Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is There Polygamy In Heaven?

VideoGameJunkie

By VideoGameJunkie
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Zakuska Grand Master

Zakuska

Posted
Posted (edited)

Read it as you wish, but in my opinion, that's a bit of a stretch Zak. If "delight" in the first use is supposed to be erotic, and somehow isn't supposed to be erotic in the second use (i.e. "my delights were with the sons of men"), wouldn't it simply make more sense that the word wasn't intended to be erotic in either example?

 

What if the word was Erotic in both places.  Through explicit erotic sexual acts between Wisdom & God, sons of men were brought forth. (Ie Spirit Children) Wisdom delighted in having children by God.

 

God was in a covenant relations with two entities. The kingdom of Israel. And the kingdom of Judah. The whoring referred to there is allegorical. It is referring to the apostasy of God's two kingdoms: the northern kingdom of Israel, referred to symbolically as Aholah and Samaria, and the southern kingdom of Judah, referred to symbolically as Aholibah and Jerusalem. In this specific case, it is a reference to the apostasy of Judah.

 

 

 

Yes a covenant relationship casting himself as a Polygamist. It IS Allegorical  but that doesn't excuse the sexually explicit imagery in which God describes his 2 unfaithful wives.

 

That's only one of several possible interpretations.

 

I simply read "sons of God" as a reference to men who believed and were under the covenant. Mortal men. I see "daughters of men" meaning women, unbelievers, who were not under the covenant. I see it simply as men choosing to marry outside of the covenant.

 

 

The problem with that interpretation is "sons of God" spoken of in that verse is refering to the fallen Angels not Mortal men.  Where do you think the Giants like Goliath came from? Remember that when Joshua goes into the Land of the cannanites to possess it the people he is destroying are said to have been the offspring and ancestors of these fallen Angels and are Giants. That's why the Isrealites got so affraid and lost faith that God would deliver the Amonites into their hands.

Edited by Zakuska
MiserereNobis Grand Master

MiserereNobis

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think this has become my favorite thread.  Holy smokes, Batman!  We've got Ahab (the shining star!) who has talked about God engaging in foreplay, who has revealed TMI about his sex life, and who believes that we will wash clothes and do dishes in heaven.  We've got talk of endless celestial sex (both in this life and the life to come), we've got extra strength viagra, we've got perfect celestial vestigial sex organs, we've got God having sex with Mary and yet she's still a virgin afterwards, we've got giants, we've got...

 

Rock on, my brothers and sisters :)

Edited by MiserereNobis
2
Tacenda Grand Master

Tacenda

Posted
Posted

I think this has become my favorite thread.  Holy smokes, Batman!  We've got Ahab (the shining star!) who has talked about God engaging in foreplay, who has revealed TMI about his sex life, and who believes that we will wash clothes and do dishes in heaven.  We've got talk of endless celestial sex (both in this life and the life to come), we've got extra strength viagra, we've got God having sex with Mary and yet she's still a virgin afterwards, we've got giants, we've got...

 

Rock on, my brothers and sisters :)

It's a Mormon thing!  ;)  Imagine what outsiders would think if reading this.  They wouldn't recognize this God vs. the Christian God or the one found in the Bible.  They might liken us to be like the Muslim faith, 70 virgins in the afterlife.  No wonder the church will not acknowledge polygamy as a current doctrine and distance themselves from anything to do with it.           

Zakuska Grand Master

Zakuska

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's a Mormon thing!  ;)  Imagine what outsiders would think if reading this.  They wouldn't recognize this God vs. the Christian God or the one found in the Bible.  They might liken us to be like the Muslim faith, 70 virgins in the afterlife.  No wonder the church will not acknowledge polygamy as a current doctrine and distance themselves from anything to do with it.           

 

If people would study the scriptures in the original languages. Their eyes would be opened quit a bit on who the God of the Bible really is.  You wouldn't believe how many times God him self drops the F bomb in the OT!  :shok:

 

We can all thank our bible translators who have obscured all the profanity found in the Bible from our modern ears.

 

Yes I agree completely with you that people don't recognize God in the least. They worship some one who is too Holy to be God.

 

In particular God seems quite fond of cursing people with STDs and describes them pretty explicitly. He also likes stripping people of their clothing and parading them around naked as a means of shame and punishment.

 

Paul used the word "S--t" a lot.

 

Even Christ used profanity he called Herod a "fox" which is euqivalent to calling some one an SOB.

 

He called the sumarian a "Dirty dog" not worthy of his bread crumbs.

Edited by Zakuska
hagoth7 Mentor

hagoth7

Posted
Posted (edited)

The problem with that interpretation is "sons of God" spoken of in that verse is refering to the fallen Angels not Mortal men.

Says who?

 

Remember that when Joshua goes into the Land of the cannanites to possess it the people he is destroying are said to have been the offspring and ancestors of these fallen Angels....

CFR please.

Edited by hagoth7
sethpayne Mentor

sethpayne

Posted
Posted (edited)

God seems to disagree because he said:

 

D&C 132:1 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 concubines—

 

Maybe God knows something about Isaac's marriages that we don't.

 

Or the more likely scenario that Joseph Smith messed up.  Just like he did when he listed *both* Isaiah and Esias in the same paragraph as two distinct people.  Whoops!

Edited by sethpayne
1
hagoth7 Mentor

hagoth7

Posted
Posted (edited)

Or the more likely scenario that Joseph Smith messed up.  Just like he did when he listed *both* Isaiah and Esias in the same paragraph as two distinct people.  Whoops!

That's one side of the coin.

 

But it's a common enough of a name, meaning "the Lord is Salvation". Whether the name is found in Hebraic form or in Hellenized form, why assume there was only one servant of God with such a name?

 

Are you saying there's only one John in all of scripture? Only one Nephi? Only one Lehi?

 

Is it not possible that there were similarly named men and women who served God? Is it not possible that we don't have the records of their ministries (yet)?

Edited by hagoth7
1
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted

"I completely disagree.  President Young taught that sexual reproduction is the only means by which people are made."

 

So are you saying that God the Father actually had sexual relations with Mary like mortals do to create Jesus? She was still called a virgin afterwards.

 

Yes.

ksfisher Grand Master

ksfisher

Posted
Posted

That's one side of the coin.

 

But it's a common enough of a name, meaning "the Lord is Salvation". Whether the name is found in Hebraic form or in Hellenized form, why assume there was only one servant of God with such a name?

 

Are you saying there's only one John in all of scripture? Only one Nephi? Only one Lehi?

 

Is it not possible that there were men and women who served God, whose records of their ministries we don't have (yet)?

 

It would be easy enough when speaking about Abraham and Jacob to let Isaac slip in there as well.  I think Seth is right on this one.  I don't think Joseph Smith ever claimed that the written words of the revelations he received were a perfect communication of what he received spiritually.  He went back and edited many of them to try and come closer, in mortal words, what God had communicated to him spiritually.

hagoth7 Mentor

hagoth7

Posted
Posted

It would be easy enough when speaking about Abraham and Jacob to let Isaac slip in there as well.  I think Seth is right on this one...

Could be. But I side with JLHPROF's response for now.

 

...I don't think Joseph Smith ever claimed that the written words of the revelations he received were a perfect communication of what he received spiritually....

I can agree there.

Ahab Grand Master

Ahab

Posted
Posted

Wait, we still have LDS who believe the Watchers are angels who came down and seduced mortal women?

Yeah, that is disturbing that someone would believe that interpretation, isn't it. Especially when that someone is LDS. And especially when we have been told why those men were referred to as giants and sons of God.

It's as if he didn't get the memo. Has someone checked up on the guy who is supposed to make sure the memos are going out to everybody?

Zakuska Grand Master

Zakuska

Posted
Posted (edited)

Says who?

 

CFR please.

Sure...
 
First Id start here to see how the verse was interpeted through out History by the Jews and Various Christians:
 
Then Id go here:
 
Then Id go here and see what the churches offical position on the "watchers", "Nephilim", "Giants", Book of Enoch is:
 
More on the watchers and the book of Enoch from BYU:
Edited by Zakuska
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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