Scott Lloyd Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 4 hours ago, JulieM said: Not really. Where did Christ ever even mention plural marriage (that we have a record of)? I have seen nowhere that it is stated it was a principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ (plural marriage). Or do you have a reference for that? We're just going to ignore the references to the practice of plural marriage in the Old Testament, then? You are aware, are you not, that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is Jesus Christ, the God of the New Testament? And I'll put the same question to you that I have to ALarson and Teancum: Why is proof-texting in the Bible necessary for you to accept a doctrine as being true? What about the principle of ongoing revelation? Do you not accept the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon? 1
Stargazer Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: We're just going to ignore the references to the practice of plural marriage in the Old Testament, then? You are aware, are you not, that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is Jesus Christ, the God of the New Testament? And I'll put the same question to you that I have to ALarson and Teancum: Why is proof-texting in the Bible necessary for you to accept a doctrine as being true? What about the principle of ongoing revelation? Do you not accept the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon? You don't get it, Scott Lloyd! It is upon DEAD prophets we must rely! Especially when we don't like what the LIVING prophets have to say. Get your principles straight, man! 2
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: You don't get it, Scott Lloyd! It is upon DEAD prophets we must rely! Especially when we don't like what the LIVING prophets have to say. Get your principles straight, man! Unless of course the living prophets don't address an issue because a dead prophet already received revelation that is part of canon. THEN we get to complain that the issue we don't like isn't made mandatory by all 4 standard works. Because you know a revelation to Joseph doesn't count unless our limited incomplete after-the-fact 2000 year old records of what Christ taught have it included too. 3
JulieM Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 10 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Why would there be? Today's leaders don't teach on plural marriage. There hasn't been a discourse on plural marriage in years. Expecting that to be a current teaching makes no sense. As far as "today's leaders" are concerned polygamy is a banned practice that has nothing to do with the Church today. Even the D&C Manual on LDS.org barely touches the doctrine. Honestly, it would be like looking for Melchizedek doctrines in the law of Moses. Why would you expect there to be any? Because if those parables were truly teaching the principle of plural marriage, then our leaders would still know this and teach it (rather than teaching they are about something else). Just because we no longer practice polygamy, that shouldn't change the teachings or purpose Christ taught those parables if it is true he did it to teach about polygamy. 2
JulieM Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: We're just going to ignore the references to the practice of plural marriage in the Old Testament, then? You are aware, are you not, that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is Jesus Christ, the God of the New Testament? And I'll put the same question to you that I have to ALarson and Teancum: Why is proof-texting in the Bible necessary for you to accept a doctrine as being true? What about the principle of ongoing revelation? Do you not accept the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon? You are the one who stated this about the Bible: "The fact it doesn't contain everything about plural marriage doesn't negate the fact that it contains some things about plural marriage, enough to help make a case for the latter-day restoration of the practice." But then you can provide no references to where Christ taught that polygamy was a principle of His gospel. Where are the "some things" that help make the case? 2
Gray Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, JulieM said: You are the one who stated this about the Bible: "The fact it doesn't contain everything about plural marriage doesn't negate the fact that it contains some things about plural marriage, enough to help make a case for the latter-day restoration of the practice." But then you can provide no references to where Christ taught that polygamy was a principle of His gospel. Where are the "some things" that help make the case? Personally I'm not sure the idea of polygamy can be reconciled with Jesus' teachings on divorce. 2
JulieM Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Gray said: Personally I'm not sure the idea of polygamy can be reconciled with Jesus' teachings on divorce. I agree!
Scott Lloyd Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, JulieM said: You are the one who stated this about the Bible: "The fact it doesn't contain everything about plural marriage doesn't negate the fact that it contains some things about plural marriage, enough to help make a case for the latter-day restoration of the practice." But then you can provide no references to where Christ taught that polygamy was a principle of His gospel. Where are the "some things" that help make the case? You have misunderstood me. My pointing out that the Bible has some content about plural marriage is to show that there is evidence that Joseph Smith didn't invent it out of whole cloth, that it was practiced by God's covenant people in the past, apparently with His approval if not His direct commandment. (Of course, I believe it was by His direct commandment, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly say so.) Edited March 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, JulieM said: Because if those parables were truly teaching the principle of plural marriage, then our leaders would still know this and teach it (rather than teaching they are about something else). Who's to say our leaders don't know it? As has been pointed out, there is no reason to "teach it" today, because we today are not commanded to practice it, but to the contrary are commanded not to practice it. Quote Just because we no longer practice polygamy, that shouldn't change the teachings or purpose Christ taught those parables if it is true he did it to teach about polygamy. I submit you have no way of knowing definitively everything Christ meant or intended or implied with His parables. The beauty of parables is that they can have multiple applications or layers of meaning, all of which can be true and authentic, depending on the specifics of time, place and circumstance. Edited March 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Jeanne Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Who's to say our leaders don't know it? As has been pointed out, there is no reason to "teach it" today, because we today are not commanded to practice it, but to the contrary are commanded not to practice it. I submit you have no way of knowing definitively everything Christ meant or intended or implied with His parables. The beauty of parables is that they can have multiple applications or layers of meaning, all of which can be true and authentic, depending on the specifics of time, place and circumstance. So does this mean that Christ did not prophesy..but just told stories that we can interpret any way we want?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, Jeanne said: So does this mean that Christ did not prophesy..but just told stories that we can interpret any way we want? Not "any way we want," certainly, but it seems axiomatic that an application given by way of divine inspiration ought to be accepted. By definition, such a divine application would originate with the One who Authored the parable in the first place, i.e. Jesus Christ. There seems to be a tendency in the exchange of recent posts on this thread to limit the teachings of Christ to what was recorded and has been handed down to us from the brief period of His mortal ministry. Within an LDS paradigm, this is myopic in the extreme. The pre-mortal Jehovah/Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament. And the resurrected and glorified Jehovah/Jesus Christ is the God of the latter-day Restoration, He who called and tutored the Prophet Joseph Smith and authored the revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, He who brought forth the Book of Mormon in latter days as part of that Restoration.
Jeanne Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not "any way we want," certainly, but it seems axiomatic that an application given by way of divine inspiration ought to be accepted. By definition, such a divine application would originate with the One who Authored the parable in the first place, i.e. Jesus Christ. There seems to be a tendency in the exchange of recent posts on this thread to limit the teachings of Christ to what was recorded and has been handed down to us from the brief period of His mortal ministry. Within an LDS paradigm, this is myopic in the extreme. The pre-mortal Jehovah/Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament. And the resurrected and glorified Jehovah/Jesus Christ is the God of the latter-day Restoration, He who called and tutored the Prophet Joseph Smith and authored the revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, He who brought forth the Book of Mormon in latter days as part of that Restoration. Thanks for your own thoughts on this. No matter what, I just feel on a personal level, that Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Savior in the New Testament both authored beautiful parables that I have interpreted in my own way...even after being taught in specifics on what they may mean. I just hate to think that some of the most meaningful words/stories are tainted with polygamy and things. Just me..but thank you. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 10 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Thanks for your own thoughts on this. No matter what, I just feel on a personal level, that Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Savior in the New Testament both authored beautiful parables that I have interpreted in my own way...even after being taught in specifics on what they may mean. I just hate to think that some of the most meaningful words/stories are tainted with polygamy and things. Just me..but thank you. I was present in a Gospel Doctrine class where a teacher taught a lesson on the Good Samaritan from this Liahona article. After the class one old man in the class went up to the teacher and said something about always having believed the parable was only about loving his fellow man, and that he wasn't sure how he felt about being shown a new interpretation. He who has eyes to see and ears to hear... 1
Teancum Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On March 20, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Just trying to understand why you don't seem to grasp the argument and why you appear to contradict yourself. I think what "apologists" do is point out that plural marriage was practiced during Bible times by leaders of God's covenant people, apparently with His approval. I still don't get what you're driving at. LDS doctrine has never held that the Bible contains all truth; ergo, it is not necessary under a Mormon paradigm that a doctrine (such as the new and everlasting covenant) be spelled out in the Bible for it to be true. I don't understand why I'm having to explain this to you if you profess to understand the principle of latter-day revelation. Once again obviously I understand that Latter-day Saints do not appeal to the Bible for all their doctrine. And this I agree that given the LDS view something does not have to be in the Bible for it to be true. Additionally there are all sorts of things that are true that are not in any scripture believed by Latter-day Saints. And fact given the idea of latter-day revelation Latter-day Saints could argue the Bible having some teaching in it or not is moot. But then again a restoration of all things ought to contain most of what is in the Bible. My main point then is why bother appealing to the Bible to defend LDS polygamy when there is little to nothing in the Bible that supports polygamy as an everlasting covenant that was required for exaltation. If you think God allowing it for his chosen people that the Bible gives us stories about is a good defense ok. I disagree. It seems more a cultural thing and there is nothing that shows God was for or against it. And the New Testament certainly does not support it. Mormons argue that polygamy is a restoration of all things. Yet as noted there is little similar when comparing LDS polygamy to Old Testament polygamy other than men taking more than one wife. Hope that helps clarify 1
cdowis Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Teancum said: Once again obviously I understand that Latter-day Saints do not appeal to the Bible for all their doctrine. It gets worse. We do not appeal to theologians and philosophers who mingle the Bible text with their philosophies, who craft doctrine based on whether a particular verb is in the imperfect or in the aorist tense. Indeed, the question of whether the Bible is complete or even inerrant is moot, until you have an inerrant interpretation of the Bible. Sorry. Edited March 22, 2016 by cdowis 1
ALarson Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Teancum said: But then again a restoration of all things ought to contain most of what is in the Bible. My main point then is why bother appealing to the Bible to defend LDS polygamy when there is little to nothing in the Bible that supports polygamy as an everlasting covenant that was required for exaltation. If you think God allowing it for his chosen people that the Bible gives us stories about is a good defense ok. I disagree. It seems more a cultural thing and there is nothing that shows God was for or against it. And the New Testament certainly does not support it. Mormons argue that polygamy is a restoration of all things. Yet as noted there is little similar when comparing LDS polygamy to Old Testament polygamy other than men taking more than one wife. Very well stated. There is simply no record that polygamy was a principle of the Gospel that needed to be restored. As you point out, it was cultural and sometimes allowed. Polygamy was also a part of most Levirate marriages, but there is no record that it was a required everlasting covenant for exaltation (that I know of). I do like JLHPROF's thoughts on the parables though . Edited March 22, 2016 by ALarson
JLHPROF Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 2 hours ago, ALarson said: I do like JLHPROF's thoughts on the parables though Love to take the credit, but Joseph and Brigham provided the interpretation on the talents, and the virgins specify 10 wedding lamps, 10 virgins, and one bridegroom, similar to D&C 132. 1
USU78 Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 5 hours ago, ALarson said: There is simply no record that polygamy was a principle of the Gospel that needed to be restored. Except for, oh, I dunno, that pesky Section 132 ... 2
ALarson Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Except for, oh, I dunno, that pesky Section 132 ... That's not what was asked for or what we are referring to. But you knew that didn't you?
ALarson Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Love to take the credit, but Joseph and Brigham provided the interpretation on the talents, and the virgins specify 10 wedding lamps, 10 virgins, and one bridegroom, similar to D&C 132. Thanks, that's interesting (I've read what Joseph and Brigham stated and don't really find it convincing). As we know the parable of the talents can be interpreted to mean many different things. Did either of them interpret the parable of the virgins to be about polygamy, do you know? Which verses in D&C 132 discuss the parables? Or do you mean the entire section? I sincerely would like to hear your interpretation and thoughts. Or if you have a link you can post to read about this. Do you believe that Christ was the groom in the parable of the 10 virgins or just that it is a parable about polygamy in general? I do appreciate that you at least try to come up with a source and I enjoy a discussion with you. But, even if the parables are about polygamy, I can see nowhere that states within them that it was a principle of Christ's gospel that was essential for exaltation. Everyone will not even be required or forced to live polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, IMO. . Edited March 22, 2016 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 32 minutes ago, ALarson said: That's not what was asked for or what we are referring to. But you knew that didn't you? So you only accept the Bible as authoritative then?
consiglieri Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/21/2016 at 11:11 AM, Scott Lloyd said: You have misunderstood me. My pointing out that the Bible has some content about plural marriage is to show that there is evidence that Joseph Smith didn't invent it out of whole cloth, that it was practiced by God's covenant people in the past, apparently with His approval if not His direct commandment. (Of course, I believe it was by His direct commandment, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly say so.) No, Joseph Smith did not make up plural marriage out of whole cloth. In fact, there is evidence he adopted the practice of plural marriage from some of the followers of Jacob Cochran, who after being converted by Mormon missionaries, moved to Kirtland, Ohio to join the saints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy This adoption of the practice of plural marriage from converts to Mormonism would have been similar to Joseph Smith's adoption of the law of consecration from "the family" living on the Isaac Morley farm near Kirtland, Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order So I am not sure we need to look for Biblical antecedents for Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage at all.
ALarson Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you only accept the Bible as authoritative then? Or any other writings about the ancient gospel of Christ (dated close to back then) stating that the principle of polygamy was an essential part of it. I know we have some historical records other than the Bible from that time. It's obvious that D&C 132 was written regarding the restoration of polygamy, so that's really not what has been asked for here. The parables mentioned are interesting to discuss. Do you believe the bridegroom was Christ and that he had multiple wives (the 10 virgins)? What are your thoughts on that interpretation?
USU78 Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 1 hour ago, ALarson said: That's not what was asked for or what we are referring to. But you knew that didn't you? Who, me?
Recommended Posts