Inconsistencies with D&C 132

[_Yoda]

This whole section just really sounds like Joseph Smith was "making it up as he went along" to cover his own transgressions.

Dang scriptures...not just the D&C, Book of Mormon and PoGP either. They all seem to have some mistakes, suggesting even the beloved Bible. I hate them. or rather I love them and see them as not inerrant recognizing even those who reported revelations or inspired thoughts to us, did so while making mistakes. No doubt each human fellow can make mistakes. Considering the training that some of the folks of hte past who recorded scriptures for us had, or assuming they all had little training by today's standards, its a wonder we have received as much as we have without so much error, lack of reasoning, and poor grammar. Incidentally, mistakes seem to make me wonder and awe at the whole affair all the more.

We're not talking about small errors, here, Stem. We're talking about significant principles.

If you are easily dismissing the entire body of LDS scripture as having major flaws, then how can its claim of being the true gospel be accurate?

[_stemelbow]

We're not talking about small errors, here, Stem. We're talking about significant principles.

If you are easily dismissing the entire body of LDS scripture as having major flaws, then how can its claim of being the true gospel be accurate?

If errors are possible, whether small or large, then i see no reason to just assume only small, unimportant stuff is error prone. Any soul can make mistakes with either small or big stuff.

by the way I really don't see this as a big error. But if Joseph Smith didn't know it and assumed Abraham did receive the command from God, then I don't see the fuss. Joseph Smith made an error, assuming as much, about whether another person was really commanded of God or not. No skin of my nose.

[_Yoda]

I made this quote on the previous page.

Is there anyone on the TBM side of the aisle who cares to tackle the inconsistency of the prophecy surrounding lineage?

And you know the 'rules', there's the old 'as far as its translated correctly' weasel clause the Mormons have when it comes to the KJV Bible. Maybe JSJr was 'Big lawyer'--that's a hell of a loophole he opened up for himself and Mormonism.

And yet, the "as far as it is translated correctly" caveat works directly against BC's point when reading Jacob from the Book of Mormon, where no such caveat exists.

And, once again, where does the lineage question factor in? God's chosen, and yes, Christ's ultimate lineage, comes through the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not through the line of Ishmael.

The prophecy of Abraham's seed came through Abraham's union with Sarah, not Hagar.

This directly contradicts section 132. I invite any TBM to address this issue. It seems that BC is at a loss.

[_bcspace]

There's nothing to preclude that Biblically.

Except the scripture, itself.

Not even that. How do you know she wasn't following a custom of the time (God given as implied by the law of Moses) or a God given command? There is no inconsistency in the modern revelation and it is in keeping with the Biblical notion that Abraham was a righteous man.

I understand you have distaste for the doctrine of God, but it is intellectually dishonest to preclude what can't be precluded.

[_Yoda]

I understand you have distaste for the doctrine of God,

Screw you.

I have a testimony of Christ, and have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in good standing for over 40 years.

but it is intellectually dishonest to preclude what can't be precluded.

Then you are also being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the context of the scripture in Jacob.

[_keithb]

man.

I understand you have distaste for the doctrine of God, but it is intellectually dishonest to preclude what can't be precluded.

When all else fails, question the character of the person making the argument (and don't address the argument itself), eh BC?

Also, let me demonstrate why it's dangerous to read things into a text. Lets suppose by the sake of argument, that one of the modern "prophets" revealed that each faithful member of the church practicing polygamy was, at some point, to have sex with a monkey. By using your argument about the verses in Genesis, I could actually prove that the text implied that Abraham had sex with a monkey before he took his second wife. After all, there is nothing in the verse to say he didn't have sex with a monkey, and, according to the hypothetical modern prophecy, it would have been a righteous thing for him to do.

I could also equally read in information that Abraham abstained from green tea, known that Adam was born in a far off land named "Missouri", and held family home evening every Monday night. After all, the text doesn't specifically exclude Abraham doing these things, and these are all principles consistent with what a modern, righteous members of the church should be doing, so why not?

[_truth dancer]

How about stepping back and thinking...

Does anyone really think the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE cared who a guy who (supposedly) lived four thousand years ago, had sex with? I mean seriously, God is commanding Abe have sex with his sex slave? Why? God really cares about this? God really cares about lineage? (I mean I get that a primitive nomadic tribe cared but really... God)? And, was God OK with Abe's horrific abuse of Hagar and their son, after impregnating Hagar?

And, what is up with the idea that God can't give humans information in a way that makes sense? If God can create this universe I'm pretty sure God could make sure humans had the correct information... you know the information that is essential to return to God. The information that tells people what is true. The information that God wants humans to know.

Yeah people make mistakes but the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE doesn't... or maybe... LOL!

~td~

[_stemelbow]

And yet, the "as far as it is translated correctly" caveat works directly against BC's point when reading Jacob from the Book of Mormon, where no such caveat exists.

And, once again, where does the lineage question factor in? God's chosen, and yes, Christ's ultimate lineage, comes through the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not through the line of Ishmael.

The prophecy of Abraham's seed came through Abraham's union with Sarah, not Hagar.

This directly contradicts section 132. I invite any TBM to address this issue. It seems that BC is at a loss.

I have for some time questioned whether we ought to take it so literally. Afterall, after a few hundred years many could be descended from not only Sarah, but Hagar too. Not only Ephraim but also Naphtali...and the like.

[_keithb]

How about stepping back and thinking...

Does anyone really think the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE cared who a guy who (supposedly) lived four thousand years ago, had sex with? I mean seriously, God is commanding Abe have sex with his sex slave? Why? God really cares about this? God really cares about lineage? (I mean I get that a primitive nomadic tribe cared but really... God)? And, was God OK with Abe's horrific abuse of Hagar and their son, after impregnating Hagar?

And, what is up with the idea that God can't give humans information in a way that makes sense? If God can create this universe I'm pretty sure God could make sure humans had the correct information... you know the information that is essential to return to God. The information that tells people what is true. The information that God wants humans to know.

Yeah people make mistakes but the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE doesn't... or maybe... LOL!

~td~

I agree. It's one of the reasons I lean very heavily towards atheism at the moment (I'm probably already there but in denial).

[_Jason Bourne]

Sarah did not simply decide to give Hagar on her own thereby causing adultery. There was some God given law which she was following

CFR

D&C 132:34

Wait. You are using an alleged revelation from the 19th century to show that God gave Sarah some lay over 4000 years ago? Wow. Just wow.

Let me guess. The next argument is just cause the Bible is silent about this command does not mean Sarah did not receive it.

See I know how the apologetic approach works. But it is a poor approach.