DiscussMormonism.com

Brackite wrote:Bruce R. McConkie:

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:"Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D. & C. 132:7, 29-66.)

All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness."

(Mormon Doctrine, Page 578.).


[ Link: , And Link: ]

Take Care, Liz!

liz3564 wrote:

My problem with this theory is, if Joseph was inspired and entrusted by God to set up Christ's Church in the modern day, how could he have perceived such a vital part of the gospel so wrong?

BC? DCP? Bob? Nehor? Asbestosman? Alter Idem? Just Me? Moksha? Any other apologist lurkers? Your comments are welcome! :)

liz3564 wrote:My problem with this theory is, if Joseph was inspired and entrusted by God to set up Christ's Church in the modern day, how could he have perceived such a vital part of the gospel so wrong?

And why didn't God step in to correct this error, instead of allowing thousands of his innocent children to suffer needlessly because of this misinterpretation?

Gazelam wrote:Joseph was the prophet of the restoration in this the dispensation of the fulness of times. Part of that restoration was the doctrine of Plural Marriage.

When Brigham Young and other prophets spoke on the matter they were doing so in a time that the commandment was in force, and therefore their words applied to the people they were speaking to.

liz3564 wrote:I'm curious as to how apologists resolve this? Does this fall under modern revelation trumping prior revelation? Or, is this a case of prior leaders not really understanding what Joseph Smith was trying to set up in the first place? Or, is it the case of Joseph, himself, not really understanding?

It was an Abomination... in the Old Testament

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

Gazelam wrote:Harmony,

It was an Abomination... in the Old Testament

Id swat you down on this Harmony, but that would be like congratulating myself for beating a mongoloid at chess.

Gaz

Analytics wrote:From a Jewish perspective, what does the Bible teach about polygamy? Here is a quote from the book Biblical literacy: the most important people, events, and ideas of the Hebrew Bible by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (pages 410-414).
Quote:
Biblical law permits a man to have more than one wife (Deuteronomy 21:17); indeed many of the Bible's most prominent figures (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon) practiced polygamy. Since polygamy was permitted throughout the ancient Near East, this should come as no surprise. What is significant, however, is that biblical narrative, as opposed to biblical law, depicts multiple marriages as almost always leading to multiple miseries.

Abraham takes a concubine-wife because of his wife Sarah's barrenness. Indeed, it is at Sarah's insistence that he takes her servant Hagar as a wife, for, as Sarah tells him: "Perhaps I shall have a son through her" (Genesis 16:2). When Hagar becomes pregnant, she starts treating Sarah with contempt. Sarah blames Abraham for Hagar's arrogance and Abraham, wishing to avoid marital conflict, tells his wife to treat Hagar as she wishes...

Some years later, Sarah finally gives birth to her own son, whereupon she forces Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishamel. Sarah speaks of hagar in the most contemptuous of tones: "Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."...

[A few pages of details about other biblical references to polygamy]

...Are there any happy polygamous marriages described in the Bible? No, although sometimes we are given no information about a marriage, so we have no way of knowing whether or not it was happy (for example, see Lamech, the Bible's first polygamist [Genesis 4:19,23]).

In those instances, however, where the text does supply details about a polygamous marriage, it either is miserable for at least one partner (Hagar and Leah), creates hatred between the children (Joseph and his brothers, David's sons), or wreaks havoc with the husband's character (Solomon).

There is yet one further indication that the Bible's preference is for "one man, one wife." When God created the world, he populates it with only two people, one of each sex. He could have given Adam a second wife but doesn't. Furthermore, the Bible's very first reference to marriage presupposes a state of monogamy: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, so that they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

Why, then, does the Bible permit polygamy?

The nature of biblical law generally is evolutionary rather than revolutionary (except when it comes to uprooting idolatry, with which the Bible refuses to brook any compromise). To have categorically outlawed multiple marriages in a world where they were widely practiced would most likely have lead to an increase in adulterous affairs, or to affairs with unmarried women to whom the men would have no obligations. Better, therefore, for a man to have several wives, to each of whom he has legal obligations.

However, by depicting in considerable detail the misery generated within these marriages, biblical narrative makes it clear that it is far better for a man to have only one wife. As we shall see in other instances (e.g., the laws favoring the firstborn son versus the narratives favoring the younger sons; see entry 201), biblical narrative ultimately influences Jewish life more than biblical law. The Talmud, compiled during the early centuries of the Common Era, lists well over one thousand rabbis. We know of none who practiced polygamy. During the tenth century, a rabbinic ban was issued outlawing polygamy for all Jews living in Europe. There is little question that the rabbis felt their act was in consonance with the Bible’s ethical spirit. This ban, uniformly accepted in Jewish life today, represents perhaps the most dramatic victory of biblical narrative over biblical law.

I find it interesting that President McConkie's statement here DIRECTLY contradicts not only Brigham Young's comments, but the comments of all of the prior prophets in the early Church era.

I'm curious as to how apologists resolve this