Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why did Jesus revere Abraham?


The Mormonator

Recommended Posts

My, my. Which prophecy is a Mormon to obey?

If you deny this, don't you deny the rest of the revelation and then the Church leadership appointments were not accordingly performed?

Revelation given to President John Taylor on 13 October 1882. The following introduction for this revelation can be taken from the Journal of Wilford Woodruff from that day: "We met in council at President Taylor's office. We heard the revelation read in which George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant were called to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Seymour B. Young to fill the vacancy in the First Presidency of Seventies. October 14, 1882, we held a meeting with the Presidency, Twelve Apostles and the Presidents of Stakes. Remarks were made by President Taylor. Then the revelation was read. George Q. Cannon spoke to us and said, 'How can we teach the people any law or principle that we do not keep ourselves?' Joseph F. Smith spoke upon several subjects upon the Patriarchal Order of Marriage. President Taylor told what Joseph Smith said to him upon the subject, and said, 'If we do not embrace that principle soon the keys will be turned against us, for if we do not keep the same law our Heavenly Father has we cannot go with Him. The word of the Lord to us was that if we did not obey that law we could not go where our Heavenly Father dwelt. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law.' " (Revelation text may be found in: Gospel Kingdom, p. 390.,also Life of John Taylor by B.H. Roberts, p 349.)

1. Thus saith the Lord to the Twelve, and to the Priesthood and people of my Church.

2. Let my servants George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant be appointed to fill the vacancies in the Twelve, that you may be fully organized and prepared for the labors devolving upon you, for you have a great work to perform, and then proceed to fill up the presiding quorum of Seventies, and assist in organizing that body of my priesthood who are your co-laborers in the ministry.

3. You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood;

4. And then proceed forthwith and call to your aid any assistance that you may require from among the Seventies to assist you in your labors in introducing and maintaining the gospel among the Lamanites throughout the land.

5. And then let High Priests be selected, under the direction of the First Presidency, to preside over the various organizations that shall exist among this people; that those who receive the Gospel may be taught in the doctrines of my church and in the ordinances and laws thereof, and also in the things pertaining to my Zion and my Kingdom, saith the Lord, that they may be one with you in my Church and my Kingdom.

6. Let the Presidency of my Church be one in all things; and let the Twelve also be one in all things; and let them all be one with me as I am one with the Father. And let the High Priests organize themselves, and purify themselves, and prepare themselves for this labor, and for all other labors that they may be called upon to fulfill.

7. And let the Presidents of the Stakes also purify themselves, and the priesthood and people of the Stakes over which they preside, and organize the priesthood in their various stakes according to my law, in all the various departments thereof, in the High Councils, in the Elders' quorums, and in the Bishops and their councils, and in the quorums of Priests, Teachers, and Deacons, that every quorum may be fully organized according to the order of My Church; and, then let them inquire into the standing and fellowship of all that hold my Holy Priesthood in their several stakes; and if they find those that are unworthy let them remove them, except they repent;

8. For My Priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor Me and obey My laws, and the laws of My Holy Priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold My Priesthood, saith the Lord.

9. And let My Priesthood humble themselves before me, and seek not their own will but my will; for if my priesthood, whom I have chosen and called, and endowed with the spirit and gifts of their several callings, and with the powers thereof, do not acknowledge me I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord; for I will be honored and obeyed by my priesthood.

10. And, then, I call upon My Priesthood and upon all of my people, to repent of all their sins and shortcomings, of their covetousness and pride and self-will, and of all their iniquities wherein they sin against me; and to seek with all humility to fulfill my law, as my priesthood, my Saints and my people; and I call upon the heads of families to put their houses in order according to the Law of God, and attend to the various duties and responsibilities associated therewith, and to purify themselves before me, and to purge out iniquity from their households.

11. And I will bless and be with you, saith the Lord, and ye shall gather together in your holy places wherein ye assemble to call upon me, and ye shall ask for such things as are right, and I will hear your prayers and my spirit and power shall be with you and my blessings shall rest upon you, upon your families, your dwellings and your households, upon your flocks and herds and fields, your orchards and vineyards, and upon all that pertains to you; and you shall be my people and I will be your God; and your enemies shall not have dominion over you, for I will preserve you and confound them, saith the Lord, and they shall not have power nor dominion over you; for my words shall go forth, and my work shall be accomplished, and my Zion shall be established, and my rule and my power and my dominion shall prevail among my people, and all nations shall yet acknowledge Me. Even so, Amen.

Comment on the above revelation from the Journal of Wilford Woodruff:

October 13, 1882. We met in council at President Taylor's office. We heard the revelation read in which George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant were called to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Seymour B. Young to fill the vacancy in the First Presidency of Seventies. October 14, 1882, we held a meeting with the Presidency, Twelve Apostles and the Presidents of Stakes. Remarks were made by President Taylor. Then the revelation was read. George Q. Cannon spoke to us and said, "How can we teach the people any law or principle that we do not keep ourselves?"

Joseph F. Smith spoke upon several subjects upon the Patriarchal Order of Marriage. President Taylor told what Joseph Smith said to him upon the subject, and said, "If we do not embrace that principle soon the keys will be turned against us, for if we do not keep the same law our Heavenly Father has we cannot go with Him. The word of the Lord to us was that if we did not obey that law we could not go where our Heavenly Father dwelt. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law." W. Woodruff said he was glad the Quorum of the Twelve and Seventies were now to be filled, and said that the reason why the Church and Kingdom of God could not progress if we did not receive the Patriarchal Law of Marriage is that it belonged to this dispensation as well as the Baptism for the dead, and any law or ordinance that belongs to this dispensation must be received by the members of the Church, or it cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over Stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to stop.*** E. Snow said that Joseph Smith said that the parable that Jesus spoke of that the man who had one talent and hid it in the earth was the man who had but one wife and would not take another, would have her taken from him and given to one who had more. (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 13 October, 1882)

Link to comment

It has been over 24 hours and no one has attempted to adequately address this contradiction. Therefore I have to conclude that LDS have not yet developed a defense to this contradiction.

A whole twenty four hours...on a weekend? We are not ducks that will line up in the shooting gallery on demand, sr. I've lost count of the polygamy threads just this week. You have been around for years on ZLMB. You have asked and had this answered before and since most of us are ZLMB savvy we know that sr. If you have forgotten the answer, use the search function.

Link to comment
It also doesn't say he desired to take many wives "outside of the covenant". There is no inside or outside of a covenant inferred, you are adding that to the text for your convenience, which btw did not even exist at that time.

David knew the difference . . that is not implied or stated in this particular verse but can be inferred by the reader.

The covenant has always existed with God . . He is unchanging. God married Adam and Eve . . if you think He said till death do you part we disagree . . if you think He couldn't have married them for eternity because of a verse in Matthew we disagree. If you think He couldn't marry them eternally because there were no temples built we disagree. If you thnk my mother's mail-order ministerial certificate and the blessing of both the Catholic Church and the state of Ohio's equals His eternal marriage covenant, we disagree. The form or practice may change, but promises exchanged with God whether directly or through His authorized servants do not change. David knew the difference.

This is obvious by the statement of 2:24.

If it were obvious there would not be a difference of opinion. It says their (plural) many wives. You can assume that means all of both of their wives if you wish. However LDS consider all of the scripture together as true. If you cannot do that, believe as you will.

Yes, it references both men. I also mentioned this fact. Are you trying to indicate that this, for David, only involved Bathsheba, and Solomon made up the "many"?

That is one possibility to what the Lord meant . . there are other alternative theories, particularly some that involve repentence and how the Lord looks at us when we have repented and then when we fail afterward . . ask him for your own answer.

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. If you don't see the pattern suggested by the BOM, then there is nothing I can do about it. What is really happening here, I believe, is that you are finally understanding how serious the contradiction is and attempting to compensate by offering non-related answers. It really is simple, the BOM indicates many offenses for David, the D&C indicates just one.

I see a pattern suggested scripture, but it is not the same as you see. Frankly, there is nothing you must do about the fact that we disagree on your point. Best wishes for you studies.

Link to comment

It has been over 24 hours and no one has attempted to adequately address this contradiction. Therefore I have to conclude that LDS have not yet developed a defense to this contradiction.

A whole twenty four hours...on a weekend? We are not ducks that will line up in the shooting gallery on demand, sr. I've lost count of the polygamy threads just this week. You have been around for years on ZLMB. You have asked and had this answered before and since most of us are ZLMB savvy we know that sr. If you have forgotten the answer, use the search function.

juliann: A whole twenty four hours...on a weekend? We are not ducks that will line up in the shooting gallery on demand, sr.

A whole very active 24 hours on this board. Your duck analogy is strange.

juliann: I've lost count of the polygamy threads just this week. You have been around for years on ZLMB.

Yes, I have been around long enough to know to ignore most of your posts. And I will.

juliann: You have asked and had this answered before and since most of us are ZLMB savvy we know that sr.

I had it answered on this thread, that is the driver behind asking for an adequate answer. You're bright enough to see how inadequate the answer given was.

juliann: If you have forgotten the answer, use the search function.

Apparently you have forgotten that it was finally admitted by some that an adequate answer may not be available and that it will be an LDS testimony that will suffice in this case, and similar cases.

sr

Link to comment

Rabanes:

"I do not endorse any of the teachings of the so called Mormons or Latter-day Saints, which are in conflict with the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as taught in the Bible and the Book of Mormon" (David Whitmer Proclamation, Mar. 19, 1881, reprinted in Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 5, pp. 69-70).

"I do not endorse Polygamy or Spiritual wifeism. It is a great Evil, Shocking to the moral Sense; and the more so because practiced in the name of religion. It is of man not God, and is Especially forbidden in the Book of Mormon itself" (David Whitmer Proclamation, Mar. 19, 1881, reprinted in Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 5, pp. 69-70).

Perhaps you missed my posting in another thread, but considering your flogging of David Whitmer on the issue of polygamy and the BofM it bears repeating here.

Before the apologists jump on you for these quotes, let me be the one to tell you that despite Whitmer
Link to comment

sr1030 writes:

I don't see that as relevant. The point is clear, the passage simply cannot be used to positively show a command to practice polygamy. There are reasons to believe that he was not in fact married. Therefore, the passage is neutral.
It is relevant because despite your trying to downplay the role of levirate marriage within the Jewish community, its practice regularly resulted in divinely mandated polygamy. This is evident from the historical record. So, while you suggest that in theory they are independant, in the real world, in the practical application of that law, they were not independant.
The bias I have against polygamy does not come from a Western or even Christian cultural setting. I have spent considerable time in 3 countries in which the practice is common. I personally know polygamist men and women. I see the how hard it is for them and for the children. It is obviously lust driven for the men, and for the women, usually they are looking for security. Most times, the new wife is happy as she gets all the attention. The problems between Sarah and Hagar are typical of these types of relationships.
Once more, I repeat myself. Your point of view is driven by your cultural and theological basis. Your assertions to the contrary are simply symptomatic of your own position being reflected in how you view the environment.
The BOM is clear. You have yet to deal with the contradiction. Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2:24, compared with D&C 132. The D&C indicates David took a wife that was not given by God in only one case, the BOM indicates it was a pattern and there were many.
No. I don't have to deal with it. Sorry sr1030. But if you want to know - the way I deal with it is this - the Kingship codes of Deuteronomy did not exist when David or Solomon were kings either. So while they could not have been expected to meet those criteria, Jacob, who is reading a biblical text dating some centuries after David and Solomon had passed away, and without any sense of dating the text, makes the assumption that what they had done was an abomination. Joseph clarifies the point in his text.

At the same time, along parallel developmental paths, rabbinic Judaism used this passage to limit the number of wives a man could have to four.

I must assume that LDS cannot adequately address this contradiction.
The challenge for you is to show us why we need to address it at all.

Perhaps part of it is the fact that as a Christian who buys into the whole inerrancy bit, you have a driving need to try and reduce all of the inconsistencies in the Biblical text to limit any cognitive dissonance which they might raise.

Ben

Link to comment

Richard writes:

My "Western" sensitivities have nothing to do with it.
I think that it does. We typically do not like (or are at least less willing to accept) the notion of a marriage which does not involve the personal one-to-one relationship which we have all been taught to promote and cherish in our own marriages. Polygamous cultures typically introduce the notion that marriage is not about "love" so much as it is about all of these other issues - stability, children, protection, etc. There is much less emphasis put on real care and consideration or on displays of affection.

We don't talk much (in these forums) when we deal with polygamy about the differences of the early polygamist cultures. In certain ways they empowered women. Women in polygamist cultures often were property holders. They usually had a much better chance of getting divorces and the like. And so on. Those cultures developed very sophisticated marriage contracts. I am not sure that the age old stereotypes which sr1030 portrays are always accurate. Instead the topics seemed to be dominated by claims of abuse and so on that occur - but in part are enabled by societies rejection of polygamy and the need to conceal it as opposed to the fact that such abuses would likely be much more limited within a society which openly embraced polygamy, and in which there was no need to hide in communal groups, or closed groups from society at large.

Ben

Link to comment

Elihu writes:

Elihu: Caveat? For what? The commands of Jesus are simple and easy to bear. As for any law that might be in CONFLICT with the commandments of Jesus - He plainly said that we render to God the things that are God's and to the government the things that are the governments'. If a person can't make the distinction, then that is where Joseph Smith's favorite verse of praying for wisdom takes the lead, but only when you do you best to soundly and uprightly follow Gods will and word.
So you are saying that when the Romans were persecuting Christians, it was a Christians civic (and thus moral) obligation to report himself and all of those Christians that they knew, so that they they could all be killed?

Obviously I wouldn't have wanted to have been a part of your congregation.

Elihu: Just how do you see the application of what Jesus said to say that He supported any need for a man to have more than one wife? Can you think of any of His teachings that would lead one to see it as Joseph gave us in D&C 132 etc..?
That isn't the point. In fact, Jesus came from a culture which had polygamy and in which it was fairly widely practiced. Yet he never condemns it. On the other hand, I haven't said that I support it, or that I am desiring polygamy, yet, you claim that I am dishonoring Jesus with my "lust". Why?

Ben

Link to comment

sr1030 writes:

It has been over 24 hours and no one has attempted to adequately address this contradiction. Therefore I have to conclude that LDS have not yet developed a defense to this contradiction. I will say that I fully expect someone to be clever enough to develop a defense that will allow faithful LDS to continue in their faith. A defense to allow this only has to be developed to the point that it remains a possibility that Joseph Smith could still be a true prophet. It does not have to be developed to a point where it is a probability. In other words, the defense doesn't have to be good or a probable correct answer. Just to the point where it is a possible correct answer. For reasons that I do not fully understand, most LDS seem to be okay with that.
I don't usually participate on the weekends. Just so you know.

But, no matter how we view it, because we reject those underlying values which you hold so dear (i.e. creedal Christianity), no matter what explanation we come up with, I am sure it will be flawed, and meaningless by your own standards.

Ben

Link to comment

Maybe if I didn't think the truth was be suppressed by what I see as self righteous people to uphold their peculiar self righteousness I wouldn't be so ticked, but it's not my self righteousness that matters, but what our Lord has told us all. It really doesn't matter what even Abraham, Moses or Isaiah said if Jesus said to obey and believe Him instead.

Elihu: Just how do you see the application of what Jesus said to say that He supported any need for a man to have more than one wife? Can you think of any of His teachings that would lead one to see it as Joseph gave us in D&C 132 etc..?

Ben:

That isn't the point. In fact, Jesus came from a culture which had polygamy and in which it was fairly widely practiced. Yet he never condemns it. On the other hand, I haven't said that I support it, or that I am desiring polygamy, yet, you claim that I am dishonoring Jesus with my "lust". Why?

Nepheye: Ben, what Jesus said is the whole point, the only point that really matters if we are going to even dream of being faithful to Him. If I didn't think you desired to be faithful to Jesus I wouldn't be saying this!!! Please think about that and pray the Lord about it and see if He also agrees with me? Or just ignore me and listen to Him!

"Abraham believed God" is why he is the 'father of faith'. We are to believe Jesus. Jesus quoted Abraham, but Jesus also claimed to be greater than Abraham. We should not, after having been given the new and everlasting covenant of the blood of Jesus Christ return to weaker things and old covenants except those covenants through Jesus Christ. We are in the same dispensation now that is based upon the promises of God in Christ. No one greater than God has come to establish a new dispensation. If you think so, I wish you would show me where Jesus prophecied it would come before the world ends. (Except that the man of sin be exposed, and if you are claiming that title be it far from me to stand in your way as you work against the work of Jesus Christ).

Link to comment

Nepheye writes:

Ben, what Jesus said is the whole point, the only point that really matters if we are going to even dream of being faithful to Him. If I didn't think you desired to be faithful to Jesus I wouldn't be saying this!!! Please think about that and pray the Lord about it and see if He also agrees with me? Or just ignore me and listen to Him!
Jesus never condemns polygamy. Not once. Not ever.

One can quite easily be a polygamist and be faithful to Jesus. So what relevance do your comments have?

Ben

Link to comment
No one greater than God has come to establish a new dispensation.

. . interesting wording, which leads one to wonder what you know and intended to portray with "no one greater than God". Perhaps you will elaborate . .

Nevertheless, regardless of how the comment was crafted, it contains truth. JS and LDS state Christ restored His Gospel and He isn't greater than Himself.

Also, JS doesn't claim he was following Abraham or an "old" covenant, rather he claims he is following a modern commandment from Christ . . I assume you know that, but your comments suggest you did not. Did you not know that? If you did know that and disbelieve, then where is the Christian teaching that allows mischaracterizing JS's belief?

Link to comment

Richard,

You have again repeated that old claim that "Polygamy" was illegal. First, in Illinois (and in OH, and in MO), it was NOT illegal. Why? Because there is no such thing as an "anti-polygamy" statute at that time. In fact, I am unaware of any such statutes in our times. The closest thing that I know of is the provision in the Utah Constitution.

The "laws" which would have been applicable are the "bigamy" laws which would have been on the books at that time. However, these could not have been applied to the practice that Smith undertook. (I've explained all this before). In order to enforce the bigamy statutes the perpetrator is required to have entered into (or attempted to enter into) two "legal" marriages. In order for a marriage to be legal the participants must follow certain prescribed rules such as obtaining a license, engaging in a specified ritual presided over by a person authorized by the state to marry people, etc.

In the case of Smith, that never happened. Smith had one "legal" wife: Emma. All subsequent "wives" were unions that were formed subsequent to a religious belief and ritual, something the state does not recognize as binding in any way. This is the exact same problem that the state of Utah ran into in prosecuting Tom Green. They got around it by a very cutesy (and in my opinion untenable) application of the common law marriage rules. But since common law marriage is a fairly recent advent in U.S. law, it didn't exist in those states at that time. (In fact, I think it only exists in about 12 states at this time).

Thus, the only crime that Smith conceivably could have been charged with was "adultery". I assume that those states had an adultery statute, but to make it stick the autorities would have been forced to prove sex, and as has already been noted, proving that would have been difficult at best. Moreover, if the current Illinois statue is the same then as it is now, then even the adultery statutes are hard to enforce:

That statute reads:

Adultery. (a) Any person who has sexual intercourse with another not his spouse commits adultery, if the behavior is open and notorious, and

(1) The person is married and the other person involved in such intercourse is not his spouse; or

(2) The person is not married and knows that the other person involved in such intercourse is married.

A related case notes:

Adultery constitutes a crime only when practiced openly. City of Chicago v. Murray, 77 N.E.2d 452, 333 (1947).

See as how it's often been noted here that Smith took pains to keep his relationships secret, it appears that he wasn't (or wouldn't have been) in violation of the statute.

To constitute "living in an open state of adultery" condemned by former
Link to comment

Makarios writes:

Please explain why this is relevant.
Sure. Nephyeye suggests I should be faithful to Jesus. I was merely pointing out that one can be faithful to Jesus and still be a polygamist.
I have already pointed out that Jesus never condemned homosexuality or child abuse either. Do you suggest that whatever Jesus did not specificaly condemn is therefore acceptable?
No - and I haven't ever made such an argument - at least not at the level that you inquire. (In the case of child abuse I might disagree with you though as it is discussed in Matthew 18:6 and 18:10 and parallel accounts.)

We aren't discussing these other issues in this thread. No one is claiming that Abraham was a practicing homosexual or a child abuser. And while homosexuality and child abuse appear to be legislated against within Mosaic Law, polygamy is legislated for in Mosaic Law. So, comparing them isn't like comparing apples to apples. If Mosaic Law requires polygamy under certain specific conditions (which it does), then the silence of Jesus on the topic is more significant than the silence of Jesus on other issues which were legislated against in the Old Testament.

Ben

Link to comment
Ben, what Jesus said is the whole point, the only point that really matters if we are going to even dream of being faithful to Him.  If I didn't think you desired to be faithful to Jesus I wouldn't be saying this!!!  Please think about that and pray the Lord about it and see if He also agrees with me?  Or just ignore me and listen to Him!

The greatest irony in all of this silliness is to watch those who claim that you only need to accept Christ to be saved suddenly rush headlong into works. Denying someone salvation based on their marriage or lack of it is salvation based on works, Nepheye. Isn't that what you criticize us for?

Link to comment

Julianne, no, I'm not the say the prayer and be saved without any works brand of faith. We believe many things nearly alike. We mainly disagree on the items of LDS faith that are not solidly supported by the NT and OT. As James said, faith is a verb. The matter in question is if the 'law of Abraham' is applicable to us today (from the normal Christian standpoint it brings to mind one who believes and obeys, but it seems from some quotes I've read that it equates with polygamy to LDS, and it is the view of polygamy I'm addressing - If my view is in error, please to furnish quote corrections from my fairwell from Elihu quote).

My contention is that Joseph claimed things that are not true and that if we are to please Jesus we should believe that what He taught us to believe and obey has been preserved in the Bible, but we need to grow in our understanding and application of what pleases Him. It's a rather simple matter. His commandments are not hard or mysterious. Jesus did not say it was prohibited? Did Jesus say what was good? Yes. Why should we want to do otherwise? One man to one woman is good. If we know what is good why would we want to do otherwise when Jesus said those are blessed who hear and do what He taught was good?

Why look for something else? Why try to find exceptions or loopholes? This same principle also applies to whether marriage is continued in heaven or not.

Link to comment
The BOM is clear. You have yet to deal with the contradiction. Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2:24, compared with D&C 132. The D&C indicates David took a wife that was not given by God in only one case, the BOM indicates it was a pattern and there were many.

I must assume that LDS cannot adequately address this contradiction.

It has been over 24 hours and no one has attempted to adequately address this contradiction. Therefore I have to conclude that LDS have not yet developed a defense to this contradiction. I will say that I fully expect someone to be clever enough to develop a defense that will allow faithful LDS to continue in their faith. A defense to allow this only has to be developed to the point that it remains a possibility that Joseph Smith could still be a true prophet. It does not have to be developed to a point where it is a probability. In other words, the defense doesn't have to be good or a probable correct answer. Just to the point where it is a possible correct answer. For reasons that I do not fully understand, most LDS seem to be okay with that.

sr

Does the following answer your question:

Ask the Apologist How do you explain this direct contradiction found in the LDS scriptures: Jacob 2:24, which says that David and Solomon's wives and concubines were "abominations" to the Lord and D&C 132:39, which says David's concubines were received from the Lord? The passage from the Book of Mormon condemns David and Solomon's practice and the practice of plural marriage in general, and the Doctrine and Covenants passage attempts to use David's practice as justification for plural marriage. How can this be?

FAIR also has a number of other articles on their website: FAIR Polygamy

FAIR held four firesides this weekend, as far as I know the FAIR people are still in transit. I know I'm tired myself and Juliann's right, the board's always quiet on the weekends ...and this question has been answered before.

Link to comment

My contention is that Joseph claimed things that are not true and that if we are to please Jesus we should believe that what He taught us to believe and obey has been preserved in the Bible, but we need to grow in our understanding and application of what pleases Him. It's a rather simple matter. His commandments are not hard or mysterious. Jesus did not say it was prohibited? Did Jesus say what was good? Yes. Why should we want to do otherwise? One man to one woman is good. If we know what is good why would we want to do otherwise when Jesus said those are blessed who hear and do what He taught was good?

Nepheye, if you are going to claim that the Bible has everything in it that you could ever possibly need you are in dire straits. I can say without even knowing you that you do not follow everything Jesus says. If you did, you would not hold a job and would depend on him for everything. You would never defend yourself. Need I go on?

I understand what you are trying to say but you only dig a very big hole for yourself when you try to use "what Jesus said" to denigrate someone else.

Link to comment
My contention is that Joseph claimed things that are not true and that if we are to please Jesus we should believe that what He taught us to believe and obey has been preserved in the Bible, but we need to grow in our understanding and application of what pleases Him. It's a rather simple matter. His commandments are not hard or mysterious. Jesus did not say it was prohibited? Did Jesus say what was good? Yes. Why should we want to do otherwise? One man to one woman is good. If we know what is good why would we want to do otherwise when Jesus said those are blessed who hear and do what He taught was good?

Why look for something else? Why try to find exceptions or loopholes? This same principle also applies to whether marriage is continued in heaven or not.

Ah, my friend . . you didn't explain your greater than God comment nor explain which of Jesus' teachings you were following in your characterizations of JS . . .

Given practices in NT times, the selection of church leaders as being husbands of one wife is cited as the ideal . . and I again assume you know the ideals taught by Christ are the ideals sought by LDS faithful.

This thread is not about searching for loopholes . . it is not about justifying any current practice . . it is simply about understanding exceptions from God as cited in OT and modern scripture. That includes our willingness to accept exceptions if we honestly believe they are given by God.

All LDS scriptures are proclaimed to be of Christ. All good is from God . . that is what we seek . . all good in those scriptures is of Christ . . if any family benefited from the righteous practice then it is from God. The issue here is what is in one's heart in recognizing good . . . and God will be our judge.

If we want to be concerned about the self-righteous, we need only look in the mirror to find that beam.

Link to comment
RA: AGREED AGREED AGREED. Thank you. I agree 100%. Look, I don't really care about polygamy all that much, personally speaking. Of course, my personal feeling is that it just happens to be a convenient way for men to subjugate women and at the same time get as much @#^@#^& as they want in some very interesting ways from teenagers when they are 50-70 years old. But my personal opinion is BESIDE the point. Soooooo . . . . .

And yet Van Wagoner noted that:

Contrary to popular nineteenth-century notions about polygamy, the Mormon harem, dominated by lascivious males with hyperactive libidos, did not exist.

- Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), p. 89.

RAbanes: "But my personal opinion is BESIDE the point. Soooooo . . . . ."

On this we agree.

By the way Rich, would it be too difficult for you, a self-confessed gifted and talented writer, to elevate your vocabulary above that of the locker room? Thank you. (Perchance it is too difficult then may I suggest you slither back to ZLMB.)

Link to comment
Does the following answer your question:

Ask the Apologist  How do you explain this direct contradiction found in the LDS scriptures: Jacob 2:24, which says that David and Solomon's wives and concubines were "abominations" to the Lord and D&C 132:39, which says David's concubines were received from the Lord? The passage from the Book of Mormon condemns David and Solomon's practice and the practice of plural marriage in general, and the Doctrine and Covenants passage attempts to use David's practice as justification for plural marriage. How can this be?

FAIR also has a number of other articles on their website: FAIR Polygamy

FAIR held four firesides this weekend, as far as I know the FAIR people are still in transit. I know I'm tired myself and Juliann's right, the board's always quiet on the weekends ...and this question has been answered before.

The question has been answered many times. Just inadequately as in the links you provided. Michael Fordham needs to address the contradiction, not provide justification for polygamy in general. He does not address the contradiction. I am not sure he even understands the contradiction.

Once again, the contradiction is this: Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2:24, compared with D&C 132. The D&C indicates David took a wife that was not given by God in only one case, the BOM indicates it was a pattern and there were many.

I suppose that LDS will continue to indicate the contradiction has been addressed or "answered" and point to threads like this one.

If you have looked to the answers provided by 1dc and Ben, do you really think they are adequate?

sr

Link to comment
If you have looked to the answers provided by 1dc and Ben, do you really think they are adequate?

Yes. :P

You have stated there is an absolute contradiction. I have suggested that there are alternative scenarios which make your assertion as an absolute reading false. You don't like that, but you simply have provided no additional facts to make your assertion an absolute reading that eliminates every conceivable possibility. Do so and then you will have a basis to make a valid assertion.

Link to comment
If you have looked to the answers provided by 1dc and Ben, do you really think they are adequate?

Yes. :P

You have stated there is an absolute contradiction. I have suggested that there are alternative scenarios which make your assertion as an absolute reading false. You don't like that, but you simply have provided no additional facts to make your assertion an absolute reading that eliminates every conceivable possibility. Do so and then you will have a basis to make a valid assertion.

If all of the wives, except Bathsheba, mentioned in Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2:24 were given by God, where is the wicked practice or abomination?

sr

Link to comment
Once again, the contradiction is this: Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2:24, compared with D&C 132. The D&C indicates David took a wife that was not given by God in only one case, the BOM indicates it was a pattern and there were many.

I suppose that LDS will continue to indicate the contradiction has been addressed or "answered" and point to threads like this one.

If you have looked to the answers provided by 1dc and Ben, do you really think they are adequate?

sr

Is that what the BOM text says SR?

Look again, The Book of Mormon subtilely uses "desiring", not "taking", and that's what led to David murdering Uriah wasn't it? His unbridled desire(s). A small nuance perhaps, but nevertheless desiring is not taking.

Jacob 1:15  And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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