Log Posted April 13, 2007 Author Posted April 13, 2007 I am sorry. To which scriptures do you refer?To the scriptures available in the hyperlinks - indicated by underlined words - in the OP.
Teancum Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 This is not a plausible alternate interpretation of the scriptures cited, if you read them.You think King David's harem justifies polygamy? I believe the Law of Moses discourages Kings multiplying wives. And the Book of Mormon condemns David and Solomon. I often wondered why Jospeh asked how God justified it when the Book of Mormon says it was not justified. Of course there is this little problem. D&C 132 says God justified all David's wives but for Bathehba. But the BoM says God condemned. Another reason I question whether D&C 132 is from God.
Paul Ray Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 You think King David's harem justifies polygamy? I believe the Law of Moses discourages Kings multiplying wives. And the Book of Mormon condemns David and Solomon. I often wondered why Jospeh asked how God justified it when the Book of Mormon says it was not justified. Of course there is this little problem. D&C 132 says God justified all David's wives but for Bathehba. But the BoM says God condemned. Another reason I question whether D&C 132 is from God.I think you could benefit from reading the Book of Mormon, again.And again and again and again.But then again, maybe it wouldn't help you.Oh well.I'll see you on the odda sidde.
Teancum Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 I think you could benefit from reading the Book of Mormon, again.And again and again and again.But then again, maybe it wouldn't help you.Oh well.I'll see you on the odda sidde. Oh I see. Ad hominem's work well don't they when logic wins the day.I have read the Book of Mormon over 15 times. I quite enjoy the book actually.
Doctor Steuss Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 [...]I have read the Book of Mormon over 15 times. I quite enjoy the book actually.Wow. I need to get off my duff (I'm still working on my first cover-to-cover excursion).
thesometimesaint Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Teancum:The LDS justification for polygamy is in the Scriptures specifically D&C 132. The LDS need go no further than that. But as anyone even remotely familiar with the Bible, polygamy was practiced. Certain Christians still practice it today. The question for you to answer is. IF God commanded it anciently, and God commanded it during the early years of the Restoration. What are your objections to polygamy?
Paul Ray Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Oh I see. Ad hominem's work well don't they when logic wins the day.I have read the Book of Mormon over 15 times. I quite enjoy the book actually.What's an ad... uh, "Ad hominem" ???If it's a good thing, then sure, ad me some of a lot of em.The next time you read through it you might look for what was said about polygamy.I know some of them knew a lot about them who practiced polygamy, and I agree with what they said about them.
thesometimesaint Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Paul Ray:"Ad hominem" against the man. It means to argue against the man and not his argument.
Paul Ray Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Paul Ray:"Ad hominem" against the man. It means to argue against the man and not his argument.Okeydokey. Thank you for the clarification.Do you suppose he was implying I was saying something bad about him, personally?If he was, I wasn't. I never had that in my mind at all.I was only thinking that he might benefit by reading the Book of Mormon.... and what the Book of Mormon says about those who had more than one wife.pssst... and btw... I happen to know that not everyone who had more than one was a bad guy.
Teancum Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 Okeydokey. Thank you for the clarification.Do you suppose he was implying I was saying something bad about him, personally?If he was, I wasn't. I never had that in my mind at all.I was only thinking that he might benefit by reading the Book of Mormon.... and what the Book of Mormon says about those who had more than one wife.pssst... and btw... I happen to know that not everyone who had more than one was a bad guy.Jacob 2 specifically condemns David and Solomon's polygamy. It does not allow any justification for it at all. The passages are contradictory in D&C 132 that say the God allowed it save for Bathsheba. Read them and see if you conclude differently. So If the BoM condemns David and Solomon's may wives why did Joseph ask how they were justified in having plural wives?
Tsuzuki Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 In my random readings, I have run across two articles, one of which got me thinking women don't become Perdition - ever - and another which explicitly taught that women don't become Perdition - ever.We don't know the gender of the fallen third, but it seems reasonable, from the above, that it did not include women. If we assume an initial distribution of male/female intelligences at 1:1 (supposing God made males and females from an initial neuter intelligence, perhaps), then there were, after the war in heaven, 3 female spirits to every male spirit. Given that ONLY males become Perdition, this life further reduces the male : female ratio among the potential exaltees.That is not doctrine, and when anyone says that something can't be done I instinctively want to prove them wrong.
Log Posted April 15, 2007 Author Posted April 15, 2007 That is not doctrine, and when anyone says that something can't be done I instinctively want to prove them wrong.Prove me wrong.
Tsuzuki Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 Prove me wrong.It is not mentioned in the scriptures, therefore it is not doctrine. Furthermore, history shows us that women can be just as wicked as men. If I were a woman, I could show you directly.
Log Posted April 15, 2007 Author Posted April 15, 2007 It is not mentioned in the scriptures, I agree - neither daughters of Perdition, nor the possibility thereof, are mentioned in the scriptures.therefore it is not doctrine. Not everyone agrees with you in thinking that "if it isn't in the scriptures, it isn't doctrine." However, your idea that women CAN become Perdition is non-scriptural; what should we make of that fact?Furthermore, history shows us that women can be just as wicked as men. If I were a woman, I could show you directly.I encourage you to not be lazy. Produce at least ONE daughter of Perdition, and you win!
Tsuzuki Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 Not everyone agrees with you in thinking that "if it isn't in the scriptures, it isn't doctrine." However, your idea that women CAN become Perdition is non-scriptural; what should we make of that fact?If it can get past correlation, then I will accept it as doctrine.I encourage you to not be lazy. Produce at least ONE daughter of Perdition, and you win!http://www.now.org/
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.