Why did Jesus revere Abraham?

[sr1030]

1dc,

You are saying a lot without addressing the contradiction. Jacob 2:24 clearly indicates the abomination was in having (or "had", its the same) many wives and concubines. If this was specifically a time when this was not authorized, then it would still contradict the D&C when it indicates only one instance for David, and none mentioned for Solomon. If you are trying to indicate that according to the BOM David may not have had more unauthorized wives than Bethsheba, that would be quite a stretch, and would not be honestly representing what the passage states. Please explain if this is in fact what you are doing.

You must include Concubines in this equation as well. You so far have not. The BOM indicates that David had many concubines that were an abomination as well. Yet the D&C indicates "in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife". The contradiction is there and it is very obvious. You have a long way to go with this one.

sr

[1dc]

1dc,

You are saying a lot without addressing the contradiction.

You are saying little but reading more into the actual text than is there.

The BoM Chap 1 says David desired many and nothing more . . you perhaps assume he had taken (unauthorized) many because you know he had many from other scripture. We also know he was given all but one from other scripture.

Chap 2 says they (plural) had many wives. We know they (plural) took many because of the indulgences/excuses written by Jacob in these two chapters, but it doesn't say David alone took many as you seem to assume.

Still no contradiction . . either within itself or with other LDS scripture. Read the footnoted scriptures . .

To make your case, you create assumptions about the words . . you're entitled to do that, but you have a long way to go to prove your assumptions are the only correct interpretation.

Heck, I'd even allow it possible that Jacob made assumptions about David that he didn't take to the Lord . . it is quite possible he understood the principle without needing to be perfect on his knowledge of the facts. Regardless, there still is no contradiction with the words as written.

As important as the precise text may be, you still seem to miss the point completely. Jacob referred to those who misread scripture to justify themselves in their self-authorization of polygamy . . a fairly specific circumstance that helps define those corrupt in their ways. He says nothing regarding God authorizing some faithful men of OT times to have many wives/concubines, which we can reasonably assume he also knew to be the case. His writing does not indict those other circumstances.

My presumption is that is why we have D&C . . to clarify what is misread . . polygamy is never a self-authorized choice by men without commandment directly by God or through his prophets who have the valid keys for that specific authority. Believers should be able to agree that the practice has been commanded in the past, and that it is prophesied for latter-days. In all cases it is only counted for good when authorized by God.

[sr1030]

1dc,

You are saying a lot without addressing the contradiction.

You are saying little but reading more into the actual text than is there.

The BoM Chap 1 says David desired many and nothing more . . you perhaps assume he had taken (unauthorized) many because you know he had many from other scripture. We also know he was given all but one from other scripture.

Chap 2 says they (plural) had many wives. We know they (plural) took many because of the indulgences/excuses written by Jacob in these two chapters, but it doesn't say David alone took many as you seem to assume.

Still no contradiction . . either within itself or with other LDS scripture. Read the footnoted scriptures . .

To make your case, you create assumptions about the words . . you're entitled to do that, but you have a long way to go to prove your assumptions are the only correct interpretation.

Heck, I'd even allow it possible that Jacob made assumptions about David that he didn't take to the Lord . . it is quite possible he understood the principle without needing to be perfect on his knowledge of the facts. Regardless, there still is no contradiction with the words as written.

As important as the precise text may be, you still seem to miss the point completely. Jacob referred to those who misread scripture to justify themselves in their self-authorization of polygamy . . a fairly specific circumstance that helps define those corrupt in their ways. He says nothing regarding God authorizing some faithful men of OT times to have many wives/concubines, which we can reasonably assume he also knew to be the case. His writing does not indict those other circumstances.

My presumption is that is why we have D&C . . to clarify what is misread . . polygamy is never a self-authorized choice by men without commandment directly by God or through his prophets who have the valid keys for that specific authority. Believers should be able to agree that the practice has been commanded in the past, and that it is prophesied for latter-days. In all cases it is only counted for good when authorized by God.

This is getting old. The BOM states that David and Solomon having many wives was an abomination. If this referred to specifically unauthorized wives, as you seem to indicate, it contradicts the D&C. If you are saying that Jacob 2:24 may indicate only one unauthorized wife for David, then why don

[1dc]

This is getting old.

I agree . . you make assertions without outlining your critical reading or assumptions verse by verse. Nor do you carefully outline where I've read your meaning incorrectly. Restating individual verses and your conclusions doesn't create a dialogue.

The BOM states that David and Solomon having many wives was an abomination.

Yes, and Jacob prefaces that with an explanation to explain why those two were wrong and why excuses and misunderstanding about their wrong have led still more people down the wrong path.

If this referred to specifically unauthorized wives, as you seem to indicate, it contradicts the D&C.

I disagree. Outline your point. Mine is that D&C allows that Solomon took many unauthorized wives. "in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me" is a double negative telling us that they (plural) did sin when they took wife/wives to themselves instead of being given them. Assuming that is the case, then there is no contradiction as you have asserted.

If you are saying that Jacob 2:24 may indicate only one unauthorized wife for David, then why don

[sr1030]

1dc: The verse does not tell us about the individual marriage status of either David or Solomon.

Yes it does, it says both had many wives and concubines.

1dc: Nor by itself does it tell us whether they individually took or were given their wife/wives.

The point is the "which thing" was the many wives and concubines.

1dc: Their individual status can only be determined in conjuction with other scripture.

According to Jacob 2:24, both had many wives and concubines. I don't know how many, "many" means, but certainly more than one. If that did not apply to David, why does the verse indicate that it does?

1dc: That said, if as D&C says David only had one unauthorized wife then that BoM verse would still be completely consistent with D&C if Solomon had many unauthorized wives. Still no proof of a contradiction.

Even if you could use this extremely lame excuse, which btw, you should be embarassed about, you would still have to deal with the fact that David had many concubines according to the BOM.

1dc: If you disagree that is fine . . outline your assumptions and logic more clearly to correct any error.

The logic I use is perfectly clear. It involves taking your scripture for what it says. I don't read other things into it.

1dc: Your assertion gives you the burden of proof.

The obvious doesn't need proof. I provided the references in the BOM and D&C. What else is needed?

1dc: To avoid a contradition, I need only prove an alternative is possible, not what the actual facts are.

You are right to an extent. All you have to show to LDS to allow them to continue believing are possibilities that the BOM is inspired by God. You don't have to show probabilities. Thats good for the LDS Church because you would have a hard time doing that. When it comes to supporting your own scripture, the standards of LDS are generally very, very low.

Can you deal with the Concubines now? I am curious as to how you will handle that. Obviously David had concubines that were not given by God according to Jacob 2:24.

sr

[1dc]

1dc: The verse does not tell us about the individual marriage status of either David or Solomon.

Yes it does, it says both had many wives and concubines.

Correct. It says both had many. Not that each had many. You are reading something into it that is not absolutely established by only that verse. Your interpretation is not conclusive.

The point is the "which thing" was the many wives and concubines.

Your interpretation. Mine is that which thing was the taking of wives . . as introduced by Jacob in two verses which addressed this topic. Your interpretation is not conclusive.

According to Jacob 2:24, both had many wives and concubines. I don't know how many, "many" means, but certainly more than one. If that did not apply to David, why does the verse indicate that it does?

Correct. It does mean more than one. But it doesn't automatically mean each had more than one as you interpret it. As above, you've assumed a meaning that is not the only possible meaning. I've explained that I believe David had many based on other scriptures and that one was taken, also by other scripture.

1dc: That said, if as D&C says David only had one unauthorized wife then that BoM verse would still be completely consistent with D&C if Solomon had many unauthorized wives. Still no proof of a contradiction.

Even if you could use this extremely lame excuse, which btw, you should be embarassed about, you would still have to deal with the fact that David had many concubines according to the BOM.

Ahhh, belittle others when you finally understand your "proof" of a contradiction has vanished. I'm truly sorry for you, and certainly not embarrased for believing scripture or for your assessment. If you had more logic, reasoning, or Words of God you would have used them.

1dc: If you disagree that is fine . . outline your assumptions and logic more clearly to correct any error.

The logic I use is perfectly clear. It involves taking your scripture for what it says. I don't read other things into it.

Yes, I understand you deny one scripture to deny the other scripture. As above, you have read other things into scripture and either can't admit it, or choose not to do so for other motives. Good luck with those.

1dc: Your assertion gives you the burden of proof.

The obvious doesn't need proof. I provided the references in the BOM and D&C. What else is needed?

If it was obvious you would have provided proof to explain how another interpretation of the verses was not possibly correct. You could have simply agreed to disagree. Instead you criticized. Very telling of your character and your argument.

1dc: To avoid a contradition, I need only prove an alternative is possible, not what the actual facts are.

You are right to an extent. All you have to show to LDS to allow them to continue believing are possibilities that the BOM is inspired by God. You don't have to show probabilities. Thats good for the LDS Church because you would have a hard time doing that. When it comes to supporting your own scripture, the standards of LDS are generally very, very low.

When you prove you are right without reading negative assumptions into the verses and don't ignore others then you will have earned merit for your criticisms.

As far as probabilities go, the probability that the Bible already tells us what we need to know about David and Solomon is high. The probability that you have a problem with that is also high because you now try to use the BoM which you apparently don't accept to prove what you hope to believe. Unfortunately, the probability is you still can't dealt with the fact that polygamy was commanded of God and the Bible says the same is true for the last days. The probabilty is that you've avoided this because it isn't consistent with your core beliefs in the Church of SR.

Can you deal with the Concubines now? I am curious as to how you will handle that. Obviously David had concubines that were not given by God according to Jacob 2:24.

I've assumed (as D&C says) that wives and concubines are for God's purposes the same if He has given them . . they must be authorized. Read the answer above regarding this verse and your assumption for what is I've already said is probable but not obvious. You also have another as yet unspoken assumption about concubines vs. wives . . which I have now also addressed.

If you don't want to believe in the BoM and D&C, I have no problem with that. But for you to incorrectly tell me it must mean what you believe with such negative criticism and no proof for your position is another. I may not agree, but I would respect an honest exegesis.

Best wishes.

[sr1030]

1dc: Correct. It says both had many. Not that each had many. You are reading something into it that is not absolutely established by only that verse. Your interpretation is not conclusive.

You are looking for a technicality to help you with this. Unfortunately for you, you have not yet found it. Perhaps you will, but just not yet. The verse indicates first both David and Solomon and then it indicates that both had many wives and concubines. It cannot mean one wife for David, and many wives and concubines for Solomon, to make the statement support your other scripture. It cannot simply because it does not say that. I don't mean to ridicule, but I find this whole idea hilarious. The lengths that some LDS will go to is amazing, though no longer surprising. Your scripture states "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines", yet you want to say that this only really applies to Solomon. Your scripture states that "which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord", yet you want to say that it referred only to those not given by God.

1dc: Your interpretation. Mine is that which thing was the taking of wives . . as introduced by Jacob in two verses which addressed this topic. Your interpretation is not conclusive.

No, its not just my interpretation. Thats like trying to interpret the verse "Jesus wept". It's pretty clear and it does not need your interpretation.

Jacob 2:24 clarifies what is meant in Jacob 1:15. Not only did David "desire" many wives and concubines, he also acquired them according to Jacob 2:24. Obviously David fulfilled the "desire", at least according to the book of Jacob.

I find it interesting that you would not consider a "wicked practice" a sin or abomination.

1dc: Correct. It does mean more than one. But it doesn't automatically mean each had more than one as you interpret it.

I didn't interpret that to mean each had more than one. That is what the verse states, I didn't have anything to do with it. The way it is written requires many wives and concubines for each individual mentioned.

1dc: As above, you've assumed a meaning that is not the only possible meaning. I've explained that I believe David had many based on other scriptures and that one was taken, also by other scripture.

What is the point of debating if you resort to obvious false interpretation of your own scripture? I simply do not believe that you even believe the scripture means what you say.

1dc: Ahhh, belittle others when you finally understand your "proof" of a contradiction has vanished. I'm truly sorry for you, and certainly not embarrased for believing scripture or for your assessment. If you had more logic, reasoning, or Words of God you would have used them.

The contradiction did not vanish and I usually have a good reason for everything I write. This was no exception. You obviously were too embarassed to formulate your argument clearly. This encouraged you to do so. I wanted others to see that LDS have not yet adequately addressed this contradiction. You helped me accomplish that.

1dc: Yes, I understand you deny one scripture to deny the other scripture. As above, you have read other things into scripture and either can't admit it, or choose not to do so for other motives. Good luck with those.

This is funny. Accusing me of reading things into scripture when you read only one wife for David, and no concubines, and many wives and concubines for Solomon. You also read that "desiring" and "having" are exclusive of each other. You also read/write into the scripture "unauthorized" when that obviously was not indicated or implied in the text.

1dc: If it was obvious you would have provided proof to explain how another interpretation of the verses was not possibly correct.

I did provide proof, I referenced your scripture.

1dc: You could have simply agreed to disagree. Instead you criticized. Very telling of your character and your argument.

I personally am not concerned what you think of my character. I am not a weak person who is easily offended. This contradiction and your attempt to defend your scripture in this manner deserves severe criticism. I do honestly believe that you should be embarrassed about your defensive scheme here.

1dc: When you prove you are right without reading negative assumptions into the verses and don't ignore others then you will have earned merit for your criticisms.

The contradiction is there. Many people have pointed this out to LDS. It is up to LDS to prove the contradiction does not exist. You cannot do that by telling us that we need to read into the verse only one wife for David and no concubines.

1dc: The probability that you have a problem with that is also high because you now try to use the BoM which you apparently don't accept to prove what you hope to believe.

I have no idea why you would write something like that.

1dc: Unfortunately, the probability is you still can't dealt with the fact that polygamy was commanded of God and the Bible says the same is true for the last days.

The bible has nothing to do with this contradiction in LDS scripture.

1dc: The probabilty is that you've avoided this because it isn't consistent with your core beliefs in the Church of SR.

You can analyze my reasons for doing what I do all you want. That has nothing to do with this contradiction in LDS scripture.

QUOTE

Can you deal with the Concubines now? I am curious as to how you will handle that. Obviously David had concubines that were not given by God according to Jacob 2:24.

1dc: I've assumed (as D&C says) that wives and concubines are for God's purposes the same if He has given them . . they must be authorized. Read the answer above regarding this verse and your assumption for what is I've already said is probable but not obvious. You also have another as yet unspoken assumption about concubines vs. wives . . which I have now also addressed.

No, you haven't addressed this issue. If the concubines did not apply to David, you need to explain why the verse clearly indicates it does, and the support of Jacob 1:15.

1dc: If you don't want to believe in the BoM and D&C, I have no problem with that. But for you to incorrectly tell me it must mean what you believe with such negative criticism and no proof for your position is another. I may not agree, but I would respect an honest exegesis.

You have not provided an honest or proper exegesis. I am not sure you even know what that requires. It does not require interpreting the BOM in light of the D&C. It would require first looking internally within the Book of Jacob for the answer. Obviously you have not done that without presuppositions in your path.

1dc: Best wishes.

Thank you, and you as well.

sr

[1dc]

1dc: Correct. It says both had many. Not that each had many. You are reading something into it that is not absolutely established by only that verse. Your interpretation is not conclusive.

. .then it indicates that both had many wives and concubines. . .

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

David and Solomon are each listed in the scripture but there is no word "both" or "each" in this scripture relative to the wives and concubines.

It is quite amazing that you continue to press on there being only one interpretation so dogmatically when you can't seem to prove your point without adding words to the text in order to restrict its meaning. I've already assented to believing it indicates each had many wives, and qualified why we still don't need to accept that as a contradiction to the key principles of taking vs.

receiving

multiple wives using the definitions I outlined earlier.

. .yet you want to say that this only really applies to Solomon.

An untrue characterization of all that I wrote previously. Either you missed it, have a comprehension limitation (e.g., dogmatism), or just desire to be contentious. I've said your absolute reading isn't absolute. As you said you are reading it as a probability.

Your scripture states that "which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord", yet you want to say that it referred only to those not given by God.

Yep. Explained that too. I have no problem with agreeing to disagree here. AFAIC you can read it strictly as you do and I can read it in context of what Jacob said and was likely to know from OT scripture.

I find it interesting that you would not consider a "wicked practice" a sin or abomination.

A gross mischaracterization for whichever reason applies . . I equated indulging oneself in a wicked practice with taking unauthorized wives.

We can also cross reference growing hard in their hearts from 1:15 with the footnotes for abomination in 2:24. More support for understanding "which thing" Jacob was referring to. A point you continue to miss.

I didn't interpret that to mean each had more than one. That is what the verse states, I didn't have anything to do with it. The way it is written requires many wives and concubines for each individual mentioned.

See above.

What is the point of debating if you resort to obvious false interpretation of your own scripture? I simply do not believe that you even believe the scripture means what you say.

Don't debate if you believe that. Perhaps you came to that conclusion due to missing what was written instead of the other alternatives . . perhaps not.

when you read only one wife for David, and no concubines, and many wives and concubines for Solomon.

Still mischaracterizing . . I said it is possible Jacob meant only 1 wife taken by David relative to his comments about desires . . in such a reading David's other wives (including concubines) would have been given and not part of the sinful issue.

You also read that "desiring" and "having" are exclusive of each other.

Yet another mischaracterization . . . This was covered definitionally in the bolding and underlining of text in previous posts. desire being taking/unauthorized and bold and having being both bolded and underlined for given/receiving/authorized.

As such, they may or may not be exclusive of each other depending on facts because there may be some overlap or none. One can desire without taking (exclusive). One can desire and take (overlap). And one can have by receiving through commandment/authorization (exclusive).

You also read/write into the scripture "unauthorized" when that obviously was not indicated or implied in the text.

Reasons outlined in previous posts . .

I did provide proof, I referenced your scripture.

When we have interpretation differences, quoting the disputed scripture doesn't create proof it creates confusion.

. . we need to read into the verse only one wife for David and no concubines.

Another mischaracterization . .

The bible has nothing to do with this contradiction in LDS scripture.

Of course not . . since we don't agree on a contradiction or on the principle we find in scriptures (taken together as much more than a verse or two).

No, you haven't addressed this issue. If the concubines did not apply to David, you need to explain why the verse clearly indicates it does, and the support of Jacob 1:15.

Another mischaracterization or comprehension problem . . .

You have not provided an honest or proper exegesis. I am not sure you even know what that requires. It does not require interpreting the BOM in light of the D&C. It would require first looking internally within the Book of Jacob for the answer. Obviously you have not done that without presuppositions in your path.

Another mischaracterization or comprehension problem . . I addressed Jacob's writing as standing separately from D&C specifically. We don't need to exclude the OT as from these verses Jacob had access to much/most of it.

[sr1030]

1dc: Another mischaracterization or comprehension problem.

Ahhh, belittle others when you finally understand your "defense" of a contradiction has vanished.

Exegesis would require this:

Jacob: 4:14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

Now, refer to 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.

The people doing the "desiring" were the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king. It was not David or Solomon in this context. The people desired to be like David and Solomon who did have many wives and concubines, (ref jacob 2:24) and this having many wives and concubines was the wicked practice. Indulging in this wicked practice was not just "desiring", at least not if you look at the context honestly.

Another question for you. How do you explain why the BOM formerly stated in Jacob 3:5 the commandment was given unto "our fathers" but now it states "our father"?

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father

[Bodon]

Sr1030 and 1dc had many long and in-depth discussions on this topic, which was good for the board.

Please tell me...who had a long discussion and who had the in-depth one. Did you both have them or did just one of you have have many and only one of you have just one. Or did sr1030 have an in depth dicussion while 1dc just had a long one. It's obvious that my intent is that you both had them. If the intended interpretaion was to mean that only one of you had a long dicussion and the other had an indepth discussion, wouldn't it have been easier to just say that?

[maxrep12]

Bodon, I'm laughing a strong laugh! My soul delighteth in your hilarity.

[maxrep12]

Well, I started reading the thread between sr1030 and 1dc. At first I was confused, then thought I had a handle on it, but I was mistaken. My head started to hurt, so I lied down.

As I slept the heavens opened and it was made known unto me that sr1030 won the arguement. It was also made known unto me that should I ever be incarcerated, I should request 1dc's representation.

[sr1030]

Sr1030 and 1dc had many long and in-depth discussions on this topic, which was good for the board.

Please tell me...who had a long discussion and who had the in-depth one.  Did you both have them or did just one of you have have many and only one of you have just one.  Or did sr1030 have an in depth dicussion while 1dc just had a long one.  It's obvious that my intent is that you both had them.  If the intended interpretaion was to mean that only one of you had a long dicussion and the other had an indepth discussion, wouldn't it have been easier to just say that?

a ) And it came to pass that max and Bodon were vexed with a sore vexation.

b ) Behold they readeth every word that was written.

c ) And that sore vexation cometh as they pulleth the hairs from their own heads.

c ) Yea, pulling the hairs of their head causeth a sore vexation.

b ) But whatsoever things we did write upon this thread herein, they readeth.

a ) And it came to pass that sore vexation did surely vex max and Bodon.

sr

[1dc]

Ahhh, belittle others when you finally understand your "defense" of a contradiction has vanished.

Sorry . . no slur was intended . . earlier on in that post I tried to be clear that comprehension might be a limitation of perhaps blinders (reference your found Jacob 4:14 verse) rather than ability.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion . . even a slim possibility you are wrong on 24 eliminates your proof.

The people doing the "desiring" were the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king. It was not David or Solomon in this context.

"Such like" indicates to me it was both the Nephites and those two prophets.

Also, Jesus taught desiring/looking only could be counted as wicked . . and He also taught repentence. Personally, I don't plan to judge either David or Solomon.

Indulging in this wicked practice was not just "desiring", at least not if you look at the context honestly.

Yes, that is the point of what taking unauthorized wives means.

Just for fun, give an exegesis on this one:

Mark 11: 24

24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Another question for you. How do you explain why the BOM formerly stated in Jacob 3:5 the commandment was given unto "our fathers" but now it states "our father"?

Sorry, haven't looked at the facts on that. I know there were a number of printing errors based on the printer's manuscript but I have no knowledge about which changes reportedly came from which issue.

Also not sure that it makes an important difference, either. Since the practice is by commandment, I would assume it can change during the tenure of any prophet and we certainly don't have all the OT or BoM records for many.

Now the fact that you introduce this scritpure is interesting. It is quite possible that 2:24 should be read exactly as you insist . . assuming that Lehi was told the practice was to be discontinued before Jacob wrote (with the proud Nephite people reverting later using their scriptural excuse). Of course, that assumption would also eliminate proof of a contradiction.

[sr1030]

1dc: Sorry . . no slur was intended . . earlier on in that post I tried to be clear that comprehension might be a limitation of perhaps blinders (reference your found Jacob 4:14 verse) rather than ability.

No problem, I am not offended, and it is nice that you're concerned.

1dc: I respectfully disagree with your conclusion . . even a slim possibility you are wrong on 24 eliminates your proof.

It would appear that your standards for scripture are very low. You would be satisfied with a slim possibility. A contradiction is still a contradiction without convincing everyone that it is so. Facts are facts. While I may not convince you, I can assure you that normally it is relatively easy to convince non-LDS that may be investigating the LDS Church.

QUOTE

The people doing the "desiring" were the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king. It was not David or Solomon in this context.

1dc: "Such like" indicates to me it was both the Nephites and those two prophets.

A careful reading of the passage will show you that the Nephites began to indulge in wicked practices that David also indulged himself in days of old, having many wives and concubines. It clearly shows that in times past, David had many wives and concubines which the writer indicates was a wicked practice. They were indulging in wicked practices just like David did.

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.

You based your defensive argument on a misunderstanding of this verse.

1dc: Also, Jesus taught desiring/looking only could be counted as wicked . . and He also taught repentence. Personally, I don't plan to judge either David or Solomon.

I know what Christ taught, but I don't understand your "only", or the relevance.

1dc: Just for fun, give an exegesis on this one:

Mark 11: 24

24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Out of time, I will get back to you on this one, but I do get the point I believe you were trying to make.

QUOTE

Another question for you. How do you explain why the BOM formerly stated in Jacob 3:5 the commandment was given unto "our fathers" but now it states "our father"?

1dc: Sorry, haven't looked at the facts on that. I know there were a number of printing errors based on the printer's manuscript but I have no knowledge about which changes reportedly came from which issue.

Also not sure that it makes an important difference, either. Since the practice is by commandment, I would assume it can change during the tenure of any prophet and we certainly don't have all the OT or BoM records for many.

Now the fact that you introduce this scritpure is interesting. It is quite possible that 2:24 should be read exactly as you insist . . assuming that Lehi was told the practice was to be discontinued before Jacob wrote (with the proud Nephite people reverting later using their scriptural excuse). Of course, that assumption would also eliminate proof of a contradiction.

No, it would in fact support the claim of a contradiction. The "Fathers" would have also referred to David and Solomon and would therefore have shown that David and Solomon were commanded to only have one wife and no concubines, yet did so anyway. The whole book makes more sense like that.

sr

[1dc]

1dc: I respectfully disagree with your conclusion . . even a slim possibility you are wrong on 24 eliminates your proof.

You would be satisfied with a slim possibility.

Another mischaracterization . . but considering what I can't be certain of is preferable to insisting an assumption was absolute.

As I've said now 3 or 4 times, this is not my personal view, simply an alternative that eliminates reading it with each or both assumed as the only possible alternative.

1dc: "Such like" indicates to me it was both the Nephites and those two prophets.

A careful reading of the passage will show you that the Nephites began to indulge in wicked practices that David also indulged himself

Well, at least we agree up to this point . . (assuming you're still including Solomon) . . of course they were wicked if the Lord commanded Lehi to stop an authorized practice of OT times due to the hardness of their hearts and they went on and indulged themselves by not following God's commandments.

You based your defensive argument on a misunderstanding of this verse.

A different understanding. Such mischaracterizations leave me wondering if you even know which belief is really mine. In any case, I'm comfortable with GBH is my tour guide if things should change from OD1 and I am pressed to do something about it.

If people want to join the church of SR, that is entirely their choice.

1dc: Also, Jesus taught desiring/looking only could be counted as wicked . . and He also taught repentence. Personally, I don't plan to judge either David or Solomon.

I know what Christ taught, but I don't understand your "only", or the relevance.

Only as in looking but not taking or having . . .

Matt. 5: 28

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed dadultery with her already in his heart.

1dc: Just for fun, give an exegesis on this one:

Mark 11: 24

24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Out of time, I will get back to you on this one, but I do get the point I believe you were trying to make.

Things, desire, receive, have . . what a coincidence of words . . absolutely marvelous.

. .The "Fathers" would have also referred to David and Solomon and would therefore have shown that David and Solomon were commanded  . .

Well, that would be a convenient assumption, anyway. Or maybe it really was father . . if it were Fathers I suspect the Jews would not have continued the practice into NT times.

[Brackite]

Hi There,

The only way that I can come to reconcile this