Question for Dr. Peterson Regarding Joseph Smith/Polygamy

[_The Nehor]

Wow, it seems you have to gyrate a lot to get there. But...even if you are correct you still are left with the fact that Jacob says what David and Solomon did was an abomination and D&C 132 says they were not accept for Bathsheba. So, either Jacob is wrong or Joseph Smith in D&C 132 is wrong. Both cannot be right basen on a straight forward reading of each text.

Perhaps but I think I'm right.

[_The Nehor]

Seven, we're now in an area I can't comment on too much. I've never been married. I have been in love but that's about it. Furthermore I've never been a woman. The most I can ask myself is could I share a girl with another man if I had to? Honestly I think I could if I had to but until I lived it I'm not sure. It would be very hard.

I don't think it's noble to be willing to take multiple wives. If the Prophet asked for my wife......I don't know. I hope that's not my Abrahamic trial.

[_Jason Bourne]

Wow, it seems you have to gyrate a lot to get there. But...even if you are correct you still are left with the fact that Jacob says what David and Solomon did was an abomination and D&C 132 says they were not accept for Bathsheba. So, either Jacob is wrong or Joseph Smith in D&C 132 is wrong. Both cannot be right basen on a straight forward reading of each text.

Perhaps but I think I'm right.

So you argree they contradict and you believe Jacob 2 is wrong and Joseph Smith and D&C 132 right?

[_Jason Bourne]

I don't think it's noble to be willing to take multiple wives. If the Prophet asked for my wife......I don't know. I hope that's not my Abrahamic trial

.

I would fail and end up trouncing him thoroughly and not feel bad about is cause no man has a right to inflict some pretended test on us.

[_The Nehor]

I don't think it's noble to be willing to take multiple wives. If the Prophet asked for my wife......I don't know. I hope that's not my Abrahamic trial

.

I would fail and end up trouncing him thoroughly and not feel bad about is cause no man has a right to inflict some pretended test on us.

No man does but God does.

[_harmony]

I don't think it's noble to be willing to take multiple wives. If the Prophet asked for my wife......I don't know. I hope that's not my Abrahamic trial

.

I would fail and end up trouncing him thoroughly and not feel bad about is cause no man has a right to inflict some pretended test on us.

No man does but God does.

God doesn't. Men are the source of those sorts of tests. And that is exactly the case with LDS polygamy: manmade, not Godly.

[_The Nehor]

I don't think it's noble to be willing to take multiple wives. If the Prophet asked for my wife......I don't know. I hope that's not my Abrahamic trial

.

I would fail and end up trouncing him thoroughly and not feel bad about is cause no man has a right to inflict some pretended test on us.

No man does but God does.

God doesn't. Men are the source of those sorts of tests. And that is exactly the case with LDS polygamy: manmade, not Godly.

I think this is one of those agree to disagree moments.

[_Jason Bourne]

I don't think it's noble to be willing to take multiple wives. If the Prophet asked for my wife......I don't know. I hope that's not my Abrahamic trial

.

I would fail and end up trouncing him thoroughly and not feel bad about is cause no man has a right to inflict some pretended test on us.

No man does but God does.

I can believe God may allow certain things to come into my life, illness, misfortune, cosnequences od others bad choices, and all these to test me or maybe better said to mold me to be a better person. But that God would use his prophet to test me by asking for my wife. Nah! I think it was a power trip for Joseph to do this. Heber should have punched him in the nose. I am more sympathetic to William Law's reaction when Joseph went after Willaim's wife.

[_mocnarf]

Good question... looks like Dr Peterson is at a loss of words to answer this contradiction !

I can't, personally, manage the mental gymnastics that would be required to discard several verses of Section 132 while retaining the rest.

As to Section 131, I think it's clearly based on the revelation recorded as Section 132, which seems to have been received as early as 1831.

If you accept Sec 132 as written, you must discard part of the Book of Mormon. You must also discard part of Acts and also parts of D&C 1 and 38.

This is what amazes me, Dan.

You and those that practiced it can extract one poorly written verse out of two full chapters that detail the reasoning why this specific abomination is so destructive - and you justify its practice. I suppose it would be much easier for you to see this clearly if you didn't have such unbridled respect for your ancestors.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:33 - 35)

If the Book of Mormon is true, Jacob is implying as well, that our Bible was certainly not their brass plates:

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.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:23 - 28)

What are your thoughts on this, Dr. Peterson? Why the disconnect between the two scriptures? The Book of Mormon is suppose to be the "most correct" scripture in our canon.

Note the bolded portion. Why the disconnect between this and section 132? The Lord is stating things pretty clearly in this portion of Jacob. Why the vast inconsistency in the Lord's position? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Guest]

For those that have truly been or are in love, there are so many ways to describe this connection. I have great difficulty imagining this state being "shared" (as in shared in all aspects with a third or multiple parties). "Twain" is a term that describes a oneness between two (being a male and female) - not just physiologically but spiritually as well. Add another man or women to this twain and it is no longer described as "one flesh" but it is "no more twain". Some may refer to the addition of another as "put assunder" rather than "one flesh".

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

(New Testament | Matthew 19:5 - 6)

Note the singularness of the word "wife". It doesn't even read "each wife". But keep in mind this was alledgedly spoken by the Christians', well.. God.

After inspecting the Joseph Smith Translation, he was not particularly inspired to change the word to "each wife" or "wives" either.

Taken at face value, I would however, describe Smith (or even Young) as the "man" referred to in the above verse.