Polygamy Redux

[alter idem]

Theophilus,

I don't believe I was unfair and unfortunately most discussions that accuse the early leaders of promoting polygamy to satisfy their lust is going to be an attack on my Smith ancestors. Also, to claim that 19th century LDS practiced polygamy because they wanted to engage in immoral behavior(aka sinful behavior) is pretty offensive.

I don't see how acknowledging that all have sinned has anything to do with this discussion.

Theo, you are equating polygamy with murder? You are suggesting that if I defend my polygamous ancestors it is the same thing as if Mark Hacking's family went about defending murder? You have a point in that some people find polygamy to be as reprehensible as murder, but I don't agree and I've posted on earlier threads why I defend their practice of polygamy.

As I stated earlier, suggesting that polygamy was instituted to promote immoral behavior in the guise of religion IS an attack against my family. Everyone has the right to believe what they wish, but as long as I also have a right to speak up, I will put my two cents in to defend them.

[Theophilus]

I don't believe I was unfair

I cannot agree.

and unfortunately most discussions that accuse the early leaders of promoting polygamy to satisfy their lust is going to be an attack on my

[alter idem]

Theophilus,

You think I'm unfair, so be it.

You don't see it as an attack, therefore you feel I'm overreacting. You are welcome to your opinion.

I don't think I have the ability to determine if I "like" or "dislike" anyone on this board yet. I don't dislike people because they disagree with me, in fact, agreement is not necessary for me to "like" someone.

However, if you use the benign suggestion that everyone sins as reason why I'm being overly sensitive to suggestions that my ancestors were sinners, I have to disagree. It's not quite the same thing.

[Nighthawke]

Now, I believe that the primary reason for Joseph's deaths sprung from complications in polygamy.  The lying and deceptions and attempts to cover-up, the relationship dynamics that boiled over the top.  I COULD, after looking at Joseph's life and death, say that God took Joseph off the face of his earth because he was leading the church astray.  When we are talking about something as subjective as God's will, or God's plan, or God's communication, its all fair in love and war.  This hypothetical has as much validity as the one where God commanded Joseph to take on polygamy as a dreadful role in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.  I won't though, because I don't think that is what happened.  I think that God had nothing to do with modern-day polygamy.  And noone, of course, can prove me wrong.

How was the Church being led astray by the Saints accepting the principle of plural marriage? You get rid of plural marriage (ie. section 132) and you get rid of families are forever (ie. no need for Latter-day Temples). The Church believes that the loss of ordinances and of the priesthood were signs of an apostasy in the early church--you do away with Temple ordinances and the Patriarchal Priesthood and you will indeed have an apostate Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Polygamy did not work in this day and age.

Conrad Naegle wrote that "polygamy was not something that bothered me. I wasn't ashamed of the fact that I was a Mormon; I wasn't ashamed of the fact that I was a product of polygamous families because they lived the law of the Lord."

Ivan R. Richardson explained, "If I was to judge polygamy solely on the basis of what happened in our family, I would have to say I'm in favor of it. It made us better people. It taught me to be unselfish. It taught us to work for a common goal with others. It was a social trial. Abrasive though it might be, it made better people. I would have to say it was a good thing as far as our family was concerned. . . . within the family itself we had peace and love."

- Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle by Jessie L. Embry, pp 190-191.

[Uncle Dale]

Your "personal" objection seems to be that you don't like others if you perceive them to be "attacking" your ancestors.  In what way is it an "attack", other than it is accusing them of sinning?  I fully admit that all my ancestors have sinned.  I have sinned as well.

It isn't a matter of logic, Jeff -- er, Theophilus, -- It's a matter of common sense. If

you wander into somebody's home and start getting them riled up about their ancestors,

you'll get remarks handed back to you like our FAIR moderators are making.

After a while, the question may pop into your mind -- is it really worth all the trouble

of saying such things to Mormons -- that you know are just going to upset them?

It's something of an art form, to say honestly critical things without ruffling too many

feathers. Because I had umpteen hundred LDS in my extended ancestral family, I

can sometimes get away with a little bad-mouthing of our "honored dead," -- but not

much and not for very long. It is always more productive to work with matter of some

substance, and with a load of confirming documentary evidence in your back pocket

(preferably from reputable LDS GAs, if at all possible) -- don't you agree?

Uncle Dale

Moderator: It is disengenuous to slide the discussion to "extended ancestral family". I will repeat. We have living people who have immediate family members that are part of "Mormon history". Respect them as you would want your family respected. That does not mean you have to agree with everything said. If a Mormon called a non-LDS poster's great-grandfather an adulterer or murderer they would get the same treatment from moderators so the drama is not necessary.

[Traela]

Polygamy did not work in this day and age.

Conrad Naegle wrote that "polygamy was not something that bothered me. I wasn't ashamed of the fact that I was a Mormon; I wasn't ashamed of the fact that I was a product of polygamous families because they lived the law of the Lord."

Ivan R. Richardson explained, "If I was to judge polygamy solely on the basis of what happened in our family, I would have to say I'm in favor of it. It made us better people. It taught me to be unselfish. It taught us to work for a common goal with others. It was a social trial. Abrasive though it might be, it made better people. I would have to say it was a good thing as far as our family was concerned. . . . within the family itself we had peace and love."

- Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle by Jessie L. Embry, pp 190-191.

My husband is th product of several polygamous marriages. Contrary to how polygamy is usually portrayed, in his family it was the MEN who were almost unanimously against it. The feelings of the women were split about 50:50 for or against, mainly depending on how the sister-wives got along. In some cases it worked very well. The husband was off on a mission or hiding from the government, while the women had a nice girls' club going. But if there was selfishness, it was magnified.

I personally have no problem with polygamy sometimes being authorized. I imagine myself a pioneer woman. In the middle of nowhere. Running a farm. A bunch of kids under the age of 10. And hubby's off on a 3-year mission. Suddenly, a sister-wife sounds like a really good idea.

[Dale]

I do think that comments about various respected leaders in the Latter Day Saint movement should respect the feelings of their followers. And if they have a descendant her or don't try & respect that feelings. Its easy to offend people. I do believe in being respectfull of others feelings.

There's no one answer on this topic that's going to please everyone. What satisfies as an answer me may not satisfy others. And I have learned some people are persistent in refusing answers. I like Joseph Smith. I affirm his status as a prophet. I do not think I could give an unbelievers speech about Bible figures who practiced polygamy the way Joseph Smith gets it.

I guess the issues are simple if he was wrong there's no need to defend him. And if right then his critics are wrong rejecting the princible. What happens though is unbelievers in the princible can't stand to see believers stand up for the man, or affirm the truthfullness of the princible. People get so upset you almost hate to get into it with them.

[Uncle Dale]

Moderator: It is disengenuous to slide the discussion to "extended ancestral family". I will repeat. We have living people who have immediate family members that are part of "Mormon history". Respect them as you would want your family respected. That does not mean you have to agree with everything said. If a Mormon called a non-LDS poster's great-grandfather an adulterer or murderer they would get the same treatment from moderators so the drama is not necessary.

No doubt what you are advising is true 99% of the time.

But for that other 1%, I believe that my suggestion of having documentary evidence

in hand has some value.

Were I to find some proper occasion here to speak at length of a certain Elder Turley,

who was arrested in western Illinois, and spend time in Alton Prison for horse theft,

and whose rightful conviction and incarceration were publically acknowledged in the

Nauvoo press, during his imprisonment -- well, then I might want to have that citation

on my desk for immediate reference, were I to speak of a "horse thief" in the

respected Turley family tree; among FAIR MB members who might well be related.

And, if that same convicted Elder were a shirt-tail relative of one of my own Nauvoo

ancestors, I might then speak with more abruptness on the matter, knowing that I

was treating him exactly as I would want my own, dearly departed spoken of,

if they had been so charged, convicted, and acknowledged in the public prints.

However, when it comes to murder, or alleged murder, I would be inclined to heed

your wise counsel and address the subject in defferential, oblique ways, or not at all.

Uncle Dale

[Platypus Man]

*pulls up a chair and grabs some popcorn*

*enjoys the show*

Irony ... I'm actually eating popcorn right now

[Nighthawke]

My husband is th product of several polygamous marriages. Contrary to how polygamy is usually portrayed, in his family it was the MEN who were almost unanimously against it. The feelings of the women were split about 50:50 for or against, mainly depending on how the sister-wives got along. In some cases it worked very well. The husband was off on a mission or hiding from the government, while the women had a nice girls' club going. But if there was selfishness, it was magnified.

I personally have no problem with polygamy sometimes being authorized. I imagine myself a pioneer woman. In the middle of nowhere. Running a farm. A bunch of kids under the age of 10. And hubby's off on a 3-year mission. Suddenly, a sister-wife sounds like a really good idea.

Amen!

[Benjamin McGuire]

Theophilus writes:

Yes, I'm familiar with the "kinsman-redeemer".

Unfortunately, once again the LDS position is dependent on an argument from silence, assuming that the married brother were required to fulfill this "duty". If there were an explicit example or commandment of even married brothers being required, then you would have a case.

I doubt that you are familiar with it (apart from, perhaps, a passing familiarity with the concept). I suppose (and you demonstrate this as well as anything) that any biblical passage is subject to interpretation. But, Jewish interpretation of the Bible (going back significantly before the birth of Christ) viewed this commandment as not making any distinctions for the brother of the dead man if he were married. There are more than a hundred clarifications of the practice of Levirate marriage in rabbinic texts. Most of these deal specifically with the topic of polygamy. For example, a brother was not required (under rabinic clarifications) to marry his dead brother's wife when he was already married to the widow's sister (thus coming into conflict with other portions of Mosaic Law). In more recent history, it was specifically because Levirate Marriage would require polygamy in certain circumstances that Modern-day Israel passed a secular law requiring halitzah in place of Levirate Marriage. There is no exception to the practice granted to the married man.

You can look up some of these Rabbinic conisderations here: http://www.aishdas.org/webshas/ishus/yibbum.htm

So, despite your claims that there isn't an explicit requirement that a married brother was to engage in poolygamy to satisfy this part of the Law of Moses, three plus millenia of practice within the Israelite and Jewish communities demonstrate that this was how the law was viewed and practiced. It was on the issue of Levirate Marriage that ultra conservative Jews have traditionally aqrgued against the forced institution of monogamy (although it is still not an unheard of issue to have a Jewish man refuse to give his wife a religious divorce while getting a secular divorce - allowing him to remarry with the permission of the Jewish courts, but not her).

There is a case here. It is a very clear case. The fact that you have a passing knowledge of the practice doesn't mean much.

Later you note:

God condemns polygamy (1 Cor. 7:2)

God condemns polygamy (1 Tim. 3:2)

God condemns polygamy (1 Tim. 3:12)

God condemns polygamy (Titus 1:6)

1 Cor. 7:2:

"But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband."

This passage has long been held as problematic. It is ambiguous on several levels. The first question is who wrote the comments in verse 2 - was it Paul, or was it the Corinthians. You might note the difference for example, in the YLT:

"And concerning the things of which ye wrote to me: good [it is] for a man not to touch a woman, and because of the whoredom let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her proper husband;"

Here, verse 2 is not written by Paul, but Paul is still quoting the letter which the Corinthians sent him. This is a topic of concern for some, because if it is Paul speaking in verse 2, his instruction is for all (not just some) to be married. Of course, independant of how you reconstruct the first two verses, there is nothing here that would preclude polygamy. I note that earlier you talked about how a text doesn't actually explicitly suggest that a married man had to participate in Levirate marriage - well here, the text doesn't actually preclude a man from being polygamous. The same is true of the other texts.

1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6

These texts likewise bring up questions. Does Paul refer to polygamy? Is it an idomatic expression about being married? If we take it completely at face value (as you are doing) then it clearly excludes divorcees, and widowers doesn't it? And yet, this cannot be seen as a condemnation of a widower, or of the unmarried. So, we can conclude in any case, that it cannot be viewed as a condemnation of polygamy (although I certainly agree that if it is about polygamy, it shows a decidely negative view towards it).

And of course, if it is an idiomatic expression, then it is simply a requirement of marriage. The same construct is used in Mark 16:2 for example, in THi MIAi TWN SABBATWN - "the one of the week" which we would usually refer to as the first day of the week. It is plausible (although perhaps not as likely) that Paul is simply referring to the idea of being the husband of a "first" wife, which doesn't preclude any others.

It is funny though, that you are so willing to accept and adopt these vague ambiguous expressions in the New Testament as a model of truth, and yet deny the Old Testament claims on the basis that they are ambiguous and vague. Not really the best display of reason.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

I make the claim that it was COMMANDED. Not only does the Old Testament Command it, but Jews for millenia have viewed it as a commandment. It isn't something that you can simply casually dismiss.

Ben

[Post modified by moderator to remove quote to post that was deleted. Sorry about that.]

[auteur55]

Yes and I don't see how we can argue away that the Lord COMMANDED Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

[Moderator: See above explanation]

[auteur55]

I don't think we have established anything on this thread but our interpretations of incomplete scripture and our personal bias towards the subject. Many find polygamy to be morally repugnant and I can understand that viewpoint. Others find no problem with it and I understand that viewpoint as well. We have shown in this thread that God does not expressly condemn polygamy in the scriptures neither does he outright approve of the practice though both ideas can be debated. We have nothing in the Bible, in the Lord's voice, where he is clear on the matter.

We do however have the Lord's very strong voice in D&C 132 giving us his views on the matter and this has always been where I feel the argument lies. Is D&C 132 the Lord talking, Joseph Smith's corrupt imagination, or the Father of lies himself? I hope one day to know for sure because an answer to that question would end any further appeal to the bible.

[USU78]

Re: Commandment to Practice Polygyny

The claim that there was no commandment to practice the Principle just doesn't fly. There are too many instances where, when the call came to enter into the practice, it was accompanied by heavenly manifestation widely attested to in journals and such.

I have my own paternal-paternal G-Grandfather's journal reporting both his own and his 1st wife's experiences, part of which I have shared on this board in the past. And his wasn't particularly a spectacular manifestation (as such things go). The Prophet Joseph is reported to have said he was commanded by an angel with sword in hand to do it after he'd been dragging his feet for quite a while.

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. To paraphrase the old Rabbi (not Rabbi Dale), 'Mormons don't understand sacrifice, since they expect G-d to bless them when they obey. That is missing the whole point.'

Abraham, our spiritual father, certainly understood when he loaded the firewood on his son's back and schlepped up the mountain.

You can hope for the ram in the thicket. It won't always be there.

[Del March]

My husband is th product of several polygamous marriages.  Contrary to how polygamy is usually portrayed, in his family it was the MEN who were almost unanimously against it.

This is also what I've seen among men who take marriage seriously: many clearly explain that the idea of having to be a good husband to more than one wife is just too heavy to consider.

The feelings of the women were split about 50:50 for or against, mainly depending on how the sister-wives got along.

Which is exactly what would be my concern if my husband was required to practice polygamy: finding a sister-wife I would get along with well.

I personally have no problem with polygamy sometimes being authorized.

Neither do I.

I imagine myself a pioneer woman.  In the middle of nowhere.  Running a farm.  A bunch of kids under the age of 10.  And hubby's off on a 3-year mission.  Suddenly, a sister-wife sounds like a really good idea.

It still sounds like a good idea to me even if the husband is around.

Del

[Confidential Informant]

I don't know why I bothered hoping this thread would stay on point. <Sigh>

Well, first of all, how about Moses murdering the Egyptian?

Actually, Moses killing the Egyptians proves my point. Murder was wrong, yet Moses committed murder and was not reprimanded for it? Why? Because what he did actually represents an exception to the rule. Moses killed while in defense of another whom he thought was going to be killed. Heck, even modern common law recognizes that exception to the murder statutes.

Plural marriage is the exact same thing: an exception to the accepted rule. The rule is that monogamy is preferred but from time to time polygamy is commanded. I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.

Of course, the main problem with pointing out things that God didn't condemn in the Bible is that it is all to easy for LDS to reject the examples out of hand, for the very reason that God didn't specifically condemn a particular action.

I'm not sure what this means. I didn't just make an argument from silence. I put forth evidence of a positive acceptance and commandment of plural marriage. God didn't just ignore it, he positively commanded and codified it.

But the thing is that the crux of the LDS argument here is nothing more than an argument from silence, namely, "God never condemned it".

That's malarky. In fact, I showed you exactly where God not only approved but commanded it in certain circumstances.

Well, if arguments from silence are valid, then it is equally true that (in the Bible, anyway), "God never commanded it".  So why is it that the LDS argument from silence allegedly "trumps" the non-LDS argument from silence?

You need to pay closer attention to the posts you are responding to.

Well, either that  or, Abraham wasn't that big of a deal to God".

And that somehow makes it better? I mean, aside from the fact that its deomonstrably untrue?

And what I mean about that is that the purpose of the Bible isn't to tell us how much of a sinner Abraham was, or how much of a sinner Cain was, or how much of a sinner Judas was, it's to convince us of our own sins, and lead us to the Saviour.

I thought that was the only purpose of the Bible. To convince us of our sins and urge us to repent. Of course, how would I know it was a sin if God never bothered to fill me in on that fact?

Well, as long as we're allowed to share out own personal evaluations, it seems to me that the argument of silence, and the rejection of NT passages against polygamy, is "weak, very weak, at best".

Too things: 1) I made no argument from silence, that's an invention of your own unique comprehension skills. 2) It's not clear that the NT rejects polygamy (Christ certainly never does so) and even it did, so what? That would simply prove the fact that polygamy is not meant to be practiced in all times and places, which is exactly what the LDS believe anyway. It's an exception, not the rule.

I personally am well aware of the passage, and am not the least bit impressed with attempts to use it to try to justify polygamy.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you disagree.

Do you really think the purpose of that passage was to "teach" that polygamy was a "true principle"?!

Nope, and I made no claim that it was. However, it does represent positive evidence of God's acceptance of the institution and refutes your "argument from silence" thesis.

God was berating David for his sin in taking Bathsheba to be his wife and having Uriah killed.  He was pointing out to David that God was sovereign, and David was nothing more than his servant, that David wasn't in charge, God was.  David was nothing without God, David owed everything to God, even his house, and even his wives.  He was deserving of none of it, all was given to him only through the mercy and grace of God.

THAT is the message here.

God was not trying to "validate" or "justify" polygamy, that is a distinct issue.

How, exactly, do you think that what you just said helps you make your case? I agree with everything you just wrote. But the fact remains that God gave those wives to David. I assume that if God gives me something it's because he thinks it's right and proper that I have it. It represents proof of God's acceptand and approval of the institution.

What, do you think God walked down the aisle with the wives and gave them to David with His "blessing"?  That's not what the passage is about, in context.

Figuratively? Yes, I do. What else does "God gave them to you" mean? I know you are trying to deflate the clear meaning of the text by getting cutsie with it, but the fact remains that God clearly sanctioned those marriages.

Yes, He did...  In the teachings about divorce, something that would be unnecessary if "plural marriage" was condoned by God.

Huh? If that is your logic than it must be so far above me as to defy my comprehension because it makes no sense at all. How does existence of or lack of divorce mean that God did not condone plural marriage?

In fact, the Law of Moses provided for a plural wife to get a divorce if she was not treated properly according to the Law. I haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about (and I suspect you don't either).

In fact, the Law actually provided rules for it's proper practice:

Ex. 21: 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

If you look closely, you will see that the word "wife" in that verse is in italics, indicating that it is not part of the Hebrew text, but an interpretive addition by the translators. Perhaps you're unaware of how bad an idea it is to try to create or support a doctrine by something that isn't even in the Biblical text.

The passage of Ex. 21 is about maidservants, not "wives".

Did you even read the entire chapter, in context?

Besides, even if you insist on keeping the term "wife" in there, the context is "another wife" [iNSTEAD OF THE MAIDSERVANT THE SON REJECTED].

And that is most definitely not a description of "plural marriage".

You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about:

From the NIV:

If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

From the New Living Translation:

If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.

From the English Standard Version

If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

From the 21st Century King James Version:

If he take for himself another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish.

From the Holman Christian Standard Version:

If he takes an additional wife, he must not reduce the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.

In short, your assertion about "maidservants" unsupported by any major translation of the Bible.

Yes, I'm familiar with the "kinsman-redeemer". Unfortunately, once again the LDS position is dependent on an argument from silence, assuming that the married brother were required to fulfill this "duty".  If there were an explicit example or commandment of even married brothers being required, then you would have a case.

But it doesn't, and so you don't.

There is no "LDS position." I'm not making an argument from silence. And it is well accepted that Leverite marriage was form of legally required polygamy. At some point you need to grasp that fact that polygamy was an accepted, if not preferred, fact of Jewish life for probably 4000 years and wasn't done away with until, as I recall, the 1600's. And to this day there are still certain Jewish groups that practice it. In fact, leverite marriage remains a tenet of modern Jewish law and in order to avoid it the man has to jump through some very large hoops to get of the hook. (Maybe Ben McGuire will pop in and give more info on this.)

Why do you need to look in the "Talmudic writings"?

I think the fact that "plural marriage" is never commanded nor praised in the Bible, speaks volumes.

Talmudic writings highlight Jewish understading of the text. And you are simply wrong about it never being commanded.

I guess I should go post in the "pet peeve" thread.

Because it is really a pet peeve of mine when people claim their beliefs are "clear", or "obvious", etc. etc., when it is just as "clear" that the OPPOSITE is indeed the case.

God condemns polygamy (1 Cor. 7:2)

God condemns polygamy (1 Tim. 3:2)

God condemns polygamy (1 Tim. 3:12)

God condemns polygamy (Titus 1:6)

No, the "opposite "is not the case, as I have already explained. I'm sure you think you helped EL's case here, but you haven't.

C.I.

Edited to add: Ah, I see that Ben M has chimed in. And quite authoritatively I might add. Thanks Ben.

ci

[Confidential Informant]

Froggie,

Have you ever noticed how many of your arguments begin with "I believe" and "I think" "In my opinion" and how few of them end with a citation or anything else that might actually bring some force and heft to your thoughts and opinions?

C.I.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.  To paraphrase the old Rabbi (not Rabbi Dale), 'Mormons don't understand sacrifice, since they expect G-d to bless them when they obey.  That is missing the whole point.'

Abraham, our spiritual father, certainly understood when he loaded the firewood on his son's back and schlepped up the mountain.

You can hope for the ram in the thicket.  It won't always be there.

Actually, Hebrews 15:17-19 indicates that Abraham fully expected God to bring Isaac back to life after the sacrifice had transpired. This because of Abraham's understanding of the typology in the act: i.e., God sacrificing his own Son Who would subsequently be resurrected. Also, Abraham knew that the promises of the covenant would be fulfilled through Isaac's line.

Within a theological frame of reference in which men and women ultimately are blessed for obedience, the concept of delayed gratification is not antithetical to sacrifice.

(Sorry if this draws the thread off topic again. I suppose I'm rehearsing for my gospel doctrine lesson this Sunday. )

[USU78]

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.  To paraphrase the old Rabbi (not Rabbi Dale), 'Mormons don't understand sacrifice, since they expect G-d to bless them when they obey.  That is missing the whole point.'

Abraham, our spiritual father, certainly understood when he loaded the firewood on his son's back and schlepped up the mountain.  You can hope for the ram in the thicket.  It won't always be there.

Actually, Hebrews 17-19 indicates that Abraham fully expected God to bring Isaac back to life after the sacrifice had transpired. This because of Abraham's understanding of the typology in the act: i.e., God sacrificing his own Son Who would subsequently be resurrected. Also, Abraham knew that the promises of the covenant would be fulfilled through Isaac's line.

Perhaps, perhaps. I am not convinced Abraham had yet been taught of the Savior at the point of the trip to Moriah. My current theory (subject to revision at my whim) is that the Moriah trip was when Abraham was first taught about the atonement to come. A tough way to teach somebody, but wouldn't the words be so much more powerful hard upon Abraham seeing up close and profoundly what it takes to make a G-d so loving that He'd give what's most precious to Him.

And to have Abraham understand that, when the big one hits, there'll be no ram to save the Master.

[Froggie]

Froggie,

Have you ever noticed how many of your arguments begin with "I believe" and "I think" "In my opinion" and how few of them end with a citation or anything else that might actually bring some force and heft to your thoughts and opinions?

[alter idem]

USU78 wrote:

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. To paraphrase the old Rabbi (not Rabbi Dale), 'Mormons don't understand sacrifice, since they expect G-d to bless them when they obey. That is missing the whole point.'

Abraham, our spiritual father, certainly understood when he loaded the firewood on his son's back and schlepped up the mountain.

You can hope for the ram in the thicket. It won't always be there.

<I like that, thanks, I'll probably use it in my lesson Sunday

[Uncle Dale]

You can hope for the ram in the thicket.  It won't always be there.

I can see now why some never made a career in hymn-writing. O! ye generation of

scribes and lawyers, how long wilst Heaven endure thine unwavering cynicism!!

Each time that the wicked have tried to overthrow

And to bring the work of God to naught,

The way has been opened for the saints to escape,

A ram in the thicket was caught.

Uncle "puh-leeze no pictures of cowboys in eye-shadow -- the mods get nervous" Dale

[USU78]

You can hope for the ram in the thicket.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.