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

[stemelbow]

20 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? 

 

 

 

 

Not at all.  I'm with you on some of this.  Also, concerning the quoted portion you are alluding to, D&C 138 has quite a few instructions on how to go about doing polygamy.  Those instructions were simply not followed, not by Joseph and not by his successor or his followers.  Some of those instructions are: 

Quote

if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified

-vs 61

Virigins seemed to be the ones who were to be polygamous wives.  The first should give consent.  The woman should not be vowed to another man.  None of these instructions were followed. 

BTW, I like your name.  You're not from that fine city are you? 

Edited November 3, 2016 by stemelbow

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

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. 

I've wondered that as well, yet there are so many ways this could go wrong, it had to be even more secretive because the legally married husbands might find out.  But from a pregnancy perspective, that was certainly a risk.  

I'm inclined to think that birth control methods, as well as possibly abortion, were practices they were employing.  I know some of the historical evidence points to this as well.  Of course, this is a conundrum theologically because of justifications for polygamy to raise up seed and these practices would have directly conflicted with that theology.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

This specific BoM reading was not used by either Joseph Smith and didn't show up as a justification for polygamy until much later in the 1800s.  Some scholars have questioned the reading of this passage, and I wonder about it as well.  To me the words are vague and don't necessarily point to an exception to the earlier verses that very clearly and specifically condemn polygamy.  

[James Tunney]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

See the recent Ensign where President Uchtdorf says that God is omnipotent (4th paragraph down from the "We Have Answers!" section:  https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/11/saturday-morning-session/o-how-great-the-plan-of-our-god?lang=eng&media=audio

I don't think he agrees with you.  Also, President Hinckley called God the "creator omnipotent" in the 5th paragraph down from the "God Has A Body" section: https://www.lds.org/liahona/1998/03/the-father-son-and-holy-ghost?lang=eng

Elder Christopherson also said in 2014, in conference, "Given the reality of the Resurrection of Christ, doubts about the omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence of God the Father—who gave His Only Begotten Son for the redemption of the world—are groundless."  See the start of the sixth paragraph from the bottom of his talk for the quote.  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

"Are Mormons Christian?" found on Lds.org says in the 3rd paragraph down from the "Latter-day Saints Do Not Accept the Creeds of Post-New Testament Christianity" that "[l]atter-day Saints believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving, and they pray to Him in the name of Jesus Christ."  https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng

Seems clear the church disagrees with you.  However, maybe the church will come around in the future?

[Ouagadougou]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

1. Presentism: an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences.

So, I don't agree with polygamy today based on my present-day experiences understanding.  Those who defend polygamy often claim it was just a different time period and we don't fully understand how they lived.  I think it is wrong today and 150 years ago.   

So, it's not a fact that Lorenzo Snow was 57 and married a 15 year old teenage girl?  It's not a fact that Joseph Smith married other men's wives and teenage girls as well?   

[Ouagadougou]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not at all.  I'm with you on some of this.  Also, concerning the quoted portion you are alluding to, D&C 138 has quite a few instructions on how to go about doing polygamy.  Those instructions were simply not followed, not by Joseph and not by his successor or his followers.  Some of those instructions are: 

-vs 61

Virigins seemed to be the ones who were to be polygamous wives.  The first should give consent.  The woman should not be vowed to another man.  None of these instructions were followed. 

BTW, I like your name.  You're not from that fine city are you? 

I agree with what you wrote.  No, I'm not from there...just like the way it sounds.  

[Ouagadougou]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

I'm pointing out that it condradicts polygamy.  "One wife." 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This specific BoM reading was not used by either Joseph Smith and didn't show up as a justification for polygamy until much later in the 1800s.  Some scholars have questioned the reading of this passage, and I wonder about it as well.  To me the words are vague and don't necessarily point to an exception to the earlier verses that very clearly and specifically condemn polygamy.  

That's fine if you don't agree with it.  However, this is how the church interprets this verse, and it's the church's doctrine on polygamy that's in question.

The OT, which pre-dates these verse in the BOM, clearly illustrate God condoning polygamy.

[James Tunney]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

This is definitely a point of frustration.  One would hope that a church could be pinned down as agreeing with what it puts on its own website.  The church certainly reviews what it puts there.  So, I would like to assume it is "authoritative."  Nevertheless, the church needs wiggle room, right?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

See the recent Ensign where President Uchtdorf says that God is omnipotent (4th paragraph down from the "We Have Answers!" section:  https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/11/saturday-morning-session/o-how-great-the-plan-of-our-god?lang=eng&media=audio

I don't think he agrees with you.  Also, President Hinckley called God the "creator omnipotent" in the 5th paragraph down from the "God Has A Body" section: https://www.lds.org/liahona/1998/03/the-father-son-and-holy-ghost?lang=eng

Elder Christopherson also said in 2014, in conference, "Given the reality of the Resurrection of Christ, doubts about the omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence of God the Father—who gave His Only Begotten Son for the redemption of the world—are groundless."  See the start of the sixth paragraph from the bottom of his talk for the quote.  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

"Are Mormons Christian?" found on Lds.org says in the 3rd paragraph down from the "Latter-day Saints Do Not Accept the Creeds of Post-New Testament Christianity" that "[l]atter-day Saints believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving, and they pray to Him in the name of Jesus Christ."  https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng

Seems clear the church disagrees with you.  However, maybe the church will come around in the future?

I see that the Bible Dictionary Preface did not give you pause and that you are unable to deal with such theological issues with professionalism and restraint.  If your only purpose is polemic, then of course you make the valid point that such terminology is frequently used in an LDS context.  Everyone is already aware of that.  What you seem unable to talk about is the fact that LDS theology and the Bible are not compatible with such usage.  People often use such terminology without understanding the full implications, and you seem to go along with that technically improper usage.

I see also that you personify "church," as though it were a single human entity which had thoughts, which is not true.  It is a fallacy to anthropomorphize any organization.  Individual people have thoughts and use terminology.  Those not trained in theology will naturally not understand certain distinctions.  That should go without saying, James.  It is a legacy of centuries of religious thought by normative Christians, whose theology is alien to the theology of the God of the Bible.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's fine if you don't agree with it.  However, this is how the church interprets this verse, and it's the church's doctrine on polygamy that's in question.

The OT, which pre-dates these verse in the BOM, clearly illustrate God condoning polygamy.

The church is not a monolith and there is no official interpretation of this scripture in the BoM.  Scriptures have multiple different interpretations by multiple people over time and within their context.  

The OT doesn't clearly condone polygamy either.  Its morally neutral on the topic.  You are demonstrating a bias towards certain contemporary cultural interpretations.  

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

1. Presentism: an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences.

So, I don't agree with polygamy today based on my present-day experiences understanding.  Those who defend polygamy often claim it was just a different time period and we don't fully understand how they lived.  I think it is wrong today and 150 years ago.   

So, it's not a fact that Lorenzo Snow was 57 and married a 15 year old teenage girl?  It's not a fact that Joseph Smith married other men's wives and teenage girls as well?   

By George, I think that you have finally got it -- a proper definition of "presentism," even though you are unable to apply it to real history.  You allow your deeply held prejudices to captivate you in this instance.  You as much as admit that you are a presentist and that polemic, not fairness, is your objective.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

The church is not a monolith and there is no official interpretation of this scripture in the BoM.  Scriptures have multiple different interpretations by multiple people over time and within their context.   

Well maybe there should be an official one since clearly people have been misusing it to condemn polygamy for decades when what is clear is that it condemns only unrighteous, uncommanded polygamy.  That is why the examples of David and Solomon are used instead of the far more significant Abraham and Jacob - the righteous polygamists.
 

Quote

The OT doesn't clearly condone polygamy either.  Its morally neutral on the topic.  You are demonstrating a bias towards certain contemporary cultural interpretations.

According to the OT:
God gave specific laws on how to live polygamy correctly but gave no command against it.  Tacit approval?
God speaking through his prophet Nathan promised to give David more plural wives.
God in selecting his chosen people and prophets chose many polygamists but never once condemned them for the practice or implied any sin in the practice.

Yeah... not so much morally neutral.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

This is definitely a point of frustration.  One would hope that a church could be pinned down as agreeing with what it puts on its own website.  The church certainly reviews what it puts there.  So, I would like to assume it is "authoritative."  Nevertheless, the church needs wiggle room, right?

Perhaps, but primarily due to your anthropomorphic concept of "church."  For me it has more to do with the Hellenistic theological legacy of general Christianity for the past two millennia.  Mormons have been drawn from among peoples who were victims of that apostate legacy, and there is considerable carryover of false, unbiblical notions as part of that long-term legacy.  The "omnis" are merely part of that system.  The individuals who write the manuals, and the leaders who approve them have accepted that legacy in many instances without being aware of the implications.  They are not in fact seeking "wiggle room," as you put it.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well maybe there should be an official one since clearly people have been misusing it to condemn polygamy for decades when what is clear is that it condemns only unrighteous, uncommanded polygamy.  That is why the examples of David and Solomon are used instead of the far more significant Abraham and Jacob - the righteous polygamists.

Just thinking about this, I can't think of any scriptures that the church has declared a specific interpretation to be the official church interpretation of.  That's a very technical answer, but I think its true as well.  The scriptures are supposed to have multiple meanings, depth and nuance.  Joseph was against creeds.  

 

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

According to the OT:
God gave specific laws on how to live polygamy correctly but gave no command against it.  Tacit approval?
God speaking through his prophet Nathan promised to give David more plural wives.
God in selecting his chosen people and prophets chose many polygamists but never once condemned them for the practice or implied any sin in the practice.

Yeah... not so much morally neutral.

Prophets in the OT were very flawed individuals, and did lots of things that violated commandments and were ethically concerning.  Polygamy wasn't condemned in the OT, but it wasn't approved in the OT either.  This is why I said its morally neutral on the subject. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by hope_for_things

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The church is not a monolith and there is no official interpretation of this scripture in the BoM.  Scriptures have multiple different interpretations by multiple people over time and within their context.  

The OT doesn't clearly condone polygamy either.  Its morally neutral on the topic.  You are demonstrating a bias towards certain contemporary cultural interpretations.  

The church's lesson manuals all teach that interpretation, so it's official in that respect. 

Also, God used polygamy and polygamists to create His chosen people and to bless the whole earth.  He never condemns the polygamy of dispensational (for lack of a better term) prophets and instead blesses their polygamist unions.  That's not how i personally define "neutral".

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Just thinking about this, I can't think of any scriptures that the church has declared a specific interpretation to be the official church interpretation of.  That's a very technical answer, but I think its true as well.  The scriptures are supposed to have multiple meanings, depth and nuance.  Joseph was against creeds. 

Joseph also said:
"What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads."

So we take Jacob 2 and read it (in context):

Jacob 2

• 23...For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
  24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Why David & Solomon and not the more significant patriarchs Abraham and Jacob?  Because David and Solomon both were guilty of living corrupted polygamy as clearly specified in the Old Testament, something that neither Abraham or Jacob were guilty of.

•  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.

Polygamy is ok when commanded by God.

•  32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
  33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Identification of the wickedness being practiced that caused polygamy to be banned by the Lord.  Abuse of women, military concubinage, forced marriages.

Polygamy isn't the sin of Jacob 2, corruption of polygamy is the sin and D&C 132 explains all this very clearly:

• 37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
  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.
  39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 Polygamy wasn't condemned in the OT, but it wasn't approved in the OT either.  This is why I said its morally neutral on the subject.

2 Samuel 12:8 "And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Sounds like approval to me.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph also said:
"What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads."
 

Literalism is an interpretive choice too. There is no way to read any text without interpretation.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Literalism is an interpretive choice too. There is no way to read any text without interpretation.

I think Joseph was arguing against prooftexting and some of the other wresting techniques that are still so common today.
I know one man who takes Bible verses down to the Hebrew letters in his analysis looking for hidden meanings.

[James Tunney]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see that the Bible Dictionary Preface did not give you pause and that you are unable to deal with such theological issues with professionalism and restraint.  If your only purpose is polemic, then of course you make the valid point that such terminology is frequently used in an LDS context.  Everyone is already aware of that.  What you seem unable to talk about is the fact that LDS theology and the Bible are not compatible with such usage.  People often use such terminology without understanding the full implications, and you seem to go along with that technically improper usage.

I see also that you personify "church," as though it were a single human entity which had thoughts, which is not true.  It is a fallacy to anthropomorphize any organization.  Individual people have thoughts and use terminology.  Those not trained in theology will naturally not understand certain distinctions.  That should go without saying, James.  It is a legacy of centuries of religious thought by normative Christians, whose theology is alien to the theology of the God of the Bible.

Robert, I agree with your views that God is not omniscient and omnipotent, etc.  The leaders who make up the "church" aren't quite there yet but they are probably only speaking as men, right?  By the way, who defines LDS theology if not the apostles and members of the first presidency?  So, can't we say that lds theology, according to church leaders, posits that God is omnipotent and omniscient?  If not, then who defines what lds theology is?

As for personifying the church, that from D&C 1:30 where it says that the church is living - equating the church to the living God.  It also comes from the apologetic to explain how leaders can make mistakes but somehow the church escapes any taint from the mistakes made because the church is equivalent to the living God and God doesn't make mistakes.  He also never needs to apologize so the church doesn't apologize like Oaks inferred here:  http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

Incidentally, Oaks personifies the church too by saying that it has the capacity to apologize.  Aren't corporations people too as Romney said?

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church's lesson manuals all teach that interpretation, so it's official in that respect. 

Also, God used polygamy and polygamists to create His chosen people and to bless the whole earth.  He never condemns the polygamy of dispensational (for lack of a better term) prophets and instead blesses their polygamist unions.  That's not how i personally define "neutral".

You're not thinking big enough here.  What lesson manuals?  The 2016 published ones?  As I mentioned earlier, this concept of an exception clause was not taught by Joseph and early church leaders.  It has developed over time, and it will continue to evolve in the future.  

Jacob in the BoM condemns polygamy, that is very clear.  The exception clause is the part that's vague.  Whether God approves of or condemns polygamy is a different question.  The authors of the books in the bible didn't condemn it, but they didn't approve of it either.  ln a culture that practices polygamy as normal then all the unions are blessed, yes.  Does that mean that God approves of this or not?

Incestual unions were also blessed, by that same logic, does God approve of these unions as well?  

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church's lesson manuals all teach that interpretation, so it's official in that respect. 

Also, God used polygamy and polygamists to create His chosen people and to bless the whole earth.  He never condemns the polygamy of dispensational (for lack of a better term) prophets and instead blesses their polygamist unions.  That's not how i personally define "neutral".

Jesus is reported to have condemned polygamy. 

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think Joseph was arguing against prooftexting and some of the other wresting techniques that are still so common today.
I know one man who takes Bible verses down to the Hebrew letters in his analysis looking for hidden meanings.

Well, you can read something literally and prooftext at the same time. And in fact prooftexting was a technique that Joseph himself used. 

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

2 Samuel 12:8 "And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Sounds like approval to me.

Wasn't David receiving the inheritance of Saul, the prior leader.  Wives were considered property back then and I believe that this was custom for the new leader to be given the property of the old leader.  Also, it doesn't specifically say that God commanded or even condones for David to marry these wives.  Thats how I read it anyway.