e=mc2 Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 I previously had a lengthy discussion about this with Ben Mc Guire, and my recollection is that he was in two minds about the implications. So what are you saying, that the Book of Mormon gives the green light for Celestial plural marriage, as a requirement for exaltation? Do you except that Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132 contradict one another? I think I already know your answer, because I also had this debate with Eugene England, who, incidentally, believed that plural marriage was only a "one off", part of the restoration, but unjustified as a continuing practice. Those odious Dialogue intellectuals.Well, as the Book of Mormon so plainly states God, through Lehi, was very specific that no "man among you [shall] have save it be one wife" (Jacob 2:27). Only God himself could reverse this prohibition against plural marriage: "For if I will, saith the Lord, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people" (Jacob 2:30).
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 I previously had a lengthy discussion about this with Ben Mc Guire, and my recollection is that he was in two minds about the implications. So what are you saying, that the Book of Mormon gives the green light for Celestial plural marriage, as a requirement for exaltation? Do you except that Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132 contradict one another? I think I already know your answer, because I also had this debate with Eugene England, who, incidentally, believed that plural marriage was only a "one off", part of the restoration, but unjustified as a continuing practice. Those odious Dialogue intellectuals.Nice red herring try again.What does Jacob 2:30 say? What do you think it is saying.
Ray Agostini Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 Well, as the Book of Mormon so plainly states God, through Lehi, was very specific that no "man among you [shall] have save it be one wife" (Jacob 2:27). Only God himself could reverse this prohibition against plural marriage: "For if I will, saith the Lord, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people" (Jacob 2:30)."Raising up seed" isn't the same as a binding covenant necessary for exaltation. The Book of Mormon is very clear - it was only to be practiced under certain circumstances (and interestingly, it never was by the Nephites!), otherwise monogamy is the law.
e=mc2 Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 "Raising up seed" isn't the same as a binding covenant necessary for exaltation. The Book of Mormon is very clear - it was only to be practiced under certain circumstances (and interestingly, it never was by the Nephites!), otherwise monogamy is the law.When God binds people to Him in a covenant is His business, but you fially got around to saying what Jacob 2 says now. IF God decides, then it is right. God has decided before in time, and has again in our day, and now doesn't do so. It's His choice, are you going to counsel God?
Ray Agostini Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 When God binds people to Him in a covenant is His business, but you fially got around to saying what Jacob 2 says now. IF God decides, then it is right. God has decided before in time, and has again in our day, and now doesn't do so. It's His choice, are you going to counsel God?I question that D&C 132 even came from God. The "fundamentalists" also recognise the discrepancy, and that's why they broke off in the first place (clinging to section 132 and various pre-1890 leadership statements). And look at the mess they have left. If you want to continue believing that plural marriage is a "requirement", it's really no skin off my nose. But the contradiction between the Book of Mormon and 132 is undeniable. That's all I'm pointing out.
ttribe Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 If you want to continue believing that plural marriage is a "requirement", it's really no skin off my nose. But the contradiction between the Book of Mormon and 132 is undeniable. That's all I'm pointing out.No, actually it isn't. And, if you actually read the entirety of both you wouldn't make such a statement.
Tarski Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 "Raising up seed" isn't the same as a binding covenant necessary for exaltation. The Book of Mormon is very clear - it was only to be practiced under certain circumstances (and interestingly, it never was by the Nephites!), otherwise monogamy is the law....and what kind of seed did Joseph Smith plural marriage raise up?
ttribe Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 ...and what kind of seed did Joseph Smith plural marriage raise up?Maybe you should ask him...or ask God, since He's the one who commanded it.
Ray Agostini Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 ...and what kind of seed did Joseph Smith plural marriage raise up?A valid point that should not be lost on those who accept section 132. It had nothing to do with "raising up seed", and therefore was also contrary to the purpose stated in the Book of Mormon.
ttribe Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 A valid point that should not be lost on those who accept section 132. It had nothing to do with "raising up seed", and therefore was also contrary to the purpose stated in the Book of Mormon.CFR
Mortal Man Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 I'm still trying to figure out what wart is supposed to make me doubt the Church.The one you won't look at.
ttribe Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 Jacob 2:30.You just do not get it...D&C is not ABOUT polygamy. Polygamy is mentioned, but it is NOT the focus. The focus is the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. Where you keep getting tripped up is when you conflate the two when it is FACT that you can have the New & Everlasting Covenant of Marriage without polygamy, but you can't have the reverse (in terms of our doctrine).
Ray Agostini Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 You just do not get it...D&C is not ABOUT polygamy. Polygamy is mentioned, but it is NOT the focus. The focus is the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. Where you keep getting tripped up is when you conflate the two when it is FACT that you can have the New & Everlasting Covenant of Marriage without polygamy, but you can't have the reverse (in terms of our doctrine).You have your facts back to front. It was originally about polygamy. That was initially the whole purpose of the revelation, i.e., the one that Emma burnt. When polygamy ceased, it was reinterpreted in a "new light". Abraham supposedly practiced this, and section 132 justified itself on that premise. Mysteriously, the Nephites mentioned none of this.
Mortal Man Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 BOA- just read the text... the arguments about the fascimile and scraps left is just too questionable to give any credulity.Deborah, I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. The JSP and KEP are far more than "scraps". Your response to my other post tells me that you haven't looked at them in detail. I am not advising you to study them, in fact, if you are not bothered by them, then I advise you to not to bother with them. But calling them "scraps" is like saying, "What's with these stupid telescopes anyway? We all know that Ptolemy was inspired."
ttribe Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 You have your facts back to front. It was originally about polygamy. That was initially the whole purpose of the revelation, i.e., the one that Emma burnt. When polygamy ceased, it was reinterpreted in a "new light". Abraham supposedly practiced this, and section 132 justified itself on that premise. Mysteriously, the Nephites mentioned none of this.Prove it...prove that the WHOLE PURPOSE of the revelation was polygamy.
Deborah Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 But calling them "scraps" is like saying, "What's with these stupid telescopes anyway? We all know that Ptolemy was inspired." The question still comes up as to what it is Joseph actually translated from, regardless of what we may have now.
Mortal Man Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 But that's only a "pea" compared to the "mountain" that Dr. Tarski has on his side of the argument...don't forget that.Ad hominem attacks don't count for weight on either side. So we're talking about a "dust speck" and a "gnat".
Daniel Peterson Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 The one you won't look at.I think that, by "the one you won't look at," Mortal Man means one of the FARMS reviews of Grant Palmer. Or perhaps the actual text of E. T. A. Hofmann's Der goldne Topf, which -- some folks who haven't bothered to read it say -- was a source for the story of Moroni.No. What a minute. Those are things that Free Agent won't look at. And he's a critic, so that's alright. In fact, it's arrogant, vicious, and mean-spirited to even suggest that he look at them. (I get so confused sometimes!)
Ray Agostini Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 Prove it...prove that the WHOLE PURPOSE of the revelation was polygamy.All you have to do is read section 132 itself:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubinesâ?? 2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.It's that simple.
ttribe Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 Ad hominem attacks don't count for weight on either side. So we're talking about a "dust speck" and a "gnat".What are you talking about?
Mortal Man Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 But I hate to get into all this. Frankly, I hate to admit, even in the anonymity of this forum, that I don't believe. It's not that I'm ashamed of what I think, it's that I realize what a tender, emotional issue this is for all of us. I don't want to be the one to throw doubt or confusion into anyone else's life. But, I admit I have used this forum for selfish reasons- because it is the only place I have to share what I really feel. There is not one person in my immediate circle that I can talk to about it- only God, and it feels kind of lonely sometimes. I can't share how I feel on other apostate websites- because they don't tend to reflect (at all usually) the other beliefs I have. So there really is no place for people like me- maybe there's only a few of us in the whole church. I suppose I won't get any sympathy for this, but when everyone has such a vested interest in these things, I really can't expect to.DittoAre you still active Tabitha?
Deborah Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 You have your facts back to front. It was originally about polygamy. It was to answer Joseph's question about why Abraham was justified in having more than one wife. The Lord used that question to explain the New and Everlasting Covenant and then brought in the Law of Abraham. He was saying the only time multiple wives are justified is under the New and Everlasting Covenant, and then Joseph was commandd to do as Abraham did. However, the New and Everlasting Covenant is a separate Covenant of which plural marriage is a part. This is the Covenant: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.Too many try to confine the N&E Covenant with plural marriage only and it encompasses much more.
ttribe Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 All you have to do is read section 132 itself:It's that simple.No...it's not. It refers to the original inquiry by JS that brought about the revelation. A thorough reading of the section makes it equally clear that the New & Everlasting Covenant of Marriage = Eternal Marriage, not polygamy by itself.I also find it very interesting the way you've argued in circles, by the way. You avoided the existence of Jacob 2:30 when it didn't' support your assertion that the BoM allows for polygamy then you cite when you want to argue that the BoM contradicts D&C 132. Hard to take you seriously when you play polemic games.It was to answer Joseph's question about why Abraham was justified in having more than one wife. The Lord used that question to explain the New and Everlasting Covenant and then brought in the Law of Abraham. He was saying the only time multiple wives are justified is under the New and Everlasting Covenant, and then Joseph was commandd to do as Abraham did. However, the New and Everlasting Covenant is a separate Covenant of which plural marriage is a part. This is the Covenant: Too many try to confine the N&E Covenant with plural marriage only and it encompasses much more.Dead on...thank you Deborah.
Mortal Man Posted March 19, 2009 Posted March 19, 2009 And for a very specific Daniel C. Peterson piece that I found quite strong. Read with an honest open heart and desire to really understand there is little else that will match this. Don't just skim, don't try to read with the intent of being skeptical, doubtful, negative, simply read it. Understand his points. It is a very worthy piece to get you started on a Peterson piece of writing, sincerely. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?b...8&chapid=46I wish FARMS articles would always put the date at the top.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.