is concerned.
Ummm...ok. Do you have a source?
Did you read the OP? That's where the question came from.
Yeah, that's my point.
There is not evidence Issac, Moses, or Jesus were polygamists.
Correct.
Actually, it was a lack of faith on Sarah's part, and it led to negative consequences, causing the warfare we see in the Middle East to this day.
What was codified, where?
Well, I'm not sure how that aligns with Deut 7:3, but regardless both Abraham and Joseph were not under the Law of Moses.
Ok. Can you identify them that applies to Abraham or Joseph Smith?
Ok. First, you're quoting the Mosaic Law, which was done away.
Again, my focus in on the question presented in the OP. Joseph Smith would not be justified by the Law of Moses, in war, or taking spoils.
So we can simply throw the D&C under the bus, and use the Old Testament as historical precedent?Not required.
Not required.
I'm just quoting the text. Go ask your local church leader.
Then please cite the whole law directed specifically to the LDS, especially when the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy.
I can't answer that question. There's not enough evidence to support one way or another.
Yeah, that's kinda the whole problem. And what happened? (<-rhetorical question) The ways of the Church were hedged up until they were forced to give up the practice.
I'm not sure what evidence your using to draw this drawn out story. All I see is:
Huh? After Sarah died Abraham married Keturah. That's it.
Or, we don't need to do mental gymnastics, D&C 132 means exactly what it says, and JS and others simply blew it off.
Or Joseph Smith was deceived in this area, circumstance forced a correction, and an illustration of the lessons taught to this day regarding personal revelation, and righteous dominion.
No. It's not. You made the question up. I think anyone can see that the OP question is not the question you asked.
This was your question.
This is the question in the OP. Can you see the difference? The OP claims that Abraham's and Joseph's actions require similar condemnation or exoneration. Yours assumes that Joseph should be condemned. The point of the OP, was that either way you look at it, either they both committed adultery or they both practiced polygamy at God's command, they are the same. Now, you might be like our critics and think that God gave no such command to Abraham and you certainly seem to question whether God gave Joseph any command on the subject. You, like our critics seem to think that Joseph was getting his jollies and said God told him to do it so he could act on his sexual weaknesses (correct me if I'm wrong).
apparently, you're not getting my point. The law of Sarah has nothing to do with practicing polygamy. The fact that God commanded it does. Both Joseph and Abraham were commanded to practice it. Of course, if you don't believe our scriptures, then that statement has little force, but we believe, we in the church to believe that Joseph Smith was called of God and never fell, that God commanded both Abraham and Joseph Smith to practice polygamy. That's all there is to it. Now, as for the OP, this is not important. The fact is Abraham had sex with someone other than his wife and had a child by her. That fact continued through all the patriarchs. I don't think Jacob asked Leah for her permission to marry Rachel. So, they either had extramarital sex while they were married and that would make it adultery or they practiced polygamy and it wasn't adultery. The same scenario applies to Joseph. Either he practiced extramarital sex, and failed, making it adultery if we had proof of it (which we don't) or he practiced polygamy. In either case, if one condemns Joseph then they must also condemn Abraham. It's that simple.
Yes, there is. Your choice to ignore it doesn't mean there isn't evidence. This is the same lame excuse our critics use to avoid the evidence. The Bible clearly identifies a birth situation in Isaac's wife which simply doesn't happen, biologically. It is biologically improbable that the same mother would have a red-headed and later produce brunette children. Isaac wasn't a redhead. So the mother had to be. It's even far less likely that she would have twins, one a redhead and the other brunette. We simply don't have those details, but it appears, biologically, that Isaac got two women pregnant and they both had children on the same day with Esau being born only moments before Jacob.
Actually, there Is. The personal statements of his wives. And the witnesses who saw him in the act, or loaned their beds/bedrooms to him and his wives for their secret rendezvous when Emma wasn’t around.
So? Does that give him license to pick another wife without regard to the one he already has? Please tell me what difference it makes that Jacob was deceived?
It was, but that doesn't mean God didn't give both of them their wives. There practice of an authorized and sanctioned marital relationship was an abomination. Surely, u realized that some monogamous legal marriages are an abomination to God in these modern days. If you have any questions about what might be considered an abomination to God and a monogamous relationship today just read the proclamation to the world about the family.
I wasn't attempting to rationalize anything. I was simply pointing out evidence. I'm not the one who discovered the evidence there are others who have and I tend to agree that there is a possibility that Jesus was a polygamist. Doesn't matter what your opinion about it is. It's still evidence.
That's called evidence. There is no proof. Learn the difference.
Isaac married Leah on the terms that he would marry eventually marry Rebekah. If she changed the terms, she would essentially be the one reneging on the contract.So? Does that give him license to pick another wife without regard to the one he already has? Please tell me what difference it makes that Jacob was deceived?
I'm a little confused on what your saying here. How can something be mutually authorized by God and an abomination?
I'm stunned that you don't see a problem with this statement. I've made my points. I don't see anything in what you wrote that is worth responding to.