Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

God commanded Abraham?


Recommended Posts

maj, just because God gave commands on the treatment of different people does not mean He endorsed their behavior.  God is loving and cares about how everyone is treated.

But rather than give details on how they should be treated why wouldn't He just say: "Don't do it!"

Can you show other places where God did not just condemn sin but gave advice on how to manage it?

Where did Jesus say "Woe unto the hypocrites, but if you are going to be a hypocrite you must follow these hypocritical guidelines."

Any thoughts?


Link to comment
johnny_cat, your statement that "many people the same way about the Bible" does not include the fact that NO ONE DISPUTES the extistence of Israel, Jerusalem, the Jews, and many other things recorded in the Bible. This is not the case with mormon scripture. Of course, ultimately we all have to make decisions based on our own reasons. It seems that one would want their faith to line up with things we already know to be true but that's just me.

Once again benji, you make an argument that is more fluffy than all fluffiness.

Allow me to demonstrate:

NO ONE DISPUTES the existence of The United States of America, a city called Springfield, the American people, and many other things found on The Simpsons Television Program. Therefore, Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, and all the other characters on The Simpsons are, in fact, REAL HUMAN BEINGS!!!

The Simpsons is all Non-Fiction. Homer Simpson is a real person with a real flesh and blood son named Bart.

According to your logic, this conclusioin is totally valid.

Furthermore, using your logic, one must also conclude that books like The Iliad and The Odyssey are both non-fiction books. They are both just as valid as the Bible since NOBODY DISPUTES the existence of Greece and Troy and various other cities and locals mentioned in the books.

I talked about this in a thread a while back:

The Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Bible. The differences? How do we know?

I think you ought to be worshipping Zeus as well as Jesus, Benji.

Here is a queston I have for anyone, and I'm serious too:

Is there more evidence that Jesus exists, than there is that Zeus exists?

Link to comment
I have made my positions clear time and again on this board. After being raised in Mormonism with no spiritual satisfaction whatsoever, much confusion and researching it thoroughly I concluded it to be a false religion concocted by a false prophet.

Maybe I am reading into this wrong. It is likey. But it almost sounds as if you are blaiming Mormonism for your lack of "spiritual satisfaction", your "confusion" and such. If you received no spiritual satisfaction then that is your own fault.

I then began a relationship with Jesus Christ which has changed my life.

If you could not have a realtionship with Jesus Christ while you were in Mormonism, then you obviously did not understand it, or did not really practice it. I was also raised in Mormonism my whole life. Believe you me, I have know some very spiritual people that indeed had a very very strong relationship with Jesus Christ. I have known Non-Mormon's like this too.

Unless you are appealing to the silly "It's a different Jesus" theory.

Link to comment
Mormonator, honestly you'd have to ask those particular Romans and Greeks about their experience because I wasn't there.

Good way to shrug off an important and challenging question. I see that you cannot answer the question, or you don't want to answer it because you know it reeks havoc on your argument and you beliefs.

It is obvious you're trying to demonstrate that "pure revelation" is all that is necessary for faith....

Yes. The power of the Holy Spirit is all that is necessary for faith. But there are many people who find it very difficult to believe in something based only on the witenss of the Holy Ghost. For some it is easy, for others it is not easy. God understands this and allows for certain things to acts as "supplements" to the witness of the Holy Ghost. For instance, with the Book of Mormon he gave us the three and the eight witnesses. God has provided these "supplements" to help strengthen one's belief when taken in-hand with the witness of the Holy Spirit. God does not intend for our faith to rely on these "supplements" alone. Some people do not even need them. While others do.

Archaeology and other scietific disciplines are merely supplements to the Holy Spirit for those of us with weaker faith. But if you rely on those alone, then you must also believe in books like the Iliad and the Odyssey (as you do the Bible), because according to science those have just as much credibility.

This claim is supported by events in the Bible. The early Romans and Greeks that were converted to Christianity did not have Archeaology, they did not have the Scriptures (because they were pagans) and they did not have other scientific disiplines to support the veracity of Paul's words. All they had were Paul's words alone, and the Holy Spirit to bare witness of their truth. Those with weaker faith, did not accept.

...because Mormonism crumbles under the scrutiny of research and you base everything on the burning in the bosom. You still cannot deny that other things that are true should line up with God's revelation.

Under the same standard of scrutiny, the Bible crumbles too my friend. But you and other anti-Mormons have a problem with applying the same standard against your own beliefs that you do against Mormonism.

Link to comment
Josephus's writings are not scripture and any claims he made are not accepted as revelation from God.  Just because something he wrote happens to agree with Joseph Smith is not proof of anything, especially since it is in opposition to the Bible.


Let's break down what you just said:

1. Josephus's writings are not scripture

I agree

2. and any claims he made are not accepted as revelation from God

True, LDS and other Christians don't consider him a prophet or acknowledge his writings as divinely inspired

3. Just because something he wrote happens to agree with Joseph Smith is not proof of anything

True, it's not proof, but it is EVIDENCE to support a case and Joseph Smith agreed with the Jews

4. especially since it is in opposition to the Bible

WRONG! You have no evidence to support your conclusion other than what you wish was written in the Bible. Benji, you are adding words to the Bible that aren't there. You are doing the same thing Joseph Smith did except he claimed revelation and is backed by a scholarly Jew who had more O.T. writings than are present in our current Bible.

Paul O

Link to comment
As for the credibility for the authors of the bible, I have their fulfilled prophecies as the proof that they were true prophets of God.

Proof? You have no proof. All you have is written testimony given by men who lived thousands of years ago. It's all based on faith, NOT proof.

Prove to me that Jesus Christ is going to come again. Where is he? It's been 2,000 years and he hasn't come back. Thus your faith is not based on proof. Your faith is based on a belief of things that once were and a hope of things that will yet come.

You cannot prove that the miracles in the Bible even happened.

Paul O

Link to comment

Hello Zak,

Just a lot of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians take a One Scriptural verse out of James Chapter 2, to try to prove that James Chapter 2 is not really stating that faith without works is dead, so are you and a lot of LDS Apologists taking One Scriptural verse out of Jacob Chapter 2 to try to prove that the Prophet Jacob is not fully condemning the Practice of Polygamy. The Prophet Jacob (IMO) is clearly fully condemning the practice of Polygamy in Jacob Chapters 2 and 3. Please don

Link to comment

Hi Again Zak,

The 'For IF' and '; otherwise' is the key. (Grab your college grammer book  You might want a Logic book too)

The "Nephite people" will hearken unto the command for them not to do as those of old having more than one wife. (ie they will have but one wife) However.... "If" God will "raise up seed to himself" as was the case with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joseph Smith, BY, Great Grandpa Terry, He will command his people. Otherwise.... They "The Nephites"... will have but one wife.

Joseph Smith had at least 28 plural wives, and he is expected to only have three or four children through his Polygamous wives. Please notice that the word

Link to comment

Hi Ben,

"Hearken" implies a message. Within the context of Jacob 2, there isn't a message for sins. The message is one of polygamy. And "these things" refers to the closest antecedent which would be the commandment of monogamy.

From my understanding, hearken primary means to heed unto something. From 2 Nephi 28:31 we read:

[31] Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

I bolded the words

Link to comment


You are certianly entitled to your opinion but in my opinion, your opinion does not take all the data into account.

Why are you reading "Polygamy" as the common denominator?

You are reading it into nearly every verse in Jacob 2.


According to Jacob 2:31, People practicing Polygamy caused the women in the land of Jerusalem and a few other lands out there to mourn and be sorrowful.

According to Jacob 2:32, The Lord God will Not suffer that these

daughters of His will cry until Him against the men of His People.

According to Jacob 2:33, the Lord God states that these Nephite men better not lead captive of the daughters of His People into Polygamy, or He will visit these Nephite men with a sore curse.

According to Jacob 2:34, the Lord God states to these Nephite men that they knew these commandments were given to their father, and that they should Not have done

Link to comment

Brackite writes:

From my understanding, hearken primary means to heed unto something. From 2 Nephi 28:31 we read:
Webster's 1828 dictionary defines hearken as:
1. To listen; to lend the ear; to attend to what is uttered, with eagerness or curiosity.

2. To attend; to regard; to give heed to what is uttered; to observe or obey.

3. To listen; to attend; to grant or comply with.

The notion of hearkening is about heeding a message - particularly one which is spoken.
I bolded the words
Link to comment

Hi Paul,

Plus we know form the Book of Mormon, the Prophet Jacob states that king David and king Solomon having many wives and concubines was an abomination in the sight of the Lord God.  The polygamous practices of king David and king Solomon was an abomination in the sight of the Lord God.


You haven

Link to comment

For some strange reason Brackite can't come to grips with that verse. Ah... I know why.... Because it doesnt fit his agenda.

He provides us with scripture that is supposed to cast polygamy as a sin. But it's a bald assertion. An apples to oranges comparison... Because... In Davids case it was God himself who did the giving, In Abrahams case its God who did the commanding... And what does the D&C say? The only thing David sinned in was... Taking a married woman to wife (ie stealing the little ewe lamb) and killing her owner.

Link to comment

Hi Zak,

None of these says anything about Polygamy!  You are reading it into the text to make the BOM say what you want it to say.  Talk about out of CONTEXT!  :P

How many people in Jerusalem where even practicing Polygomy?

Secondly according 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.

It wasnt "Polygamy" that was causing the problem in Jerusalem or for the Nephites...

The key word there is "Desire". <_< The "DESIRE" or "Lust" was what the "wicked practice was".

What does "Lust" bring?

It brings King David to a married womans bed... and causes him to commit adultury and Murder twice. It causes God to take the puishment out on the baby rather than King David.

The Nephites where justifying their Lust for women by the actions of King David and Solomon. They where jusiftifing their "Lust" for gold because of King David and Solomon.

Polygamy isnt the common denominator here... Its lust, pride, covetousness, glutony, ungratefulness, uncontentment.

The women in Jerusalem suffered because their husbands where not content with just one wife... but they wanted all the extra marital affairs... and the riches of the world, too. They wanted the prosperity Gospel. They wanted to be selfish... and not pay child support. Sire as many kids as they possibly could with as many women as they possibly could. They weren't content with what God had given them. God even says exactly that in 2 Sam 12:8-9 (IE He would have given David more than the 10 HE DID give him if he'd only of asked.

Why do you continue to dodge this verse... thats the third time Paul has asked you? (IIRC)

See.... Polygamy is being married and providing for more than one wife. Being legaly married to more than one wife and providing for those wives and children is much different than the serial monogamy and the general disreguard of the Colby Briants of our day and age?! What is ironic... todays society applauds and Idolizes the behavior of the latter and demonizes the former?!

Here is again Jacob 1:15:

[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

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Ben,

Since we are also on the subject of Webster's 1828 dictionary on this thread, I would like to give Webster's 1828 dictionary on the word 'truly.' Remember the the word 'truly is found in Jacob 2:24. Here it it:

TRU'LY, adv. [from true.] In fact; in deed; in reality.

1. According to truth; in agreement with fact; as, to see things truly; the facts are truly represented.

2. Sincerely; honestly; really; faithfully; as, to be truly attached to a lover. The citizens are truly loyal to their prince or their country.

3. Exactly; justly; as, to estimate truly the weight of evidence.

This definition of truly very well corresponds to what onandagus1 stated about the word 'truly' on the Zion Lighthouse Message Board almost about a year ago. Here is that statement from onandagus1 concerning the word 'truly' in Jacob 2:24:

4) You further argue that the inclusion of the word "truly" in God's statement "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines" is best explained by reference to a Deuteronomy 17 allusion - i.e., he says "truly" to indicate that David and Solomon had unquestionably violated this commandment: they had _truly many_ wives and concubines. I appreciate your close attention to the precise wording of Jacob 2:24. I think we need to examine the text at this level of detail and with questions about precise word choice in mind.

Unfortunately, in this case your line of argument again tries to explain something that doesn't require any explanation outside that provided by the text in front of us. In Jacob 2:23, we are told that the people "sought to excuse" their own behavior by appealing to "the things were written concerning David and Solomon" (cf. Jacob 1:15). The succeeding statement that "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines" is simply an admission that the proof texts to which the people appealed were in fact correct. In light of its nature as a response to the David-and-Solomon-based excuses offered by the people, this statement is most naturally read as saying, "Yes, they did do the things you are using to justify yourselves, but these things were abominable to me." It takes away their excuse by revealing that the behavior to which they appeal was real but was real _mis_behavior, not real _exemplary_ behavior. The function of this statement as a refutation of the people's excuses is completely destroyed on your reading. If the objection to their excuses is based on a commandment addressed only to kings, it doesn't work for _them_. Why would it matter to the Lehites if God found David and Solomon's polygamy abominable if he did so only on grounds that are irrelevant to them? It wouldn't. A refutation based on conditions that don't apply to them (such as kingship and the seeking of large harems) is no refutation at all.


Link to comment


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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