The unbelieving Fifth Column

[_Coggins7]

Homosexuality is an abomination because God has said so. I believe that. Happy now?"

God also said polygamy was an abomination, if one believes the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

Try to remember that what is written in books is not written by God, but by men. And men always have their own agenda.

Try to remember to read ALL the scriptures, not just those you think supports your opinion.

Jacob 2: 30 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.

Clearly, if the Lord has a reason to authorize plural marriage that's fine, OTHERWISE, they will be mongamous.

I think you will probably disagree with that, but then what is your explanation of the word OTHERWISE?

Hi There Charity,

Here is Part of my Exegesis of Jacob Chapter Two and Jacob Chapter Three, particularly Jacob 2:30, from the Zion Lighthouse Message Board:

Part II:

Here is the Scriptural Passage of Jacob 2:30:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The Lord God intends to command His People in order to raise up seed unto Him. This is really meaning raising up seed unto the Lord. The phrase 'raise up seed unto the Lord,' is used also in 1 Nephi 7:1. Here is 1 Nephi 7:1:



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now let’s compare this Scriptural Passage with 1 Nephi 16:7-8. Here is 1 Nephi 16:7-8:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife.

8 And thus my father had fulfilled all the ccmmandments of the Lord which had been given unto him. And also, I, Nephi, had been blessed of the Lord exceedingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now let's go back to Jacob 2:30. Here is Jacob 2:30:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please notice that Nephi, his brethren and Zoram took just one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife. Please also notice that the word ‘command’ in Jacob 2:30 corresponds with the word 'commandments' in 1 Nephi 16:8.
And Please also notice that the phrase 'raise us seed unto the Lord' does Not mean that the Lord God wants to raise up a more numerous seed. The phrase, 'raise up seed unto the Lord' in the Book of Mormon means that the Lord God wants to raise up a righteous seed; righteous children, righteous sons and daughters, unto the Lord God. Lets go through another Scriptural Passage again in the Book of Mormon to more effectively demonstrate my Point here. In Mosiah 15:10-13, the Lord God through the Book of Mormon Prophet Abinadi defines who is the seed of the Lord God. Here is Mosiah 15:10-13:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mosiah 15:10-13:
10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?
11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord -- I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are heirs of the kingdom of God.
12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?
13 Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed. (Bold Emphasis Mine.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is nice sophistry, and not at all unlike what Evangelical Protestants have traditionally done when seeking proof texts for their particular doctrines and nostrums. I've seen Born Again Christians range through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, extracting verses from which to construct an idiosyncratic doctrine from biblical texts.

The fact of the matter remains, as a matter of the clear meaning of the text of Jacob 2:30, that plural marriage is accepted in the Book of Mormon under certain conditions, but proscribed as a general rule. Extracting texts from other books of the Book of Mormon that happen to use the same terms or phraseology in an attempt to defuse the plural marriage bomb is an exercise in futility, as futile as other attempts to defuses other unpalatable "hard doctrines" such as the acceptability of total war against an enemy, again under certain circumstances, the utter condemnation of homosexuality, the importance of obedience to God despite the consequences, and other inconvenient truths.

Of course, 1 Nephi 16:7-8 has no necessary connection to Jacob 2:30 based simply upon the observation that similar language is used and that marriage is a part of the context of the Nephi verses. Marriage is, of course, a standing command of the Lord. Jacob tells us, however, that plural marriage can be a command of the Lord to his people, under certain conditions. Ergo, the Lord can command either, at any given time, but without the command, monogamy is the rule in lieu of the exception, which must be specifically delineated by the Lord to be valid.

Twist in the wind all you would like over this, but the verse itself, as with the Old Testament examples, are quite clear.

[_Coggins7]

Try to remember to read ALL the scriptures, not just those you think supports your opinion.

Jacob 2: 30 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.

Clearly, if the Lord has a reason to authorize plural marriage that's fine, OTHERWISE, they will be mongamous.

I think you will probably disagree with that, but then what is your explanation of the word OTHERWISE?

"Otherwise" is easily explained. Joseph Smith was pretty much making things up as he went along. As soon as he said (through his hat) that it was an abomination, he had a second thought -- I might like to try that myself one of these days -- so he added the "otherwise."

Its also quite possible that Joseph was a prophet of the Lord who's responsibility as the Prophet of the Restoration to restore, or initiate the restoration, of all knowledge, practices, and principles that had been known in all previous dispensations, and that you have to the faintest idea of what your talking about.

Its a possibility.

[_Coggins7]

Let's filter Coggins's post through the B.S. Filter and see what it really says:

Interesting isn't it. When I use the knowledge that's in my head, from an adult lifetime of studying frontpagemag.com, reading frontpagemag.com, and observation of frontpagemag.com, I'm asked for sources regarding everything I say, and am forced to rely upon the only thing I read, namely: frontpagemag.com. When I use frontpagemag.com, I'm called an "ignorant right winger with a thesaurus".

Amazing what happens when you do intellectually flummox people who don't have the fund of knowledge that comes from frontpagemag.com, and haven't done the studying and reading of frontpagemag.com, and haven't pursued, over the long term, the knowledge, wt both breadth and depth, of frontpagemag.com, that would allow them to feel comfortable debating without casting personal smears against one's intelligence.

Let's be clear ourselves here. Frontpagemag is a conservative online news and opinion magazine that functions as a clearinghouse for conservative, libertarian, and leftist thought, which features articles, essays, op-eds, studies, reports, and round table discussions and symposiums featuring debates between leading conservative and left wing intellectuals, academics, pundit, and activists.

This kind of thing scares the living crap out of people like Scratch and Runtu because people like this grew up accustomed to a mainstream media who's spin, interpretation, and analysis of most events massaged, validated, and justified the worldviews of people on the Left. The overall impression was then that leftist views and ideology simply reflected the natural order of things.

The rise and maturity of the Internet, and the explosive growth of substantive sites like Frontpage have burst that fragile bubble. Long ago. The hegemony is over. The lock on public perception and mass opinion is over. Leftism, in just the last half of my lifetime, has been shown, finally to a mass public audience, to be exactly what it is: an interconnected series of lies, contrived ideological shibboleths, and politically interested distortions regarding human nature, history, and the human condition.

I realize this is not, and never will be, welcome on the Left. This disinfectant of light rarely is.

[_harmony]

No matter how you spin it, charity, God calls plural marriage an ABOMINATION in the Book of Mormon, and he never rescinded that nomenclature. It is an abomination, no matter when or how it's practiced, or what spin is put on it.

I thought you couldn't explain "otherwise." You silence on the point is deafening.

That's because "otherwise" isn't what I see as important. What's important is "abomination". I don't care about "otherwise"; I care about "abomination". YMMV.

He says that polygamy is an abomination UNLESS he authorizes it. And it is really nice to be able to just ignore parts of the scriptures that you do not want to deal with.

[/quote]

Whatever he says after, what he says first is still there, charity. Plural marriage is an abomination FIRST. Otherwise has no bearing on that. You can't spin "abomination" away.

edited to fix quote

[_harmony]

Its also quite possible that Joseph was a prophet of the Lord who's responsibility as the Prophet of the Restoration to restore, or initiate the restoration, of all knowledge, practices, and principles that had been known in all previous dispensations, and that you have to the faintest idea of what your talking about.

Its a possibility.

Joseph had a gift; one gift. He overstepped his stewardship when he went past that gift. From there, it was all downhill.

[_Coggins7]

Joseph had a gift; one gift. He overstepped his stewardship when he went past that gift. From there, it was all downhill.

According to whom and upon what basis?

[_Coggins7]

Whatever he says after, what he says first is still there, charity. Plural marriage is an abomination FIRST. Otherwise has no bearing on that. You can't spin "abomination" away.

But this begs the question, which is your spinning away of the "unless I command" aspect of Jacob 2:30. That's the rub because, apparently, sometimes he does.

[_harmony]

Joseph had a gift; one gift. He overstepped his stewardship when he went past that gift. From there, it was all downhill.

According to whom and upon what basis?

According to the scripture... before Joseph changed it. You really need to get out more, Loran.

[_Coggins7]

Joseph had a gift; one gift. He overstepped his stewardship when he went past that gift. From there, it was all downhill.

According to whom and upon what basis?

According to the scripture... before Joseph changed it. You really need to get out more, Loran.

But Joseph claims to have translated the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the "abomination" of illegitimate plural marriage, and the "unless I command" of legitimate plural marriage coexist in the same scripture and in the same Gospel. This is where your desperate solipsistic determination to have the Gospel and Church in your own image have taken you Harmony. Intellectual incoherence.

Your fall back position here must be, as I said, to assume the verses that appear to support your own bias are divine in origin, but the one's that do not, Joseph must have added as an afterthought.

I'd be interested to know, as I asked above, upon what basis you make such assertions? You have as yet failed to deal with the issue, or the numerous Old Testament examples of plural marriage suffering no condemnation.

[_harmony]

Joseph had a gift; one gift. He overstepped his stewardship when he went past that gift. From there, it was all downhill.

According to whom and upon what basis?

According to the scripture... before Joseph changed it. You really need to get out more, Loran.

But Joseph claims to have translated the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the "abomination" of illegitimate plural marriage, and the "unless I command" of legitimate plural marriage coexist in the same scripture and in the same Gospel. This is where your desperate solipsistic determination to have the Gospel and Church in your own image have taken you Harmony. Intellectual incoherence.

Your fall back position here must be, as I said, to assume the verses that appear to support your own bias are divine in origin, but the one's that do not, Joseph must have added as an afterthought.

I'd be interested to know, as I asked above, upon what basis you make such assertions? You have as yet failed to deal with the issue, or the numerous Old Testament examples of plural marriage suffering no condemnation.

You see, Loran, I think by the time Sex 132 was first applied, long after the Book of Mormon was finished, Joseph had already dropped the mantle. The instant he took Fanny to bed in that dirty little affair, he dropped the mantle. Sex 132 is simply Joseph covering his butt. Smoke and mirrors.

Since I see no instant in which God ever commanded plural marriage, in the Bible or the Book of Mormon, I see no contradiction, Loran. Man, in the person of prophets and church leaders, took it upon himself to write and rewrite God's words. God never commanded that his sons destroy the hearts of his daughters, that they cry to him in anguish and despair at the sin of the abomination. Man's hand is all over plural marriage; God's hand is not.