Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Yes Another Polygamy Question


roman

Recommended Posts

Well and on top of that the Plural marriage practiced by the LDS Church is not really like that in the OT. For starters in the LDS Church is was requred for the highest degree of exaltation and was eternal. I find nothing like that in the OT practice.

Then why do lds ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS use ithe OT to sanction it as ligit?

Besides that isn't plural marriage--------plural marriage no matter what time it is-or what century it is?

Link to comment

Thanks for all who reponded. With that and the link ot 2 provided I think I have enough to understand the lds postion.[...]

Just an FYI, I wouldn't put too much stock in the comments I made as being the "LDS position." My comments were my own personal speculations.

As for #4 on your list, that gets into some heavy theology so I think it's best if we avoid it.

Link to comment

Roman:

So Abraham, Moses, etc, etc, etc.. directly violate Gods commandments concerning marriage? :P

NT Apostles did away with Gods Commandment concerning believers to be circumcised. By your standards the couldn't have been Apostles.

What other parts of the Bible are you going to throw out in your pursuit of a Double Standard?

Link to comment

Then why do lds ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS use ithe OT to sanction it as ligit?

Besides that isn't plural marriage--------plural marriage no matter what time it is-or what century it is?

The LDS do not always use the OT as a way to defend plural marriage.

To many members of other faiths, plural marriages mean that the man and woman treat their marriage like most earthly marriages.

This wasn't always the case.

For example, some of these marriages were only for "sealings." You see, in the LDS faith, being sealed is requisite for the Celestial Kingdom where God dwells. Many women were in peculiar situations. Some of these situations included husbands who were not members and husbands who were not faithful members.

It was possible for a woman to have an earthly marriage with a man, but to be sealed to another for promises after this life.

If Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, then he would have been inspired to extend these sealings to faithful Latter-day Saint women.

Link to comment

The LDS do not always use the OT as a way to defend plural marriage.

To many members of other faiths, plural marriages mean that the man and woman treat their marriage like most earthly marriages.

This wasn't always the case.

For example, some of these marriages were only for "sealings." You see, in the LDS faith, being sealed is requisite for the Celestial Kingdom where God dwells. Many women were in peculiar situations. Some of these situations included husbands who were not members and husbands who were not faithful members.

It was possible for a woman to have an earthly marriage with a man, but to be sealed to another for promises after this life.

If Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, then he would have been inspired to extend these sealings to faithful Latter-day Saint women.

wasn't always------------------not always

You may be right--------------------------but infact on this very thread it was used by lds

Link to comment

Roman:

So Abraham, Moses, etc, etc, etc.. directly violate Gods commandments concerning marriage? :P

NT Apostles did away with Gods Commandment concerning believers to be circumcised. By your standards the couldn't have been Apostles.

What other parts of the Bible are you going to throw out in your pursuit of a Double Standard?

This is kinda of topic-------but God had a plan for marriage in OT times and idealy it was not plural marriage

The apostles didn't do away with anything----------------it was God himself who closes the Old covanant and instilled the New-------the aposltes were being obedient to the NC

And it is lds who throw out parts of the Bible on this matter---------as per this thread-------just read it

I'm making some kind of point.

And that point is?

Link to comment

And that point is?

If polygamy has ever been right in God's eyes, then one cannot say it is categorically wrong without declaring God changed his mind, and then showing us how they know God changed his mind, and proving the authority of their source, and so forth.

Link to comment
This is kinda of topic-------but God had a plan for marriage in OT times and idealy it was not plural marriage

References, please.

The apostles didn't do away with anything----------------it was God himself who closes the Old covanant and instilled the New-------the aposltes were being obedient to the NC

It was God himself who gave section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were being obedient to the word of the Lord.

And it is lds who throw out parts of the Bible on this matter---------as per this thread-------just read it

We have not thrown out any part of the Bible. God commands and we obey, same as the faithful have always done, like Abraham, Moses, etc.

Link to comment

1. At least some Catholics believe, and I think it is Catholic belief, that Joseph was 102 years old when he married Mary. And it was only to protect her from the world. They did not have any children together, because Mary stayed a virgin.

Do they really think that when Joseph found Jesus, at the age of 12, in the temple, that Joseph was 114 years old?

2. Since the New Testament instruction clearly says a bishop shall have one wife, why don't Catholic bishops today have to have a wife?

Link to comment

From what I understand, your logic is this:

God gave laws in the Old Testament. These laws were superceded by new laws in the New Testament. Therefore, we cannot cite references in the Old Testament because the laws were changed. We must look at the New Testament.

You are assuming that change cannot come after the New Testament.

If God can change the law from the OT to the NT, then God can change the law after the NT

If God cannot change the law after the NT, then God cannot change the law from the OT to the NT (we know this contrapositive cannot be true).

We also know that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This doesn't mean that the laws God GIVES is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but rather his method of dealing with his children. His method then, is to command what will be in His children's best interest and that is what can change as many times as He wishes.

Link to comment

When a person researches the polygamous unions in the bible, they're obviously there, you have to interpret if it's been God's plan or man's desire for practicing polygamy. Just as LDS are convinced it's part of God's plan because they happened, I don't see a commandment from God endorsing polygamy. The results from those who practiced it, are normally disastrous. So I guess it comes down to interpretation of the bible if God endorsed it in the OT. I don't have the last article I read about this since its been a few months, but after studying this issue, I'm not convinced it has been a desire of our Heavenly Father and definitely, IMO, not part of what Jesus showed us in the NT.

Obviously, I'm taking the stance that Jesus was never married and a person can only speculate at best that he was.

Link to comment
If God can change the law from the OT to the NT, then God can change the law after the NT

But we are the church of Jesus Christ and as such we should follow his example. We should follow Jesus example in every situation and only his example. Jesus never taught polygamy, so now we should follow the example of Joseph Smith?

Link to comment

1. At least some Catholics believe, and I think it is Catholic belief, that Joseph was 102 years old when he married Mary.

That's one speculation. Since this is open for interpretation, Catholics can believe whatever they wish in regards to Joseph's and Mary's marriage. Since I believe Mary came from the temple and had made promises to God before being with Joseph, I have no hang ups believing Joseph honored those promises Mary made to the Lord prior to them being together. With this viewpoint, Joseph's age becomes irrelevant.

And it was only to protect her from the world. They did not have any children together, because Mary stayed a virgin.

Yes

2. Since the New Testament instruction clearly says a bishop shall have one wife, why don't Catholic bishops today have to have a wife?

This is obviously one of those practices that can come or go. Earlier bishops, such as Peter, was married. Obviously the current practice is that they shouldn't be. But this is something that could be changed tomorrow and Catholics shouldn't be hung up with the issue. Priests take a vow of celibacy, but we have a few married priests because of their conversion from other faiths.

So I don't believe Catholics are as 'hung up' on this issue as others try to make us.

Peace

Link to comment

so what do you do with the references to --------ONE wife qualification for Church leaders----------that it wasn't in effect in JS life?

This reference in the Bible should be read as "only married once", meaning he has never been divorced and remarried. Some of the ECF commented on these verses in this context. These verses are not referring to polygamy.

T-Shirt

Link to comment

2) The fact that the bible does not describe Jesus as teaching polygamy does not mean he did not teach it. In fact, the bible expressely says that Christ taught many things to his apostles, which were to be kept from the masses.

The fact that the Bible does not describe Jesus teaching the moon is made of cheese does not mean he did not teach it.

Of course this is no argument at all anc insert whatever you want there and you can argue anything.

Link to comment

This is obviously one of those practices that can come or go. Earlier bishops, such as Peter, was married. Obviously the current practice is that they shouldn't be. But this is something that could be changed tomorrow and Catholics shouldn't be hung up with the issue. Priests take a vow of celibacy, but we have a few married priests because of their conversion from other faiths.

Peace

I'm fine with practices coming and going. So polygamy is one of them.

Link to comment

If polygamy has ever been right in God's eyes, then one cannot say it is categorically wrong without declaring God changed his mind, and then showing us how they know God changed his mind, and proving the authority of their source, and so forth.

I may be old, but not that old.

could you say this in plain ole English so i can understand, right now its all gobby-goup to me

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...