How can God not give exact instructions on how to obey a commandment?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello everyone! 

I recently read the church’s “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” essay in the link below and was astonished by the following statement: 

"Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

How can God “not give exact instructions on how to obey” a commandment, especially one that was supposedly as important as polygamy (The Celestial Order of Marriage)?  Are we to believe that God can send an angel with a flaming sword to command Joseph Smith to practice polygamy – but in turn – he (God) doesn’t really give clear instructions on how this purportedly extremely critical commandment should be practiced?  I’m sure the church essays have been carefully reviewed by the top leadership in the church, so I would be hesitant to say that this statement is just an oversight on their part.    

In retrospect, the struggles, problems, and overall turmoil associated with the adoption of polygamy are ultimately God’s blunder?  This statement in this essay goes against everything I was taught and understand about God being omnipotent and omniscient. 

Further, are we to believe that over 150 years ago God couldn’t give exact instructions on how to obey an extremely important commandment – but today – he can give us exact instructions on the following?

• Age we should start dating (16)

• How many earrings we should have

• What drinks we can and cannot consume

• What type of clothing is appropriate

• Recommended movies we should watch

• And the list goes on and on

Or, is it just presentism—and we don’t understand how commandments were given by God at that time?  Did God not give clear commandments over 150 years ago just to test the saints’ faith? 

In my opinion, why not just come clean and admit that polygamy was a fiasco and mistake (instead of blaming it on God)?  Ultimately, isn’t Joseph Smith to blame if he was the prophet at the time polygamy was first adopted?  I personally can’t accept this statement that God somehow “did not give exact instructions on how to obey this commandment.” 

Am I the only one who read this essay and was left absolutely bewildered? 

Nearly all of your premises here are false.  God does not need to give exact instructions, and usually does not.  He leaves the implementation up to his children, just as Joseph Smith claimed to teach correct principles and allow the Saints to govern themselves.

God is not omnipotent or omniscient, and these are not terms found the Hebrew text of the Bible.  They are terms derived from later Hellenistic philosophy and are a prime cause of the Great Apostasy -- which still bedevils normative christianity.

God does not give exact instructions to the Saints on the proper age to begin dating, how many earrings one should have (or wear), what type of clothing is generally appropriate (unless you are speaking of holy garments of various kinds, and even those are left up to the Saints to determine), which movies to watch, etc.  Of course the Word of Wisdom is formal Scripture, but the interpretation has varied over the years -- only booze and coffee now seem to be forbidden.  Are those the drinks you are referring to?

If polygyny was a fiasco and mistake, as you suggest, then it was also a mistake for Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and others.  You might want to check on the claim by Martin Luther that polygyny was entirely biblical and cannot be forbidden based on the Bible.  You might want to step back and take stock of your assumptions here.  Did you carefully think them through?  Do you read history?  Do you even know what "presentism" means?  Your use of it makes no sense here, except of  course that you seem to be operating under the misconceptions which are characteristic of presentism.

[James Tunney]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nearly all of your premises here are false.  God does not need to give exact instructions, and usually does not.  He leaves the implementation up to his children, just as Joseph Smith claimed to teach correct principles and allow the Saints to govern themselves.

God is not omnipotent or omniscient, and these are not terms found the Hebrew text of the Bible.  They are terms derived from later Hellenistic philosophy and are a prime cause of the Great Apostasy -- which still bedevils normative christianity.

God does not give exact instructions to the Saints on the proper age to begin dating, how many earrings one should have (or wear), what type of clothing is generally appropriate (unless you are speaking of holy garments of various kinds, and even those are left up to the Saints to determine), which movies to watch, etc.  Of course the Word of Wisdom is formal Scripture, but the interpretation has varied over the years -- only booze and coffee now seem to be forbidden.  Are those the drinks you are referring to?

If polygyny was a fiasco and mistake, as you suggest, then it was also a mistake for Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and others.  You might want to check on the claim by Martin Luther that polygyny was entirely biblical and cannot be forbidden based on the Bible.  You might want to step back and take stock of your assumptions here.  Did you carefully think them through?  Do you read history?  Do you even know what "presentism" means?  Your use of it makes no sense here, except of  course that you seem to be operating under the misconceptions which are characteristic of presentism.

I think you ought to take the "God is not omnipotent or omniscient" statement up with the church.  The bible dictionary produced by the church says otherwise in the third paragraph: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/god

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I think you ought to take the "God is not omnipotent or omniscient" statement up with the church.  The bible dictionary produced by the church says otherwise in the third paragraph: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/god

Doesn't make it any more true.
Omniscience and omnipotence are nonsensical concepts.

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Typically, if you ask a question that you already know the answer to, it's not a sincere question (i.e. you're asking for different reasons that to find an answer).

My main question was to see if anybody else was confused from reading this essay.  

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nearly all of your premises here are false.  God does not need to give exact instructions, and usually does not.  He leaves the implementation up to his children, just as Joseph Smith claimed to teach correct principles and allow the Saints to govern themselves.

God is not omnipotent or omniscient, and these are not terms found the Hebrew text of the Bible.  They are terms derived from later Hellenistic philosophy and are a prime cause of the Great Apostasy -- which still bedevils normative christianity.

God does not give exact instructions to the Saints on the proper age to begin dating, how many earrings one should have (or wear), what type of clothing is generally appropriate (unless you are speaking of holy garments of various kinds, and even those are left up to the Saints to determine), which movies to watch, etc.  Of course the Word of Wisdom is formal Scripture, but the interpretation has varied over the years -- only booze and coffee now seem to be forbidden.  Are those the drinks you are referring to?

If polygyny was a fiasco and mistake, as you suggest, then it was also a mistake for Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and others.  You might want to check on the claim by Martin Luther that polygyny was entirely biblical and cannot be forbidden based on the Bible.  You might want to step back and take stock of your assumptions here.  Did you carefully think them through?  Do you read history?  Do you even know what "presentism" means?  Your use of it makes no sense here, except of  course that you seem to be operating under the misconceptions which are characteristic of presentism.

God 150 years ago gives vague instructions on polygamy.  However, today he can give exact instructions on minor non-commandments.  It seems as though this essay is blaming God for the problems associated with polygamy instead of Joseph Smith.  In reading about church history and polygamy/polyandry, it's my opinion that it is not from God.  Polygamy (the Celestial Order of Marriage) was considered essential by some early church leardership for gaining the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom, but God wanted to keep his guidance vague on this matter. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[James Tunney]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Doesn't make it any more true.
Omniscience and omnipotence are nonsensical concepts.

I agree with you and Robert. However the church isn't there yet. Seems like you agree that the church is wrong on this fundamental religious concept?

[bluebell]

Ok. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I am here with a straightforward question in good faith.  I think I pose a very valid, sincere question that, up to this point, nobody has been able to give me an answer other than justifications and excuses as to why some of the polygamy-related behavior under early church leaders is still somehow inspiring and/or from God.  In my opinion, it is not from God and something we should be ashamed of, especially when you take into consideration the "fruits of polygamy."  What good came from it all?

 

Further, studying history is important, just like the First Vision or other major events that took place almost 200 years ago.  Joseph Smith made mistakes (as we all do) and it's my belief that he used his position of trust and power to manipulate impressionable girls/women (along with their families) into practicing polygamy.    

We disagree 

It's water under the bridge, and this discussion resolves nothing; it's pointless.

Edited November 3, 2016 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I agree with you and Robert. However the church isn't there yet. Seems like you agree that the church is wrong on this fundamental religious concept?

I think that as far as the Church goes on this they make this statement with no qualifiers.
Our leaders may have a more nuanced view of these terms.
But by sticking to standard interpretation they don't have to deal with deeper theological discussion, or with potential converts questions.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

My main question was to see if anybody else was confused from reading this essay.  

It appears not

 

[Ouagadougou]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We disagree 

I understand...there are different opinions on this topic and that is fine.  

[cdowis]

This discussion reminds me of the two roads story (forget the apostle's name).

He and his son was going down a desert road and it came to a fork in the road.  They prayed about it, and they both were impressed to go to the right.
I assume you know the rest of the story where the right fork eventually stopped, and they had to go back and turn left to get to their destination.

[James Tunney]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

This discussion reminds me of the two roads story (forget the apostle's name).

He and his son was going down a desert road and it came to a fork in the road.  They prayed about it, and they both were impressed to go to the right.
I assume you know the rest of the story where the right fork eventually stopped, and they had to go back and turn left to get to their destination.

Holland, and it struck me as whatever would have happened he was going to view it as being from God.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I think you ought to take the "God is not omnipotent or omniscient" statement up with the church.  The bible dictionary produced by the church says otherwise in the third paragraph: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/god

The LDS Bible Dictionary is not Scripture.  You might want to read the Preface to that dictionary, James.  And you might pay particular attention to the following words from that Preface: 

Quote

 It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth.  Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation.

Indeed, some parts of that dictionary are very cautious in the claims being made, and rightly so.  Under "Chronology," for example, we read inter alia:

Quote

For the earliest parts of O.T. history we rely entirely on the scripture itself; but the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint or Greek translation, and the Samaritan Pentateuch do not agree together, so that many dates cannot be fixed with certainty.  From the time of David onwards we get much assistance from secular history, e.g., inscriptions on monuments and other state records.  Much work has still to be done in this direction.  The dates found at the top of many printed English Bibles are due to Archbishop Ussher.  Some of them have been shown to be incorrect.

Such recognition of the limits to our knowledge ought to give you pause, James.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

God 150 years ago gives vague instructions on polygamy.  However, today he can give exact instructions on minor non-commandments.  It seems as though this essay is blaming God for the problems associated with polygamy instead of Joseph Smith.  In reading about church history and polygamy/polyandry, it's my opinion that it is not from God.  Polygamy (the Celestial Order of Marriage) was considered essential by some early church leardership for gaining the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom, but God wanted to keep his guidance vague on this matter. 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  It is unfortunate, however, that you continue to wallow in false statements about "exact instructions" nowadays.  Your presentism is the likely problem for you here.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

How can God “not give exact instructions on how to obey” a commandment

Joseph had the keys and used them. That is the most important thing. Sometimes there is allowance for adaptation in practice and policy according to political, social, and economic conditions and size and leadership resources available. For example, the Lamanites in 3 Nephi 9:20 were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands, and Alma “clapped his hands upon all them who were with him” to set missionaries apart and fill them with the Holy Spirit (Alma 31:26).

[James Tunney]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The LDS Bible Dictionary is not Scripture.  You might want to read the Preface to that dictionary, James.  And you might pay particular attention to the following words from that Preface: 

Indeed, some parts of that dictionary are very cautious in the claims being made, and rightly so.  Under "Chronology," for example, we read inter alia:

Such recognition of the limits to our knowledge ought to give you pause, James.

I agree with your views on a God that is not omnipotent or omniscient. However, the church obviously doesn't. I can't buy allowing the bible dictionary, that church officials clearly approved, to be viewed as not authoritative. At a certain point, the church is responsible for what it puts on its own website and this is straight out of the missionary discussions, too.

Edited November 3, 2016 by James Tunney
Hit the send button too early

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

There appears to have been no rush or push by Joseph to have non priesthood marriages replaced as quickly as possible nor did he ever tell those in such marriages they were living in sin and had to repent before they were sealed that I can recall.  The quotes that have been posted in the past (I have skipped some pages today) seem to indicate to me he viewed ordained sealings/marriages as the higher law that supplanted unsealed marriages, but not that such marriages were completely invalid not only in the eternities, but in mortality as well.  More like they were legitimate in the arena where the authority they were performed under existed, outside that authority they were null.  He may have differed from various government officials, etc. on just where their authority began and ended though.

Good comments.  Joseph's theology on this issue seemed to be changing quite a bit during the Nauvoo period.  I wonder if the switch from primarily polyandrous marriages in the earlier years to primarily marrying women who hadn't been married before was a result of some shift in his thinking about priesthood authority that overrides prior commitments?  

I think typically authors have looked at Joseph's behavior as getting more and more bold leading up to his death, with the culmination being the council of 50 and his title as King.  But from a polygamy perspective his behavior seemed more disruptive earlier on with the polyandry while later some speculate that he was even repenting of the whole thing.  Its interesting to try and piece together a reasonable narrative for what might have been happening in Nauvoo.  

[Ouagadougou]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  It is unfortunate, however, that you continue to wallow in false statements about "exact instructions" nowadays.  Your presentism is the likely problem for you here.

It is my opinion that polygamy is not of God.  Further, I am amazed that some believe it was God's will that 1/3 of Joseph Smith's wives were already married to other men, while almost another 1/3 were younger than 18.  Moreover, God can send armed angels to command Joseph Smith to practice polygamy; however, he gives vague instructions on how to practice this supposedly important law?  

Similarly, Lorenzo Snow, for example, was 57 years old when he married a 15 year old teenage girl.  The only justification I hear from those who support such behavior is presentism.  In my opinion, it was wrong 150 years ago, just as it is wrong today.  

[Robert F. Smith]

58 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I agree with your views on a God that is not omnipotent or omniscient. However, the church obviously doesn't. I can't buy allowing the bible dictionary, that church officials clearly approved, to be viewed as not authoritative. At a certain point, the church is responsible for what it puts on its own website and this is straight out of the missionary discussions, too.

Good point, James, although I worry that your very free application of the word "authoritative" is pretty silly in view of the limitations which the Preface applies.  Seems that those limitations are not "authoritative" enough for you.

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good comments.  Joseph's theology on this issue seemed to be changing quite a bit during the Nauvoo period.  I wonder if the switch from primarily polyandrous marriages in the earlier years to primarily marrying women who hadn't been married before was a result of some shift in his thinking about priesthood authority that overrides prior commitments?  

I think typically authors have looked at Joseph's behavior as getting more and more bold leading up to his death, with the culmination being the council of 50 and his title as King.  But from a polygamy perspective his behavior seemed more disruptive earlier on with the polyandry while later some speculate that he was even repenting of the whole thing.  Its interesting to try and piece together a reasonable narrative for what might have been happening in Nauvoo.  

I wonder if polyandry might have been the safer option in the beginning? Polygamy was a secret - unexplained pregnancies from supposedly single women in the community would have raised eyebrows. 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Joseph had the keys and used them. That is the most important thing. Sometimes there is allowance for adaptation in practice and policy according to political, social, and economic conditions and size and leadership resources available. For example, the Lamanites in 3 Nephi 9:20 were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands, and Alma “clapped his hands upon all them who were with him” to set missionaries apart and fill them with the Holy Spirit (Alma 31:26).

 

The Boof of Mormon also contradicts polygamy:  

Jacob 2:

"27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes."

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The Boof of Mormon also contradicts polygamy:  

Jacob 2:

"27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes."

 

Jacob 2:

 "30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Jacob 2 teaches that monogamy is the general rule but that if polygamy is allowed it is only when God commands it.  Otherwise, men should have one wife.  

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The Boof of Mormon also contradicts polygamy:  

Jacob 2:

"27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes."

 

So? Adaptation. Are there clear instructions as to how these marriages should be performed? The words to use? The customs to adhere to? Nope!

And Jacob 2 also lays out the conditions for more than one wife (verse 30), also without exact instructions.

Are you talking about exactness in the Lord's instructions or the merits of polygamy? I'm not interested in the latter nor in addressing another non sequitur post.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, Ouagadougou said:

It is my opinion that polygamy is not of God.  Further, I am amazed that some believe it was God's will that 1/3 of Joseph Smith's wives were already married to other men, while almost another 1/3 were younger than 18.  Moreover, God can send armed angels to command Joseph Smith to practice polygamy; however, he gives vague instructions on how to practice this supposedly important law?  

Similarly, Lorenzo Snow, for example, was 57 years old when he married a 15 year old teenage girl.  The only justification I hear from those who support such behavior is presentism.  In my opinion, it was wrong 150 years ago, just as it is wrong today.  

Again, you have applied the exact opposite meaning of "presentism" to this issue.  It might help a lot if you took an introductory course in historiography at a local college.  There you would learn that "presentism" is the application of current or present cultural standards to people in earlier times.  Professional historians and anthropologists always understand the behavior of earlier peoples based on the actual way in which those earlier peoples behaved.  That does not mean that those historians and anthropologists approve of any particular mode of conduct or belief, but they are not applying modern value judgments to those times either -- which is in accord with simple fairness.

You make polemic judgments based on your own narrow opinions, rather than on facts.  And you ignore the impact of those narrow opinions on other historical and anthropological considerations.  What suffers is any sort of fair-minded application of reasonable standards of historiography.  That may make you happy, but it is unethical.