M
majick275
Guest
so we’re back to “you don’t understand the scriptures” as the extent of your analysis?
- Status
A
amgid
Guest
No. You had included far too many topics of discussion in one post for me to be able to comment in any depth on any of them. If you want to isolate one of those topics and discuss them in greater depth, that is possible. But I will be reducing my paritcipation on these boards in any case, so the window of opportunity for that will be limited.
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
I would be interested in you responding to the LDS scriptures I had cited. specifically I would like for you to explain how they are something other than a condemnation of that practice.
A
amgid
Guest
I need to know which quotes you are referring to. You had quoted several passages, and they require separate discussions.
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
Let’s start with the one from the original D&C.
History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247 (August 1835) “The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his branch. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this Church should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”(This was included in the first published Doctrine and Covenants and accepted unanimously by the Twelve before being published. This passage in every D&C edition until 1876 when D&C 132 was first introduced to the Doctrine and Covenants).
(Then if you have time I’d like to discuss Jacob chapter 2)
History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247 (August 1835) “The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his branch. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this Church should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”(This was included in the first published Doctrine and Covenants and accepted unanimously by the Twelve before being published. This passage in every D&C edition until 1876 when D&C 132 was first introduced to the Doctrine and Covenants).
(Then if you have time I’d like to discuss Jacob chapter 2)
A
amgid
Guest
This is history rather than scripture. I don’t know too much about this. I would have to look it up, and I am not sure that I will, because I will be leaving this board.
What exactly is your critique of this passage of scripture?
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
Well the first WAS canonized scripture and accepted by common consent. It’s removal was not.
I think Jacob 2 specifically condemns the practice of polygamy.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
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;
That sure seems obvious to me.
I think Jacob 2 specifically condemns the practice of polygamy.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
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;
That sure seems obvious to me.
A
amgid
Guest
I will come back to you on that later on, as I have to leave the computer right now.
amgid
B
ben_dy
Guest
amgid,
When you make comments like this, in which the citation given is clear to everyone - including LDS members - and your argument in opposition is “you have not understood the scripture correctly”, or other dismissals such as “that is irrelevant to the discussion” when the point brought up is clearly relevant (and, again, not just clear to Catholics but clear to everyone), you do yourself - and your church - a great disservice. If you cannot defend what is written, for what is clear to understand, you respond that the poster does not understand; for that which is relevant, you declare irrelevant. It doesn’t ‘work’ here just as it doesn’t work in real life and it is almost embarrassing for me to watch as I feel I could make a better case to justify polygamy than you are doing at present.
I may be mistaken in my idea that you wish to be thought credible. If your only goal is contention with no basis in fact, then you are accomplishing your goal. If your goal is to use facts and logic (or even, as some LDS have used, spiritual testimony) to debate a particular LDS position, then you’re, again (for you seemed to have backed off of this method of ‘debate’ for a time), going out of your way to assure that nothing you say can be taken as credible.
It may be that your only goal here is to provide baseless contention. If so, I can accept that and write you off as a ‘troll’ as in my usenet days of old. If you wish to try to maintain credibility, however, you’re going to have to make concessions - as is the way in all Christian apologetics - when that which is clear and understood by everyone is simply beyond contention. You accept and move on and, particularly in this discussion, I am embarrassed for you that I admit that I could make a better argument in favor of polygamy than you are accomplishing all the while admitting that which has been written previous to the revelation being made public.
A
amgid
Guest
Not so obvious. It condemns the abuse of polygamy, not polygamy itself. It is addressed to a group of people who were themselves trying to abuse polygamy, and they were citing examples of polygamy abuse in the OT to justify their own practices—or rather, their desires to do so. Here is the quote:
Jacob 2:
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 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.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
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;
This condemns the abuse of polygamy, not polygamy itself. It cites the examples of David and Solomon, both of whom abused the principle of polygamy. Solomon committed two serious abuses in his practice of polygamy. Firstly, he carried it to excess, which God had specifically commanded Israel not to do:
Deuteronomy 17:
14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
Notice that it does not prohibit him to have more than one wife—any more than it prohibited him from having “horses” or from having “silver and gold”. It only prohibits him from carrying them to excess. Solomon broke this rule on a grand scale. He had around a thousand wives and concubines. He abused the law of polygamy to practice whoredoms. That is what the Lord is condemning him for (as well as the Nephites who were trying to use his example as an excuse) in Jacob 2. It is not condemning polygamy as such.
Solomon broke another commandment in connection with his wives. God had commanded Israel not to intermarry with foreign (idolatrous) nations, lest they should turn their hearts away to idolatry (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3-4). Solomon broke this law, and married many wives of foreign nations, and they actually turned his heart away to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1-8). So their problems were not with the practice of polygamy, but with the abuse of polygamy.
David was also condemned for a similar type of thing. God had already given him many wives in a righteous manner. But David was not satisfied with that. When he saw the beautiful woman Bathsheba, who was married to Uriah, he desired her as well, even though he already had many beautiful wives whom the Lord had given to him, and committed adultery with her, and then compounded the problem by having her husband murdered so that he could marry his wife. These are the things for which they were being condemned, not the practice of polygamy per se.
The fact that David’s legitimate wives were given to him by the Lord, and had divine approval, is testified of in the Bible. After his great transgression, when he had committed adultery with Bathsheba and then had her husband murdered, the Lord pronounced this terrible judgement against him:
(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
(Continued from the previous post…)
2 Samuel 12:
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
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.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
In verses 7 and 8 the Lord recounts all the great blessings that He had bestowed on David, which includes, among other things, “gave thee thy master’s … wives into thy bosom”. So David’s wives were given to him of the Lord, as a blessing and a gift, and had complete divine approval. He only sinned when he desired something that the Lord had not appointed to him—which was “whoredom”.
The fact that polygamy was practiced and had divine approval in ancient times is amply testified of in the Bible. Firstly, we have the example of all the righteous prophets and patriarchs of ancient times who practiced it, undoubtedly with divine approval. Secondly, we know that it was permissible under the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). We even have the example of Moses practicing it. He marries an Ethiopian (i.e. slave) woman (in addition to his wife, Zipporah; and probably other wives he nay have had as well). Aaron and Miriam, his brother and sister, disapprove of his action, murmur against him, and treat him with disrespect. And then what does God do? He supports Moses’ action, and severely chastises Aaron and Miriam! (See Numbers 12). Notice especially that Aaron and Miriam do not murmur against Moses because he had married more than one wife. They murmured against him because he had married an Ethiopian (i.e. slave) woman. In other words, they felt that he had dishonoured the family name by marrying someone beneath his dignity! But what does the Lord say? It had His divine approval! Thirdly, we have the example of David, quoted above; where the Lord expressly states that his wives were given to him of the Lord as a gift and a blessing to him, not as a cursing. And fourthly, in the NT nowhere is it condemned or disallowed. On the contrary, polygamy was permissible under Jewish and pagan (Roman) law, and there were no doubt many who practiced it. But nowhere in the NT is it condemned or disallowed. The only place where it is mentioned is in the following scriptures:
1 Timothy 3:
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Titus 1:
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
These verses are more significant for what they do not say than for what they do say. Why would Paul want to give such an instruction concerning those who would be called to leadership positions in the church (e.g. bishops, deacons, elders), that they should be “husband of one wife”, unless polygamy was legally permissible among the early Christians, and was practiced? Interestingly, he does not tell them that polygamy is inherently wrong or against the law of God to practice at that time. He is just telling them that if someone is going to be called to positions of leadership in the church, it would be preferable if he had no more than one wife—but without completely ruling it out!
The conclusion is that there is nothing in the Bible, OT or NT, or indeed in the Book of Mormon, which rules out polygamy as being inherently wrong or unlawful; but there is everything suggesting that it is approved of God when practiced according to divine law and by His sanction.
amgid
2 Samuel 12:
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
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.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
In verses 7 and 8 the Lord recounts all the great blessings that He had bestowed on David, which includes, among other things, “gave thee thy master’s … wives into thy bosom”. So David’s wives were given to him of the Lord, as a blessing and a gift, and had complete divine approval. He only sinned when he desired something that the Lord had not appointed to him—which was “whoredom”.
The fact that polygamy was practiced and had divine approval in ancient times is amply testified of in the Bible. Firstly, we have the example of all the righteous prophets and patriarchs of ancient times who practiced it, undoubtedly with divine approval. Secondly, we know that it was permissible under the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). We even have the example of Moses practicing it. He marries an Ethiopian (i.e. slave) woman (in addition to his wife, Zipporah; and probably other wives he nay have had as well). Aaron and Miriam, his brother and sister, disapprove of his action, murmur against him, and treat him with disrespect. And then what does God do? He supports Moses’ action, and severely chastises Aaron and Miriam! (See Numbers 12). Notice especially that Aaron and Miriam do not murmur against Moses because he had married more than one wife. They murmured against him because he had married an Ethiopian (i.e. slave) woman. In other words, they felt that he had dishonoured the family name by marrying someone beneath his dignity! But what does the Lord say? It had His divine approval! Thirdly, we have the example of David, quoted above; where the Lord expressly states that his wives were given to him of the Lord as a gift and a blessing to him, not as a cursing. And fourthly, in the NT nowhere is it condemned or disallowed. On the contrary, polygamy was permissible under Jewish and pagan (Roman) law, and there were no doubt many who practiced it. But nowhere in the NT is it condemned or disallowed. The only place where it is mentioned is in the following scriptures:
1 Timothy 3:
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Titus 1:
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
These verses are more significant for what they do not say than for what they do say. Why would Paul want to give such an instruction concerning those who would be called to leadership positions in the church (e.g. bishops, deacons, elders), that they should be “husband of one wife”, unless polygamy was legally permissible among the early Christians, and was practiced? Interestingly, he does not tell them that polygamy is inherently wrong or against the law of God to practice at that time. He is just telling them that if someone is going to be called to positions of leadership in the church, it would be preferable if he had no more than one wife—but without completely ruling it out!
The conclusion is that there is nothing in the Bible, OT or NT, or indeed in the Book of Mormon, which rules out polygamy as being inherently wrong or unlawful; but there is everything suggesting that it is approved of God when practiced according to divine law and by His sanction.
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
See post #21.
You know something Ben, I repent of saying I wouldn’t be rude to you. It looks like you deserve it. You are certainly asking for it. I am kind of good at that you know. You might say I have a talent. You can get your money’s worth form me.
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
I think you make a good case for the Lord “allowing” polygamy in times past. I find this similar to Moses allowing divorce. The NT requirements to have but one wife seem to indicate that monogamy is more righteous than polygamy. I still find nothing in your analysis that promotes polygamy as a good thing. Jacob 2:24 does seem to specifically condemn it.(not just the abuse of it). I continue to see it as something that the Lord allowed under the Old covenant but weaned the people off of under the New. I think the ultimate example of what God intended for families is that of Adam and Eve. In the beginning before sin entered into the world He made the perfect place for humans (garden of Eden) and placed in it one man and one woman. He did not give Adam many wives, he gave him one. I don’t see any example even in the OT of the Lord DIRECTING polygamy as a divine principle. Only JS seems to do that and if you’ve read Todd Compton’s book “in sacred loneliness” his motives don’t seem pure.
M
majick275
Guest
I also find it noteworthy that the D&C originally contained the stern denial (and denouncement) of polygamy even when JS was practicing it. That sure seems deceptive AND hypocritical. (and downright wicked)
B
ben_dy
Guest
amgid,
You so obviously missed my point - that to be taken seriously you should set your standard of debate to be on par of those with whom you debate - that I am left to question, once again, if you are here merely to be contentious or to honestly engage in debate. If it is the latter I am simply trying (yet not succeeding, obviously) to help you in understanding that in debate you must concede that which is factual or obvious without a dismissal of ‘you do not understand’ or ‘that is irrelevant’ and either make concessions or defend what you can without dismissal.
That you boast of your talent to be rude is rather shocking to me. Not only is rudeness a violation of the rules listed here, but it is not a very attractive trait in ‘real life’. Perhaps you feel free to exercise your talent on the Internet where there is a guarantee of some anonymity, but I would dearly hope that you would not make it a rule to exercise what you call your talent amongst those with whom you come in contact with personally.
It is difficult to gauge your sincerity - every time I am willing to concede that you might be sincere, you begin to veer in the direction of seeking not to defend your belief but only to draw attention to yourself by not abiding by the ‘rules’ of debate or, in this case, a warning to me, I suppose, that you will not abide the ‘rules’ of this board. You are able, when you care, to abide by both sets of rules yet when you stray, what is one to think? If you don’t care, that’s fine, I will take your lack of concern that you are serious into consideration when I read your messages.
I don’t know how to make myself any clearer - I am trying to aid you so that you may be thought serious in your debates. If you ever said that you would not be rude - to myself or anyone - it was not in a message to me. But you have been less rude and I think that to your credit and would certainly not wish to see you return to an old habit, no matter how much a talent you believe it to be.
A
amgid
Guest
I think that I have made a good case for God “approving” polygamy, not just “allowing” it. The law of polygamy was operable before the Law of Moses was given. The “divorce” issue that you had mentioned relates to the Law of Moses.
I don’t agree. The “NT requirements to have but one wife” comes exclusively form Paul, and his advice on that is a bit questionable. Paul was anti-women! If you were to follow Paul’s advice, you wouldn’t want to get married at all!
The fact that God spoke in such affirmative terms to David about his plural wives, and also so completely supported Moses against Aaron and Miriam who had opposed his marriage to the Ethiopian woman, suggest more in the line of “promoting polygamy as a good thing,” rather than disapproving of it as a potentially bad thing.
Not at all. You have ignored Jacob 2:23, where it is made clear that the Nephites’ desire to practice polygamy came as a result of their “not understanding the scriptures” (i.e. not understanding the principle of polygamy correctly, but abusing it).
I don’t agree, see above.
I don’t accept that. Adam and Eve were a very special case. They were the progenitors of the human race. God needed only two people with whom to begin the human race, and that is what He created. If God had made two wives for Adam, you have said, why didn’t He make three? If He had made three wives for him, you would have said, why didn’t He make four? One was adequate for the task, and that is what He made.
Just because the “direction” is not recorded in the Bible, it does not men that it was never given. Who says that the Bible must contain everything that God has ever communicated to man on earth? Perhaps it was given, but it was recorded in the Bible. I see no example in the OT of God DIRECTING monogamy either! If you want to go by that criterion, then we should not be getting married at all! We recognize polygamy as being divinely sanctioned for the same reason as we recognize monogamy as being divinely sanctioned. The fact that it was practiced by the most righteous prophets and patriarchs of ancient time, in numerous instances with obvious divine approval, we conclude that the “direction” must at some point have been given, even though not recorded in the Bible.
You are now straying into a different topic of discussion, which is not the same as the one you started with. Let’s stay on topic.
The same here. Let’s keep to the topic of the discussion.
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
Well, Ben, I was planning to leave this board, but you have persuaded me to hang around a little longer so I can be rude to you! I am just waiting for the right opportunity. And knowing you, I am sure I won’t have to wait very long!
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
I would think Adam and Eve would be the ultimate opportunity for God to express his will on marriage. It is the first one we have record of and thus a logical example. The need to be fruitful and multiply would certainly seem to be better accomplished by polygyny if it was acceptable to God. The fact that God chose monogamy for our first parents tells me quite a lot.
I was comparing the principle of Moses law on divorce as being applicable. The marked difference between what was permitted in the OT versus what is taught in the NT seems to support the higher law being monogamy. If you choose to discard Pauls’s teachings on marriage then I ask to whom do you turn? I don’t see any other biblical (or BoM which claims the “fullness” of the gospel) teachers showing polygamy as part of the new covenant.
I don’t see God speaking so affirmatively to David about polygamy in that scripture but in any case it’s the “old law” before Christ. As to Moses I’m not sure that his marriage to the Ethiopian woman was during the lifetime of his other wife. Still, it’s before Christ. The patriarchs that you promote as the most righteous all show remarkable flaws of character in scripture and once again are all before Christ.
I understand your point on Jacob pointing out the problem with abusing polygamy but the wording of those verses sure seems to denounce it in any form.
I fully understand your position on the Bible not containing all of Gods word. I repeat though that the LDS claim that the BoM contains the “fullness” of the Gospel would seem to indicate that if polygamy is indeed a celestial principle then we should see it promoted there. We do not. We do see specific direction of monogamy in the NT. (and the BoM and the original D&C). I would submit that even in the OT marriage is promoted and example given of monogamy being the first choice of God.
I don’t think we are off topic with the D&C prohibition and JS activities because it goes to scriptural support for polygamy. What those do in combination with the other observations I have made is to show a unanimous prohibition of polygamy even using LDS sources. The timing of changes to scripture coupled with JS actions shows that he was acting contrary to what he was proclaiming as the word of God. This makes the after the fact “revelation” that is now D&C 132 somewhat suspect. JS appears to be trying to justify his sins to the LDS membership rather than revealing the will of the Lord. His own wife sure seemed to believe that.
For a prophet to “reveal” scripture (BoM, original D&C) that appears consistent with existing scripture (Bible) but then secretly act contrary to it and when caught produce a “revelation” that contradicts everything preceding it but appears to show his sin as actually being a work of righteousness looks a lot like a false prophet. (or at least a fallen one)
I was comparing the principle of Moses law on divorce as being applicable. The marked difference between what was permitted in the OT versus what is taught in the NT seems to support the higher law being monogamy. If you choose to discard Pauls’s teachings on marriage then I ask to whom do you turn? I don’t see any other biblical (or BoM which claims the “fullness” of the gospel) teachers showing polygamy as part of the new covenant.
I don’t see God speaking so affirmatively to David about polygamy in that scripture but in any case it’s the “old law” before Christ. As to Moses I’m not sure that his marriage to the Ethiopian woman was during the lifetime of his other wife. Still, it’s before Christ. The patriarchs that you promote as the most righteous all show remarkable flaws of character in scripture and once again are all before Christ.
I understand your point on Jacob pointing out the problem with abusing polygamy but the wording of those verses sure seems to denounce it in any form.
I fully understand your position on the Bible not containing all of Gods word. I repeat though that the LDS claim that the BoM contains the “fullness” of the Gospel would seem to indicate that if polygamy is indeed a celestial principle then we should see it promoted there. We do not. We do see specific direction of monogamy in the NT. (and the BoM and the original D&C). I would submit that even in the OT marriage is promoted and example given of monogamy being the first choice of God.
I don’t think we are off topic with the D&C prohibition and JS activities because it goes to scriptural support for polygamy. What those do in combination with the other observations I have made is to show a unanimous prohibition of polygamy even using LDS sources. The timing of changes to scripture coupled with JS actions shows that he was acting contrary to what he was proclaiming as the word of God. This makes the after the fact “revelation” that is now D&C 132 somewhat suspect. JS appears to be trying to justify his sins to the LDS membership rather than revealing the will of the Lord. His own wife sure seemed to believe that.
For a prophet to “reveal” scripture (BoM, original D&C) that appears consistent with existing scripture (Bible) but then secretly act contrary to it and when caught produce a “revelation” that contradicts everything preceding it but appears to show his sin as actually being a work of righteousness looks a lot like a false prophet. (or at least a fallen one)
A
amgid
Guest
We obviously have differing opinions. I disagree with your views.
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
agreed. We have differing views and opinions while looking at the same subject, evidence, etc. May god bless you.
- Status