How Does the Book of Mormon Clarify the Bible?

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

We are talking past each other.

Nah. Just answer the question.

Are you suggesting that He will command His people to practice plural marriage outside of that rationale?

[Exiled]

Plural marriage was a mistake that cannot be defended. It's best to not even try. So said Rex Williams to me in a private conversation in our ward back in the day. He is a former president of the MTC. May he rest in peace.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

Plural marriage was a mistake that cannot be defended. It's best to not even try. So said Rex Williams to me in a private conversation in our ward back in the day. He is a former president of the MTC. May he rest in peace.

I’m neither convinced nor impressed.

RIP, Bro Williams.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

Nah. Just answer the question.

Are you suggesting that He will command His people to practice plural marriage outside of that rationale?

I’m suggesting that was precisely the reason the Saints were commanded to practice it. Feel free to disagree if you wish. 

I see your Bro Williams and raise you an Orson Pratt...

Quote

Let us now come to the record in the Book of Mormon, when the Lord led forth Lehi and Nephi, and Ishmael and his two sons and five daughters out of the land of Jerusalem to the land of America, the males and females were about equal in number. There were Nephi, Sam, Laman and Lemuel, the four sons of Lehi, and Zoram, brought out of Jerusalem. How many daughters of Ishmael were unmarried? Just five. Would it have been just under these circumstances to ordain plurality among them? No. Why? Because the males and females were equal in number and they were all under the guidance of the Almighty, hence it would have been unjust, and the Lord gave a revelation—the only one on record I believe—in which a command was ever given to any branch of Israel to be confined to the monogamic system. In this case the Lord through His servant Lehi, gave a command that they should have but one wife. The Lord had a perfect right to vary His commands in this respect according to circumstances as He did in others, as recorded in the Bible. There we find that the domestic relations were governed according to the mind and will of God, and were varied according to circumstances, as he thought proper.

By and by, after the death of Lehi, some of his posterity began to disregard the strict law that God had given to their father, and took more wives than one, and the Lord put them in mind, through His servant Jacob, one of the sons of Lehi, of this law, and told them that they were transgressing it, and then referred to David and Solomon, as having committed abomination in His sight. The Bible also tells us that they sinned in the sight of God; not in taking wives legally, but only in those they took illegally, in doing which they brought wrath and condemnation upon their heads.

But because the Lord dealt thus with the small branch of the House of Israel that came to America, under their peculiar circumstances, there are those at the present day who will appeal to this passage in the Book of Mormon as something universally applicable in regard to man's domestic relations. The same God that commanded one branch of the House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by Lehi in regard to monogamy, the Lord says, “For if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;” that is, if I will raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to the law that exists among the tribes of Israel I will give them a commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which I gave unto their father Lehi. That is the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it was authorized by Him.JD 6:351 pdf

http://jod.mrm.org/6/349

You cannot condemn us temporally, or spiritually, or by the civil law; neither can you condemn us by the Bible. There is no law that condemns us, unless the law in the Book of Mormon does so; and I have already shown that the Book of Mormon does not, provided the Lord has commanded it. But if we have not been commanded in regard to this matter, then there is one thing that will condemn us, and that is the Book of Mormon. This is a little more strict than any other Divine revelation, in regard to polygamy. Thirteen years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, the same Prophet that translated the Book of Mormon received a revelation upon marriage, which commanded certain individuals in this Church to take unto themselves a plurality of wives for time and all eternity, declaring that it is a righteous principle, and was practiced by inspired men in times of old. In obedience to this commandment, many have gone forth and taken upon themselves a plurality of wives; consequently, they are not condemned in this thing, so far as the Book of Mormon is concerned; and we consider this book to be a part and portion of our religious creed; and the Constitution of America gives people a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. Ibid361

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

So said Rex Williams to me in a private conversation in our ward back in the day. 

Unless you have some documentation, why should we assume you did not misunderstand him since he is not here to either clarify, deny, or confirm your interpretation of his comments?

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless you have some documentation, why should we assume you did not misunderstand him since he is not here to either clarify, deny, or confirm your interpretation of his comments?

Does successful communication turn on the results in your mind, e.g., if the communication supports the current church narrative, then communication happened and if the narrative isn't supported, then, obviously a miscommunication happened?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Does successful communication turn on the results in your mind, e.g., if the communication supports the current church narrative, then communication happened and if the narrative isn't supported, then, obviously a miscommunication happened?

Your assumptions about how I think really get in the way of your reading what my intent is. Mindreading is not your strength.

I would say the same if someone claimed Brother Williams was supportive of the Church. Name dropping without documentation from an anonymous source is useless. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Calm

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your assumptions about how I think really get in the way of your reading what my intent is. Mindreading is not your strength.

I would say the same if someone claimed Brother Williams was supportive of the Church. Name dropping without documentation from an anonymous source is useless. 

I asked you a question precisely because I am not a mind reader.  I want to know why you responded the way you did.  I make a statement that related to a private conversation I had where a person expressed an opinion about the past.  Because the opinion casts a past practice as a mistake of men, you automatically assume there must have been a miscommunication.  Why?  Clearly, there are others who believe that polygamy was a mistake and the church doesn't claim its leaders are infallible, so mistakes can and do happen.  Therefore, it is entirely possible that polygamy was a mistake (seems pretty obvious to me) and that this person so expressed his opinion that it was a mistake.  Also, Rex Williams was a good man but clearly didn't speak for the church and was never a G.A.  So, why do you assume a miscommunication?  What's the big deal? Would you have even responded if I related a conversation I had with one of my father's G.A. friends on the golf course that was faith promoting?  Probably not.  Why?  Because belief in the story is contingent on the outcome.  Less faithful stories or stories that cast doubt are heavily questioned and faith promoting stories are left alone because why wouldn't anyone here doubt the faith promoting story?  I think this is why you are pushing the Bishop might be suffering from dementia speculation, based on anonymous sources, of course.  It is just too hard to fathom that the church let a predator lead the MTC so the story cannot be as bad as people are portraying it.  Therefore, perhaps Mr. Bishop is not entirely lucid.  That must be what is happening.  No true leader would do such and such ......

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Your assumptions about how I think really get in the way of your reading what my intent is. Mindreading is not your strength.

I would say the same if someone claimed Brother Williams was supportive of the Church. Name dropping without documentation from an anonymous source is useless. 

What do you think of the statement below on Brian Hale's website, is this enough documentation? Or not? I know this isn't about polygamy necessarily, your conversation with Exiled. Just curious to know what it would take to have confidence in information out there as being fact. Or do you take Brian Hale's viewpoint and footnotes as being correct? Or would it matter if Brian Hale wasn't a believer in the church and if so, change your view? I believe Exiled's demonstration or comment about this dichotomy could be true, not necessarily of you but others. Actually, it's the same with the critic as well, they will often do the same thing as Exiled mentions below, if we switched to the critic looking at unfaithful stories as being correct and promoting the non belief. 

c/p'd this from Exiled: 

"Because belief in the story is contingent on the outcome.  Less faithful stories or stories that cast doubt are heavily questioned and faith promoting stories are left alone because why wouldn't anyone here doubt the faith promoting story?  I think this is why you are pushing the Bishop might be suffering from dementia speculation, based on anonymous sources, of course.  It is just too hard to fathom that the church let a predator lead the MTC so the story cannot be as bad as people are portraying it.  Therefore, perhaps Mr. Bishop is not entirely lucid.  That must be what is happening.  No true leader would do such and such ......"

 

•  

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history/polygamy-causes-martyrdom/#DidJosephSmithIntendtoAbandonPluralMarriage

In the years after the Prophet’s martyrdom, William Marks, who had served as the President of the Nauvoo Stake in 1843, reported that in the weeks prior to his death, Joseph Smith had issued instructions for the Mormons to abandon polygamy, Marks wrote in 1853:

When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church. … Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks, … we are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? He said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church. Now,’ said he,’ Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent and cease the practice of this doctrine.”²⁰

Edited June 20, 2019 by Tacenda

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m suggesting that was precisely the reason the Saints were commanded to practice it. Feel free to disagree if you wish.

As I wrote earlier,

On 6/19/2019 at 7:27 AM, Thinking said:

Except there was a lot about how plural marriage was practiced that did not match the rationale set forth in Jacob 2:27-30.

Do you disagree with this statement?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I asked you a question precisely because I am not a mind reader.  I want to know why you responded the way you did.  I make a statement that related to a private conversation I had where a person expressed an opinion about the past.  Because the opinion casts a past practice as a mistake of men, you automatically assume there must have been a miscommunication.  Why?  Clearly, there are others who believe that polygamy was a mistake and the church doesn't claim its leaders are infallible, so mistakes can and do happen.  Therefore, it is entirely possible that polygamy was a mistake (seems pretty obvious to me) and that this person so expressed his opinion that it was a mistake.  Also, Rex Williams was a good man but clearly didn't speak for the church and was never a G.A.  So, why do you assume a miscommunication?  What's the big deal? Would you have even responded if I related a conversation I had with one of my father's G.A. friends on the golf course that was faith promoting?  Probably not.  Why?  Because belief in the story is contingent on the outcome.  Less faithful stories or stories that cast doubt are heavily questioned and faith promoting stories are left alone because why wouldn't anyone here doubt the faith promoting story?  I think this is why you are pushing the Bishop might be suffering from dementia speculation, based on anonymous sources, of course.  It is just too hard to fathom that the church let a predator lead the MTC so the story cannot be as bad as people are portraying it.  Therefore, perhaps Mr. Bishop is not entirely lucid.  That must be what is happening.  No true leader would do such and such ......

No, the results of a communication do not determine likelihood of successful communication for me. Method of communication, including consistency and documentation among other things, determine value for me

Evidence that someone is prone to misunderstanding also raises probability they got it wrong, imo, especially if it supports their own position 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because the opinion casts a past practice as a mistake of men, you automatically assume there must have been a miscommunicatio

This is false. 

I didn’t assume a miscommunication. This is mindreading. 

My position is you gave us no reason to assume it is either an accurate or inaccurate portrayal of Williams' beliefs.  It is a worthless namedropping, pretty random comment whose purpose does not appear to be for illumination.

My problems with your comment.

 Why appeal to Rex Williams for his opinion on polygamy?  I would value his opinion on whether or not Bishop is telling the truth about what goes on behind the scenes in the MTC, but you have given nothing to see his value as an authority on polygamy.  Was he a historian?  Did he study the journals of those involved in polygamy?  Or would his opinion be based on his beliefs about the appropriate relationships between men and women or something else?

Also while you have related your relationship with Rex Williams before on this board, you are anonymous and there is no way to verify whether you are making it up or telling the truth.  I think you are telling the truth about your relationship, but at this point your comment has no more value for authority than the anonymous sources saying they know Bishop and he has dementia.

And last, based on my own interactions and the interactions of others, I don't see you as having a great track record for accurately representing what others have said.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

As I wrote earlier,

Do you disagree with this statement?

Yes, as you are interpreting it. Other than the statement that the Lord would command it in order to raise seed, there are no further instructions on how to practice it in Jacob’s words, nor is there evidence the Nephites were ever commanded to practice it. Does that mean imperfect men did not make mistakes in living the practice? Of course not. But there is no doubt they believed the reason they were obeying was in compliance with that scripture. 

In April 1861, Brigham Young said,

Quote

If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say, if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man to have but one wife, let it be so. The word and will of the Lord is what I want—the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will. The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. I would rather take my valise in my hand today, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do, unless God commands it. I never entered into the order of plurality of wives to gratify passion. And were I now asked whether I desired and wanted another wife, my reply would be, It should be one by whom the Spirit will bring forth noble children. I am almost sixty years old; and if I now live for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth.

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

Tacenda, If claims are made about someone saying something significantly different than they have said before and the person is unavailable to confirm it, I suggest caution whatever the comment is. 

For example, iirc Thomas Ferguson’s family reports he came back to his faith towards the end of his life. Given there is reason to believe their personal bias might have influenced their perception, I do not assume this is truth, but only a possibility and I would suggest caution for anyone making a conclusion one way or the other on Ferguson’s beliefs at the end. 

I am not a gung-ho supporter of polygamy. The only thing keeping me from assuming it was a mistake based on a misunderstanding of restoration of all things and a desire to emulate ancient prophets mixed with more carnal desires is the many positive  witnesses of the women involved including claims of visions, so my current position is no current conclusion. I also recognize my distaste for the practice is a modern prejudice. I also believe if it is practiced eternally, it will be both polygyny and polyandry involved to allow all who wish eternal relationships with their loved spouses to continue and all parents to be sealed to their own children, biological and adoptive If worthy. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

What do you think of the statement below on Brian Hale's website, is this enough documentation? Or not? 

Documentation for what?  Marks' opinion?  Yes.  Joseph's?  No.  One person relating something contrary to other sources is not enough.  It remains a possibility Joseph said this to him, but not a probability, imo.  

I don't know what you are referring to as Hales' viewpoint.  If not what you quoted, but what he says in the article linked to, I think Hales documents things well.  I don't agree with all his conclusions though as I think he assumes somethings without enough evidence. (Haven't looked at things lately, but his discussion about the polyandry of Joseph Smith and Sylvia Lyons with claims of Sylvia being separated from Windsor or that she denied him cohabitation rights because he was excommunicated at that time went too far imo).

Edited June 20, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Documentation for what?  Marks' opinion?  Yes.  Joseph's?  No.  One person relating something contrary to other sources is not enough.  It remains a possibility Joseph said this to him, but not a probability, imo.  

I don't know what you are referring to as Hales' viewpoint.  If not what you quoted, but what he says in the article linked to, I think Hales documents things well.  I don't agree with all his conclusions though as I think he assumes somethings without enough evidence.

Thanks, I don't know where I was going really except to say that there is so much information that really might be untrue since the person isn't there to confirm whether it's true or not. So everything in the LDS church could be iffy if it weren't for the faith that it is true, or the revelation. So we all should chill and not argue over so much, because really no one knows for a fact, we just go by our intuition or beliefs. 

[Calm]

Quote

It is just too hard to fathom that the church let a predator lead the MTC

What is hardest for me to fathom is that any intelligent organizational leader in even an amoral business would allow such a liability to continue without a compelling reason...the liability had power to make their life miserable, for example.  Even for purely selfish reasons---to avoid accusations or lawsuits---it makes more sense to release Bishop with a plausible excuse rather than leave him in.  I can see it happening on a local level with less experienced leaders, but with the level and type of leadership available at that level, while possible, I see it as highly unlikely.

Same problem with knowingly putting a past predator in that position when there were likely many other safer candidates available.  Why take the risk for a relative nobody?

The possibility of a coverup at that time (making sure the paper trail did not reflect the reality of the dismissal) is high, imo, but there is a difference between quietly removing someone from a position of authority they violated and quietly allowing them to continue in the same position.  

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

It doesn't. It plagiarized from the Bible. 😉

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Exiled said:

Plural marriage was a mistake that cannot be defended. It's best to not even try. So said Rex Williams to me in a private conversation in our ward back in the day. He is a former president of the MTC. May he rest in peace.

Well I raise you a different ex mtc president who thought taking advantage of position and prestige to score ladies kinda like Brigham Young did is the most heavenly of arrangements, and godly men of all stripes should do all they can do defend such a thing.  Although since he grew old he grew weak on maintaining that teaching.

[Exiled]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well I raise you a different ex mtc president who thought taking advantage of position and prestige to score ladies kinda like Brigham Young did is the most heavenly of arrangements, and godly men of all stripes should do all they can do defend such a thing.  Although since he grew old he grew weak on maintaining that teaching.

I thought he is going senile so we cannot trust what he said or allegedly confessed lol.

[CA Steve]

Well according to one 19th century reviewer:

Quote

[It] decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man

A Campbell 1831

[tkv]

53 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man

It really has nothing to say about the issues in bold.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, tkv said:

It really has nothing to say about the issues in bold.

People often read into it what they expect to see.

But perhaps he saw it as an oblique rejection of transubstantiation when it was written as "in rememberance".

Freemasonry is often assumed with secret combinations.  

Not sure what penance might be.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

The extraordinary status of the Apostle John.

John the Baptist was not the first to perform baptisms for repentance.

The role of Gentiles in the end times and the gathering of Israel.

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, Valentinus said:

It doesn't. It plagiarized from the Bible. 😉

Check out the compiled list below and explain how the items on it were  plagiarized.