Senator Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 How are they "vastly different"? That's not self-evident. (Though I must acknowledge you seem to be softening your stance: You have gone from "entirely different" to "vastly different.")The context for the discontinuation in the Nephite practice was due to their abuse (ie. "sins/abominations) of the practice.The context for the discontinuation of the LDS practice was due the incurred and potential consequences from pragmatic vision. You don't see how that is entirely and/or vastly different?
Bobbieaware Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 Given that the context for the discontinuations were vastly different, I don't find the similarities all that striking.So I would have to disagree.Not as different as you seem to presume. Perhaps you forget that the Nephite kingdom/republic had its beginnings in Jerusalem, where polygyny was still being practiced. So the Lehites actually had the experience of going from one dispensation of Gospel law where polygyny was permitted, to another where it was strictly forbidden. In fact, it was the Lehites' close proximity to that time when plural marriage was permitted that caused those men of Jacob's (son of Lehi) day to think they were doing nothing wrong in taking plural wives.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 You mean of Watergate, "All the President's Men" fame? The notion that he would be writing about Mormon theology strikes me as odd.Yeh, although I did see both Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein speak together and answer questions at BYU back in the 1980s, and Woodward was deeply interested in the activities of several Mormons both as a reporter for the WashPost (Mormon Robert Bennett purchased the Robert R. Mullen Company, a CIA cover company deeply implicated in the Watergate Affair), and as a young Navy Lt in charge of the code room at the Pentagon under Admiral Thomas Moorer, who was conducting a wartime espionage operation against the office of President Nixon (Woodward thus working with young LDS Yeoman Charles E. Radford, who systematically rifled through burn bags, interoffice envelopes, and even the briefcases of Kissinger and Kissinger's then-deputy, Brigadier General Alexander Haig).
Robert F. Smith Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I don't think you need to concede anything. The Book of Mormon was meant for our day. The Nephites and Lamanites never had the book, as President Benson pointed out. That means its content, whatever the origen, was preserved for us. Furthermore, the counsel in Jacob regarding plural marriage, has repeatedly been given modern application by authoritative Church leaders.What? Are we going to begin now to doubt the relevance of other Book of Mormon doctrinal treatments because they were uttered by local prophets to indigenous congregations?Well, then perhaps we should all obey Noah and get aboard some boat somewhere? No, the specific commandment to Lehi and his clan (which the Lamanites did not obey) was for that time only. And, as pointed out, Lehi & clan came from a land in which polygyny was actively practiced, without any recrimination. For example, King Josiah of Judah (father of Zedekiah) had at least two wives, Zebudah & Hamutal, both of whom began bearing him children from the time he was only 13. That will, of course, shock the presentists. They constantly retroject their world on all other past worlds.
PeterPear Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Well, then perhaps we should all obey Noah and get aboard some boat somewhere? No, the specific commandment to Lehi and his clan (which the Lamanites did not obey) was for that time only. And, as pointed out, Lehi & clan came from a land in which polygyny was actively practiced, without any recrimination. For example, King Josiah of Judah (father of Zedekiah) had at least two wives, Zebudah & Hamutal, both of whom began bearing him children from the time he was only 13. That will, of course, shock the presentists. They constantly retroject their world on all other past worlds.Ridiculous, you comparing the Old Testamemt to The Book of Mormon - as if we should get on a boat somewhere - and you a High Priest - in a feeble attempt to declare the Book of Mormon wasn't meant for us in our day as Scott Lloyd pointed out by quoting President Benson.And as was previously pointed out - incorrectly - by Bobbieaware, it was no excuse for the Nephites to practice polygyny despite it being practiced in Jerusalem. Jacob 2:34 clearly points out that polygyny was never allowed among the Nephites as the command not to was received from Lehi. That the practice came from misunderstanding the scriptures by the Nephites as pointed out by Jacob. None of the Nephites being chastised by Jacob for having plural wives would have known of those things at Jerusalem - so what's your point of bringing up Zebudah & Hamutal other than to shock presentists with your knowledge of useless historical trivia?
PeterPear Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Not as different as you seem to presume. Perhaps you forget that the Nephite kingdom/republic had its beginnings in Jerusalem, where polygyny was still being practiced. So the Lehites actually had the experience of going from one dispensation of Gospel law where polygyny was permitted, to another where it was strictly forbidden. In fact, it was the Lehites' close proximity to that time when plural marriage was permitted that caused those men of Jacob's (son of Lehi) day to think they were doing nothing wrong in taking plural wives.Rubbish. Your knowledge is lacking. You pretend some young son of Lehi born in the wilderness and maybe 8 or 9 years of age, if that, upon arriving in the land of promise would have been aware of polygyny in Jerusalem - including all the other children of the faithful sons of Lehi - is rubbish.Jacob 2:34 clearly points out that polygyny was never allowed among the Nephites as the command not to was received from Lehi. That the practice came from later Nephites misunderstanding the scriptures as pointed out by Jacob. Jacob 2:23.
Tacenda Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 This is what Jeopardy winner Ken Jennings has to say about the new policy.http://mormonstories.org/ken-jennings-denounces-lds-church-policy-on-same-sex-relationships-and-children/
Robert F. Smith Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 ................................ Your knowledge is lacking. You pretend some young son of Lehi born in the wilderness and maybe 8 or 9 years of age, if that, upon arriving in the land of promise would have been aware of polygyny in Jerusalem - including all the other children of the faithful sons of Lehi - is rubbish.Jacob 2:34 clearly points out that polygyny was never allowed among the Nephites as the command not to was received from Lehi. That the practice came from later Nephites misunderstanding the scriptures as pointed out by Jacob. Jacob 2:23.Naturally, the practice of polygyny in the Kingdom of Judah would be communicated by word of mouth to any children of Lehi and his clan, as well as through the Bronze Plates. The whole point of a commandment by Lehi not to practice polygyny is predicated on the existence of such a practice. See Tryggve Kronholm, “Polygami och monogami i Gamla testamentet,” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 47 (1982):49–92, which indicates that the polygyny was a regular practice of the royal family and nobles in the Kingdom of Judah (cited by R. A. G. du Preez, “Polygamy in the Bible with Implications for Seventh Day Adventist Missiology,” doctoral dissertation, Andrews Univ. [1993], online at http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=dmin ). For example, King Josiah of Judah had two wives, Zebudah & Hamutal. This had been normal since Patriarchal times at least. In any case, the Lamanites continued the practice. 3
Bobbieaware Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Rubbish. Your knowledge is lacking. You pretend some young son of Lehi born in the wilderness and maybe 8 or 9 years of age, if that, upon arriving in the land of promise would have been aware of polygyny in Jerusalem - including all the other children of the faithful sons of Lehi - is rubbish.Jacob 2:34 clearly points out that polygyny was never allowed among the Nephites as the command not to was received from Lehi. That the practice came from later Nephites misunderstanding the scriptures as pointed out by Jacob. Jacob 2:23.Did you really critically think out your response before you posted? It surely doesn't look that way. For how can you say what I said is rubbish when all the living members of the Lehite party who fled Jeusalem had clear memories, based on their own life experience while living in Jerusalem, that polygyny was practiced in Holy Land before Lehi received a revelation from God that his people were to eschew polygyny? Do you deny there were living members of the exiting Lehite party who first lived in a place (Jerusalem) where polygyny was practiced, but who later lived in another place (the promised land) where polygyny was forbidden? You say the practice of plural marriage came later among the Nephites, as if a great period of time had elapsed between the time of the Lehite exodus and the time when Jacob and his people lived in the promised land, but do you rememberJacob was the son of Lehi?!? So to reiterate, there was a generation among the Lehites who lived in Jerusalem, where polygyny was practiced, who very shortly thereafter lived in another place (the American promised land) where polygamy was forbidden. So just as there was a generation among the Latter-day Saints who lived to see polygamy both practiced and then forbidden, so too there was a generation among the Lehites who saw firsthand polygamy being practiced and then brought to an end by divine decree. So your point is null and void. Speaking for myself, I really do try to critically think things out before I post something because I don't want to make a fool of myself. I don't always succeed at this but at least I make the effort. Edited November 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware 1
Kenngo1969 Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) ... the Nov 13 letter was a back-peddle from what was and remained in the handbook. ... I have to ask ... What is all of this alleged "back-peddling" going on? Are there a bunch of door-to-door salespeople who walk backward, or something? Edited November 30, 2015 by Kenngo1969 2
JAHS Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 This is what Jeopardy winner Ken Jennings has to say about the new policy.http://mormonstories.org/ken-jennings-denounces-lds-church-policy-on-same-sex-relationships-and-children/ I don't get why anyone should care what he has to say about this enough to make a podcast about it. 4
Tacenda Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I don't get why anyone should care what he has to say about this enough to make a podcast about it.Maybe because he's famous and an active believing LDS? Or at least he was.
Popular Post JAHS Posted November 30, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted November 30, 2015 Maybe because he's famous and an active believing LDS? Or at least he was.Famous for winning a game show. How is that relevant to the subject? Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine. When people think others care about what a celebrity has to say about something on a subject they don't fully understand. It's like someone interviewing Paris Hilton about ISIS. 5
KevinG Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) It's like someone interviewing Paris Hilton about ISIS. The Opera Paris Hilton Hotel was only a Kilometer from the Bataclan theater. Famous for winning a game show. How is that relevant to the subject? Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine. When people think others care about what a celebrity has to say about something on a subject they don't fully understand. Agreed. Why the fascination with all celebrities LDS, or former-LDS, when we won't even listen to our Prophets and Apostles? Edited November 30, 2015 by KevinG 1
JAHS Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 The Opera Paris Hilton Hotel was only a Kilometer from the Bataclan theater.Oh, Well then, maybe I should have used Kim Kardashian instead. ;-) 1
rockpond Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I have to ask ... What is all of this alleged "back-peddling" going on? Are there a bunch of door-to-door salespeople who walk backward, or something? Ha! My bad... backpedaling.
Tacenda Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Famous for winning a game show. How is that relevant to the subject? Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine. When people think others care about what a celebrity has to say about something on a subject they don't fully understand. It's like someone interviewing Paris Hilton about ISIS. True, but just posting for those that might be interested. Sometimes celebrities carry weight, just look at the way the church hones in on some of them. Or the PR department, I should say. 1
KevinG Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 True, but just posting for those that might be interested. Sometimes celebrities carry weight, just look at the way the church hones in on some of them. Or the PR department, I should say. No. They shouldn't. I cringe when any celebrity is used to promote the church or detract from it. As I said before we need to spend more time listening to Prophet's and Apostles and less time fawning over football players and singers.
Gray Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Surely you are able to see the difference. At best your response was disingenuous. No difference. Both are evolutionary dead ends, as you say.
Calm Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Wow! 300 pages. Is this a record?I think the three word thread is longer....this one cheated too because it was merged. add-on: no, the three word thread is still about 30-60 pages or so short. Edited November 30, 2015 by Calm
Zakuska Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Something doesn't make sense here: Leviticus 18:22 - SSM AbominationJacob 2:24 - Polygamy Abomination Polygamy = "revealed from heaven"? Edited November 30, 2015 by Zakuska
KevinG Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I am reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's ditty... "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." There are reasons that God commands plural marriage and they are outlined very clearly in our Doctrines. D&C 132:35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
jwhitlock Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I am reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's ditty... "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." There are reasons that God commands plural marriage and they are outlined very clearly in our Doctrines. D&C 132:35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. Funny how verse 30 gets ignored so much by those claiming the BofM contains a blanket, unconditional condemnation of polygamy. Emerson's quote captures such folks perfectly.
Jeanne Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 On 11/30/2015, 10:04:36, Tacenda said: Famous for winning a game show. How is that relevant to the subject? Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine. When people think others care about what a celebrity has to say about something on a subject they don't fully understand. It's like someone interviewing Paris Hilton about ISIS. True, but just posting for those that might be interested. Sometimes celebrities carry weight, just look at the way the church hones in on some of them. Or the PR department, I should say. It seems that celebrities carry weight if you are the Osmonds..or Thurl Bailey..how about Gladys Knight?
Recommended Posts