A Different Kind Of Polygamy Thread

[inquiringmind]

The "otherwise they shall harken unto these things" is really the only thing that someone could possibly seize upon to somehow indicate that God is considering the abominable practice of polygamy as a real option

And I don't see any other way you could take the word "otherwise" here.

"Don't have more than one wife, your father Lehi gave you this commandment, and having more than one wife causes a lot of problems.

If I want to raise up seed to myself I'll let you know, OTHERWISE, you're to harken to your father Lehi's commandment."

In context, I don't see how else you could take this, and this verse is interesting on many levels.

It seems to me that it has a strong apologetic value, as Joseph would have to have foreseen the need to justify polygamy prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830 if he were the author.

Even if he knew he couldn't really be faithful to his wife, he'd have to foresee his infidelity being discovered, and he'd have to concoct this theological justification for it years before it was needed, with the expectation that people (or at least his wife) would accept this justification if it were ever needed, and that seems highly unlikely to me.

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

I think that lds past polygamy would be a net plus in the arab world and also in some parts of africa. I don't think that many would have a problem with that part of lds history.

The standing fatwÄ (death sentence) against any Muslim converting to another faith might be a problem.

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[spartacus]

And I don't see any other way you could take the word "otherwise" here.

inquiring mind,

i'm not following your last post. The whole "lehi's command" thing is confusing. I agree with the latter part of your post, IF, this verse were clearly pro-polygamy.

But I think the verse is ambiguous at best. "otherwise" says nothing of polygamy, in fact, none of the words of that verse say or even imply (on their own) polygamy. Given the completely one-sided view of polygamy both before and after the verse (through to beginning and end of the chapter) it would seem to resolve the ambiguity to the "If I will ... command" being about anything other than polygamy.

The "otherwise" is in relation to the possibility of God commanding his people about raising up seed. So the verse would be "if I want seed I will tell you but, unless I tell you, you are to do these things (the ban on polygamy)". The "otherwise" is just saying "unless I tell you" or "unless I command you". Again the "I will command my people" says nothing of polygamy; it simply says that if God wants seed raised he will give a command. Again, given the completely unfavorable description of polygamy in the surrounding text, it seems unlikely that this undifferentiated hypothetical command will be for this deplored action.

[Calm]

Given the verse itself - which doesn't say anything about polygamy at all, let alone saying that he would actually command polygamy - it could possibly go either way (polygamy commandable or not). But given the entire chapter around that verse it seems completely unlikely that God means that polygamy is a possible command. Thus I read the verse simply stating that if God wants seed raised, he'll tell us the right way. I don't think anything "abominable" is going to be considered "the right way".

So you believe the Book of Mormon is revelation and that LDS have just interpreted wrongly?

[inquiringmind]

...none of the words of that verse say or even imply (on their own) polygamy.

But the entire context surrounding the verse has to do with polygamy (as you yourself pointed out.)

The "otherwise" is in relation to the possibility of God commanding his people about raising up seed. So the verse would be "if I want seed I will tell you but, unless I tell you, you are to do these things (the ban on polygamy)

That's my point.

"If I do tell you I want seed, you're not to do these things (the ban on polygamy.)"

I don't see any other way to take this.

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

So you believe the Book of Mormon is revelation and that LDS have just interpreted wrongly?

Why does that surprise you?

The RLDS, the Temple Lot Mormons, and others I know of believe that.

You do belong to some Restorationist Church, don't you sparticus?

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

Why does that surprise you? The RLDS, the Temple Lot Mormons, and others I know of believe that.

I'm just asking, not surprised or otherwise.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Looking back, I see that I was responsible for comments 26 and 31 on that blog.

Polygamy is a kind of funny topic because of its treatment in the Old Testament, and the ensuing centuries of legal wrangling over it among Israelites. Usually there are three issues raised. The first issue is that God commanded men to multiply and replenish the earth. The implication is that you were supposed to have children. What happens when you don't? The second issue is the restriction on kings in Deuteronomy 17 (the Kingship Code in the Law of Moses). This places an ambiguous limit on polygamous marriages for the king (it was later adopted as a standard for everyone else). The third issue is the practice of Levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6, which obligates polygamy (it was considered a requirement) under certain circumstances.

Within Jewish discussion, these issues caused several issues. The practice of Levirate marriage produced more than a hundred legal rulings within rabbinic literature. For example, my wife has one sister. My wife's sister married one of my brothers. In Jewish law, had he died with no children, it would have created a conflict between levirate marriage requirements and the commandment that a man should not marry sisters (likewise, if a man married a woman and his brother married that woman's daughter, and so on).

Beyond this, there were other more theological sorts of issues. One thing that became an argument over time was how to deal with David and Solomon and the Kingship code in Deuteronomy 17. Dt. 17:17 reads (from the NIV):

He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

Obviously (particularly when considering later interpretation of Deuteronomy 17:17 which eventually narrowly defined the word "many" at four - mostly in deference to Jacob/Israel) later Jews had this interpretive problem in that David and Solomon, who were both kings and therefore subject to the Deuteronomy 17:17 had "many wives". We get a good look at one way of dealing with this problem in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls texts - called the Damascus Document (first called that after its original discovery - not among the dead sea scrolls but in the Cairo Genizah. There, bundled in some scriptural commentary we read this:

And they who came into the Ark, “Two and two went into the Ark” As to the prince it is written, “He shall not multiply wives unto himself” But David read not in the Book of the Law that was sealed, which was in the Ark. For it was not opened in Israel from the day of the Death of Eleazar and Joshua and the Elders who worshipped Ashtareth. And it was hidden and was not discovered until Zadok arose. But they concealed the deeds of David save only the blood of Uriah.

In other words, Deuteronomy (as a text) is claimed here to have been hidden in the Ark (of the Covenant) during the reigns of David and Solomon, only coming to light later when it was discovered at the time of Josiah. And this would mean that David and Solomon weren't responsible for breaking the Law of Moses since they didn't know about it. The language however, is particularly interesting because of its similarity near the end to D&C 132:

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.

At any rate, there was a big push to eliminate polygamy in the 11th century AD in Europe. Part of this was in a sense motivated by conflicts between Judaism (Ashkenazic) and Northern European cultural views on marriage. (The same problems did not occur as much in Southern Europe, which was largely dominated by Muslims during this period - so we don't see the same push then among Sepphardic Jews for a strict monogamy). This led up to the ban on polygamy instituted by Rabbenu Gershom in the 11th century. The ban had two major effects - it forbid bigamy, and it forbid divorcing a wife without her consent. Prior to the ban, issues over bigamy were generally handled on an individual basis in the ketubah - the Jewish wedding contract (which sometimes made an exception in case a wife was incapable of having children).

There have two defenses of polygamy raised against Gershom's ban involving the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, and the case of levirate marriage in the Law of Moses. Gershom's ban, however, had the support of the major rabbinical schools (in Speyer, Worms, and Mainz, IIRC it was opposed by the school of Rabbenu Tam). The ban was given additional authority by later legal rulings (called takkanot) until it had become firmly established. Among other things, at times, if a wife was barren, it could trigger an automatic divorce to allow the man to remarry. And, within a few hundred years, Levirate marriage had been completely eliminated within these communities (even where it would not automatically create a polygamous marriage).

Having gotten through that, what I see in Jacob 2 is another group of people coming to this same issue in fairly similar ways. Although the blog writer suggests that "Jacob was explaining why Abraham and Isaac practiced polygamy ...", Jacob never mentions Abraham and Isaac at all. What he does mention (in terms of biblical individuals) is David and Solomon - and he calls their polygamy an abomination. For me, this is simply applying Deuteronomy 17 to David and Solomon - as Jacob notes: "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines" - and this is the basis for calling it an abomination (a charge that wouldn't otherwise have any basis in scripture, since the Old Testament never condemns polygamy except in this particular instance - and since Lehi's commandment to his children to avoid polygamy comes far too late to have mattered). Given that, I read the "raise up seed" as a reference to Levirate marriage (as it is also identified by the same phrase - "to raise up seed"). And what this does is to make this passage as much about authority as it is about polygamy. Lehi commanded against it. His descendants on the basis of the Old Testament examples of David and Solomon were arguing that it was acceptable and appropriate. Does Lehi have the authority to overturn Mosaic Law (this same question was asked of Gershom). Jacob answers affirmatively, reminding his audience of the passage on prophets from Deuteronomy 18:18-19 and the implications of what it means for Lehi to have issued this commandment.

So, I see the whole issue of raising up seed in Jacob 2 to be a continuation of Jacob's argument against those who wanted to practice polygamy, and were attempting to use the Old Testament scriptures as a way of getting around Lehi's ban. It isn't providing us with some theological basis to understand why or when polygamy might be necessary.

Ben M.

[abdullah786]

The standing fatwÄ (death sentence) against any Muslim converting to another faith might be a problem.

Apostasy is a death sentence in many, including Christian, religions believe it or not.

[Calm]

Apostasy is a death sentence in many, including Christian, religions believe it or not.

What ones are you thinking about?

[abdullah786]

Deuteronomy

Chapter 13

KJV

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thoushalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14 Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16 And thoushalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. 17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

[TruthSeeker24]

Ok let's be honest, any post on polygamy isn't going anywhere. lol.

[abdullah786]

What ones are you thinking about?

Forgot to quote your post sorry.. My reply is above brother <3

[Calm]

Forgot to quote your post sorry.. My reply is above brother <3

Which faiths are currently doing this?

[selek1]

Forgot to quote your post sorry.. My reply is above brother <3

As a gentle correction Abdullah786, Calmoriah is a sister, rather than a brother.

More to the point, the specific instances you chose to cite vis-a-vis the death penalty are from a different time and a different covenant.

When they were written, we were under the lesser, preparatory law- the Mosaic covenant. Also, to be blunt, the world was a very different, and much harsher place.

Now we are laboring under a new covenant- one that is predicated more on redemption than upon punishment.

That isn't to say those words of warning are not relevant in the stridency- but that the emphasis in Christ's ministry and Gospel are different than those of the Law of Moses.

To put it in more contemporary terms, the laws you cite belong to a contract to which we are no longer obligated, it's debts having been paid by the Lord God.

Edited April 17, 2012 by selek1

[abdullah786]

As a gentle correction Abdullah786, Calmoriah is a sister, rather than a brother. More to the point, the specific instances you chose to cite vis-a-vis the death penalty are from a different time and a different covenant. When they were written, we were under the lesser, preparatory law- the Mosaic covenant. Also, to be blunt, the world was a very different, and much harsher place. Now we are laboring under a new covenant- one that is predicated more on redemption than upon punishment. That isn't to say those words of warning are not relevant in the stridency- but that the emphasis in Christ's ministry and Gospel are different than those of the Law of Moses. To put it in more contemporary terms, the laws you cite belong to a contract to which we are no longer obligated, it's debts having been paid by the Lord God.

Lord God as in the one and only God, I'm not sure what you mean. It's sounding like the view is that Jesus, peace to him, is God? Who came to obliterate those laws? Non-religious leaders make divinely legal things illegal and illegal things legal. Aren't we given our books as a doctrine for law and order? I think things are worse in a way these days but I do agree that we are in a different time. But I don't think we've outgrown the original laws brought by the prophets, peace be upon them all <3

[abdullah786]

Which faiths are currently doing this?

Almost all major religions have these type of references but the major fact is that even is Islam where yes it is the same as the bible the penalty is supposed to be death you won't find this practiced regularly anywhere. We both know that it exists, even in "Christianity" there are militant groups all over Africa who slay people for not converting, chopping and shooting these poor souls up. Apostasy penalty is not far from that.

The best evidence I can give is the lack of evidence. Know what I mean? We know it does exist but where can you give a live example?

[Pahoran]

Spartacus,

Once again I find you taking it upon yourself to tell a roomful of Latter-day Saints what the Church teaches. Once again, I find you getting it wrong.

Technically polygamy is still practiced by the LDS church INSOFAR as it is a KIND of polygamy (but a polygamy nonetheless) - that is, spiritual polygamy. This is practiced when widowers (whose first wife was sealed to them) are married and sealed to a new wife.

That's false and highly misleading.

"Technically polygamy" is marriage to multiple concurrent spouses. A widower remarrying isn't practicing polygamy, he's practicing monogamy.

Make no mistake here, Spartacus: when a Baptist widower remarries, he is practicing monogamy.

When a Catholic widower remarries, he is practicing monogamy.

When an Anglican widower remarries, he is practicing monogamy.

When a Coptic Orthodox widower remarries, he is practicing monogamy.

But anti-Mormons want to convince the unwary that when a Mormon widower remarries, he alone is practicing polygamy, on the highly specious argument that he has different expectations of family relationships in the afterlife than other Christians do.

I believe this argument is known as "special pleading."

So it isn't polygamy in this life, but it is polygamy.

That's false.

This time around I'm going to assume that it was an honest mistake. But only this time.

It is safe to say that simply because it is spiritual does not make it less important; more so in fact, for the spirit is at least as important as the physical, and it is eternal, which is more important, or at least longer, than this mortal life.

Even though the first part of your argument is moot, you are still entitled to advance this part of it, if and only if you actually believe it.

That is, if you actually believe that LDS Priesthood ordinances have actual efficacy in eternity, then you may argue from that position. If you do not believe it, then to so argue is hypocritical.

So, do you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

The best evidence I can give is the lack of evidence. Know what I mean? We know it does exist but where can you give a live example?

I am afraid that I must disagree that the lack of evidence for something is evidence of its existence. It does not rule it out, but it doesn't add to the claim's credibility in my opinion.

[abdullah786]

I am afraid that I must disagree that the lack of evidence for something is evidence of its existence. It does not rule it out, but it doesn't add to the claim's credibility in my opinion.

No I'm saying evidence that this practice of death penalty for apostasy is very segregated and not practiced. In Islam, Christianity or whatever it's not happening very much on this continent I can pretty much tell you that, but there are examples of it. It doesn't happen anymore in Islam than any other. If it does give me examples of Islamic peoples carrying out the death penalty for apostasy. There's not a necessity to say that's what they do when it hardly ever happens.

[Calm]

I am not claiming anyone is killing people for apostasy, you did. Now you say it is "not practiced" or do you mean "not much practiced"? If not practiced, that means it is not being done now, right? Maybe in the past, but not in the past century or so? It would seem you are suggesting consistent occurrence of some organized effort, a group of believers punishing one who has tried to leave their group as may have happened at the time of the murder suicide of Jonestown or with the Aum Shinriko or do you just mean something along the lines of an honour killing where a family member kills another family member because he has turned his back on the family faith so that it is something more random, unorganized?

I am asking for some evidence beyond what someone might use as scriptural justification. You say there are examples so you should be able to point to them.

Perhaps there is some insane person out there murdering people because he thinks they are apostates...I see that as certainly possible, but I'd really like to see the least shred of evidence that it is being done on the North American continent for purely religious reasons and is something more than just a very rare event practiced by an extreme group, because someone has left the faith...any faith.

These examples, by what Christian faith are they being done? Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentacostals, Anglicans? How often do you think it occurs? How are they done? How are they being hidden from the law? (Remember we are not talking about ethnic or gang wars of Christians killing Jews or Jews Killing Christians or either being killed by or killing Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists, etc or those who refuse to convert to their faith, but only killing those who were once of their faith and have now left if.)

The only example I have heard recently of that was not a fanatical or extreme group was a Christian who because of his age at conversion vs family heritage it is debated whether he actually was Muslim before become Christian and he was put in jail, but there were varying claims as to the cause of his imprisonment, whether it was for his conversion or proselyting or political or something else....and last I heard he had not been executed though it has been several months since I checked.) It is the only one I have heard of. I would think if this was a common or even just an occasional occurrence, there would be lots more commentary on it out there.

add-on: since you asked for examples, I will give a link to wiki that lists some even though it is not my intention to argue that Muslims engage in capital punishment for apostasy, I am only interested in seeing this demonstrated for other current faiths:

http://en.wikipedia....the_recent_past

I have personally heard of one or two claims by individuals (my husband's students) that they have changed their names and gone into hiding because they have converted from Islam and are in fear for their lives. I do not know if their families belonged to radical groups or not. I do not know if those claims are true or not. I have never heard any claims of someone who has gone into hiding because their Christian family will kill them if they find them, though I heard of some being treated as if they were no longer part of the family and being disowned but that is a far cry from being killed; I have heard of Jews who sit shiva for loved ones who convert away from Judaism where it is in essence a funeral, but no execution is taken out, nor have I ever heard it to be a practice since OT times, if then. I have heard of death threats being made by Muslims of those who they view as apostate (such as Salman Rushdie) which I assume are from extreme sects, haven't heard of anything comparable in other faiths though with extremists, it certainly is possible.

It would be helpful in understanding you if you gave a few more details about what you are talking about and at least a couple of examples so we can tell if you are talking about something systematic and 'mainstream' or some sort of murder suicide/extreme cult or family dysfunction or something else.

Edited April 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

There's not a necessity to say that's what they do when it hardly ever happens.

So are you saying there is not a "standing fatwa" of death for apostasy in any form of current Islamic law or policy, that executions for apostasy from Islam occur so rarely because there is no current law against it that calls for execution if the person does not recant?

If there is in current law or policy, can you point to similar policies or laws in any other faith (please do not point to sacred texts that refer to possible ancient practices that are no longer occurring even if they could be used for justification if someone wanted to, only use sacred texts as proof if someone currently uses them to establish current religious law or policies of death for apostasy.

I am not trying to paint Islam in bad colours. I have great respect for the faith and have some good friends who are practicing Muslims. Had them over for Thanksgiving one year and one of them used us to try out his experiment in making pizza. I am not asking you to demonstrate this as a defence of any other faith either. I am interested instead in the alleged claim, I am not familiar with any occurrences save a very few extreme cases and would like to learn more if they do indeed exist as you claim.

Thank you.

add-on: I was hoping to find more information on the subject elsewhere, but so far no luck. The closest thing has been the wiki article on apostasy that lists countries that have laws against apostasy of the state sponsored religion. All countries that accept the death penalty for apostasy are Islamic. Are you aware of any countries with nonIslamic state sponsored religions that accept capital punishment as a response to apostasy?

Edited April 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The standing fatwÄ (death sentence) against any Muslim converting to another faith might be a problem.

Laws against proselyting in some of those countries are more likely to prevent conversions (since the Church does not go against those laws), there will be no chance to choose if the work can't even get started, just as it does or did in many Communist countries or any other country that restricts missionary work for whatever reason.

Edited April 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[spartacus]

Spartacus,

Once again I find you taking it upon yourself to tell a roomful of Latter-day Saints what the Church teaches. Once again, I find you getting it wrong.

Pahoran, you can tell me I'm wrong (and say something about me "taking it upon myself") all you want but you are going to have to come up with a better EXPLANATION of how I am wrong than what you write here. There's hardly a statement here, let alone an argument, let alone something that actually takes everything I said into consideration. Misrepresenting my argument and leaving out the critical detail of "sealing" is a form of "taking it upon [YOUR]self" that is quite ironic when you are attempting to claim such a fault in me.

That's false and highly misleading.

How is it false? Is it false that some men have been sealed "for time and eternity" to their wife, then after her death, and WITHOUT annulling the eternal sealing, married a second woman and been sealed "for time and eternity" to her too? No. This does, in fact, happen. The FACT is that this man is practicing "spiritual polygamy" - in spirit, he IS married to multiple concurrent spouses (or spirit spouses). This is a simple description of the facts. NOW, IF you want to argue over the significance of "spiritual polygamy" as support for a claim that the LDS church teaches/practices "polygamy", then that's your best shot, because that is the only place where I am not making a simple description of the facts. However, my later clarifications, that you responded to individually are the very reasons I think "spiritual polygamy" is not only a type of polygamy, but a very significant type.

"Technically polygamy" is marriage to multiple concurrent spouses. A widower remarrying isn't practicing polygamy, he's practicing monogamy.

This is true, but the situation is not simply "remarrying" but being sealed again. I'm not quite sure why you are ignoring this obvious key fact. The whole reason why there is any form of polygamy is because there are two eternal sealings concurrently - that would be eternal polygamous marriage being practiced. The only way you could attempt to deny this is if the "eternal" part was suspended until the deaths of all involved. Only then would the three not be concurrently (spiritually) married. But even then the qualification would simply be the practice of "future spiritual polygamy" instead of just polygamy.

Make no mistake here, Spartacus: when a Baptist widower remarries, he is practicing monogamy.

When a Catholic widower remarries, he is practicing monogamy.

When an Anglican widower remarries, he is practicing monogamy.

When a Coptic Orthodox widower remarries, he is practicing monogamy.

This does nothing for you except show that you are ingoring my point - which is that the LDS church facilitates "eternal sealings". None of these other churches do this. So you are basically doing the opposite of special pleading.

But anti-Mormons want to convince the unwary that when a Mormon widower remarries, he alone is practicing polygamy, on the highly specious argument that he has different expectations of family relationships in the afterlife than other Christians do.

This is just an awesome statement on your part. What a person believes about their afterlife - especially if they believe that it includes having multiple wives - is not at all specious - it is the very issue at hand. That Christians don't have this expectation has nothing to do with whether or not LDS members do. And no, I'm not talking about a "Mormon widower remarr[ying]". I'm talking about a mormon widower who eternally seals to another. That you keep misrepresenting the issue and thus my point and then claim you have put me in my place is... regrettable.

I believe this argument is known as "special pleading."

I suppose the way you are trying to represent my argument could resemble special pleeding. But since your representation is completely off - your accusation is moot. There is no special pleading. I'm a dealing with LDS members according to their own practices. Technically, there are no direct teachings of the LDS church on this issue. There is simply the practices being practiced and their definitions and their implications. These are sufficient not for this-life polygamy, but literally define spiritual polygamy.

That's false.

How can a man being concurrently eternally sealed to two women not be polygamy. I have already admitted that it is a special type of polygamy. But show me how it is not polygamy. Show me how being married eternally to two women concurrently is not being married to two women concurrently. Hint: You might want to take it easy on baseless pronouncements of falsehood.

This time around I'm going to assume that it was an honest mistake. But only this time.

Since you didn't give a basis for the falsehood of the statement, I find the appearance of charity in this statement a bit presumptuous and insincere or maybe just wildly mistaken.

Even though the first part of your argument is moot, you are still entitled to advance this part of it, if and only if you actually believe it.

Misrepresenting my argument and calling that "moot" entitles you to nothing pertaining to what I am "entitled" to. If you want to discuss things meaningfully, and not just embarassingly, then try harder to actually talk about what I am talking about. And actually explain with something relevant instead of irrelevant comparisons and unsupported pronouncements.

That is, if you actually believe that LDS Priesthood ordinances have actual efficacy in eternity, then you may argue from that position. If you do not believe it, then to so argue is hypocritical.

Is this not a form of special pleading - if you don't believe in it, you can't understand/talk about it? Lets see -

"assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm not quite sure what "regards" you are offering after that abuse.

I look forward to more effective discussion in the future.

[selek1]

Lord God as in the one and only God, I'm not sure what you mean. It's sounding like the view is that Jesus, peace to him, is God?

Christian theology teaches that God (Heavenly Father), Jesus (the Messiah), and the Holy Spirit are all three God. Protestants and Catholics insist that all three are the same being- whether they describe them as facets, faces, or manifestations of the same God.

Mormons believe that they are three individual beings united in a single purpose and mission. One "God-head", if you will.

You stated that you "used to be Mormon"- but are unaware of this teaching and belief?

Who came to obliterate those laws?

This characterization is inflammatory- whether it is deliberately so remains to be seen.

Jesus did not come to "obliterate" the Law, but to fulfill it. His New Covenant does not destroy the old, it supercedes it.

No Non-religious leaders make divinely legal things illegal and illegal things legal.

God himself- as author and arbitor of the Law- is hardly a non-religious leader.

Aren't we given our books as a doctrine for law and order?

We are. But none of the books written- either singly or in concert- can contain the full might, mind, will, and wisdom of God. Rather than relying on a single snapshot recorded a thousand years ago, isn't it better to ask him directly and to here it in his own words?

I think things are worse in a way these days but I do agree that we are in a different time.

I think it's a mixed bag. Certainly the availability and pervasiveness of temptation are on the rise- but then again we're not dying at age 30 or losing one infant in before they learn to walk.

But I don't think we've outgrown the original laws brought by the prophets, peace be upon them all <3

I'd suspect that's for the Lord to decide, wouldn't you?