JLHPROF Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: Not in my reading: 7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations,oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. This law of sealing is further distinguished from the covenant of marriage in verse 18: 18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, Performing the covenant in accordance with the legal authority is what makes it eternal - the same with the other covenants. But making the covenants is not a commandment or a law, and therefore it is not a sin not to make them. Wrong verses. Plural marriage was commanded AND is a law. At least in D&C 132. And Jacob 2 specifies that God can command it - making it a commandment/law. 28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was. 29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne. 30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them. 31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself. 32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. 33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. 34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
RevTestament Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Wrong verses. To the contrary - completely the right verses Quote Plural marriage was commanded AND is a law. At least in D&C 132. And Jacob 2 specifies that God can command it - making it a commandment/law. It is not and never has been a mandatory law. Even in the case of marrying the spouse of a deceased brother and raising seed unto him - the wife could refuse and marry another relative. Quote 28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was. And what "law" is that? A law allowing polygamy? or law of sealing? Quote 29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne. 30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them. 31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself. Again what law is that? It is not specified. If it is specifying polygamy, it appears to be a law allowing it. Not commanding each and every man to have two wives or more. That is impossible for Israel to accomplish unless unlike the rest of the world they birthed twice the number of women as men. Quote 32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. 33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. 34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. You highlighted the appropriate text here. What WAS the law at the time Sarai was following? The law that Abraham had to marry another wife? If there was such a law he didn't seem to be following it very well but was a disobedient servant until his wife forced him... all that is just silliness. So what was the law the text is referring to? Why did Sarah do what she did? Because she had been barren. And if she gave her slave to Abraham any child was considered hers by LAW. This was the law that pertained to concubines. In this way Sarai could participate in the inheritance of a son. This is the law she was using, and why Hagar despised Sarah after she conceived. Because now she was raising Sarai's child. Gen 16:2 I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. 4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes So we see the text telling us this was the law. Any child Hagar had belonged to Sarai (I may obtain children by her.) Sarai became despised because Hagar realized that Sarai was going to obtain the inheritance of the child. But when Sarai finally conceived, she had her "own" child and no longer needed Ishmael to continue her inheritance rights. So we see this was the law at the time that Abraham had lived under. It had nothing to do with commanding polygamy to occur. It was a law pertaining to inheritance which was at issue. But yes, the law did allow polygamy to be used to "manipulate" if you will the law of inheritance. Edited August 17, 2016 by RevTestament
JLHPROF Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 1 minute ago, RevTestament said: To the contrary - completely the right verses It is not and never has been a mandatory law. Even in the case of marring the spouse of a deceased brother and raising seed unto him - the wife could refuse and marry another relative. And what "law" is that? A law allowing polygamy? or law of sealing? Again what law is that? It is not specified. If it is specifying polygamy, it appears to be a law allowing it. Not commanding each and every man to have two wives or more. That is impossible for Israel to accomplish unless unlike the rest of the world they birthed twice the number of women as men. You highlighted the appropriate text here. What WAS the law at the time Sarai was following? The law that Abraham had to marry another wife? If there was such a law he didn't seem to be following it very well but was a disobedient servant until his wife forced him... all that is just silliness. So what was the law the text is referring to? Why did Sarah do what she did? Because she had been barren. And if she gave her slave to Abraham any child was considered hers by LAW. This was the law that pertained to concubines. In this way Sarai could participate in the inheritance of a son. This is the law she was using, and why Hagar despised Sarah after she conceived. Because now she was raising Sarai's child. You can prooftext the D&C 132 verses apart as much as you want. I maintain that the verses on the works of Abraham and the attached law are one continuing thought. Verses 28-34 speak of the same law, one law, and it is defined in verse 34. Sarah gave Abraham Hagar as a plural wife because this was the law according to verse 34. The same law as mentioned in verses 28, 31, and 33. The same law as established before the world was. You certainly don't have to agree, but there is no textual separation of laws in these verses. The same as verses 1-3: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines— 2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. 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. Verses 1 and 2 set the topic. Verse 3 calls it a law. You could claim that verse 3 is foreshadowing of what follows on eternal marriage, but that would be very poor word usage. God set the topic in 1& 2 and then says he will reveal the law that pertains to it in 3. D&C 132 is about plural marriage with a tangent into the principle of eternal marriage. It is not about eternal marriage with a few verses on plural marriage. Only verses 7-27 reference eternal marriage alone. The rest of the section is entirely about plural marriage.
RevTestament Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You can prooftext the D&C 132 verses apart as much as you want. I maintain that the verses on the works of Abraham and the attached law are one continuing thought. Verses 28-34 speak of the same law, one law, and it is defined in verse 34. Sarah gave Abraham Hagar as a plural wife because this was the law according to verse 34. The same law as mentioned in verses 28, 31, and 33. The same law as established before the world was. You certainly don't have to agree, but there is no textual separation of laws in these verses. The same as verses 1-3: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines— 2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. 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. Verses 1 and 2 set the topic. Verse 3 calls it a law. You could claim that verse 3 is foreshadowing of what follows on eternal marriage, but that would be very poor word usage. God set the topic in 1& 2 and then says he will reveal the law that pertains to it in 3. D&C 132 is about plural marriage with a tangent into the principle of eternal marriage. It is not about eternal marriage with a few verses on plural marriage. Only verses 7-27 reference eternal marriage alone. The rest of the section is entirely about plural marriage. I am sorry I am crushing your justifications for polygamy JLHprof. But it is time for the church to realize that it was not practiced in accordance with the law or at least with the right mindset. The church messed up. Surprise. It wouldn't be the first time. The reason there is much in section 132 about polygamy is that the Lord is explaining its history and showing that it was allowed and even used by the Lord to encourage seed rather than for widows to remain alone. It seems the Lord has never commanded specific individuals to enter polygamous relationships, and it is NOT necessary for exaltation. It is time the church get disabused of that notion. The GAs currently teach that correctly, and the rest of the body of the church need to follow and realize they understood it incorrectly.
JLHPROF Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 16 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I am sorry I am crushing your justifications for polygamy JLHprof. But it is time for the church to realize that it was not practiced in accordance with the law or at least with the right mindset. The church messed up. Surprise. It wouldn't be the first time. The reason there is much in section 132 about polygamy is that the Lord is explaining its history and showing that it was allowed and even used by the Lord to encourage seed rather than for widows to remain alone. It seems the Lord has never commanded specific individuals to enter polygamous relationships, and it is NOT necessary for exaltation. It is time the church get disabused of that notion. The GAs currently teach that correctly, and the rest of the body of the church need to follow and realize they understood it incorrectly. I do not believe that nor agree. And I think I have scripture and prophetic teaching on my side. I think it is you that is wresting scripture because polygamy troubles you. A common practice these days. Joseph taught us to read scripture exactly as it is written. You say " It seems the Lord has never commanded specific individuals to enter polygamous relationships." D&C 132 tells us that God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. Joseph was commanded also. And then as God's mouthpiece commanded other men. And so forth. You don't have to like it, but that is what the history and scripture shows. And YOUR justifications against polygamy don't hold any authoritative water. As for exaltation - all that is necessary is to do or be willing to do EVERYTHING that eternal law and God's word commands. Right now that doesn't include polygamy. But the law still exists so that may change one day.
RevTestament Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I do not believe that nor agree. And I think I have scripture and prophetic teaching on my side. I think it is you that is wresting scripture because polygamy troubles you. A common practice these days. Joseph taught us to read scripture exactly as it is written. You say " It seems the Lord has never commanded specific individuals to enter polygamous relationships." D&C 132 tells us that God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. Joseph was commanded also. And then as God's mouthpiece commanded other men. And so forth. You don't have to like it, but that is what the history and scripture shows. And YOUR justifications against polygamy don't hold any authoritative water. As for exaltation - all that is necessary is to do or be willing to do EVERYTHING that eternal law and God's word commands. Right now that doesn't include polygamy. But the law still exists so that may change one day. I went over that section in 132 with great detail about what was the law at the time of Abraham and Sarai. You have not been able to refute it, but it is you who continue to insist in the traditional Mormon understanding rather than to admit it was not completely understood. The text of 132 is quite plain, and you say it should be interpreted in plainness. In its simplicity a sealing to one wife fulfills the covenant necessary for exaltation to elohim. Period. That really is unrefutable. The GAs now see that and realize BY was either wrong or misunderstood. This is a good thing. I personally have no problem with the Lord allowing polygamy again contrary to your statement that "polygamy troubles you." I do have big issues with the belief that it is necessary to enter temporal polygamous relationships in order to be exalted. Just take that one off your checklist JLHprof. Don't kill off your present wife so you can marry again... or try to convince your first wife to allow you to marry again so you can be exalted. Or most importantly, go start your own sect like the FLDS who "marry" children because they think they know better and want to get exalted. I put "marry" in quotes because it seems it is often not really consensual, but is done to try to exalt themselves. This is what I find contemptible about it. This is the type of thing the Lord was offended by, and why it was disallowed in the BoM. Contrary to following "the law" the FLDS are breaking the spirit of the law and the law itself and repeating the errors of the people in the BoM. I will add that as long as LDS hold to errant notions about polygamy, I do not believe the Lord will return it, because the people have shown they will not live it correctly. Edited August 17, 2016 by RevTestament
Avatar4321 Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 i love studying the dimple yruryhs.On 8/11/2016 at 4:36 AM, waveslider said: Perhaps it's more like the kid who couldn't get a high school diploma and keeps taking the GED a million times in order to finally be able to move on to University, but still doesn't grasp an in depth understanding of the basics enough to apply them toward an expanse of a higher learning. Knowledge needs to build upon a strong foundation before it can become wisdom, no matter how much extra is learned. The application of knowledge matters much more than just an accumulation of it. Line upon line, precept on precept is how it is meant to grow. Imagine how much more we would all learn if we were each, personally sitting next to the Savior himself, and whispering back and forth with the Savior, able to ask questions and receive answers on a personal basis, even though it is all just the same old basics that are being taught by the teacher, or spoken by the speaker. Utilizing the Gift of the Holy Ghost, can be exactly that same type of thing for each and everyone of us. It is sad to see people think they aren't going to learn anything new, because they don't expect to receive personal revelation, and only complain that it is just another of many of the same old boring lessons already previously learned, thus choosing to not even try to get in tune with the Holy Spirit of Truth. On the surface the basics seem shallow and weak, but with the help of the Spirit there is no end to how deep these things truly are. If anyone thinks otherwise, then I challenge them to tell, in detail, exactly how the atonement actually works, in such a way that there is no need for speculation on how the mechanics of the suffering of a God fixes the abomination of sin, completely and totally. The atonement is as basic as any teaching in the church gets, yet none of us actually truly even comprehends it's true nature 100 percent, no matter how many hundreds and hundreds, or even thousands, of times we are taught about it. The kids are also now expected to actually read the scriptures, or they don't even get to graduate from Seminary at all. I'll be willing to bet that they will better be able to find things after reading the scriptures, and understanding the actual context in which the scripture mastery scriptures are coming from a lot better than us who only had the scripture mastery to remember, yet didn't have any need to actually read the scriptures for themselves. Let alone how much more they will learn to get in tune with the Spirit as the read these things. The Spirit will help them find those things that they have learned about while reading. At least if you believe what Christ said: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall... ...bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 I don't find that to be the case in my ward. Of course there are a good amount of people who don't read, but then again I find that when I am discussing the latest books I have read, many people have already read some of them, or are in the process of reading some of them, or are very interested in reading them next, based on what I'm saying about them, and vice a versa. I have found some of my favorite books through my fellow church members. There are still plenty of people who read around here anyway. It really would be a sad thing if the church really is too illiterate, but I haven't seen that to be the case at all. I find that those who don't read are in fact the minority. ive found the most basic doctrines of the gospel hold the most profound truths. For example, we had a lesson on prayer from the old blessings and duties of the priesthood manual. I've had probably hundreds of lessons on prayer in my life. Yet despite that I still learned something new. I love studying the simple truths 1
Avatar4321 Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 On 8/12/2016 at 11:13 PM, JLHPROF said: Very funny. The doctrines contained in D&C 132, the promises of the marriage covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, and the teachings of the prophets on eternal marriage would suffice. Just took a quick read through the new President Hinckley manual lesson on marriage. Same old same old. Start with a sweet story about President Hinckley and his wife. Check! Throw in the SAME teachings as contained in every single previous "Teachings of the Presidents" manual. Check! Quote the exact same scripture's as last year manual. Check! Check out this amazing new piece of information sure to spark great learning, progression, and an increase in knowledge: In the temple, a husband and wife can be sealed together for all eternity. [The] temples … offer blessings that are had nowhere else. All that occurs in these sacred houses has to do with the eternal nature of man. Here, husbands and wives and children are sealed together as families for all eternity. Marriage is not “until death do ye part.” It is forever, if the parties live worthy of the blessing. Now let's look at the teachings of President Hunter: In the temple we receive the highest ordinance available to men and women, the sealing of husbands and wives together for eternity. We hope our young people will settle for nothing less than a temple marriage. (Not even true by the way). Or Joseph F. Smith It is a glorious privilege to be permitted to go into a Temple of God to be united as man and wife in the bonds of holy wedlock for time and all eternity by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which is the power of God, for they who are thus joined together “no man can put asunder,” for God hath joined them. Or Harold B. Lee Those who make themselves worthy and enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in the temple for time and all eternity will be laying the first cornerstone for an eternal family home in the celestial kingdom that will last forever. Their reward is to have “glory added upon their heads forever and forever” Or Ezra Taft Benson The Lord’s desire is for every adult man and woman in the Church to receive the ordinances of the temple. This means that they are to be endowed and that all married couples are to be sealed for eternity. These ordinances provide a protection and blessing to their marriage. These aren't bad. But is it any wonder there is so little progression. Each of these quotes from the manual contains a possible tangential topic (in bold) that could lead to a much deeper discussion. But then we wouldn't get through the lesson would we. of course they are going to be teaching the same things encouraging us to go to the temple. That's where the learning truly happens 1
Avatar4321 Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 On 8/14/2016 at 8:59 PM, CMZ said: It's not just your two cents but very true that the learning is primarily to be done by individuals on their own time and that class time is for discussion time on principles already studied by each individual. There's nothing wrong with happening to learn something in a class, but we don't go to Sunday School (or RS/Priesthood, etc.) to just sit there and wait for the teacher to tell us something we've never heard before. That's not the type of Saint the Lord is hoping to raise up. I agree. the Lord expects us to edify one another in basics and then use what we learn to obtain more light and knowledge.
JLHPROF Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 30 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: of course they are going to be teaching the same things encouraging us to go to the temple. That's where the learning truly happens Quoted for truth. The three biggest things I wish I'd been taught about the temple before going through: 1. It's not all symbolic. There is real power involved. 2. It's not all about potential future. Much of it is about the here and now. 3. The process of being "endowed" doesn't end when we leave the temple. The endowment continues back in this lone and dreary world. 1
Recommended Posts