What do Mormons REALLY Believe?

[BDawg]

first of all the law was different in the OT than the NT. things changed when Jesus came and perfected the law. secondly, the examples you give all show us the great harms of polygamy. evil popes did not change the doctrine of the catholic church to justify their evil acts. nor did any pope claim to prophesy as if his words were gods. the roles are very different.

BY claimed to be leading by direct revelation. he asked what to do and God allegedly spoke to him in very clear terms what to tell the people. he wrote scripture something no pope since peter has presumed to do. BY contradicted his own scriptures in what he was teaching the people to do not just his own personal sin.

Hi Maj,

Consider what St. Augustine had to say about polygamy in the Old Testament:

“Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.” (Augustine, Reply to Faustus 22:47, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, 4:288.)

So basically, he says that the only reason the pagans made a big deal about OT polygamy was because it was against their customs. So what’s the big deal? Abraham was a polygamist. Brigham Young was a polygamist. I understand that you think Young wasn’t doing it for proper reasons, but I can’t understand a Bible-believer saying that they can’t believe BY was a prophet because he was a polygamist.

And the idea that Brigham Young claimed that everything he said was straight out of the mouth of God is absurd. Here’s what he really said about the subject:

“I am so far from believing that any government upon this earth has constitutions and laws that are perfect, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections.” (Journal of Discourses 2:314)

So there it is. Mormons think prophets are real people, and that they always were. You say that, “evil popes did not change the doctrine of the catholic church to justify their evil acts. nor did any pope claim to prophesy as if his words were gods.” But Brigham Young didn’t have to change any doctrine to promote polygamy–heck, he could have gotten the rationale for that from the Bible, or St. Augustine! And you haven’t demonstrated that polygamy is evil, anyway. Certainly Augustine disagreed with that assessment. Finally, the Pope’s don’t claim to speak for God, but all those polygamists I mentioned did claim that. They’re in your Bible, too, you know.

 

[teancum79]

PaulDupre previously provided an article showing compelling arguments that Sidney Rigdon created the Book of Mormon out of the Soloman Spaulding Manuscript, with his own Campbellite beliefs mixed in. He certainly seems to have had access, opportunity, and a thirst for “power”. If you missed the article, here it is again. Thanks Paul.

mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm

I remember when I first got involved in the Mormon church. The Book of Mormon didn’t ring true to me, right from the start. But I didn’t see or want to see the real problem that ultimately comes along with falling for it, since it seemed to contain so much writing about Christ.

If you fall for the Book of Mormon, and therefore Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God, it leads to a completely different gospel than what is in the Bible and what Jesus and his Apostles taught. It just does, and there is no denying the fact. Compare for yourself. You can’t have it both ways.

The Spalding stuff.

Here is a link to some people who think the world is flat

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

the two ideas are comparable.

Mormon.com is another place to swing by, but the scriptures and manuals will get you the bulk of the info.

I find it interesting that people claim that LDS people won’t tell you what they really believe. If we really believe something that none of us knows about how can you claim that we really believe it?

Trying to portray us as believing your misunderstandings of our beliefs childish.

 

[Swan]

Hi Maj,

Consider what St. Augustine had to say about polygamy in the Old Testament:

“Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.” (Augustine, Reply to Faustus 22:47, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, 4:288.)

This sounds an awful lot like relativism. Can anyone explain why it is not?

 

[BDawg]

This sounds an awful lot like relativism. Can anyone explain why it is not?

Hi Swan,

Some things are always right to do, and some things are always wrong to do. For example, I imagine everyone here can agree that it is always wrong to rape someone. With some things, the context determines whether it is right or wrong. For instance, the Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that women shouldn’t cut their hair short, and should always pray with a hat on. Would you say that is a black-and-white, always-right-or-wrong sort of issue, or would you say that it depends on the cultural context? The Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt not kill,” but the rest of the Old Testament has lots of examples of God commanding people to kill others. The idea that sometimes the context determines whether an action is right or wrong is not relativism–just a simple recognition that life is complicated. If you don’t believe me, go hang out on the “Moral Theology” forum.

Relativists, on the other hand, say that NOTHING is inherently right or wrong–it all depends on how you look at it.

 

[majick275]

Hi Maj,

Consider what St. Augustine had to say about polygamy in the Old Testament:

“Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.” (Augustine, Reply to Faustus 22:47, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, 4:288.)

So basically, he says that the only reason the pagans made a big deal about OT polygamy was because it was against their customs. So what’s the big deal? Abraham was a polygamist. Brigham Young was a polygamist. I understand that you think Young wasn’t doing it for proper reasons, but I can’t understand a Bible-believer saying that they can’t believe BY was a prophet because he was a polygamist.

And the idea that Brigham Young claimed that everything he said was straight out of the mouth of God is absurd. Here’s what he really said about the subject:

“I am so far from believing that any government upon this earth has constitutions and laws that are perfect, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections.” (Journal of Discourses 2:314)

So there it is. Mormons think prophets are real people, and that they always were. You say that, “evil popes did not change the doctrine of the catholic church to justify their evil acts. nor did any pope claim to prophesy as if his words were gods.” But Brigham Young didn’t have to change any doctrine to promote polygamy–heck, he could have gotten the rationale for that from the Bible, or St. Augustine! And you haven’t demonstrated that polygamy is evil, anyway. Certainly Augustine disagreed with that assessment. Finally, the Pope’s don’t claim to speak for God, but all those polygamists I mentioned did claim that. They’re in your Bible, too, you know.

augustine had a lot of doctrinal errors. there is also still the HUGE difference between what was allowed regarding marriage in teh OT and what Jesus taught us in the NT. jesus is clear that monogamy is the divine intent for marriage. BY teachings on plural marriage were definitely considered by the LDS church to be divine. they are still canonized in scripture today. I object to him at that time deceitfully maintaining the D&C section that claimed polygamy was bad and LDS did not practice when in fact they did. i also object to a “prophet” giving “revelations” that what jesus taught was wrong is now not only okay but actually to be rewarded. augustine in your quote spoke only to OT polygamy but even then he was wrong. (not the only thing he was wrong about) we have the CCC to show us what is in the deposit of faith as opposed to theological speculation. augustine in his position could certainly discuss dogma but he could not define it for the church. your BY quote does not show that he didn’t presume to speak for god (as canonized LDS scripture says) but rather that people are just too messed up to receive it correctly. that would be more inline with the catholic idea of doctrinal development. as i said earlier BY was faced with (at that time) canonized LDS scripture denouncing polygamy and claiming it wasn’t practiced. we also have Jesus teachings on it. the bible never tells us that God commanded those OT prophets to take other wives, in fact we see terrible consequences for them having done so.

 

[Malachi4U]

There is NO website that with unbias teaches what the Mormons believe and here is why.

Mormon beliefs change when the apostle decides to change it. Example, teachings on black people, polygamy on earth, etc… (Polygamy is still expected and cherised when you are god of your own planet though.)

Mormans keep secret much of what they believe and only divulge it to you after they have you in their denomination. Example, the secret handshakes, underware, etc…

The best you can do is get a book by someone who is not Mormon or is an ex-Mormon that is just writting to be truthfull. Many a Mormon tried to write truthfull and got excomunicated for it so thus they become ex-morman when they refused to stop their books from being published.

Check out this book, it is the ONLY honest and neutral book I have ever seen on the topic, click here. Ok, it’s about Joseph but he IS the one who started it all.

it is
No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

by Fawn Brodie

 

[BDawg]

Hi Maj,

augustine had a lot of doctrinal errors. there is also still the HUGE difference between what was allowed regarding marriage in teh OT and what Jesus taught us in the NT. jesus is clear that monogamy is the divine intent for marriage.

Well, it wasn’t so clear for Augustine, and I’m willing to wager that he was smarter than you (or me.)

BY teachings on plural marriage were definitely considered by the LDS church to be divine. they are still canonized in scripture today. I object to him at that time deceitfully maintaining the D&C section that claimed polygamy was bad and LDS did not practice when in fact they did.

D&C 132, the section on plural marriage, was from Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young. And in any case, I never denied that plural marriage has sometimes been divinely authorized. I merely pointed out that lots of Biblical prophets did the same thing. In fact, the LDS stance on whether “polygamy was bad” has always been the same. Monogamy is the rule, but sometimes God commands his people to engage in plural marriage to raise up children to Him. Read Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon, which clearly says this.

Anyway, the first declaration on marriage was true for the Church in general, at the time, and it would have been suicide to own up to the VERY limited practice of plural marriage in Joseph Smith’s day. Jesus also told a few disciples that he was the Messiah, but instructed them to keep it a secret for the time being. Why? Because it wasn’t time for him to get killed for it, which he did later. I’m sure that’s not a good enough excuse for you, but I tend to be a little more understanding of what people choose not to divulge to angry mobs.

the bible never tells us that God commanded those OT prophets to take other wives, in fact we see terrible consequences for them having done so.

I agree with some of what you said, but how about this passage, where God is speaking to David?

“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; 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.” (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

So, Maj, how do you feel about God giving Saul’s wives (note the plural) to David? Seems to me that God didn’t think plural marriage was as big a deal as you think it is.

 

[BDawg]

Please tell me why you believe this.

What is your understanding of how the Book of Mormon was discovered and translated?

What leads you to believe that Joseph Smith was trustworthy? I understand that he “read” the golden tablets with the use of a “seer stone” in his hat? Do you believe this to be true?

Hi Legal E,

Mormons (including me) will typically tell you that the main way to find out whether the Book of Mormon is true is by studying it and praying in faith to ask God about it. Many of us have had very powerful religious experience that convince us that the Holy Spirit is testifying that the Book of Mormon is a true history. In addition, we have similar experiences where the Holy Spirit speaks to us about all kinds of other things, and eventually we learn to understand when God is talking, and when its just our own feelings or thoughts.

As for physical/historical evidences, you can find a good summary of the kinds of things Mormons typically point to here:

jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Lots of anti-Mormon sites present various arguments against the Book of Mormon, and here is another page that addresses most of these from a Mormon perspective.

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml

I hope that helps.

 

[PaulDupre]

So what’s the big deal? Abraham was a polygamist. Brigham Young was a polygamist. I understand that you think Young wasn’t doing it for proper reasons, but I can’t understand a Bible-believer saying that they can’t believe BY was a prophet because he was a polygamist.

That’s not the objection I have to LDS polygyny. Brigham Young also taught that plural marriage was not only good, but that it is necessary to gain exaltation:

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, page 269)

And the idea that Brigham Young claimed that everything he said was straight out of the mouth of God is absurd. Here’s what he really said about the subject:

“I am so far from believing that any government upon this earth has constitutions and laws that are perfect, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections.” (Journal of Discourses 2:314)

You choose your quotes very carefully. I’d have chosen this one:

“Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. **Let this [discourse] go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. **But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, Page 95)

By the way, ALL of Brigham Young’s sermons that were published (in the Times and Seasons and everywhere else) were indeed reviewed and corrected by Brigham himself. By his own standards, he considered them scripture, and so did those LDS to whom they were published.

Paul

 

[BDawg]

Hi Paul,

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, page 269)

And that surely must be true when God commands plural marriage. How could someone be saved, while willfully rejecting something they knew God commanded? Look again at the passage I cited from the Book of Mormon:

“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… 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 2:27, 29-30)

What’s so hard to understand about that? Sometimes God commands people to do one thing, and sometimes he commands another. In either case, God’s people are expected to obey. Brigham Young never denied this.

It is also clear that you have never read the talk in which Brigham Young said this. If you had, you would have seen that he also said,

“If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.”

and

“Now, then, it is said that this must be done away before we are permitted to receive our place as a State in the Union. It may be, or it may not be.”

Here is the URL for this talk:

journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_11/refJDvol11-41.html

You see, however your anti-Mormon sources try to twist what Brigham Young said, the truth is that he agreed fully with what the position of the Church had been since 1830, when the Book of Mormon was published. God could command his people to engage in plural marriage at one time, and command them not to at another.

By the way, ALL of Brigham Young’s sermons that were published (in the Times and Seasons and everywhere else) were indeed reviewed and corrected by Brigham himself. By his own standards, he considered them scripture, and so did those LDS to whom they were published.

But wait a second. Mormons don’t consider scripture to be perfect. The Book of Mormon has many warnings against judging the scriptures merely by a few “mistakes of men.” This is perfectly in line with what Brigham Young said about no revelations being given in their perfection to sinful men.

This is why I reply that YOU are the one who is choosing your quotations too carefully. In fact, it is evident that you haven’t really tried to understand Brigham Young at all. You have just read a few quotations in some anti-Mormon compendium, and used them to find fault.

Usually, if you try to understand people before you find fault, you find that there is considerably less to find fault with.

 

[RebeccaJ]

teancum79, truthsilence has not posted here for many months.

At any rate, she wasn’t claiming you believed that Spaulding had anything to do with the BoM. She is stating that the evidence is there that his work was plagiarized by Smith & Co.

 

[BDawg]

Aside from polygamy, what do people who are talking about your faith most often misrepresent or misunderstand?

Hi again, Legal E,

One thing I think is very often misrepresented is our belief about the Divine Unity. A typical charge is that we believe there are billions of gods, rather than just one God, like the Bible says. Usually people think of this like Valhalla, with a bunch of hard-drinking gods squabbling with each other. The truth is more complicated.

The fact is that the Bible has passages that say there is only one God, and other passages that call more than one person (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) God. Specifically Mormon scriptures say both these things, and go on to say that men can become “gods,” as well.

How does anyone sort all this out?

More traditional Christians, like those in the RCC, say that God is a single Being, in three distinct Persons. How three persons can be a single Being is a great mystery, too lofty for us to understand.

Mormons say that in one sense, there is one God, and in another sense, there are more than one God. The Trinity is three separate persons, but also three separate beings. They are “one” in the sense that they are completely unified in will, love, covenant, and action. Men, who are spirit children of God and of the same “race,” can also become one in God the same way that the Trinity is one. Jesus prayed,

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one%between%; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

To us, it is obvious that Jesus was saying that his disciples could become one in God, just as the Son and the Father are one in each other. To other Christians, this passage has to be interpreted metaphorically.

So the main difference between us here is not that the RCC teaches there is one God, while the LDS Church teaches that there are many. Rather, the real difference is in HOW we believe more than one person can be ONE God. In our case, our definition of “oneness” allows us to believe that others can share in the Divine Unity, besides just the Trinity.

If you understand this one thing about us, all the stuff about “becoming gods” and such makes a lot more sense. Also, it becomes easier to understand how we make sense of the Bible.

 

[PaulDupre]

In fact, it is evident that you haven’t really tried to understand Brigham Young at all. You have just read a few quotations in some anti-Mormon compendium, and used them to find fault.

Usually, if you try to understand people before you find fault, you find that there is considerably less to find fault with.

I don’t get this material from anti-Mormon websites, but from my own extensive Mormon library.

Perhaps you don’t realize that I was LDS for many years and taught many classes and served a mission and was very, very active. During all that time, I endeavored to understand Brother Brigham quite well. The problem with him is that he said so many contradictory things that you can quote him for almost any purpose.

But during his presidency, everything he taught was believed by his subjects (and subjects they were) as coming from the mouth of God.

Paul

 

[teancum79]

teancum79, truthsilence has not posted here for many months.

At any rate, she wasn’t claiming you believed that Spaulding had anything to do with the BoM. She is stating that the evidence is there that his work was plagiarized by Smith & Co.

That “evidence” is absurd and should be known as such.

 

[majick275]

Hi Maj,

Well, it wasn’t so clear for Augustine, and I’m willing to wager that he was smarter than you (or me.)

i am apparently not quite the fan of augustine that you are.

D&C 132, the section on plural marriage, was from Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young. And in any case, I never denied that plural marriage has sometimes been divinely authorized. I merely pointed out that lots of Biblical prophets did the same thing. In fact, the LDS stance on whether “polygamy was bad” has always been the same. Monogamy is the rule, but sometimes God commands his people to engage in plural marriage to raise up children to Him. Read Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon, which clearly says this.

i would challenge this. the teachings of BY and even D&C 132 do NOT show monogamy as the rule. LDS teachings with the ONE exception in the BoM consistently show a preference for polygyny which will exist in the celestial kingdom.

Anyway, the first declaration on marriage was true for the Church in general, at the time, and it would have been suicide to own up to the VERY limited practice of plural marriage in Joseph Smith’s day. Jesus also told a few disciples that he was the Messiah, but instructed them to keep it a secret for the time being. Why? Because it wasn’t time for him to get killed for it, which he did later. I’m sure that’s not a good enough excuse for you, but I tend to be a little more understanding of what people choose not to divulge to angry mobs.

do you know how long that section remained in the D&C? it wasn’t just during JS time and i wouldn’t call his polygamy “limited”.

I agree with some of what you said, but how about this passage, where God is speaking to David?

“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; 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.” (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

So, Maj, how do you feel about God giving Saul’s wives (note the plural) to David? Seems to me that God didn’t think plural marriage was as big a deal as you think it is.

i don’t see God speaking i see nathan. i don’t see him commanding David to take those wives either. the lord tolerated quite a bit in the OT. however when jesus came and gave us HIS teachings on marriage it’s very different. he explains that things like divorce were allowed under mosaic law because of the hardness of their hearts but he explains that God ordained marriage between one man and one woman. how’d that polygamy thing work out for David?

 

[majick275]

Hi Legal E,

Mormons (including me) will typically tell you that the main way to find out whether the Book of Mormon is true is by studying it and praying in faith to ask God about it. Many of us have had very powerful religious experience that convince us that the Holy Spirit is testifying that the Book of Mormon is a true history. In addition, we have similar experiences where the Holy Spirit speaks to us about all kinds of other things, and eventually we learn to understand when God is talking, and when its just our own feelings or thoughts.

As for physical/historical evidences, you can find a good summary of the kinds of things Mormons typically point to here:

jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Lots of anti-Mormon sites present various arguments against the Book of Mormon, and here is another page that addresses most of these from a Mormon perspective.

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml

I hope that helps.

jeff lindsay? you really want to put your case in his hands? that would be like me trotting out ed decker

 

[BDawg]

i would challenge this. the teachings of BY and even D&C 132 do NOT show monogamy as the rule. LDS teachings with the ONE exception in the BoM consistently show a preference for polygyny which will exist in the celestial kingdom.
do you know how long that section remained in the D&C? it wasn’t just during JS time and i wouldn’t call his polygamy “limited”.

Hi Maj,

Plural marriage was the rule–at the time. Read my reply to Paul. BY clearly said that God could remove that command at any time, which is completely in harmony with the Book of Mormon passage.

i don’t see God speaking i see nathan. i don’t see him commanding David to take those wives either. the lord tolerated quite a bit in the OT. however when jesus came and gave us HIS teachings on marriage it’s very different. he explains that things like divorce were allowed under mosaic law because of the hardness of their hearts but he explains that God ordained marriage between one man and one woman. how’d that polygamy thing work out for David?

Well, when I saw that Nathan said, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” I naturally assumed…

Read the passage in 2 Samuel–God is chastising David for blowing it with Bathsheba. And what does he say? I gave you Saul’s houses and wives, and I would have given you more, but you had to go out and take what I didn’t give you.

Meanwhile, you haven’t been able to produce a single New Testament passage that says Old Testament polygamy was wrong. You just bestow upon us your personal opinion that God overlooked it for a while, until Jesus set things right. And when I quoted one of the two most influential Catholic Fathers of all time (Augustine) saying that Old Testament polygamy was NOT wrong, all you can do is say you don’t like Augustine.

Have you got anything substantial to add to the discussion, or just more personal opinions? Maybe you could find something in the Catechism, or some other official Catholic document, saying that Old Testament polygamy was wrong. Maybe some other influential Catholic Father? That would at least be persuasive to the Catholics on the board.

 

[BDawg]

jeff lindsay? you really want to put your case in his hands? that would be like me trotting out ed decker

Hey, I like Jeff’s page. For one thing, he doesn’t resort to cheap ad hominem arguments.

 

[majick275]

Hi Maj,

Plural marriage was the rule–at the time. Read my reply to Paul. BY clearly said that God could remove that command at any time, which is completely in harmony with the Book of Mormon passage.

Well, when I saw that Nathan said, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” I naturally assumed…

Read the passage in 2 Samuel–God is chastising David for blowing it with Bathsheba. And what does he say? I gave you Saul’s houses and wives, and I would have given you more, but you had to go out and take what I didn’t give you.

Meanwhile, you haven’t been able to produce a single New Testament passage that says Old Testament polygamy was wrong. You just bestow upon us your personal opinion that God overlooked it for a while, until Jesus set things right. And when I quoted one of the two most influential Catholic Fathers of all time (Augustine) saying that Old Testament polygamy was NOT wrong, all you can do is say you don’t like Augustine.

Have you got anything substantial to add to the discussion, or just more personal opinions? Maybe you could find something in the Catechism, or some other official Catholic document, saying that Old Testament polygamy was wrong. Maybe some other influential Catholic Father? That would at least be persuasive to the Catholics on the board.

i’m sorry i didn’t realize the NT passage was in dispute. matthew 19, mark 10, 1 corinthians 6, ephesians 5

the OT itself does a pretty good job of demonstrating the harmful consequences of polygamy. not my opinion, Bible! when did augustine become one of the top 2 ECF’s? do you believe mormon doctrine to be completely defined by Mconkie? i would consider him analagous to augustine. the catholics here all agree polygamy is bad. the catechism is clear on that :

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

and your david example still never commands him to take additional wives. where was it the rule as you claim?

i think you have a tough row to hoe in reconciling the BoM statement in Jacob with BY teachings and even D&C 132.

i’ll be sure and include more references in the future so that my contributions will meet your criteria. however i expect you to comply with your own standards.

 

[majick275]

Hey, I like Jeff’s page. For one thing, he doesn’t resort to cheap ad hominem arguments.

since when? do i need to post specific examples?
jeff is probably best known for presenting “possibilities” as “proofs”.

he especially does this with BoM archeology/anachronisms such as swords, beekeeping, chariots and the like.