Eternal polygamy rears its ugly head…again

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Because polygamy is part and parcel of the Bible,  The Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Mormon, and of course D&C 132.

We are simply not a free market of idea's church. We proudly proclaim that our way is the only way to God. We conform to the our Scripture, not the other way around.

Yes I have. While not perfect, as our Temples are shifting to computer verified, and cross checked names, that problem is of diminishing concern. 

Bible - no commandment

BoM - denounced as sin, except some strange statement that has more recently been interpreted as an exception clause, but that neither Joseph or Brigham used as justification for polygamy.  There are other ways to read that strange statement.

PoGP - Is it commanded anywhere?  I'm not sure, can't remember, can you help me out on this one.

D&C 132 - Only commanded place in scripture. 

Looks like D&C 132 is the aberration here. 

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

From a non-LDS site.

SEE http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/god-said-he-gave-wives/

I'm no expert on the bible or mainstream Christianity, but I would say this this sounds like an exception and doesn't represent the mainstream interpretation.  

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you mean to claim this is LDS doctrine or even just a teaching of Joseph Smith, you need to stop using it.  It is most likely an inaccurate memory of David Whitmer who was reporting on an event he was not present for:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705337036/Newly-found-revelation-of-Joseph-Smith.html?pg=all

"Whitmer said Joseph \"enquired of the Lord about it\" and received a revelation that said, \"Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.\"\"David Whitmer puts those words into Joseph Smith's mouth,\" Harper said. \"That's exactly what I expect out of David Whitmer.\"Whitmer's memory of Joseph's response to \"revelation\" is similar to a later revelation found in Doctrine and Covenants 46:7 that says some commandments \"are of men, and others of devils"

Given other things were misremembered by Whitmer, this should be placed in the dubious claim category, imo.

Then we'd have to throw out a whole lot of other stuff if we're picking and choosing which second hand recollections to believe in.  Whitmer is just as credible or more so than many of the others.  I beg to differ.  

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Bible - no commandment
No need.  Basically all biblical cultures in the OT and most in the NT allowed for polygamy.  Only in our modern time is polygamy outlawed.

BoM - denounced as sin, except some strange statement that has more recently been interpreted as an exception clause, but that neither Joseph or Brigham used as justification for polygamy.  There are other ways to read that strange statement.
No, polygamy lived wickedly is denounced as sin.  This has been explained clearly over and over.  If polygamy was always sinful in nature why would there be an exception clause allowing God to command a sin.  This is also why the patriarchs named in Jacob 2 were the two that lived it wickedly, not the more significant figures that lived it righteously.

PoGP - Is it commanded anywhere?  I'm not sure, can't remember, can you help me out on this one.
PoGP is not a book in and of itself.  Moses is a retranslation of Genesis so see above concerning the Bible.
JSH is the very early history of the Church prior to polygamy's restoration.
Abraham tells the story of Abraham's life and endowment prior to receiving the instruction to marry Hagar.
So there is no reason for any such command to be included in any part of the PoGP.

D&C 132 - Only commanded place in scripture. 
Looks like D&C 132 is the aberration here. 
Nah - it is not D&C 132 that is the aberration, but it is modern society that is the aberration causing D&C 132 to be necessary.  If polygamy was both legal and acceptable in 1840s America as it was in the Ancient world I doubt D&C 132 would have been received in the same manner.

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Did I say anything about living in polygamy? My point is that the Saints need to know, by revelation from God, that Joseph, Brigham and the others were only obeying God's commandments and that they did not sin.

Do you believe a man can be a Prophet and make mistakes?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Yes, that's the ticket! Reject Joseph Smith and his successors as living prophets of God and you're a good and faithful Latter-day Saint.

You can reject polygamy and not reject Joseph Smith as a Prophet.   Prophets are not infallible.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Bible - no commandment
No need.  Basically all biblical cultures in the OT and most in the NT allowed for polygamy.  Only in our modern time is polygamy outlawed. 

I would call this cultural, not scriptural or divine.  

BoM - denounced as sin, except some strange statement that has more recently been interpreted as an exception clause, but that neither Joseph or Brigham used as justification for polygamy.  There are other ways to read that strange statement.
No, polygamy lived wickedly is denounced as sin.  This has been explained clearly over and over.  If polygamy was always sinful in nature why would there be an exception clause allowing God to command a sin.  This is also why the patriarchs named in Jacob 2 were the two that lived it wickedly, not the more significant figures that lived it righteously.

BoM doesn't make a clear distinction between wicked polygamy and righteous polygamy.  There are no examples in the BoM of righteous polygamy.  Stopping the list at 2 unrighteous practitioners does not automatically imply that other practitioners were righteous. Then there is that strange clause, which again, I'm unaware of any early Mormon polygamists who interpreted that odd statement to mean an exception that God gives for someone to practice polygamy when commanded.  

PoGP - Is it commanded anywhere?  I'm not sure, can't remember, can you help me out on this one.
PoGP is not a book in and of itself.  Moses is a retranslation of Genesis so see above concerning the Bible.
JSH is the very early history of the Church prior to polygamy's restoration.
Abraham tells the story of Abraham's life and endowment prior to receiving the instruction to marry Hagar.
So there is no reason for any such command to be included in any part of the PoGP.

Proves my point then, there isn't any commandment in the PoGP around polygamy.  

D&C 132 - Only commanded place in scripture. 
Looks like D&C 132 is the aberration here. 
Nah - it is not D&C 132 that is the aberration, but it is modern society that is the aberration causing D&C 132 to be necessary.  If polygamy was both legal and acceptable in 1840s America as it was in the Ancient world I doubt D&C 132 would have been received in the same manner.

Thankfully, there are a multitude of ancient cultural practices that our modern educated society has moved away from. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Bible - no commandment

No need.  Basically all biblical cultures in the OT and most in the NT allowed for polygamy.  Only in our modern time is polygamy outlawed.

BoM - denounced as sin, except some strange statement that has more recently been interpreted as an exception clause, but that neither Joseph or Brigham used as justification for polygamy.  There are other ways to read that strange statement.
No, polygamy lived wickedly is denounced as sin.  This has been explained clearly over and over.  If polygamy was always sinful in nature why would there be an exception clause allowing God to command a sin.  This is also why the patriarchs named in Jacob 2 were the two that lived it wickedly, not the more significant figures that lived it righteously.

PoGP - Is it commanded anywhere?  I'm not sure, can't remember, can you help me out on this one.
PoGP is not a book in and of itself.  Moses is a retranslation of Genesis so see above concerning the Bible.
JSH is the very early history of the Church prior to polygamy's restoration.
Abraham tells the story of Abraham's life and endowment prior to receiving the instruction to marry Hagar.
So there is no reason for any such command to be included in any part of the PoGP.

D&C 132 - Only commanded place in scripture. 
Looks like D&C 132 is the aberration here. 
Nah - it is not D&C 132 that is the aberration, but it is modern society that is the aberration causing D&C 132 to be necessary.  If polygamy was both legal and acceptable in 1840s America as it was in the Ancient world I doubt D&C 132 would have been received in the same manner.

Good apologetics for why polygamy isn't a commandment in any other book, but Hope was right that it's not. So you seem to be in agreement about that.

Please help me understand why the legality of polygamy in biblical days means there is no need for God to command it as part of His New and Everlasting Covenant?

Of course the 2 patriarchs who lived it wickedly and are called out in Jacob, are justified in D&C 132.

The PoGP isn't a book? I could have sworn it was a canonized work as the PoGP. It's a collection of various writings, similar to the bible. So you're saying that a book about Abraham by Abraham wouldn't  mention this super important commandment and we shouldn't expect it to? Strange. I also don't know why we wouldn't expect celestial plural marriage to be brought up in Moses since if it really is an everlasting covenant. The only reason why it would be strange if it appeared in Moses is because it doesn't appear in Genesis.

D&C 132 isn't merely God saying polygamy is ok and legal if you want to swing that way. He's saying it's an eternal covenant and commandment.

Each one of your arguments is exceptionally weak and the truth is the commandment of polygamy only appears in D&C 132. It doesn't harmonize with other scriptural teachings. Claiming polygamy is practiced in the name of God is a disaster for the church. But at least the fundamentalists are having fun with it.

 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You can reject polygamy and not reject Joseph Smith as a Prophet.   Prophets are not infallible.

No, actually you can't.
Not unless you believe adulterers are pure enough and acceptable enough in the eyes of God to get revelation and lead his people.

Can you commit adultery and enter the temple and receive an endowment?  No. 
What makes us think that Joseph could have been worthy to restore the ordinances of the temple including eternal marriage let alone receive them if he was guilty of adultery?
What makes us think that Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant and their apostles could have received revelation and been approved of by God if they were all living in a perpetual state of adultery.  It makes no rational sense to deny polygamy as being from God AND believe the Church to be true.  None at all.

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are no examples in the BoM of righteous polygamy.

Ether 3:15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

Ether 1: 41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.
Ether 6:20  And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons.

Brother of Jared had families and 22 kids (pl) but Jared had a family and only 12 kids (sing).
And the brother of Jared was one of the most faithful, righteous men in the Book of Mormon.  I'd call him an example of a righteous polygamist in the Book of Mormon.

Edited July 21, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Please help me understand why the legality of polygamy in biblical days means there is no need for God to command it as part of His New and Everlasting Covenant?
Who said there is no need to command it?  I said that there is a difference in resistance in Biblical days to our day necessitating a more firm command that wouldn't have been necessary anciently.

Of course the 2 patriarchs who lived it wickedly and are called out in Jacob, are justified in D&C 132.
Not really -38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
D&C 132 clarifies how they sinned in Jacob 2.

So you're saying that a book about Abraham by Abraham wouldn't  mention this super important commandment and we shouldn't expect it to? Strange.
Not really. The events in Abraham take place before his marriage to Hagar.

I also don't know why we wouldn't expect celestial plural marriage to be brought up in Moses since if it really is an everlasting covenant. The only reason why it would be strange if it appeared in Moses is because it doesn't appear in Genesis.
And oddly enough, Moses was a polygamist and his law featured some rules from God for living it correctly.

 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The ONLY correct answer is "whatever God requires in this life or the next I will do."

All else is rebellion against God, and we know how well that turns out.

So if God requires polygamy you'd better be prepared to live it.  If God doesn't require polygamy you have nothing to worry about unless you are foolish and attempt to live it without his requirement.  (And given how many polygamists God had as his chosen servants, I don't see much evidence for his disapproval.)

Unless God cares more about us developing good moral reasoning than obeying orders with exactness. The former seems like good preparation for Godhood. The latter, not so much. 

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Yes, that's the ticket! Reject Joseph Smith and his successors as living prophets of God and you're a good and faithful Latter-day Saint.

In the story of Abraham and Isaac, Abraham believes that God wants him to murder his own son. Apparently God didn't want that at all. 

[Rivers]

The church has stated in the most recent edition of the scriptures and the new essay that monogamy is  the standard of marriage.  To me, this implies that most women won't have to worry about polygamy. And I would assume that polygamy will only be lived in the eternities by those who willingly choose to do so.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Rivers

[Rivers]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

 

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

D&C 132 isn't merely God saying polygamy is ok and legal if you want to swing that way. He's saying it's an eternal covenant and commandment.

 

 

Where exactly in D&C 132 does it say that polygamy is a commandment for all to follow?

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Unless God cares more about us developing good moral reasoning than obeying orders with exactness. The former seems like good preparation for Godhood. The latter, not so much. 

 

God does expect us to obey all his commandments will exactness. That is what is taught in the temple.  Obeying his commandments teaches us "good moral reasoning."  Obeying his commandments with exactness helps us to feel and recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

God does expect us to obey all his commandments will exactness. That is what is taught in the temple.  Obeying his commandments teaches us "good moral reasoning."  Obeying his commandments with exactness helps us to feel and recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost. 

Obeying orders doesn't help you develop good moral reasoning. Rather, it atrophies your ability to do so. Obeying orders teaches you to be an automaton. It's like riding a bike with training wheels - you can't develop a sense of balance. It's fine when you're a child, but hopefully there is maturation as we age. 

In order to develop good moral reasoning, you need to start with broad principles, and work out the answer to specific moral questions on your own. And you need to practice, and test your conclusions. You can test your conclusions by observing their fruits.

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Please help me understand why the legality of polygamy in biblical days means there is no need for God to command it as part of His New and Everlasting Covenant?
Who said there is no need to command it?  I said that there is a difference in resistance in Biblical days to our day necessitating a more firm command that wouldn't have been necessary anciently.

You did.

Quote

Bible - no commandment

No need.  Basically all biblical cultures in the OT and most in the NT allowed for polygamy.  Only in our modern time is polygamy outlawed.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Rivers said:

 

Where exactly in D&C 132 does it say that polygamy is a commandment for all to follow?

Try verse 3. And keep in mind, verse 3 comes immediately after Joseph asks about the doctrine of having "many wives and concubines" so it cannot be reasonably assumed to be talking about anything other than polygamy. This very much sounds to me like polygamy is a commandment for ALL to follow.

Quote

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Obeying orders doesn't help you develop good moral reasoning. Rather, it atrophies your ability to do so. Obeying orders teaches you to be an automaton. It's like riding a bike with training wheels - you can't develop a sense of balance. It's fine when you're a child, but hopefully there is maturation as we age. 

In order to develop good moral reasoning, you need to start with broad principles, and work out the answer to specific moral questions on your own. And you need to practice, and test your conclusions. You can test your conclusions by observing their fruits.

This does not seem to fit the pattern that we are taught in the scriptures or the temple.

Adam obeys God's command to sacrifice, and after his obedience he is taught why.

Christ tells his followers that his sheep hear his voice.  Those who follow the good shepherd will have everlasting life.

Christ tell the Father, "not my will, but thine be done."

The temple clearly teaches us that we are to obey the Savior's commandments, whether they come directly from him or from his prophets.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Ether 3:15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

Ether 1: 41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.
Ether 6:20  And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons.

Brother of Jared had families and 22 kids (pl) but Jared had a family and only 12 kids (sing).
And the brother of Jared was one of the most faithful, righteous men in the Book of Mormon.  I'd call him an example of a righteous polygamist in the Book of Mormon.

Rep point for the good catch. I'd never noticed "families" (plural) in relation to the brother of Jared.

So there is an allusion to 1 righteous man in the BoM practicing polygamy. D&C 132 already stated that prophets had righteously practiced it so this doesn't really change my view but I do appreciate the catch. It does make me wonder a little bit about the translation process and how easy it could be for a scribe to mishear an "s" and write it as families, but of course I don't know.

It would be anachronistic to the Brother of Jared's time and culture (I think) but today it is possible to have more than one family and not be polygamist. Depends how you define family (ie- just kids with an ex-spouse or parents and extended family)

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You did.

 

Fair enough.  I did say there was no need to command because there is a difference in resistance in Biblical days.  I do know what you actually meant - why was it not listed as part of the gospel in those days.  And I honestly have no answer for that.  But I still believe the command in our dispensation was more firm and direct than in previous.

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It would be anachronistic to the Brother of Jared's time and culture (I think) but today it is possible to have more than one family and not be polygamist. Depends how you define family (ie- just kids with an ex-spouse or parents and extended family)

Well with multiple families and 22 kids he was either a polygamist or a less righteous man than we were led to believe.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Then we'd have to throw out a whole lot of other stuff if we're picking and choosing which second hand recollections to believe in.  Whitmer is just as credible or more so than many of the others.  I beg to differ.  

If his recollection contradicts the recollections of someone who was there, it is not as credible.  If he is relating something he himself saw or his secondhand report is confirmed by firsthand reports, then his recollections would be more credible.  In this case, it is the first.

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Try verse 3. And keep in mind, verse 3 comes immediately after Joseph asks about the doctrine of having "many wives and concubines" so it cannot be reasonably assumed to be talking about anything other than polygamy. This very much sounds to me like polygamy is a commandment for ALL to follow.

Hey, we actually agree.  And so does John Taylor as I posted here -

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Ether 3:15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

Ether 1: 41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.
Ether 6:20  And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons.

Brother of Jared had families and 22 kids (pl) but Jared had a family and only 12 kids (sing).
And the brother of Jared was one of the most faithful, righteous men in the Book of Mormon.  I'd call him an example of a righteous polygamist in the Book of Mormon.

Interesting, thats an interpretation I'd never seen before, the possibility that he was a polygamist.  Of course, there isn't anything specifically stating that his 22 kids are due to polygamy, its possible to have that many kids by one wife, or for the first wife to die and a person could have more kids with a second wife.  Lots of possibilities without polygamy.

Also, there is nothing condoning polygamy or calling the practice righteous.  So even if we are to assume that he was a polygamist, there is nothing saying that God condoned the polygamy or considered it righteous.  If we use the Biblical precedent, there are many of the patriarch's practicing polygamy, but God never specifically commands it.