Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 18 hours ago, teddyaware said: It wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if the Lord is a polygamist. I have no doubt. 18 hours ago, teddyaware said: After all, in D&C section 132 the Savior himself testifies that it’s possible to practice plural marriage in righteousness and thereafter inherit the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. Nah this was not Jesus. This was Joseph Smith who wrote this to justify what before was considered wrong. You know, that stickly little section on the D&C that was published in the 1835 edition on marriage was in direct opposition to Section 132. 18 hours ago, teddyaware said: 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. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. (D&C 132) Yesthe BoM condemns such things in Jacob chapter 2. Another sticky issue. -2
CV75 Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: No. The idea that Jesus must be the exemplar and therefore follow all the laws makes it odd that none of his biographers reported this important fact, Jesus didn’t share it with the Nephites, and it was kind of sort of accepted as possible or probably or certain by some early apostles and that was pretty much it. So far as I know the Prophets who could declare such a teaching do not do so. Not much of an exemplar if virtually no one knows you did it and you don’t really fill in your mouthpiece on information that could be a powerful teaching tool. Jesus was the Exemplar for baptism, but without the purpose of the remission of sins. He was the Exemplar for perfection, but grace was not required for any remission of sin as it is with us. I think He was similarly the Exemplar for marriage, but pointing to the covenant between His Father and Mary, and not to His own marriage (irrespective of whether He was married or not).
Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: He was. Next. Only in the minds of someone steeped in the dogma of Mormonism. Next. -1
JLHPROF Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 13 minutes ago, Teancum said: Only in the minds of someone steeped in the dogma of Mormonism. Next. Well this is a Mormon discussion board filled with believers. You should expect belief over doubt. 3
Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Well this is a Mormon discussion board filled with believers. You should expect belief over doubt. Did I say anything different? Yet there are a bunch of believers here that do not agree with the idea that Jesus was a polygamist or even married. And clearly this is NOT official doctrine at least today. See this is one of the major flaws of Mormonism. It introduced all sorts of doctrine and ideas that are additions to historic Christianity and even to Old Testament based religions. And then Mormonism needs to overlay things like Jesus being a polygamist to make the unique and even odd innovations work. Its back written into history and scripture. So its no surprise that many reject such innovations and gyrations. 1
filovirus Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 1 hour ago, Teancum said:Yesthe BoM condemns such things in Jacob chapter 2. Another sticky issue. It is really tough to draw any significant conclusions from Jacob 2. Jacob was talking to the Nephites at this time. He wasn’t talking directly to you and me. That’s what Mormon did, but the authors of the small plates did not. We don’t have much cultural background on the Nephites, as the small plates were not about that? The question we must ask first is: Why we’re they practicing plural marriage? Whatever the reason, it was drawing them away from God, and not toward Him. This is one of the instances where there is “a time to every purpose under the heaven”. (Eccl. 3)
Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 49 minutes ago, filovirus said: It is really tough to draw any significant conclusions from Jacob 2. Jacob was talking to the Nephites at this time. He wasn’t talking directly to you and me. That’s what Mormon did, but the authors of the small plates did not. We don’t have much cultural background on the Nephites, as the small plates were not about that? The question we must ask first is: Why we’re they practicing plural marriage? Whatever the reason, it was drawing them away from God, and not toward Him. This is one of the instances where there is “a time to every purpose under the heaven”. (Eccl. 3) So if he was talking to the Nephites can we apply that to the rest of the BoM as well? I don't think so and don't agree with your conclusion. Supposedly the BoM was written for us. If Jacob condemned the plural wives of the ancients, calling them abominable, then D&C 132 is a direct contradiction.
SwedishLDS Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Teancum said: So if he was talking to the Nephites can we apply that to the rest of the BoM as well? I don't think so and don't agree with your conclusion. Supposedly the BoM was written for us. If Jacob condemned the plural wives of the ancients, calling them abominable, then D&C 132 is a direct contradiction. Not really and not according to church doctrine. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2017/jacob/lesson-44-jacob-2-12-35?lang=eng there’s a huge difference between unauthorised plural marriage and prophetically sanctioned plural marriage. Even during latter day 1840-today Only the Church President held the keys authorizing the performance of new plural marriages. All plural marriages needed church leadership approval first. It even talks about this in Jacob: “Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 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 2:29–30) Edited April 13, 2022 by SwedishLDS 1
JLHPROF Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Teancum said: So if he was talking to the Nephites can we apply that to the rest of the BoM as well? I don't think so and don't agree with your conclusion. Supposedly the BoM was written for us. If Jacob condemned the plural wives of the ancients, calling them abominable, then D&C 132 is a direct contradiction. Jacob condemned plural marriage when lived as they were practicing it there, and referenced David and Solomon. In other words he condemned its corruption and withdrew permission for it to continue. If the entire practice was the reason for condemnation I would expect the names Abraham, Moses, or Israel/Jacob to be named, not David and Solomon. David and Solomon are famous in their plural marriages specifically for going astray. D&C 132:38 agrees completely with Jacob 2. To condemn the Patriarchs would have be far more significant to the people and to our day. Yet that never was done. Edited April 13, 2022 by JLHPROF 4
california boy Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Buckeye said: I agree and often feel the same. The challenge for the church, though, is that we very much want everyone to aim for sealing in the temple. If we decide that some group of members (in this case LGBT) should aim lower and therefore don’t need the temple, we inevitably open the door to lots more members who are not LGBT doing the same. It’s like the current situation with young men serving missions. We teach that YM have a duty to serve because they are ordained to the priesthood, and that YW have option to serve but shouldn’t feel any pressure, but in practice every ward I’ve been in ends up treating all youth the same. We bend towards equality and are lousy at setting different bars for our sons than our daughters. So by setting a lower expectation for one group we inevitably do the same for the other. That’s one reason mission numbers are down IMO. Getting back to my original comment in this thread, I’m very encouraged if President Oak’s plan is to find ways to include LGBT members better in our church community. But I strongly doubt we can set a lower bar for them without seeing many other members decide the lower bar is fine for them too. There’s a high risk in teaching that any group is not ‘exaltation material.’ I totally agree with you. In the same vain I feel like when the Church actively campaigned and continues to tell gay couples that marriage is wrong for them, it sends a message that others may consider whether marriage is something they should do. After all, if it is not necessary for gay couples, why is it important for them. It is completely opposite message that they should be sending Definitely a mixed message Edited April 13, 2022 by california boy 3
filovirus Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 1 hour ago, Teancum said: So if he was talking to the Nephites can we apply that to the rest of the BoM as well? I don't think so and don't agree with your conclusion. Supposedly the BoM was written for us. If Jacob condemned the plural wives of the ancients, calling them abominable, then D&C 132 is a direct contradiction. Jacob was only talking to the Nephites who were in the Land of Nephi, as that was all that existed. Did his teachings about plural wives carry on and everyone had access to that teaching throughout the BoM? How ubiquitous were the writings on the small plates to the Nephites?. It seems that Mormon didn't add them into the BoM until he had made his abridgement. We don't have an answer either way, as it is never brought up again, and the BoM is lacking when it comes to who married whom and such. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that Jacob was speaking directly to the Nephites, and not us. That doesn't mean that we cannot still liken the scriptures to us, but that they need to be taken in context before we do so. And we just don't have enough context to draw meaningful conclusions. What we do know is that God has sanctioned plural marriage before the time of BoM Jacob, as well as after.
Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 1 hour ago, SwedishLDS said: Not really and not according to church doctrine. there’s a huge difference between unauthorised plural marriage and prophetically sanctioned plural marriage. Even during latter day 1840-today Only the Church President held the keys authorizing the performance of new plural marriages. All plural marriages needed church leadership approval first. It even talks about this in Jacob: “Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 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 2:29–30) Jacob 2:23-26: 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. 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 awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 24 Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord. 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Jacob condemned plural marriage when lived as they were practicing it there, and referenced David and Solomon. In other words he condemned its corruption and withdrew permission for it to continue. If the entire practice was the reason for condemnation I would expect the names Abraham, Moses, or Israel/Jacob to be named, not David and Solomon. David and Solomon are famous in their plural marriages specifically for going astray. D&C 132:38 agrees completely with Jacob 2. To condemn the Patriarchs would have be far more significant to the people and to our day. Yet that never was done. If you can get the blatant contradiction to work in your own mind more power to you. I cannot.
ttribe Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 32 minutes ago, filovirus said: Jacob was only talking to the Nephites who were in the Land of Nephi, as that was all that existed. Did his teachings about plural wives carry on and everyone had access to that teaching throughout the BoM? How ubiquitous were the writings on the small plates to the Nephites?. It seems that Mormon didn't add them into the BoM until he had made his abridgement. We don't have an answer either way, as it is never brought up again, and the BoM is lacking when it comes to who married whom and such. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that Jacob was speaking directly to the Nephites, and not us. That doesn't mean that we cannot still liken the scriptures to us, but that they need to be taken in context before we do so. And we just don't have enough context to draw meaningful conclusions. What we do know is that God has sanctioned plural marriage before the time of BoM Jacob, as well as after. When the mental gymnastics reach stratospheric heights -
SwedishLDS Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Teancum said: Jacob 2:23-26: 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. 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 awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 24 Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord. 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. yes but then in 27-30 he says this. notice verse 30 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. 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. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2017/jacob/lesson-44-jacob-2-12-35?lang=eng Edited April 13, 2022 by SwedishLDS 1
Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 (edited) 35 minutes ago, filovirus said: What we do know is that God has sanctioned plural marriage before the time of BoM Jacob, as well as after. See here is the problem. Having many wives was cultural thing. It was something these people had an accepted as part of their world. THere is no evidence that God commanded this or required it. None. So know we don't that God has sanctioned this. More like it was tolerated as part of a culture. Edited April 13, 2022 by Teancum 2
Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 2 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said: yes but then in 27-30 he says this. notice verse 30 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. 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. So another contradiction. God will command something he now is calling an abomination? What a fickle fellow this God being seems to be. 1
SwedishLDS Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: So another contradiction. God will command something he now is calling an abomination? What a fickle fellow this God being seems to be. I dont agree. Its all for gods daughters. He called lascivious living an abomination, they basically practiced polyamory living except they did it through wifes they neglected in the following verses he clarifies that he cannot ignore the cries of his peopls daughters, wifes and children. 31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. 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. 34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done. 35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds. Edited April 13, 2022 by SwedishLDS
teddyaware Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 1 minute ago, Teancum said: See here is the problem/ Having many wives was cultural thing. It was something these people had an accepted as part of their world. THere is no evidence that God commanded this or required it. None. So know we don't that God has sanctioned this. More like it was tolerated as part of a culture. here’s the problem with your analysis: 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. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. (D&C 132) From the point of view of believing Latter-Day Saints, that’s all the evidence we need. 1
filovirus Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 (edited) 19 minutes ago, ttribe said: When the mental gymnastics reach stratospheric heights - God allowed it in the OT, he didn't with the people of Jacob in the BoM, and allowed it in early latter day church times. If that is your idea of mental gymnastics, well then, the world will throw you plenty of curve balls. Show me I'm wrong. Plural marriage may have been seen as an abomination throughout the BoM. I'm not saying it wasn't seen that way. But we really don't have that insight unless you can show me otherwise. So I guess that's my challenge to you. Show me. Edited April 13, 2022 by filovirus 1
filovirus Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 13 minutes ago, Teancum said: See here is the problem. Having many wives was cultural thing. It was something these people had an accepted as part of their world. THere is no evidence that God commanded this or required it. None. So know we don't that God has sanctioned this. More like it was tolerated as part of a culture. I can agree with this statement. But does this mean is was or was not a sin? The word tolerated is somewhat fuzzy. Does that mean plural marriage is OK for some people? Just asking for a little more clarification.
MrShorty Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 22 minutes ago, Teancum said: See here is the problem. Having many wives was cultural thing. It was something these people had an accepted as part of their world. THere is no evidence that God commanded this or required it. None. So know we don't that God has sanctioned this. More like it was tolerated as part of a culture. I know I've mentioned it elsewhere, but this also sounds like the reasoning often given for why God tolerated slavery throughout biblical history.
Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 15 minutes ago, teddyaware said: here’s the problem with your analysis: 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. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. (D&C 132) From the point of view of believing Latter-Day Saints, that’s all the evidence we need. Show me other than Joseph's "revelation" where God commanded Sarah to give him Hagar.
CV75 Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 6 hours ago, Buckeye said: I agree and often feel the same. The challenge for the church, though, is that we very much want everyone to aim for sealing in the temple. If we decide that some group of members (in this case LGBT) should aim lower and therefore don’t need the temple, we inevitably open the door to lots more members who are not LGBT doing the same. It’s like the current situation with young men serving missions. We teach that YM have a duty to serve because they are ordained to the priesthood, and that YW have option to serve but shouldn’t feel any pressure, but in practice every ward I’ve been in ends up treating all youth the same. We bend towards equality and are lousy at setting different bars for our sons than our daughters. So by setting a lower expectation for one group we inevitably do the same for the other. That’s one reason mission numbers are down IMO. Getting back to my original comment in this thread, I’m very encouraged if President Oak’s plan is to find ways to include LGBT members better in our church community. But I strongly doubt we can set a lower bar for them without seeing many other members decide the lower bar is fine for them too. There’s a high risk in teaching that any group is not ‘exaltation material.’ I don’t think inclusion is a matter of reducing relatively long-term expectations (exaltation) for people who are not expecting in this life (relatively short-term) to make marriage covenants in the temple, but helping them wait upon the Lord. Elder Bednar’s recent talk touches upon that, I think. You alluded to checklist-type pressures (by whoever “we” are) on the youth that are not in line with prophetic counsel. To me, this is a form of the great and spacious building, as would be scorning and mocking people who for one reason or another are not heading for marriage in the temple in this life.
Teancum Posted April 13, 2022 Posted April 13, 2022 39 minutes ago, filovirus said: I can agree with this statement. But does this mean is was or was not a sin? The word tolerated is somewhat fuzzy. Does that mean plural marriage is OK for some people? Just asking for a little more clarification. I think if consenting adults want to practice plural marriages more power to them. I don't think God was involved ever and don't think Section 132 was given by God. I do not think God ever commanded or required it.
Recommended Posts