Tacenda Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Calm said: I don't know. I don't know the people in the situation well enough to feel comfortable calling them liars, but I also haven't received revelation on why plural marriage was needed. I trust the most who participated believed they were commanded to do so and that those who speak of a personal spiritual witness believed they received one. What that means I don't know yet. All I know is that I feel really dumb that I didn't know JS lived the principle. I vaguely remember that he was commanded to in the "Work and the Glory" series and even slightly remember the angel and the sword being mentioned, I think. But it's like my mind couldn't go there. And now here I sit, after seeing that he did go through with it, I'm more lost than I've ever been because of it. I really feel like I've been so very wronged in this. Not to make this about me, but I simple can't believe that I cannot move on. I am incredibly angry at the church for it's longevity if wrong and they maybe shouldn't focus on our works at following this particular commandment at one time, and angry at God if it's true and did command it, so I'm in very sad shape either way. It's practically destroyed my life, and a few others especially those that are in sects like the FLDS. And I'm not talking about "Sister Wives" polygamy, I'm talking the polygamy where they are threatened, but there again, they may be living it because of this threat. Edited March 18, 2016 by Tacenda 2
Calm Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 There are many good things that have ended up twisted by those seeking personal power, self gratification etc. I have read women's comments that stated they believed it was the best way for them to seek out God and grow in their ability to follow God. There are a lot of conflicting opinions and experiences out there, much like there is for monogamy in my experience. 4
cdowis Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, ALarson said: I was simply asking where it was established that polygamy was an important principle of the original Gospel of Jesus Christ. . Stop wasting our time. That is not the question you asked. Edited March 18, 2016 by cdowis
ALarson Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, ALarson said: I was simply asking where it was established that polygamy was an important principle of the original Gospel of Jesus Christ. 6 minutes ago, cdowis said: Stop wasting our time. That is not the question you asked. Original Question: 11 hours ago, ALarson said: Where does it state in the Bible that polygamy was a necessary principle in the original gospel of Jesus Christ? So yes, that is what I was asking. What question did you think I had asked? (Maybe you have me mixed up with another poster?) . Edited March 18, 2016 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 13 hours ago, ALarson said: Original Question: So yes, that is what I was asking. What question did you think I had asked? (Maybe you have me mixed up with another poster?) . OK, I'll address your question with a counter question: Does something need to be in the Bible for it to be true? As I've said on past occasions to sola scriptura dogmatists, the Bible doesn't make that claim for itself; therefore, the notion is distinctly unBiblical. 2
ALarson Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: OK, I'll address your question with a counter question: Does something need to be in the Bible for it to be true? Where have I claimed that? Please quote me if I have as I don't recall ever stating this. I assumed if there is a record of the principles that are a necessary or important part of the original Gospel of Jesus Christ, it would be in the Bible. Is there somewhere else to search where these principles may have been recorded or written down? (Sincere question as I'd like to read other sources too.) I did find JLHPROF's response to be extremely interesting (sources from the Bible....which is what I asked for). I think both of his responses could be pretty fascinating topics of discussion for other threads. I personally don't believe they were referring to polygamy, but maybe (?). . Edited March 18, 2016 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, ALarson said: Where have I claimed that? Please quote me if I have as I don't recall ever stating this. Generally those who demand to be shown a Biblical proof-text for something are those who hold to the sola scriptura dogma. Quote I assumed if there is a record of the principles that are a necessary or important part of the original Gospel of Jesus Christ, it would be in the Bible. I don't know what basis you would have for this assumption. Again, the Bible doesn't make a claim of such comprehensiveness for itself. (And I gotta say, it seems weird to be debating this point with a professing member of the Church. Typically, I do it with evangelical Protestants.) Quote Is there somewhere else to search where these principles may have been recorded or written down? (Sincere question as I'd like to read other sources too.) What principles? Plural marriage? Check the D&C. And the Book of Mormon. Edited March 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Generally those who demand to be shown a Biblical proof-text for something are those who hold to the sola scriptura dogma. Nope, not I. 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know what basis you would have for this assumption. Again, the Bible doesn't make a claim of such exclusivity for itself. Why is it odd to assume that Christ's principles for his Gospel that he felt were necessary or important would have been recorded in the Bible? It seems odd to think otherwise! 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What principles? Plural marriage? Check the D&C. My question was in response to JLHPROF stating that the principle of polygamy needed to be restored because: "The FULL gospel had to be restored to the earth for the final dispensation" It's a logical question to ask if there is a record regarding polygamy being a principle of Christ's original gospel that needed to be restored. It's also logical to assume it would have been recorded in the Bible if it was recorded anywhere. (I see you didn't answer where you think it might have been recorded if it wasn't in the Bible....and, not the D&C ) JLHPROF gave the best answers I've seen. Again, those would be interesting to pursue. (If you don't know the answer to my question, that's fine too. You should stop deflecting or avoiding answering the actual question though). Edited March 18, 2016 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 33 minutes ago, ALarson said: Nope, not I. Why is it odd to assume that Christ's principles for his Gospel that he felt were necessary or important would have been recorded in the Bible? It seems odd to think otherwise! Because the Bible has not been conveyed to us in a form with comprehensive content. Much that is true and essential has been left out. (See the Eighth Article of Faith.) Quote My question was in response to JLHPROF stating that the principle of polygamy needed to be restored because: "The FULL gospel had to be restored to the earth for the final dispensation" It's a logical question to ask if there is a record regarding polygamy being a principle of Christ's original gospel that needed to be restored. It's also logical to assume it would have been recorded in the Bible if it was recorded anywhere. Not necessarily. See above. Quote JLHPROF gave the best answers I've seen. Again, those would be interesting to pursue. (If you don't know the answer to my question, that's fine too. You should stop deflecting or avoiding answering the actual question though). I don't know what JLHPROF said, but Brian and Laura Hales have dealt with this topic on their website. Edited March 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know what JLHPROF said, but Brian and Laura Hales have dealt with this topic on their website. You might want to read back to our actual discussion then. You'll see how JLHPROF at least answers my question and doesn't deflect or attack me for asking it. That's why he's one of my favorites on here, he is direct, he admits if he doesn't know the answer to a question and he also admits when he's made a mistake. I've tried to do this as well when he's shown me proof or evidence contrary to my opinions. He's great to have an honest discussion with and I love how he thinks (even though we rarely agree on the conclusions ). And, I've read what the Hales have written. They don't answer this question either, but thanks.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: You might want to read back to our actual discussion then. You'll see how JLHPROF at least answers my question and doesn't deflect or attack me for asking it. That's why he's one of my favorites on here, he is direct, he admits if he doesn't know the answer to a question and he also admits when he's made a mistake. I've tried to do this as well when he's shown me proof or evidence contrary to my opinions. He's great to have an honest discussion with and I love how he thinks (even though we rarely agree on the conclusions ). Your tribute to JLHPROF is touching. It's only that your persistent question demanding a proof-text from the Bible seemed to reflect a sola scriptura mentality that struck me as incongruous in a discussion between professing Mormons. Quote And, I've read what the Hales have written. They don't answer this question either, but thanks. I disagree. But I suppose we can leave it to other readers to click on the link and evaluate for themselves what the Hales wrote. 1
ALarson Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your tribute to JLHPROF is touching. Thank you, glad you liked it 1
Teancum Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 On 3/18/2016 at 1:44 PM, Scott Lloyd said: OK, I'll address your question with a counter question: Does something need to be in the Bible for it to be true? As I've said on past occasions to sola scriptura dogmatists, the Bible doesn't make that claim for itself; therefore, the notion is distinctly unBiblical. 1: No it does not have to be in the Bible to make something true, 2: If 1 is true why do LDS apologists constantly refer to the Bible and the ancient patriarchs to make a case for LDS polygamy when the ideas behinds LDS polygamy are no where found in the Bible? 3: Why should anyone trust the alleged LDS revelations on LDS polygamy that claims to be a restoration of all things when nothing like what LDS polygamy can be found in the Bible?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Teancum said: 1: No it does not have to be in the Bible to make something true, 2: If 1 is true why do LDS apologists constantly refer to the Bible and the ancient patriarchs to make a case for LDS polygamy when the ideas behinds LDS polygamy are no where found in 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. Quote 3: Why should anyone trust the alleged LDS revelations on LDS polygamy that claims to be a restoration of all things when nothing like what LDS polygamy can be found in the Bible? You are blatantly contradicting yourself here, specifically your item #1 above. Thus, your #3 is incoherent. Once one acknowledges that something doesn't have to be in the Bible to make it true (as you did here) the presumption that one must find a proof-text in the Bible for the LDS doctrine of plural marriage to validate it is thus rendered null. I think you haven't been fully following the discussion. Do you understand the LDS doctrine of latter-day revelation? Edited March 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Teancum Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. You are blatantly contradicting yourself here, specifically your item #1 above. Thus, your #3 is incoherent. Once one acknowledges that something doesn't have to be in the Bible to make it true (as you did here) the presumption that one must find a proof-text in the Bible for the doctrine of plural marriage to validate it is thus rendered null. I think you haven't been fully following the discussion. Do you understand the LDS doctrine of latter-day revelation? Yea understand LDS Doctrine and the idea of that whatever the LDS prophet says and is accepted by the chief is canon and doctrine. Of of course you know that about me don't you. So based on the above points why to LDS apologists appeal to the Bible to defend polygamy? The Bible really has nothing like what Joseph Smith and his immediate successors did and promulgated. In the Bible it was cultural. There is nothing that commands it. There is nothing that says it is an new and everlasting covenant. Last of of my main point about something not needing to be in the Bible to be true... it was not made to defend or uphold LDS doctrines that are not biblical. Rather it is simply a statement that there is a lot that is true that the Bible never addressed at all.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, Teancum said: Yea understand LDS Doctrine and the idea of that whatever the LDS prophet says and is accepted by the chief is canon and doctrine. Of of course you know that about me don't you. Just trying to understand why you don't seem to grasp the argument and why you appear to contradict yourself. Quote So based on the above points why to LDS apologists appeal to the Bible to defend polygamy? The Bible really has nothing like what Joseph Smith and his immediate successors did and promulgated. In the Bible it was cultural. There is nothing that commands it. There is nothing that says it is an new and everlasting covenant. 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. Quote Last of of my main point about something not needing to be in the Bible to be true... it was not made to defend or uphold LDS doctrines that are not biblical. Rather it is simply a statement that there is a lot that is true that the Bible never addressed at all. 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. Edited March 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Stargazer Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 On 3/5/2016 at 8:30 AM, rpn said: I think it is the "drawn sword" point that raises the question. What is up with the Lord using that tactic? (But what if the angel was sent on the errand, and decided to do the sword thing as the most effective way --- mortals make the equivalent kinds of mistakes.) We all face the drawn sword. What do we risk if we fail to obey God's commandments? We face loss of Christ's Grace, with the concomitant requirement to suffer ourselves for our own sins. Joseph was a Prophet, he had seen God and the Lord face to face. He was shown the drawn sword because he needed a cogent reminder of what he would lose if he failed to obey. If he had refused, he would have done more than simply lost his life, it's possible that his rebellion might have placed him into the ranks of Perdition. He had more than enough knowledge to be in danger of that. But he could still choose. 2
JulieM Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. 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? 1
Okrahomer Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, JulieM said: Not really. Where did Christ ever even mention plural marriage (that we have a record of)? Matthew 25 1
JulieM Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 26 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: Matthew 25 Where is plural marriage mentioned?
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 1 minute ago, JulieM said: Where is plural marriage mentioned? 1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 1
JulieM Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: 1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Still nothing about plural marriage (and it being a principle of the gospel). Nowhere does it state the virgins were ALL the brides. Does the church teach these scriptures are about plural marriage? Has that been taught or revealed by any of our leaders (that the virgins were all plural wives to be)? 1
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 8 minutes ago, JulieM said: Still nothing about plural marriage (and it being a principle of the gospel). Nowhere does it state the virgins were ALL the brides. Does the church teach these scriptures are about plural marriage? Has that been taught or revealed by any of our leaders (that the virgins were all plural wives to be)? Parable of the talents about plural marriage according to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young: In April of 1843, the Prophet told Benjamin F. Johnson “that he would preach a sermon that day for me, which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend his meaning. His subject was the ten talents spoken of by the Savior, ‘unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from that hath not (or will not receive) shall be taken away that which he hath, (or might have had.)’ Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future, to those who were heirs of Salvation” (Andrew F. Ehat, and Lyndon W. Cook, eds. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph [Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1980], 2 April 1843 [2] Note, No. 9., p.269). Now, where a man in this Church says, “I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,” he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,” and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever.” (Brigham Young, “The Gospel Incorporates All Truth, Etc.”, Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, pp. 160-171, August 31, 1873.) [Note in the revelation on Celestial Marriage (D&C 132) there are various phrases taken from the parable of the talents such as in D&C 132:44.]
JulieM Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) 53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Parable of the talents about plural marriage according to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young: In April of 1843, the Prophet told Benjamin F. Johnson “that he would preach a sermon that day for me, which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend his meaning. His subject was the ten talents spoken of by the Savior, ‘unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from that hath not (or will not receive) shall be taken away that which he hath, (or might have had.)’ Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future, to those who were heirs of Salvation” (Andrew F. Ehat, and Lyndon W. Cook, eds. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph [Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1980], 2 April 1843 [2] Note, No. 9., p.269). Now, where a man in this Church says, “I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,” he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,” and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever.” (Brigham Young, “The Gospel Incorporates All Truth, Etc.”, Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, pp. 160-171, August 31, 1873.) [Note in the revelation on Celestial Marriage (D&C 132) there are various phrases taken from the parable of the talents such as in D&C 132:44.] From what I can tell, that is not what is currently taught by our leaders: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/08/parables-of-jesus-the-parable-of-the-talents?lang=eng Do you have any quotes by today's leaders that Matthew 25 is teaching about plural marriage being a principle of the gospel? Edited March 21, 2016 by JulieM
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, JulieM said: From what I can tell, that is not what is currently taught by our leaders: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/08/parables-of-jesus-the-parable-of-the-talents?lang=eng Do you have any quotes by today's leaders that Matthew 25 is teaching about plural marriage being a principle of the gospel? 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?
Recommended Posts