gdemetz wrote:I don't except your definition of a "spiritual wife."
It's not my definition as I have already shown. We have asked you to show that Joseph or BY had the same idea about spiritual wife as you want to, but you have failed to show any. Here is what one of Joseph wives had to say about it, and she, Helen Mar Kimball, was one of the single ones.
"At the time [in Nauvoo] spiritual wife was the title by which every woman who entered into this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order."
So all of them were referred to in this way, and you have already admitted that Joseph had sex with some of them.
Also, I stated previously that the sealing was not necessary, but symbolic because Joseph was sealed to her already.
I am more interested in backing up your assertions. By by his own admission considered himself proxy for Joseph, and had no problem having children with her. This doesn't support the idea that Joseph's marriage to Zina was only for the next life. You also seem to miss the glaring bad behaviors of BY here.
That's funny! We have thousands, if not millions in the church who seem to understand D&C 132 well, however, you guys are really struggling! You have tried to twist the meaning of those scriptures extensively! For example, how many times does it state in that section, 'if as man take a wife'? Many times! It says only once or twice, if a man take, or marry a virgin, and nowhere does it state that if the woman is not a virgin, then it is forbidden! "You have eyes, but you do not see, and you have ears, but you do not hear."
Most member have not read very well section 132. You seem to miss a lot that is going on in that section like the law of Sarah that allows a man who wants another wife to be able to ignore the first if he wants to. People miss this little loop hole Joseph writes in.
As to virgins, verse 61 is fairly clear that they need to be virgins and not vowed to any other man. It's more then a little hard to not get what that is saying if you are open minded enough not to want to protect certain beliefs to much. You could certainly redefine what it means to be vowed, but it is a stretch, although I admit that some were saying secular marriages had no meaning, but then I don't buy that God would think this way.
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
Emphasis mine.
