Jump to content

Yes Another Polygamy Question


roman

Recommended Posts

Because it got missed the first time:

2 Samuel 12:7 ... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy masterâ??s house, and thy masterâ??s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

God gave David's wives to David.

Link to comment

Lets see-------------son hating father,trying to steal the kingdom

son raping sister

God telling David and war would be with him always

God taking Bathshebas son

And those are just off the top of my head

I would appreciate references not just story lines, as well as how you see that it is validating your point.

Link to comment

Because it got missed the first time:

2 Samuel 12:7 ... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy masterâ??s daughter, and thy masterâ??s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

God gave David's wives to David.

Huh?

Let's look at the whole passage:

2 Samuel 12: 7-11 (New English Bible)

Then Nathan said to David, 'You are the man. This is the word of the Lord the God

of Israel to you':

"I annointed you king over Israel,

I rescued you from the power of Saul,

I gave you your master's daughter [house] and his wives to be your own,

I gave you the daughters of Israel and Judah;

and, had this not been enough,

I would have added other favours as great.

"Why then have you flouted the word of the Lord by doing what is wrong in my eyes?

You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword;

the man himself you have murdered by the sword of the Ammonites,

and you have stolen his wife.

"Now, therefore, since you have despised me and taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite

to be your own wife, your family shall never again have rest from the sword."

This is the word of the Lord;

"I will bring trouble upon you from within your own family;

I will take your wives and give them to another man before your eyes,

and he will lie with them in broad daylingt.

What you did was done in secret; but I will do this in the light of the day

for all Israel to see."

It is perfectly clear that God gave David his wives, and that David only

erred when he took Bathsheba, the wife of another man, to be his wife.

Just as He had given him his wives, God could also take them away.

Bernard

Link to comment

Didn't make a difference to who-------------to God it did as judgement came Davids way

I was specifically addressing your comment here :

Roman : I think it is this way--------- Pluarl marriage---cost David his family in the end

My point was that it wasn't David's plural marriage that Lord had problems with. The Lord had a problem with David setting up the shedding of the blood of an innocent man in order to steal his wife away for himself. David would have been condemned by the Lord for that act even if he had no wife at all when he did it. And had David not had Uriah's blood shed , David would have continued going right along in plural marriage without one word of condemnation from the Lord for it.

Link to comment

I was specifically addressing your comment here :

My point was that it wasn't David's plural marriage that Lord had problems with. The Lord had a problem with David setting up the shedding of the blood of an innocent man in order to steal his wife away for himself. David would have been condemned by the Lord for that act even if he had no wife at all when he did it. And had David not had Uriah's blood shed , David would have continued going right along in plural marriage without one word of condemnation from the Lord for it.

Not ONE WORD of condemnation from the LORD? Are that what you are saying? Well if my interpertation of scriptures isn't good enough for you -how about a few from the BoM?

Jacob 1:15; 2:23,24,27,31; 3:5

Mosiah 11:2-4

Ether10:5-7

Now please say again that God permitted all of this when your oun BOM says otherwisw

Link to comment

Not ONE WORD of condemnation from the LORD? Are that what you are saying? Well if my interpertation of scriptures isn't good enough for you -how about a few from the BoM?

Jacob 1:15; 2:23,24,27,31; 3:5

Mosiah 11:2-4

Ether10:5-7

It has been pointed out to you in the OT scriptures what the basis for the Lord's condemnation of David was about. Are you saying that it was something more than the Uriah affair that brought David under the Lord's wrath? Again , David was condemned for his actions with regard to Uriah , not for his practice of plural marriage.

Now please say again that God permitted all of this when your oun BOM says otherwisw

Amazing! Now you are relying on a book that you don't even believe in as scripture to establish your position? In doing so you are bracing yourself upon extra-biblical revelation , which you deny is revelation , as a legitimate authority. In case you didn't realize it , you are relying on the BoM in an attempt to refute the Bible. How do you feel about that?

I'll jot down your references and read them in full context and get back to you on the matter.

Link to comment

It has been pointed out to you in the OT scriptures what the basis for the Lord's condemnation of David was about. Are you saying that it was something more than the Uriah affair that brought David under the Lord's wrath? Again , David was condemned for his actions with regard to Uriah , not for his practice of plural marriage.

Amazing! Now you are relying on a book that you don't even believe in as scripture to establish your position? In doing so you are bracing yourself upon extra-biblical revelation , which you deny is revelation , as a legitimate authority. In case you didn't realize it , you are relying on the BoM in an attempt to refute the Bible. How do you feel about that?

I'll jot down your references and read them in full context and get back to you on the matter.

i somewhat agree with your take on david----------------but I do believe that his plural marriage weighed heavily in the matter

Now to the BoM verses I listed---------------i only listed them as You were that one who so loudly said that The LORD NEVER condemned David and his plural marraige----when your own Book does so over and over and over----------------that fully stands agains what you are trying to say---you are either ignorant of your own BOM or was hoping I would never bring it up. That is my point and my point only in using the BoM. All else you say doesn't apply. Your the one who regonizes it as legitimate authority---so YOU should see that God did fully condemn the practice-----------according to YOUR scriptures

Link to comment

i somewhat agree with your take on david----------------but I do believe that his plural marriage weighed heavily in the matter

You may believe what you want, of course. I am curious as to why you think the plural marriage would weigh heavily in it. That the more wives a man has the more he wants, thus the drive to get Uriah's from him? You don't need any wives at all to covet and want to take Uriah's.

Now to the BoM verses I listed---------------i only listed them as You were that one who so loudly said that The LORD NEVER condemned David and his plural marraige----when your own Book does so over and over and over----------------that fully stands agains what you are trying to say---you are either ignorant of your own BOM or was hoping I would never bring it up. That is my point and my point only in using the BoM. All else you say doesn't apply. Your the one who regonizes it as legitimate authority---so YOU should see that God did fully condemn the practice-----------according to YOUR scriptures

You keep bringing up the Book of Mormon because you think that we, at least, should recognize it as an authority. And it is kind of interesting that the only authority you can find to support your case that God doesn't go along with polygamy is a book you believe to be religious fiction. This was pointed out to you earlier, and I don't think you read it, but citing a non-scripture in order to disprove the Bible is something one might expect from a opponent of the Bible, which I am sure you are not.

So, let's quote the Book of Mormon scriptures you're trying to use to beat us into submission, where it says in pertinent part (emphasis added):

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:23 - 30)

The writer is Jacob, one of the youngest of Lehi's sons. He starts by condemning the sexual immorality of his people, and chides them for using David and Solomon as excuses for their behavior. He quotes the Lord as saying that their many wives and concubines were an abomination before Him.

Now, it cannot be denied that God gave David his many wives by the hand of the prophet Nathan, and David proceeded to have children by them. If God had not meant for David to do this, he wouldn't have given them to him, that much must be clear, or else it would have said somewhere in the Bible that David made a mistake in this. But God never said a single word to this effect, and in fact said that the point of screwup was the matter of Bathsheba, Uriah's wife.

So, unless the Book of Mormon is here contradicting the Bible (something which lots of anti-Mormons like to claim, with this particular verse one of very very few that even appear to be candidates for contradiction), there must be something to David's and Solomon's behavior respecting marital relations that displeased the Lord. And you can take it to the bank that the problem was not the multiple wives given to them by the Lord, but the wives and concubines they took to themselves, far in excess of what God wanted. Because it cannot be denied that God gave them multiple wives -- this is literally so in David's case, and virtually so in Solomon's, because where the scriptures complain about Solomon's wives, it is not that he had more than one, but that he had quite a few pagan wives who drew him away from the Lord.

Now examine verse 27. Here Jacob quotes a command from God that they should have one wife only, and no concubines. Note this is NOT in accordance with Biblical standards, where it IS permitted. Jacob goes on give the Lord's saying that if the people obey the commandment they will be blessed, and if not, then not. This concludes with "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people..." which means that God reserves unto Himself the right to command His people to practice plural marriage, "...otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." These things, of course, being the command to only have one wife.

Most folks end it here. And it is sufficient to demonstrate that badgering Latter-day Saints about the Book of Mormon's supposed general antipathy towards polygamy is founded on nothing so much as a gross misunderstanding of the scripture in question. But let's take this a smidgeon farther and bring Jacob back into the fray. In the very next chapter, which is but a continuation of his sermon he is reporting on, he brings up the matter of polygamy one more time:

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fatherâ??that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 3:5)

In the previous chapter Jacob indicated that there was a commandment of God NOT to have more than one wife. Which, as I mentioned, clearly contradicts the Bible because the Bible allows it, and in some cases even appears to encourage it (in David's case, for example). But now we see what is going on. Jacob is not contradicting the Bible, for as he says, this commandment to have but one wife was given by "our father", who is none other than Lehi the prophet. And to whom was this commandment given? To Lehi's children. This was not a general command to the whole earth, but a local instruction from the Lord which obviously pertained only to the children of Lehi. And as indicated in the earlier verses, God reserves the right to command, and to revoke His command. In the case of the Lehites, he revoked it, and to Joseph Smith he commanded it. Who will disobey a commandment of the Lord? Only the unrighteous.

So, roman, please don't try to use the Book of Mormon against polygamy, because it doesn't teach against the principle itself, only against the practice of it amongst the Lehites.

Link to comment

And so? Do you really think that is was Gods plan for this to happen this way. ---wait of course you do. I just disagree but nice try.

I think it is this way--------- Pluarl marriage---cost David his family in the end. It has always had those kind of effects on all

You don't actually take the scriptures at their word, do you? They seem to be only something you mention in passing to illustrate your point, but you don't actually stand by them, do you?

Consider that somebody showed you a scripture where it says God gave David multiple wives. You conceded this with ill grace, trying to wriggle out of the clear import of this by saying that God didn't actually intend David to, ugh, do anything with them. Then someone shows you a scripture where David by golly did do something with them, and they had children. You react by essentially saying "So what, it couldn't possibly have been God's plan for this to happen" -- the doing something, presumably. So you think that God gave David those women to be his wives, but never imagined that he would actually do anything with them, his wives? I didn't notice anything in there that said Nathan the prophet gave him those women to be his wives, but don't you let me catch you doing something with them. You really have to read really hard between the lines to get that particular subtext.

And you're the one who defends the Catholic church not allowing bishops to get married when the scripture clearly teaches that a bishop must be married, and the defense you give is that it is not current practice, but they might change that later, hope nobody gets too freaky about that. In the meantime, the scripture is meaningless, because it isn't being followed for hundreds of years. Don't give me a few measly exceptions as if that someone fixed the problem.

I get the impression that to you the Bible amounts to nothing more than a series of quaint and sometimes interesting stories, flying loosely in formation, and the main use you have for it is to use it to berate others about how they're not following your idiosyncratic views about how the Bible is to be understood. Private interpretation of the scripture, in other words. Not that having one of those is a problem, of course, despite what Peter the apostle wrote.

Link to comment

You may believe what you want, of course. I am curious as to why you think the plural marriage would weigh heavily in it. That the more wives a man has the more he wants, thus the drive to get Uriah's from him? You don't need any wives at all to covet and want to take Uriah's.

You keep bringing up the Book of Mormon because you think that we, at least, should recognize it as an authority. And it is kind of interesting that the only authority you can find to support your case that God doesn't go along with polygamy is a book you believe to be religious fiction. This was pointed out to you earlier, and I don't think you read it, but citing a non-scripture in order to disprove the Bible is something one might expect from a opponent of the Bible, which I am sure you are not.

So, let's quote the Book of Mormon scriptures you're trying to use to beat us into submission, where it says in pertinent part (emphasis added):

The writer is Jacob, one of the youngest of Lehi's sons. He starts by condemning the sexual immorality of his people, and chides them for using David and Solomon as excuses for their behavior. He quotes the Lord as saying that their many wives and concubines were an abomination before Him.

Now, it cannot be denied that God gave David his many wives by the hand of the prophet Nathan, and David proceeded to have children by them. If God had not meant for David to do this, he wouldn't have given them to him, that much must be clear, or else it would have said somewhere in the Bible that David made a mistake in this. But God never said a single word to this effect, and in fact said that the point of screwup was the matter of Bathsheba, Uriah's wife.

So, unless the Book of Mormon is here contradicting the Bible (something which lots of anti-Mormons like to claim, with this particular verse one of very very few that even appear to be candidates for contradiction), there must be something to David's and Solomon's behavior respecting marital relations that displeased the Lord. And you can take it to the bank that the problem was not the multiple wives given to them by the Lord, but the wives and concubines they took to themselves, far in excess of what God wanted. Because it cannot be denied that God gave them multiple wives -- this is literally so in David's case, and virtually so in Solomon's, because where the scriptures complain about Solomon's wives, it is not that he had more than one, but that he had quite a few pagan wives who drew him away from the Lord.

Now examine verse 27. Here Jacob quotes a command from God that they should have one wife only, and no concubines. Note this is NOT in accordance with Biblical standards, where it IS permitted. Jacob goes on give the Lord's saying that if the people obey the commandment they will be blessed, and if not, then not. This concludes with "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people..." which means that God reserves unto Himself the right to command His people to practice plural marriage, "...otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." These things, of course, being the command to only have one wife.

Most folks end it here. And it is sufficient to demonstrate that badgering Latter-day Saints about the Book of Mormon's supposed general antipathy towards polygamy is founded on nothing so much as a gross misunderstanding of the scripture in question. But let's take this a smidgeon farther and bring Jacob back into the fray. In the very next chapter, which is but a continuation of his sermon he is reporting on, he brings up the matter of polygamy one more time:

In the previous chapter Jacob indicated that there was a commandment of God NOT to have more than one wife. Which, as I mentioned, clearly contradicts the Bible because the Bible allows it, and in some cases even appears to encourage it (in David's case, for example). But now we see what is going on. Jacob is not contradicting the Bible, for as he says, this commandment to have but one wife was given by "our father", who is none other than Lehi the prophet. And to whom was this commandment given? To Lehi's children. This was not a general command to the whole earth, but a local instruction from the Lord which obviously pertained only to the children of Lehi. And as indicated in the earlier verses, God reserves the right to command, and to revoke His command. In the case of the Lehites, he revoked it, and to Joseph Smith he commanded it. Who will disobey a commandment of the Lord? Only the unrighteous.

So, roman, please don't try to use the Book of Mormon against polygamy, because it doesn't teach against the principle itself, only against the practice of it amongst the Lehites.

Thank you for writing this, Stargazer. For the last hour+ I have been putting together a rather long piece , which covered much of what you wrote in response to Roman. When I finished writing it up on a document I was trying to bring it over here and my system messed up , losing my attempted copy and paste of the document and the document itself. Your effort has helped me to get over my severe hatred of my computer right now. I'll post the bit that was in addition to your comments.

Link to comment

i somewhat agree with your take on david----------------but I do believe that his plural marriage weighed heavily in the matter

Now to the BoM verses I listed---------------i only listed them as You were that one who so loudly said that The LORD NEVER condemned David and his plural marraige----when your own Book does so over and over and over----------------that fully stands agains what you are trying to say---you are either ignorant of your own BOM or was hoping I would never bring it up. That is my point and my point only in using the BoM. All else you say doesn't apply. Your the one who regonizes it as legitimate authority---so YOU should see that God did fully condemn the practice-----------according to YOUR scriptures

Jacob 1 :15

And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

Jacob 2 :

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.

From these scriptures we learn that the unauthorized practice of pural marriage was an abomination to the Lord ; that the Lord had expressly forbidden the Nephites practicing plural marriage ; that the Nephites had misapplied the scriptures and justified themselves taking more than one wife and having concubines based on the fact that David and Solomon had done so ; that the unathorized practice of plural marriage by the Nephites amounted to committing whoredom , which was an abomination to the Lord. The practice of plural marriage itself was not condemned by the Lord (as Stargazer pointed out , the Lord said that if He desired plural marriage to be practiced the Lord would command it) rather it was its practice in defiance of the Lord's commandment against it.

This is the same way in which both David and Solomon came under condemnation...by their unrighteous desires and practicing plural marriage in a way the Lord did not authorize. It would be useful to look first at how plural marriage was practiced in a way that wasn't an abomination to the Lord and then to look at how David's and Solomon's practice was an abomination to the Lord.

D&C 132 :

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 Davidâ??s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

From this , it is clear that when a man receives wives and concubines from the Lord , when the Lord permits plural marriage , that they commit no sin , no whoredom , no abomination in the eyes of the Lord. David and Solomon did not engage in unrighteous desires or abominations before the Lord merely by having plural marriages. What were their faults? Let's start with David :

2 Samuel 11:

2
Link to comment

well it was said that the LORD had never said anything condemning David and plural marriage---------------------but your scriptures say differnet, thats my point

On the other BoM scriptures-----------according to your application of those verses I summited, I see why you believe as you do-------------BUT since I don't regonize them as scripture i reject fully your argument.

Again so there is no confusion------I listed the BoM verses, only as evidence that you would believe that God,[according to you] has certainly said something condemning of ploygamy in YOUR scriptures

But thanks for helping me understand how and why you believe

Link to comment
well it was said that the LORD had never said anything condemning David and plural marriage---------------------but your scriptures say differnet, thats my point

A point which you still have failed to establish. As has been shown to you already, never does the Lord condemn David's plural wives which were given to him of the Lord. The condemnation of David is the desiring and taking of wives NOT authorized by the Lord and the shedding of innocent blood.

Link to comment

well it was said that the LORD had never said anything condemning David and plural marriage---------------------but your scriptures say differnet, thats my point

sigh

I never stated or even implied that the Lord never condemned David. As these quotes below from my posts clearly show , I acknowledged that David was in trouble with the Lord and that he had been condemned by the Lord , but not for practicing plural marriage. It wasn't the plural marriage the Lord had a problem with , it was David's shedding of innocent blood , which the Lord would have condemned even if David had no wife at the time he had Uriah knocked off.

It wasn't the polygamy that got David in trouble , it was the act of stealing away another man's wife and having his innocent blood shed to do it.
My point was that it wasn't David's plural marriage that Lord had problems with. The Lord had a problem with David setting up the shedding of the blood of an innocent man in order to steal his wife away for himself. David would have been condemned by the Lord for that act even if he had no wife at all when he did it.

Though you left out the quotes above and attributed to me something I never wrote or implied , Here's my exact wording :

And had David not had Uriah's blood shed , David would have continued going right along in plural marriage without one word of condemnation from the Lord for it.

Even this part of my writing , which you quote as above , clearly demonstrates that I did not claim the Lord never condemned David. I wrote that if David had not had Uriah killed the Lord would not have condemned him. David did have Uriah killed and did commit adultery with Bathsheba and that was the reason he was condemned by the Lord.

As for the Lord condemning plural marriage in the BoM , He didn't. Neither does the Lord in the BoM condemn plural marriage in the OT. Neither does the Lord condemn plural marriage in the OT. He never did. He condemned the unauthorized practice of plural marriage ; He condemned acts outside of the commandments He set for the practice of plural marriage , which acts do not constitute the practice of plural marriage , but of whoredoms and abominations.

On the other BoM scriptures-----------according to your application of those verses I summited, I see why you believe as you do-------------BUT since I don't regonize them as scripture i reject fully your argument.

Nice! You don't believe the BoM is scripture , but you use it as a scriptural foundation in an attempt to force me to refute a Biblical principle in which I believe. What you are in effect saying is , "The BoM isn't scripture to me ,but it is to you , Mr. LDS ; and even though I believe what is in the Bible , since I can't destroy plural marriage in the OT as being of the Lord by an appeal to the Bible , I'll simply disbelieve it. You , Mr. LDS , on the other hand must reject plural marriage in the Bible , even though you actually choose to believe what the Bible says about it , because your scripture , which is no scripture at all , compels you to reject plural marriage as an abomination. See , here are a few of your own non-scripture , scriptures. This is how they must be interpreted. See how the Lord and His prophets reject plural marriage?"

Next , when we show you that plural marriage is not condemned by the Lord in the BoM or the D&C and that it is approved of in our scriptures as practiced in the OT and that its practice is even allowed for by the Lord as a possibility in the BoM should the Lord command it , you say " Well , it doesn't really matter that plural marriage is approved of by the Lord in your scriptures , Mr. LDS , or that your scriptures support the practice of plural marriage in the OT as being authorized by the Lord. Your scriptures aren't scriptures anyway , so I don't believe them ; and since you've shown me that they don't mean what I told you they mean , I don't believe them and I reject your argument about what you think they mean". :P

Again so there is no confusion------I listed the BoM verses, only as evidence that you would believe that God,[according to you] has certainly said something condemning of ploygamy in YOUR scriptures

According to me , I never believed such a thing and the "evidence" you cited as proof of the proposition that LDS scriptures condemn the practice of polygamy is evidence of no such thing.

Now , you are at lonely place , my friend. You say you believe the Bible is true but plural marriage is not of God , though the evidence is plainly before you in the Bible itself that God approves of and participates in plural marriage by giving wives and concubines to His annointed. Since such a thing is anathema to you , you simply choose to reject what the bible makes plain , to disbelieve God. Then , you try to get the LDS to disbelieve what the Bible has to say about plural marriage by forcing us to refute it with our own scriptures , which you tell us condemns plural marriage. "See " , you say , " you LDS are forced to join me in my disbelief of plural marriage by your own scripture". Now , we have shown you our scriptures support plural marriage in the BoM and in the OT. We not only believe our own scriptures , we believe yours too.

The Bible supports plural marriage as being of God. The BoM and D&C support plural marriage as being of God. By the mouth of two witnesses shall every word be established ; we LDS have three witnesses. The LDS embrace the Bible , the BoM and the D&C as scripture. You reject all three in relation to plural marriage and are left with only your disbelief , both in that which you reject as scripture and that which you claim is scripture. Where will you go from here?

But thanks for helping me understand how and why you believe

You're welcome. I really hope you do understand.

Link to comment

It's amusing how Roman refuses to acknowledge the posts which clearly cite the fact that God gave David his wives. To say that God dissaproves of this practice despite clear statements that he was literally enacting it himself, giving multiple wives to men, makes no sense.

I'd almost suggest we spam this thread with those verses, but I don't know that it would help any.

Link to comment

ed and no touch, this is a standard tactic for a certain poster. And next, after you have posted and posted and responded and responded, you will be accused of ignoring him. A word to the wise. The wall doesn't notice that you are banging your head against it.

Link to comment

sigh

I never stated or even implied that the Lord never condemned David. As these quotes below from my posts clearly show , I acknowledged that David was in trouble with the Lord and that he had been condemned by the Lord , but not for practicing plural marriage. It wasn't the plural marriage the Lord had a problem with , it was David's shedding of innocent blood , which the Lord would have condemned even if David had no wife at the time he had Uriah knocked off.

Though you left out the quotes above and attributed to me something I never wrote or implied , Here's my exact wording :

Even this part of my writing , which you quote as above , clearly demonstrates that I did not claim the Lord never condemned David. I wrote that if David had not had Uriah killed the Lord would not have condemned him. David did have Uriah killed and did commit adultery with Bathsheba and that was the reason he was condemned by the Lord.

As for the Lord condemning plural marriage in the BoM , He didn't. Neither does the Lord in the BoM condemn plural marriage in the OT. Neither does the Lord condemn plural marriage in the OT. He never did. He condemned the unauthorized practice of plural marriage ; He condemned acts outside of the commandments He set for the practice of plural marriage , which acts do not constitute the practice of plural marriage , but of whoredoms and abominations.

Nice! You don't believe the BoM is scripture , but you use it as a scriptural foundation in an attempt to force me to refute a Biblical principle in which I believe. What you are in effect saying is , "The BoM isn't scripture to me ,but it is to you , Mr. LDS ; and even though I believe what is in the Bible , since I can't destroy plural marriage in the OT as being of the Lord by an appeal to the Bible , I'll simply disbelieve it. You , Mr. LDS , on the other hand must reject plural marriage in the Bible , even though you actually choose to believe what the Bible says about it , because your scripture , which is no scripture at all , compels you to reject plural marriage as an abomination. See , here are a few of your own non-scripture , scriptures. This is how they must be interpreted. See how the Lord and His prophets reject plural marriage?"

Next , when we show you that plural marriage is not condemned by the Lord in the BoM or the D&C and that it is approved of in our scriptures as practiced in the OT and that its practice is even allowed for by the Lord as a possibility in the BoM should the Lord command it , you say " Well , it doesn't really matter that plural marriage is approved of by the Lord in your scriptures , Mr. LDS , or that your scriptures support the practice of plural marriage in the OT as being authorized by the Lord. Your scriptures aren't scriptures anyway , so I don't believe them ; and since you've shown me that they don't mean what I told you they mean , I don't believe them and I reject your argument about what you think they mean". :P

According to me , I never believed such a thing and the "evidence" you cited as proof of the proposition that LDS scriptures condemn the practice of polygamy is evidence of no such thing.

Now , you are at lonely place , my friend. You say you believe the Bible is true but plural marriage is not of God , though the evidence is plainly before you in the Bible itself that God approves of and participates in plural marriage by giving wives and concubines to His annointed. Since such a thing is anathema to you , you simply choose to reject what the bible makes plain , to disbelieve God. Then , you try to get the LDS to disbelieve what the Bible has to say about plural marriage by forcing us to refute it with our own scriptures , which you tell us condemns plural marriage. "See " , you say , " you LDS are forced to join me in my disbelief of plural marriage by your own scripture". Now , we have shown you our scriptures support plural marriage in the BoM and in the OT. We not only believe our own scriptures , we believe yours too.

The Bible supports plural marriage as being of God. The BoM and D&C support plural marriage as being of God. By the mouth of two witnesses shall every word be established ; we LDS have three witnesses. The LDS embrace the Bible , the BoM and the D&C as scripture. You reject all three in relation to plural marriage and are left with only your disbelief , both in that which you reject as scripture and that which you claim is scripture. Where will you go from here?

You're welcome. I really hope you do understand.

I really do understand your postion---i just completly reject your interpertation and application of scripture and how you apply the BoM verses. And that is all i was after----an understanding of how and why lds believe as they do on this subject. You take on things was the most complete and helped me quite a bit, for that I say -THANKS

Link to comment

ed and no touch, this is a standard tactic for a certain poster. And next, after you have posted and posted and responded and responded, you will be accused of ignoring him. A word to the wise. The wall doesn't notice that you are banging your head against it.

Oh what a nice touch-and adds so much to this discussion----------------and this is your tactic--respond with things that have absolutly NOTHING to do with the topic and then make up stuff about the rest---------------------------------sorry buddy but what you soooooooooooooo upset about? :P<_<:unsure:

Oh please don't answer----sorry buddy

Link to comment

It's amusing how Roman refuses to acknowledge the posts which clearly cite the fact that God gave David his wives. To say that God dissaproves of this practice despite clear statements that he was literally enacting it himself, giving multiple wives to men, makes no sense.

I'd almost suggest we spam this thread with those verses, but I don't know that it would help any.

Its just a difference of application and understanding of scripture.

Funny just a day or 2 ago there was a thread from an lds poster[i forget who] stated that the Bible is open to different understandings and many lds agreed. Well it seems that is only true for the lds side ---at least on this topic.

Link to comment

I think the greater question would be why or how it is possible that God can condemn a certain behavior under one set of circumstances and then command it in another. Is polygamy an abomination? Are killing, lying, stealing, adultery abominations? You would think so since they made the top 10. Is there really anything that is an abomination before God because he seems fairly comfortable not only allowing but commanding people to engage in the abominations at his whim. Don't kill, unless I tell you so. Don't lie, unless I tell you so.

After so many exceptions to God's big words like abominations and requirements, it should become apparent to the observer that God's words are not worth the stone tablets they were written upon.

Link to comment

Here are points that I think should be considered:

1. Polygamy is not "polygamy" as the world sees it. The world portrays it as men who can't control themselves wanting more than one wife. This clearly is not what happened with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others. Polygamy to the LDS faith is very different from how the world thinks it is.

2. Marriage that ends with death is different than Marriage that does not end with death. This concept is vital to understanding the LDS position.

3. God can authorize changes to his own Gospel. IF Joseph Smith was a Prophet, then this revelation was valid.

4. Cultures and situations have always been different.

There is more to it than just saying that the Old Testament is the answer. When an LDS says this argument, there is a lot implied, such as the reasons above. We are not attempting to cite scriptures to prove our point, but rather the method in how God works. See where the misunderstanding can then come?

I believe that the Old Testament "answer" to this question is misleading and can see how others would not understand it.

Thanks for your replies and remarks roman. I think you have the best intentions and just want to understand where we come from. I hope this helps.

Link to comment

Ahhh, you are so sweet and innocent. :P

1. Polygamy is not "polygamy" as the world sees it. The world portrays it as men who can't control themselves wanting more than one wife. This clearly is not what happened with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others. Polygamy to the LDS faith is very different from how the world thinks it is.

Joseph, Brigham, et al wanted more wives because it added to their glory. The wives contributed to their increase which added even more glory. They obviously couldn't control themselves in wanting this because Joseph did it to the extent it greatly contributed to his demise, and Brigham just couldn't get enough either. The only reason he caved was because it was threatening his even bigger goal of being the king of the Utah territory/state.

People do what they want to do. And that is a bottom line. Angels and flaming swords were just stageplay tactics used by Joseph to get people to go along with what he wanted to do.

2. Marriage that ends with death is different than Marriage that does not end with death. This concept is vital to understanding the LDS position.

You're right about that. Your statement essentially means that polygamy will happen in heaven. That Joseph, when he married Zina Huntington, essentially bound her to HIM, usurping her dear Henry's eternal family setup. Because Joseph's role and authority was greater than Henry's.

3. God can authorize changes to his own Gospel. IF Joseph Smith was a Prophet, then this revelation was valid.

God can do anything. God is only unchanging as long as he wants to be unchanging. God's ways are only God's ways until he changes his mind, and then those ways will no longer be God's ways. It really helps the humans that God tends to mirror the culture of the day. But wait? Are we really sure then that it is God and not man who is calling the shots? Good question.

Link to comment
NC and Jesus NEVER teaching more that one wife---------How do lds give their approval to polygamy.

Where does a book in the Bible spell out all early Christian doctrine?

Between the 4 gospels, Acts, epistles, and Revelations, what book spends it's time as a guide saying "This is doctrine, and this is not"?

I personally believe that the Bible is wholly lacking in explaining church doctrine. For example, what does 1 Cor 15 actually mean?

Link to comment

Every time I see a polygamy thread the lds faithful try to give it ligitimatcy by siting the OT. I would really like someone to teach me how the LDS explain JS and BY mulitple marriages according to the New Covanant that Jesus ushered in

With all the references to --ONE WIFE in the NC and Jesus NEVER teaching more that one wife---------How do lds give their approval to polygamy.

I'm looking for civil debate----------though I might have more questions and will certainly challenge any scripture references if I feel promted to.

Other than that have a good one

Hi Roman,

I don't know of any N.T. scriptures specifically forbidding plural marriage, either. However, the only references to plural marriage in the Book of Mormon forbid the practice, with the exception of when God commands people to do it. Since Christianity in general has only the Bible, but the LDS also have the Book of Mormon, in a world that made sense, one would think that the LDS would condemn plural marriage while Christians in general would either approve of it or be neutral about it. Right?!? :P

Daniel

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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