DiscussMormonism.com

In another thread, liz posted this reply and I thought my post needed it's own thread.

liz3564 wrote:OK...if you plug in "eternal marriage" to the search feature, you will come across a group of links. One of these is labeled, "Red Brick Store-Key Events".

Clicking on this link takes you to a group of scriptures. The last of the scriptures listed is D&C Section 132. If you click on the tab that is labeled "Readings", and then click on "Doctrinal Developments in Nauvoo", it will take you to the following .pdf file, which is part of a CES manual. If you scroll down to the section on plural marriage, it says the following:

Moreover, Joseph Smith and the Church were to accept the principle of plural marriage as part of the restoration of all things (see v. 45).

I have heard that excuse too many times with nothing to back it up.

If I understand the story correctly, Christ came to the earth and setup a church. So since the excuse has been that polygamy/polyandry were part of a complete restoration of Christ's church, exactly as it was when Christ set it up, where was this supposedly important principle of plural marriage discussed and detailed in the New Testament??

Furthermore, is there any archaeological evidence that proves polygamy was practiced by significant portion of Christ's followers???

If I understand the story correctly, Christ came to the earth and setup a church. So since the excuse has been that polygamy/polyandry were part of a complete restoration of Christ's church, exactly as it was when Christ set it up, where was this supposedly important principle of plural marriage discussed and detailed in the New Testament??

Why would plural marriage have to exist in New Testament times in order to also qualify as part of a restoration of all things? What about the qualifier of Jacob 2:30 which would also have to be restored by your logic?

bcspace wrote:

If I understand the story correctly, Christ came to the earth and setup a church. So since the excuse has been that polygamy/polyandry were part of a complete restoration of Christ's church, exactly as it was when Christ set it up, where was this supposedly important principle of plural marriage discussed and detailed in the New Testament??

Why would plural marriage have to exist in New Testament times in order to also qualify as part of a restoration of all things? What about the qualifier of Jacob 2:30 which would also have to be restored by your logic?

Nice try. The Book of Mormon IS NOT the Bible. Only references from the Bible will be taken seriously.

Why weren't other things from the Old Testament restored?

It is my understanding that modern day polygamy was different than Old Testament polygamy anyhow. For one thing, I belive the Bible expressly forbids marrying a mother and her daughter. If I'm not mistaken, this may have happened in 19th centurt polygamy.

If I understand the story correctly, Christ came to the earth and setup a church. So since the excuse has been that polygamy/polyandry were part of a complete restoration of Christ's church, exactly as it was when Christ set it up, where was this supposedly important principle of plural marriage discussed and detailed in the New Testament??

Probably right next to the place it discusses in detail how wrong abortion is.

Anyhow, the New Testament does not forbid polygamy--only the Book of Mormon does.

Nice try. The Book of Mormon IS NOT the Bible. Only references from the Bible will be taken seriously.

Why?

Why weren't other things from the Old Testament restored?

Sure. The Aaronic priesthood. But you were hoping that plural marriage was practiced in New Testament times on the erroneous assumption that it was necessary to do so.

Anyhow, the New Testament does not forbid polygamy--only the Book of Mormon does.

But only when not God authorized.

asbestosman wrote:It is my understanding that modern day polygamy was different than Old Testament polygamy anyhow. For one thing, I belive the Bible expressly forbids marrying a mother and her daughter. If I'm not mistaken, this may have happened in 19th centurt polygamy.

If I understand the story correctly, Christ came to the earth and setup a church. So since the excuse has been that polygamy/polyandry were part of a complete restoration of Christ's church, exactly as it was when Christ set it up, where was this supposedly important principle of plural marriage discussed and detailed in the New Testament??

Probably right next to the place it discusses in detail how wrong abortion is.

Anyhow, the New Testament does not forbid polygamy--only the Book of Mormon does.

I hear bc coming down the hall...

Hey, for that matter, so did the canonized 1835 edition of the D&C:

"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." (1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, section 101, verse 4)

Furthermore, that canonized scripture was there until 1876. Imagine the cognitive dissonance of the members when they were COMMANDED by their leaders to practice something that was expressly forbidden and denied in their own modern scriptures!

And for bcspace, LDS Inc has established the FACT that god commanded polygamy to be practiced which year??? HOW MANY YEARS BEFORE 1835???

Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.Heading of D&C section 132

So then, God commands old Joe to get busy bangin' the teens in his ward in 1831, only to send contradictory revelation to his servant Joseph four years later, who then canonizes it? Only to have this canonized revelation completely IGNORED until 1876 when 101:4 was removed and replaced by the current 132, then... THEN, 13 years later God comes along and says knock of the boot knockin in young womens in 1890??? errrr 1904???

Sounds like a "God of confusion", no?

This is GREAT stuff to share with would be investigators! Believe me, I know!!!

bcspace wrote:

Nice try. The Book of Mormon IS NOT the Bible. Only references from the Bible will be taken seriously.

Why?

Because this is my thread and it was requested in the opening topic. Capiche?

bcspace wrote:

Why weren't other things from the Old Testament restored?

Sure. The Aaronic priesthood. But you were hoping that plural marriage was practiced in New Testament times on the erroneous assumption that it was necessary to do so.

How about good old animal sacrifices? Why weren't those restored?

Sounds like a "God of confusion", no?

I think the LDS church is the most confusing, convoluted of which I know.

First, the "everything must be restored," idea, what is this? What was restored besides polygamy and the "priesthood"?

The church also teaches the "Law of Moses" was replaced by the "Law of Christ"... which means what exactly? If the latter replaced the former, why must the former be lived or restored? And why not restore all their practices and rules as has the House of Yahweh? And why must anything be restored in the first place? The more I think about this the more ridiculous it sounds.

Is the LDS church anything like the ancient Old Testament "church"? Not even remotely. Is it like the Early Christian church? No. Was there ever any group of people in the whole word besides the Masons who had practiced the temple ceremonies and rituals?

I think Joseph Smith came up with this whole "polygamy must be restored" teaching as an excuse to cover his affair with Fanny... it all just mushroomed from there. Simple as that.

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:I think the LDS church is the most confusing, convoluted of which I know.

First, the "everything must be restored," idea, what is this? What was restored besides polygamy and the "priesthood"?

The church also teaches the "Law of Moses" was replaced by the "Law of Christ"... which means what exactly? If the latter replaced the former, why must the former be lived or restored? And why not restore all their practices and rules as has the House of Yahweh? And why must anything be restored in the first place? The more I think about this the more ridiculous it sounds.

Is the LDS church anything like the ancient Old Testament "church"? Not even remotely. Is it like the Early Christian church? No. Was there ever any group of people in the whole word besides the Masons who had practiced the temple ceremonies and rituals?

I think Joseph Smith came up with this whole "polygamy must be restored" teaching as an excuse to cover his affair with Fanny... it all just mushroomed from there. Simple as that.

~dancer~

Very well said.