Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

D&C 132? Polygamy...


AmariYah

Recommended Posts

So what? It's disrespectful

But picking them out from the billions of women for your abuse is respectful? Only you should be allowed to make decisions on how to live your life. What caused those dead Mormon women to make naughty choices that violate your elevated and enlightened sense of propriety? Were they too dumb to make rational choices? Were they kept in cages and shipped to Utah? Tell me...how did it work?

Link to comment
We have the testimony of thousands of faithful Mormon women, virtuous men, a canonized revelation, many documented accounts of spiritual manifestations, and the entire old testament as evidence that it is very likely that God could have commanded such a thing.

Be careful with what you consider evidence. Since the manifesto, you have the testimony of thousands of mormon women, and virtous men who are equally committed to what they consider God's ongoing commandment.

And exactly how does the Saints of today knowing that God has removed the requirement to practice polygamy through the medium of His prophet, in any way cast any disparagement on the law or on those who, prior to that announcement had a testimony that polygamy was a divinely sanctioned and commanded practice? God's goodness in releasing the Church from obedience to the law does not in any way diminish the law and the fact that it had divine approbation.

Juliann already made the appropriate comment regarding Muslim women, who I very much admire for their dedication to their traditions and beliefs.

-SlackTime

Link to comment
You also have millions of Muslim women who, in furtherance of God's law won't show their face in public, and are content not to drive, vote or own property. Would you consider the spirtual testimony of those women, evidence as to how God wants women treated? 
Here is how it works. Pay attention. I don't sit around and make those kinds of judgements. How is doing so any different than the whacked out fundies who are just sure everyone who is not like them is led by satan? And if one of those women gave me "spiritual testimony" that she was following God I would give her the simple human dignity of allowing her that. What do we have left as a civilization when we start making decisions for everyone based on our self-made gods?

And don't even try mixing the religion where there is choice with the political oppression where there is not to score points. You are coming dangerously close to bigotry. I work with educated women who choose to wear the head scarf. It is not my business. It is not yours.

I think Jaybear gave a very cogent argument. He didn't mention anything about political oppression nor state that those who so choose didn't do it on their own.

He was simply arguing that just because thousands of people do or agree with something doesn't make that something 'of God' and I'm suprised you didn't see it.

It was quite unreasonable for you to play the bigotry card.

Link to comment
But why do that when you can stand up for Dead and Dumb Mormon Women?  :unsure:

That's very respectful. :P

But is it true? <_<

So what? It's disrespectful

elect lady you feel the same way my wife does. She is apalled at the idea that God commanded polygamy. She refuses to accept it as a divine practice. She wonders how God could be the kind of being that would command such a thing and that she would rather be destroyed than live it. Maybe Emma felt that way too I don't know. The problem is, being disgusted with something doesn't necessarily qualify as evidence.

We have the testimony of thousands of faithful Mormon women, virtuous men, a canonized revelation, many documented accounts of spiritual manifestations, and the entire old testament as evidence that it is very likely that God could have commanded such a thing.

I'm sorry but your "opinion" on what God would and would not do doesn't cut it. The scriptures do.

To be honest I am not to happy about polygamy either. It boggles my mind. But I am not for a minute about to pretend that I am wiser than God.

I felt the same way about polygamy when I first started to study church history 30 years ago. But as my testimony of the gospel grew and as my understanding of how God works has deepened I do not feel the same way about it. I do not doubt anymore that polygamy was divinely instituted. While I think it was cause for a lot of grief in families in the 19th century, I think it served a purpose that was worth the grief in this life. Do I want to live it? Heck no, I don't! :ph34r: But I'm so grateful my ancestors practiced it.

If one is a devout member of the LDS church, but lacks a testimony that polygamy was ordained by god, they can get it--if they are willing to humble themselves, study and sincerely pray to understand. But many times members in this situation don't want to change their mind, in this case, they must realize that this is not their only "stumbling block" because they are denying other aspects of god and his purposes. A person who picks and chooses what they'll believe about God will never truly understand a god who is loving, but also vengeful. There will always be a void or wedge that keeps them from truly knowing God.

Link to comment
No. But it is SOME form of evidence. Much more persuasive than an "I don't like this belief" argument.

Yes, its solid evidence that spritual testimony is not only unreliable, but consistently unreliable as a means of discerning divine truths.

What? It is through Spiritual means that ALL divine truths are discerned. There is no other way to truly understand the things of God than through the spirit. It is the rejection of spiritual validation that keeps many from receiving a testimony of divine truths which have been revealed.

Link to comment

Confidential Informant wrote:

Brackite,

I wonder, why is that whenever you discuss Jacob and D&C 132 you continaully ignore the fact that those verse cannot adequately be addressed without addressing the Deuteronimic kingship codes which unlie Jacob's arguements in the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
I do Not deny a Possible Deuteronomy 17:17 allusion in Jacob Chapter.  What I mainly disagree with Ben on that is that he believes that the Book of Deuteronomy  was written after the time of King David and King Solomon.  I believe that the  Book of Deuteronomy was written before the time of King David and King Solomon.

I must have missed the part where you defended that assertion. Most scholarship I've seen on the issue places it in the mid seventh century B.C.

The Prophet Jacob in Jacob Chapter 2 was clearly correct in stating, "Thus saith the Lord."  Kings David and Solomon were in violation of Deuteronomy 17:17 because they both truly had many wives and concubines.  King David had at least 18 wives, and King Solomon had about 700 wives along with about 300 concubunines (1 Kings 11). 

Of course, your argument ignores the fact that the Prophet Nathan specifically stated that all of David's wives and concubines were given to him by the Lord. Thus, Jacob would have been specifically contradicting Nathan.

Again King David had at least 18 wives, and King Solomon had about 700 wives along with about 300 concubunines (1 Kings 11), so they truly were in violation of the Mosiac Law.

No. They would have been in violation of later interpretation of that law. The Mosaic law gives no specific definintion for "many wives." It was later rabbinic interpretation which provided the number 4, but there were also several interpretations of that:

The king should not "multiply wives" (ib. xvii. 17; comp. Sanh. 21a, where the number is limited to 18, 24, or 48, according to the various interpretations given to II Sam. xii. :P ; --

Jewish Encyclopedia

Thus, the mosaic law as understood by David and Solomon was likely very different than the mosaic law as had by Jacob which had been added upon via rabbinic interpretations.

All of these Patriarchs and/or Prophets had four or less than four wives,, so none of them truly had many wives.  However, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball all had a lot more than four wives each, so they were all in vilolation of Deuteronomy 17:17, along with being in violation of Jacob Chapter 2.

Except that other interpretations allowed for as many as 48, which means they didn't violate anything.

It is in just your opion that my interpretaion of Jacob Chapter 2, particularly Jacob 2:30, has been  thoroughly rebutted.

You have shown no ability to contradict Ben's arguments against you.

Here is a Great Post from Don Bradley from the Zion Lighthouse Message Board, about Jacob Chapter Two, in the Book of Mormon, particularly Jacob 2:30:

Seen it. Read it. Unimpressed.

Of course, Don still thinks that "extermination" means "drive out" in the context of the Missouri Extermination Order, an interpretation that is totally unsupportable from the contemporary sources.

But that's beside the point. The point was that you continue to act as if your arugments are unassailable, which is clearly not the case and I find it interesting that you continue to make claims that you know have been challenged authoritatively.

C.I.

Link to comment

Elect lady seems to have a 'beef' with the CHurch.

I also cant figure out how some of the LDS female members on this thread can say things, like they beleive that Joseph SMith was a prophet, and he made a mistake in the plural marraige revelation. to me that jsut doesnt make sense.

sure Joseph smith made mistakes, but he could not have been a prophet of God and made this magnitude of error in leading the saints. this isnt like Zion's Camp, this is a complete doctrine issue and practive that lasted for years. Prophets dont screw that type of thing up.

So, you sisters who think its wrong of Joe Smith messed that up, best re-think.

check yourselves.

AJ - keepin it real

Link to comment
I don't have a "beef" with the church, just the immoral practice of adultery disguised as a commandment from God.

And you have been repeatedly shown the evidence for you claim is sorely lacking! If it really is an "immoral practice" which has been used to justify the lustful bahavior or the prophets, then why hasn't God pointed that out?

I already noted that God had no problem telling David when his lustful behavior was out of bounds.

You need to tell me why 1) God never complained about it even once. 2) God told David that it was God who had given David all those wives. 3) Why God included provisions for proper its proper practice in the Law when that would have been a perfect time to proscribe it by law.

The fact is you cant.

And by the way, by your argument you are basically calling my great, great grandmother a whore. And don't give me this crap that you aren't because you know damn well that's exactly what you are doing to her and every other woman who ever entered into the practice. Moreover, you are calling the men who did so immoral. So inessence, you've managed to disparage several of my ancestors and yes, I take some deal of umbrage to such outrages.

You have not told us why your testimony of the immoralness of this practice should be priviledged over the testimony of those who actually participated in it coupled with 5000 years of scriptural history. In short, you haven't explained to us why God would tell you it was wrong when it appears that for 5000 plus years he telling everyone else that, given certain circumstances, in was just fine.

So, until you are capable of actually engaging in a substantive argument, what we have from you is emotionally driven rhetorical tripe.

C.I.

Link to comment

You are the only one who has used the word "whore" on this thread. Just because someone does something immoral doesn't mean they are a whore. Did you miss the fact that I had an ancestor who practiced polygamy? Well I do. Did I call him a whore? NO. Did I say that what he did was immoral? YES!! Because what he did WAS immoral.

The BOM, calls polygamy an abomination.

Carry on with your personal attacks, I know they bring you joy.

Link to comment
You are the only one who has used the word "whore" on this thread.

Indeed, because it is the clear implication of your assertions. I simply stated clearly what you are beating around the bush at.

Just because someone does something immoral doesn't mean they are a whore.

Really? You are accusing them of intentional immoral behavior. What else could you be calling them? Maybe you prefer the less perjorative "trollup?"

Did you miss the fact that I had an ancestor who practiced polygamy?

No, I didn't miss that at all. In fact, I'm floored that you would so blithely dismiss his/her sacrifice and faith as nothing more than purile immorality. I'm sure he/she is very proud of you.

Did I call him a whore?  NO.  Did I say that what he did was immoral?  YES!! Because what he did WAS immoral. 

Oh, I've been wrong about you all along. At first, I thought you were just inventing your own god to believe in. Now, it appears that you are actually usurping His power to judge what is and isn't immoral. Oh, the hubris.

The BOM, calls polygamy an abomination.

Yes, it does. And in the context that they were practicing it, it was. That, however, in now way is extricable to the other cases of polygamy in the OT and in modern times.

BTW, you still haven't shown that you have anything but a passing familiarity with the BofM text.

Carry on with your personal attacks, I know they bring you joy.

No, no, no...if I had called you a trollup, that would be a personal attack. As it is, I've simply assailed the fundamental logic and soundness of your arguments (such as they are).

As yet, you simply haven't provided even the slightest of attempts to answer the salient questions that I have posed to you, relying instead on emotionally driven rhetoric to make your points. Thus, I used the used the argument about calling my ancestors "whores" to turn that emotionally drivein rhetoric against you (very effectively if you ask me).

Now, if you have any substance, then answer the quetions I have posed. If not, the please admit that your arguments are based on your own personal distate for the practice and not any scriptural injuntions against it.

C.I.

Link to comment
I also never used the word "trollop" I never use that word, because I'm not old. Stop putting words in my mouth if you want me to answer your questions.

Let's be honest. You have no intention of addressing my questions and all of this is just a convenient excuse (stupidly provided by me) to avoid doing so.

C.I.

P.S. If you are going to answer, then do so and let's cut the cutsie little dance.

ci

Link to comment
Elect lady seems to have a 'beef' with the CHurch.

I also cant figure out how some of the LDS female members on this thread can say things, like they beleive that Joseph SMith was a prophet, and he made a mistake in the plural marraige revelation. to me that jsut doesnt make sense.

sure Joseph smith made mistakes, but he could not have been a prophet of God and made this magnitude of error in leading the saints. this isnt like Zion's Camp, this is a complete doctrine issue and practive that lasted for years. Prophets dont screw that type of thing up.

So, you sisters who think its wrong of Joe Smith messed that up, best re-think.

check yourselves.

AJ - keepin it real

You're right. Those who would judge their "betters" so harshly should check themselves.

Elect Lady cites the Book of Mormon's condemnation of Polygamy calling it an abomination, but she refuses to read the context. Elect, do you think our ancestors never read the book themselves? If so, why did they willingly live a practice that the Book of Mormon condemned? Because they also read that when the Lord commands it, his people live it. I'm sure that like Nephi, they also took their misgivings and apprehensions to the Lord for guidance and a spiritual witness that what their prophet was requiring of them was from God.

That's what the rest of us are supposed to do when we have struggles of faith, but some are too proud to accept anything but their own way, their own emotions and their own opinions. It's called "a hard heart" and a person with a hard heart cannot be taught or touched by the spirit.

Link to comment

You need to tell me why 1) God never complained about it even once. 2) God told David that it was God who had given David all those wives. 3) Why God included provisions for proper its proper practice in the Law when that would have been a perfect time to proscribe it by law.

1. People do worse things than practice polygamy all the time without God raising so much as a finger against them.

2. Show me the scripture. I am not questioning that it exists, I just want to be sure which scripture to want me to address.

3. IF you are talking about section 132, I don't believe it came from God, but from Joseph Smith, himself.

I don't mind talking with you and answering anything you may want me to, but watch your tone because I'm getting sick of your personal attacks, and I will ignore you if you continue to do it.

Link to comment

C.I. wrote:

I must have missed the part where you defended that assertion. Most scholarship I've seen on the issue places it in the mid seventh century B.C. 

It is most Liberal scholarship that places that the Book of Deuteronomy was written after the time of King Solomon. IF you and Ben are going to believe what most of the Liberal scholars say about when the Book of Deuteronomy was written then why won't you and Ben believe most of the Liberal scholars when they that the Book of Isaiah was written by at least two different 'Isaiahs?' OF course most LDS Apologists don't want to admit that the Book of Isaiah may have been written by at least two 'Isaiahs' because that would mean that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text, but an early 19th Century text. And if the Book of Mormon is an early 19th Century text, then that makes it even more unlikely that Jacob 2:30 is alluding to or referring to Levitical Marriage. However, I believe that just one Isaiah wrote the Book of Isaiah just like I believe that the Book of Deuteronomy was written before the time of King Solomon.

C.I. also wrote:

Seen it.  Read it.  Unimpressed. 

Of course, Don still thinks that "extermination" means "drive out" in the context of the Missouri Extermination Order, an interpretation that is totally unsupportable from the contemporary sources.

That is not too surprising coming from you since you like to defend Polygamy. cool.gif Don

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...