(And I am not throwing this out for the purpose of getting into a pissing match on the dy or spiritual wifery, rather to simply point out something that appears to substantiate a link between ancient and modern polygamy relating to King David-)
“Verily, Thus Saith the Lord, unto My Servant Newell. K. Whitney A Revelation to Newell K. Whitney, 27 July 1842, and Joseph Smith Elizabeth Ann Whitney, and Sarah Ann Whitney”
“Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N[ewel]. K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joily [his plural marriage to Sarah Ann Whitney] and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old & young because of the lineage of my Preast Hood saith the Lord it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the Holy promise which I now make unto you saith the Lord.”
If you both agree to covenant and do this then I give you Sarah Ann Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition.
I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my Holy Progenitors, by the right of birth which is of Preast Hood, vested in my by revelation and commandment and promise of the living. God obtained by the Holy Melchisedeck Jethro and other of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those Powers to concentrate in you and through to your posterity forever.
All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life henceforth be sealed upon your heads forever and ever. Amen.”
SOURCE: Original manuscript of Kirtland Revelation Book, Church Historical Department, Ms f 490 # 2, also The Historical Record 6:222 (1887 edition.), also In Sacred Lonliness, p. 348-349
I find it interesting that in 1831 Joseph meets Newel and used the phrase that Nathan the prophet used with King David… Then, eleven years later when taking Newels daughter as a plural wife, with the permission and administration of Bishop Newel, the power of anointing David is somehow mysteriously linked to Newel’s family through the sacrament of plural marriage…
“…that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing[,] David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed…”
It will be released in print in August. I still haven’t gone through all the changes but the Jacksonville Florida hookup site D&C changes look great, so far.
I know of tribal seeds (based on this model) in at least five locations (and three countries), but as yet none of them have expanded horizontally, though they are working towards it. Obviously, polygynous expansion doesn’t bat an eye like polyandrous expansion would. So, I expect we’ll get real-world examples of multihusband-multiwife marriage sooner than we think.
pp. 28–29. There is a continual approach of using consent as a legitimating device (if all adults consent then whatever marriage arrangement is legitimate), but even D&C 132 doesn’t use consent (the law of Sarah) as a legitimating agency, and here it is deliberately undermined: `he does not need her permission’, which makes me feel like you’re trying to have it both ways.
The only way to say that it wouldn’t hold up is if only one-ilies exist in heaven [no matter how many marriages that person had on earth] – therefore, all being married to one person makes the bonds equal. But then we’d have to say that the current polygynous and polyandrous sealings taking place aren’t done knowing full-well they won’t “stick” – which seems like a problematic conclusion to me.
Where does the, “and you think the current prophet is fallen…” come from? Is that from something in the chapter – or something from the nature of this blog in general – etc.?
There is also the scripture in D&C , “It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” You and your wife ous relationship in heaven while another is content to live in polygamy, but such inequality is not the order of heaven. The Lord equalizes not by taking away the polygamist’s wives, but by giving the monogamist more wives, as well as every other possible thing: “I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds” (D&C .) And this is the test. The Lord gives, but will we receive? If we refuse His gifts, we offend Him, and how can one enter into exaltation by offending God? Therefore, no exalted person in the heavens will be a monogamist, for the Lord multiplies all things upon those who obey His will.
The real smoking gun would be a sealing of a woman, in Joseph Smith’s day, to more than one man while both are alive, but I’m not aware of that.
“The real smoking gun would be a sealing of a woman, in Joseph Smith’s day, to more than one man while both are alive, but I’m not aware of that.”
Those who reject polygamy in favor of monogamy should also reject the temple ordinances and sealing power, in other words, the entirety of the revelation known as D&C 132. It should be all or nothing, not picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and accept by taking portions of it out of the context in which they were given.
I also note that Hinckley states, “The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter. If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose.” An apparent contradiction in two successive statements?
I think this makes us think about is the point of the gospel to cut off those who offend the law in any respect? Or is the point of the gospel to turn to Christ so He can save us?
Yes it does. I made a diagram that showed the differences between having 4 monogamous couples, 1 man polygynous with 4 women, 4 men polyandrous with 1 woman, and then 4 couples married as multihusband-multiwife.