Questions To Be Answered

[Mike Richards]

The next question on the docket is this...

Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems to me the D&C reference answers the question itself. God was fine with what was going as long as it was according to his instruction. He was not pleased when David and Solomon started taking wives on their own. Jacob is speaking to people who are doing just that--taking additional wives on their own, which was certainly abominable to God. I have no problem with my son, Will, doing certain things as long as he has my permission. I get upset with him when he does it without my permission. Then, when my second son does the same thing and says, "Well, Will did it", I reply with, "Yeah, and I punished him for it, too," even though I had no problem with Will doing it with my permission.

[Mike Richards]

Secondly, agency is not in question and is not in opposition to my objections. The fact is many many Christians were NOT presented with the truth because God chose not to, as he had been doing from time immemorial (he sent prophets with the truth to extremely wicked people at most other times... but not to thousands of Christian believers?).

I have two thoughts on this idea. The first goes along with TAO's statement--maybe he tried to send prophets. Sometimes we as LDS make a big deal about pointing out that God used to send prophets, God doesn't change, so he must still send prophets. This seems to be a pretty weak argument from us unless God has always been sending prophets, which I'm inclined to believe without any good evidence for it (maybe that means I have real faith in this matter ).

The second thought is to question the specifics of God's sending prophets from "time immemorial". What's the longest stretch of time that the Israelites (prior to Christ) went without a prophet? If God hasn't perpetually had an active prophet on the earth (without even discussing the need for one in each nation in former times when comm was so limited), why should we be surprised with any specific duration that he went without sending one?

[LDSToronto]

If you have a reference, or an idea as to the answer then either articulate it or reference it. Otherwise, it seems a wasted post.

Perhaps I should have been more clear:

Joseph published the Book of Mormon in 1830.

Joseph met and plural-married/had an affair/entered some kind of relationship with Fanny Alger in 1837/1838 (first of many)

Joseph wrote D&C 132 in 1843.

In 13 years, it seems Joseph's true position on the matter of plural marriage was revealed, and he needed scripture to support it. I'd hazard that the simplest possible answer here is that Joseph simply forgot what he wrote in the Book of Mormon.

H.

[cdowis]

In 13 years, it seems Joseph's true position on the matter of plural marriage was revealed, and he needed scripture to support it. I'd hazard that the simplest possible answer here is that Joseph simply forgot what he wrote in the Book of Mormon.

H.

Instead of guessing, why don't you read what it actually says. I think you are the one who has forgotten. Jacob tells us that there is one requirement for polygamy, and the revelation in D&C was in fulfillment of that requirement.

Edited July 4, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

I then read from the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24,

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

We all agreed that sounded quite clearly like the Book of Mormon was saying that God was condemning David and Solomon's plural marriages as an abomination.

Read it again. It says that the concubines is the "which thing" that was abominable. We all do not agree with your interpretation.

[Jeff K.]

not necessary

Edited July 4, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Storm Rider]

Perhaps I should have been more clear:

Joseph published the Book of Mormon in 1830.

Joseph met and plural-married/had an affair/entered some kind of relationship with Fanny Alger in 1837/1838 (first of many)

Joseph wrote D&C 132 in 1843.

In 13 years, it seems Joseph's true position on the matter of plural marriage was revealed, and he needed scripture to support it. I'd hazard that the simplest possible answer here is that Joseph simply forgot what he wrote in the Book of Mormon.

H.

You must be right. Gosh and all the years I havd spent having the Holy Spirit provide conflicting answers to your position; what does he know after all! I certainly will go rushing out and put my faith in the arm of flesh now. And it is so unique among....let's just say "critical" literature because it is always so erudite.

Ole stupid Joe could not keep his facts straight; just like an uneducated man that received revelation from God. After he "wrote" the Book of Mormon the twit could not even remember the facts of the story. Boy, your facts sure can shed light on the matter.

I guess I just get overwhelming tired of parrots with a one-track repetition of silly positions.

[Jeff K.]

Read it again. It says that the concubines is the "which thing" that was abominable. We all do not agree with your interpretation.

Just for the record, it isn't my interpretation.

[LDSToronto]

Instead of guessing, why don't you read what it actually says. I think you are the one who has forgotten. Jacob tells us that there is one requirement for polygamy, and the revelation in D&C was in fulfillment of that requirement.

Jacob clearly denounces the practice of plural marriage amongst his people, and does so by attacking the primary argument that his people are using - David did it, Solomon did it, so can we. The Lord speaks to Jacob, and clearly says that the practice of plural marriage by the aforementioned is an abomination, and thus it is an abomination amongst the Nephites.

Some have said that Jacob 2:30 states that at some future time the Lord will bring about polygamy. I guess that's one very liberal interpretation of the verse; I don't see it. Even if we accept Jacob 2:30 as a future endorsement of polygamy, it doesn't explain why the Lord would condemn David and Solomon in the Book of Mormon, and then later endorse their practice in The Doctrine and Covenants.

Hence, I believe that an equally valid conjecture is that Joseph forgot what he wrote in the Book of Mormon, and made an error in using David and Solomon's multiple wives/concubines as a justification for his polygamous practices.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Read it again. It says that the concubines is the "which thing" that was abominable. We all do not agree with your interpretation.

Jeff K didn't write the original question - it's taken from a blog that he read and he's looking for members of this board to respond.

H.

[Hestia]

Everyone, keep on track with the facts not the personal references.

[shalamabobbi]

Gal 3:26-29

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And if ye be Christ's, THEN ARE YE ABRAHAM'S SEED, and heirs according to the promise.

John 8:39

If ye were Abraham's children, ye would DO THE WORKS of Abraham.

Seems curious that if polygamy is the atrocity that some claim it to be that Abraham would be our role model..

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

Not if you accept JS as a Prophet of God.

[LDSToronto]

LDSToronto:

Not if you accept JS as a Prophet of God.

Ah, right, well...

[Honorentheos]

Jeff,

I think there are many problems one would have to overcome. Not the least of which is determining who or what sources could be trusted. Relying on Paul, the earliest author, is challenging in that he does not even claim to be an eyewitness to the ministry of Christ. In fact, much of his authentic writings showcase his apparent pride in being in conflict with the Jerusalem apostles. Add to that the number of disputed epistles and we have a hard time indeed.

But setting that aside, I think you have a major problem with the methodology you suggest above. Rather than explain, maybe we can illustrate it simply by examining a shortlist of what you feel are the authentic teachings and institutional structures the modern LDS church and the early Christians shared? If you could put a list of what you feel are the best examples together, I think we'll find the discussion more illuminating than if I were to try and guess at it.

Thanks.

Since this seems to have gotton lost, I'll ask again - what would your shortlist of teachings and structure look like that the modern church shares with the church established by Christ during his ministry or immediately after?

[Jeff K.]

Honorentheos

I am suggesting nothing, simply passing on questions asked. If you will note I placed a link from a Catholic blogger, as to the questions. I presumed this would be the best place for an apologetics discussion for such questions. You will also note that I place certain restrictions regarding the op, in other words, "Lets answer the questions the best we can".

You question is a valid one, for a seperate discussion.

[Jeff K.]

Jacob clearly denounces the practice of plural marriage amongst his people, and does so by attacking the primary argument that his people are using - David did it, Solomon did it, so can we. The Lord speaks to Jacob, and clearly says that the practice of plural marriage by the aforementioned is an abomination, and thus it is an abomination amongst the Nephites.

Some have said that Jacob 2:30 states that at some future time the Lord will bring about polygamy. I guess that's one very liberal interpretation of the verse; I don't see it. Even if we accept Jacob 2:30 as a future endorsement of polygamy, it doesn't explain why the Lord would condemn David and Solomon in the Book of Mormon, and then later endorse their practice in The Doctrine and Covenants.

Hence, I believe that an equally valid conjecture is that Joseph forgot what he wrote in the Book of Mormon, and made an error in using David and Solomon's multiple wives/concubines as a justification for his polygamous practices.

H.

Scripturally I ran across these positions.

Response to Doctrine and Covenants/Contradiction between Section 132 and Jacob 2

The first point was that condemnation wasn't for polygamy where David was concerned so much as his actions against Uriah.

What were the wrongdoings of David and Solomon from Jacob's perspective? Was polygamy the sinful act they committed, or was it something else? Obviously, polygamy was accepted by the Lord at times, since many of His prophets participated in the practice. In fact, the Bible says that God gave David his plural wives:

2 Samuel 12:7-8 (emphasis added)

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. 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 master's house, and thy master'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.

Would God give anyone something that was sinful, wrong, or evil? Absolutely not. If polygamy was not the sin that David committed, then what was it? The very next verse in the Bible explains the sin.

2 Samuel 12:9 (emphasis added)

Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

It was the murder of Uriah and the taking of his wife that was the sin David committed, not polygamy. David already had plural wives. These wives were given to him by God. Polygamy was not the sin David was guilty of, but murder and coveting another's wife was. David committed this murder (or rather caused it to happen) so he could have Uriah's wife as his own. In other words, David took an additional wife that the Lord did not give him. But the fact that he had plural wives was in no wise a sin.

The Doctrine and Covenants confirms what the Bible tells us concerning this matter.

DC 132:39

David'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;

I regard to Solomon, it dealt with the imposition of the worship of other gods.

What of Solomon? Was polygamy his sin? Not according to the Bible.

1 Kings 11:1-6 (emphasis added)

1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.

It was the fact that Solomon allowed some of his wives to turn his heart away from the Lord, just like Uriah's wife did with David, that resulted in sin or evil. It was not polygamy that was evil. The Book of Mormon explains that only when God commands it can a man have more than one wife at a time.

Now, let's return to the second chapter of Jacob:

Jacob 2:23 (emphasis added)

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...

Remember that verse 30 could be the "exception clause." That is why it is important to look at the full account in the scriptures, and not selectivity pick one or two verses.

Jacob 2:23 (emphasis added)

...for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

The Lord had not given permission for the people to have more than one wife at that time. The people were selectively using the scriptures to obtain more than one wife. Because the Lord had not given His permission, it was wrong to have more than one wife at a time, and Jacob can demonstrate how both these kings were also condemned by the Law for their unapproved actions.

Jacob 2:24

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

It was not the concubines or the multiple wives that was abominable, it was abominable because there was some abuse and not all of it was specifically approved by the Lord.

Jacob 2:27-30

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.

Their plural wives and concubines were an abomination in that not all of them were approved by the Lord. They were kings who used their temporal power to take that which God had not approved.

[Robert F. Smith]

elguanteloko said:

You couldn't find the true doctrine from God. I really don't see how you could argue against this. You mean God's true doctrine was on the earth for the period of time known as the Great Apostasy.. but that many were constantly presented with the truth so as to reject it as anyone can reject Mormonism today? If that is the case, then there was no Apostasy and prophets sent from God were preaching "from the mountaintops" as in a dispensation.

Oh, so then it was a dispensation and not a Great Apostasy... right?

You are usually so direct and logical in your statements. You take such care to put clear and coherent questions to participants on this board. Yet, I'm not clear at this point just what you are trying to say, or just what sort of question you are trying to pose. But here's a stab at it:

Nibley provides the details with superabundant documentation on just what the sequence and content of the Great Apostasy was, and found non-Mormon scholar Robert Grant defending him against an obtuse response by another scholar -- who clearly lost sight of the focus on Patristic writings and events (the early Church Fathers provide a cornucopia of material). You might tackle some of that as I cited it above.

Aside from that, the main point is the loss of authority to act on behalf of God, despite well-intentioned and bright people who came along from time to time. That is the assertion made by Brother Joseph. There were monks and scholars during the Dark Ages and Renaissance who could see how the Scriptures did not conform to the official doctrines promulgated by headquarters. After his first pilgrimage to Rome, for example, Martin Luther was deeply shocked and enraged to find that Satan had taken over the sanctuary of God and said so in rather stark terms. This was not only because he was one of the erudite priests and a university professor to boot, but because he was a true believer in God.

It took far more than the inspired work of the reformers, and of the Roman Catholic counter-reformers to set things right. Centuries of error could not be undone in a day. And this extends to the efforts of restorationists such as the Puritans, and Campbellites. The Inquisition and lack of free speech had stifled efforts to freely publish and explore Holy Scripture, and it would take an inspired Constitution to open the way to a restoration of true doctrine and priesthood authority. All of this had to wait till the time was right. Yet even at that, the messenger was executed and his people had to flee an outright order of extermination.

[LDSToronto]

Scripturally I ran across these positions.

Response to Doctrine and Covenants/Contradiction between Section 132 and Jacob 2

There is no question that the story of David/Solomon is consistent with the verse found in D&C 132. I read the FAIR article as well, it puts a lot of information out there, but in the end, I had one nagging question

When the Lord says, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me", how can one then say, in the very next sentence of the FAIR article, that "It was not the concubines or the multiple wives that was abominable, it was abominable because there was some abuse and not all of it was specifically approved by the Lord."?

To me, and to the regular reader of The Book of Mormon, doesn't Jacob 2:24 sound an awful lot like God is saying that David and Solomon were not justified?

I get the context of Jacob 2 - the Nephites were using the scriptures to justify taking multiple wives and concubines. I also get what the FAIR article wants Jacob 2:24 to say. The FAIR article wants to put words in God's mouth.

So why didn't God say, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, but I give unto you no such commandment, for ye shall take one wife and no concubines"

Seems to me he could have said it, but he didn't.

Where does this lead us? Here are some possibilities:

1. Joseph changed his mind about polygamy in the mid/late 1830's, and had to justify it with later revelations in the D&C

2. Joseph forgot what he wrote about polygamy in the Book of Mormon

3. Joseph mistranslated the Book of Mormon from the seerstones

4. God does not know how to be clear

The explanation offered by FAIR is far to complex; I'd say a simpler answer is more reasonable.

H.

[Ahab]

but yet you have God sustaining his church today (and in many other similar times) and not then in the Great Apostasy times. why?

The "why" would be nice to know, but it's really beside the point.

What we have is Jesus saying, both personally and through his prophets and apostles, that the creeds of so-called Christianity at the time of Joseph Smith were an abomination in his sight with the professors (of those creeds) were corrupt, drawing near to him with their mouths while their hearts were far from him. They taught for doctrines the commandments of men while denying the power of godliness.

"Why" men were doing that is pretty much irrelevant. The fact is Jesus said that's what they were doing, and since he can take away the keys, as well as give them to men, all you need to know is that he took the keys away from the apostates.

[Robert F. Smith]

There is no question that the story of David/Solomon is consistent with the verse found in D&C 132. I read the FAIR article as well, it puts a lot of information out there, but in the end, I had one nagging question

When the Lord says, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me", how can one then say, in the very next sentence of the FAIR article, that "It was not the concubines or the multiple wives that was abominable, it was abominable because there was some abuse and not all of it was specifically approved by the Lord."?

To me, and to the regular reader of The Book of Mormon, doesn't Jacob 2:24 sound an awful lot like God is saying that David and Solomon were not justified?

I get the context of Jacob 2 - the Nephites were using the scriptures to justify taking multiple wives and concubines. I also get what the FAIR article wants Jacob 2:24 to say. The FAIR article wants to put words in God's mouth.

So why didn't God say, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, but I give unto you no such commandment, for ye shall take one wife and no concubines"

Seems to me he could have said it, but he didn't.

Where does this lead us? Here are some possibilities:

1. Joseph changed his mind about polygamy in the mid/late 1830's, and had to justify it with later revelations in the D&C

2. Joseph forgot what he wrote about polygamy in the Book of Mormon

3. Joseph mistranslated the Book of Mormon from the seerstones

4. God does not know how to be clear

The explanation offered by FAIR is far to complex; I'd say a simpler answer is more reasonable.

H.

Not so fast, Toronto.

Before we buy into sola scriptura and the demand that Holy Writ be inerrant (or it's not Holy Writ), we ought to at least observe that no human endeavor (including inspired translation) is going to leave us with anything like inerrancy. All means of human communication are less than perfect in the expression and in the interpretation. Moreover, I don't know of any book of Scripture that doesn't have some apparent internal contradictions. Indeed, the Bible and Book of Mormon share that common characteristic.

Whenever we read in Jacob that polygyny is prohibited (Jacob 2:27), with a brief aside on the abomination of the many wives and concubines of David & Solomon (2:23-24), we must bear in mind that this was a specific commandment given to Lehi (Jacob 3:5), and that a great deal of discussion and context is being left out and taken for granted -- quite aside from the nature of the recent Deuteronomic Reform, and the reediting of the Bible which that entailed. In addition, it does not leave us with a pristine, codified legal text to which we can turn for decisive information and guidance. Instead, we have edited and redacted anthologies to which we can only give conditional understanding -- subject to the approval of the Holy Spirit. The human element is too much with us. FAIR Wiki did a good job, but we are still left with the job we have to do, and Occam's Razor may not be adequate to the task.

[Jeff K.]

I see the sola scriptura argument as being one to bolster or strengthen the manmade rationalization of a commandment, not necessarily strengthening the commandment itself, though I can see people taking such a view.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Jeff K.

[cdowis]

"Inerrancy of the Bible is a moot issue without inerrancy of interpretation."

[cdowis]

dup

Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis

[elguanteloko]

"Inerrancy of the Bible is a moot issue without inerrancy of interpretation."

I like this! Who said it, if I may know?