JulieM Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) I asked this question over on the polyandry thread:"So, why did polygamy need to be restored or lived again if it had never been commanded by God previously here on earth?"Thanks in advance for any answers. Edited April 20, 2015 by JulieM
JLHPROF Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 You are making a HUGE assumption. We may have no record of it being commanded, but the fact that God restored it by way of commandment to Joseph indicates it was commanded previously, record or not.
Tacenda Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) If you don't mind JulieM, may I ask why is a drawn sword not happened with other things such as the leaders right before the MMM or no blacks in the prophecy, etc? And what if JS never thought to ask about restoring polygamy in the first place, might not we have that in our history, what else could there be that JS might not have restored that was needed if that were or is the case? Edited April 20, 2015 by Tacenda 1
Coreyb Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 One of the "truth claims" of the celestial marriage revelation is that it was commanded previously. Of course this cannot be shown using Genesis, but it's pretty difficult to prove a negative, I.e. that it was never commanded. 1
ALarson Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 You are making a HUGE assumption. We may have no record of it being commanded, but the fact that God restored it by way of commandment to Joseph indicates it was commanded previously, record or not.Not anymore of a HUGE assumption than the one you're making when you assume that if Joseph stated polygamy needed to be restored, then God must have commanded it previously. 1
Coreyb Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 From section 13234 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.Either God or Joseph said it was commanded before. It's not an assumption, you just have to decide who was REALLY speaking here 3
JLHPROF Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Not anymore of a HUGE assumption than the one you're making when you assume that if Joseph stated polygamy needed to be restored, then God must have commanded it previously. From section 13234 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.Either God or Joseph said it was commanded before. It's not an assumption, you just have to decide who was REALLY speaking here Exactly. The ONLY way to believe that plural marriage was never commanded would be to dismiss D&C 132, a canonized revelation from God. I see no reason to do that other than people don't like it. 1
ALarson Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 From section 13234 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.Either God or Joseph said it was commanded before. It's not an assumption, you just have to decide who was REALLY speaking hereThis is the only place where we can read that God commanded Abraham to live polygamy, so I'm going to go with Joseph.
Sevenbak Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 How about asking this a different way? Why is the opposition to the modern dispensation restitution of polygamy so rampant when God approved of it and specifically "gave" wives to Old Testament prophets? 4
Coreyb Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 This is the only place where we can read that God commanded Abraham to live polygamy, so I'm going to go with Joseph.That's fine, just know that it's not a HUGE assumption. It's all spelled out pretty clearly. Again, it's a "truth claim".
JLHPROF Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 This is the only place where we can read that God commanded Abraham to live polygamy, so I'm going to go with Joseph. Why? Give me one good doctrinal reason why? There are many, many other teachings that only came through Joseph. Shall we assume the entire endowment ceremony, sealing ceremony, work for the dead, etc, etc, all came from Joseph too? How about everything in the Book of Abraham? No Kolob, no intelligences. This line of thinking is just not in keeping with Mormonism.
ALarson Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) That's fine, just know that it's not a HUGE assumption. It's all spelled out pretty clearly. Again, it's a "truth claim".I disagree, but that's also fine. I still see the opening post as being no more of an assumption than assuming that since Joseph lived polygamy, it must have been commanded by God. Especially when there is no evidence that God ever commanded anyone else to live polygamy. Edited April 20, 2015 by ALarson
bluebell Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 I asked this question over on the polyandry thread:"So, why did polygamy need to be restored or lived again if it had never been commanded by God previously here on earth?"Thanks in advance for any answers. I think that most people (who believe it did need to be restored) believe that it had previously been commanded but that there is simply no record of that command.
bluebell Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 How about asking this a different way? Why is the opposition to the modern dispensation restitution of polygamy so rampant when God approved of it and specifically "gave" wives to Old Testament prophets? It is an interesting question. If Abraham and Moses and Isaac and Jacob can be polygamists and not incur the displeasure of God for it, and even still be prophets while doing it, then why does whether or not JS was commanded to practice polygamy matter? If Abraham was wrong about polygamy but still a prophet of God, then can JS be wrong about polygamy and still be a prophet? 1
Sevenbak Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 That's the thing isn't it. I've heard evangelicals call Abraham an adulterer and whoremonger, but God had no one else to do his work so he worked through him anyway. It boggles the mind, that line of thinking, but to each his own I guess. 3
JLHPROF Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 I disagree, but that's also fine. I still see the opening post as being no more of an assumption than assuming that since Joseph lived polygamy, it must have been commanded by God. Especially when there is no evidence that God ever commanded anyone else to live polygamy. I posted this on the other thread: One possible reason Joseph had to be directly commanded is because he was the first prophet living in a society (that we know of) where polygamy was against tradition and law. How much commanding did Abraham need when it was already acceptable to them? Or Israel? Or even in the days of Christ? There were no laws banning it as far as I'm aware nor was the practice frowned upon. Only Joseph had need to be commanded.
JLHPROF Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 So, did polyandry need to be restored too? I posted this on the other thread: Polyandry is not doctrine. Never was restored/commanded. Polyandry occurred in two ways:- either one marriage was for time and one was for eternity only.OR- only one was considered a marriage in the eyes of God as the secular marriages were seen as invalid
ALarson Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 I posted this on the other thread: One possible reason Joseph had to be directly commanded is because he was the first prophet living in a society (that we know of) where polygamy was against tradition and law. How much commanding did Abraham need when it was already acceptable to them? Or Israel? Or even in the days of Christ? There were no laws banning it as far as I'm aware nor was the practice frowned upon. Only Joseph had need to be commanded.This is interesting and I understand what you're saying. But do we know that polygamy was part of Christ's church or was it just not frowned upon? I guess it could be both, but we really just don't know. I know that one can say that God would have forbidden it, if it was not from Him.
JLHPROF Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 This is interesting and I understand what you're saying. But do we know that polygamy was part of Christ's church or was it just not frowned upon? I guess it could be both, but we really just don't know. I know that one can say that God would have forbidden it, if it was not from Him. Well, you know my answer to your question.As for your last statement, I would agree with that also, and it has never been forbidden except for wickedness or because the people rejected it.
Damien the Leper Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 You are making a HUGE assumption. We may have no record of it being commanded, but the fact that God restored it by way of commandment to Joseph indicates it was commanded previously, record or not.That is a huge assumption that cannot be attested to Abraham, David, or Solomon. Let's stop that uneducated line of thinking before it starts.
Sevenbak Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 This is interesting and I understand what you're saying. But do we know that polygamy was part of Christ's church or was it just not frowned upon? I guess it could be both, but we really just don't know. I know that one can say that God would have forbidden it, if it was not from Him.I think Martin Luther summed it up pretty concisely: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." 4
The Nehor Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 That is a huge assumption that cannot be attested to Abraham, David, or Solomon. Let's stop that uneducated line of thinking before it starts.I am not sure you know what the word "uneducated" means. 1
Damien the Leper Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 I am not sure you know what the word "uneducated" means.I do. But I'll switch it with ignorant.My argument is that Genesis is the authority on itself and needs no clarification when read in its original language and proper theological context. A rabbi friend of mine has constantly reminded me of this. My word choice of uneducated stems from this important principle.
Recommended Posts