The unbelieving Fifth Column

[_Coggins7]

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.

Same old same old Harmony. There isn't a shred of documentary historical evidence he ever "took Fanny to bed" at all. That is pure assumption and bad faith on the part of people like you. When you have some evidence to back up your slander, let us all know.

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.

I showed you the verses from Samuel in which the Lord gives David plural wives:

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

Not a command? OK, but a divinely appointed gift and responsibility through the prophet Nathan (who must have been as big a scoundrel as Joseph, right Harmony?) So you have now, yet again, been shown to be a scriptural illiterate. But not to worry, the Bible doesn't specifically mention a commandment regarding the plural wives of Moses, Abraham, Jacob etc., but it never condemns them either. So focus intently on the terms "abomination" and "command" and ignore context and the clear meaning of texts, and you'll be fine.

[_Coggins7]

Man, in the person of prophets and church leaders, took it upon himself to write and rewrite God's words.

Upon what basis or criteria then, do you differentiate the words of man from the words of God?

[_truth dancer]

I do not believe God said anything but... ;-)

Seems to me according to the Book of Mormon, God clearly states polygamy is an abomination.

The "otherwise" says nothing about God viewing polygamy as an abomination. Nothing at all.

God says polygamy is an abomination and IF he wants to raise up seed folks will have to engage in the abomination... otherwise they will not. (But Brackite makes a good case against the whole.. raise up seed thing). ;-)

I personally do not recall ever reading in the Book of Mormon where God says polygamy is NOT an abomination. Did I miss something?

~dancer~

[_harmony]

I showed you the verses from Samuel in which the Lord gives David plural wives:

No, Loran. You showed me verses where Nathan gave David plural wives. Nathan claimed God gave them, but we both know prophets have put words in God's mouth since time began. We know what God thinks about plural marriage; he calls it an abomination.

Not a command? OK, but a divinely appointed gift and responsibility through the prophet Nathan (who must have been as big a scoundrel as Joseph, right Harmony?) So you have now, yet again, been shown to be a scriptural illiterate. But not to worry, the Bible doesn't specifically mention a commandment regarding the plural wives of Moses, Abraham, Jacob etc., but it never condemns them either. So focus intently on the terms "abomination" and "command" and ignore context and the clear meaning of texts, and you'll be fine.

I'm well aware of how you and all men interpret the words written by men, yet attributed by men to God. Joseph did nothing new. He had a chance to do something different, but he was unable to resist the power of usurping the divine for his own purposes. And we live with the legacy... us and the other splinter groups off Joseph's original church.

[_Coggins7]

I'm well aware of how you and all men interpret the words written by men, yet attributed by men to God. Joseph did nothing new. He had a chance to do something different, but he was unable to resist the power of usurping the divine for his own purposes. And we live with the legacy... us and the other splinter groups off Joseph's original church.

Ahhhhh. Now we're beginning to get somewhere, aren't we?

[_Coggins7]

I do not believe God said anything but... ;-)

Seems to me according to the Book of Mormon, God clearly states polygamy is an abomination.

The "otherwise" says nothing about God viewing polygamy as an abomination. Nothing at all.

God says polygamy is an abomination and IF he wants to raise up seed folks will have to engage in the abomination... otherwise they will not. (But Brackite makes a good case against the whole.. raise up seed thing). ;-)

I personally do not recall ever reading in the Book of Mormon where God says polygamy is NOT an abomination. Did I miss something?

~dancer~

This isn't even a viable attempt at straw grasping TD. Very, very disappointing. Any unprejudiced reading of the text would indicate, quite unambiguously, that the Lord is saying that if he desires to raise up seed, he will command his people to enter into plural marriage under the laws and conditions of the Priesthood. Otherwise, monogamy is the rule. Brackite's exegesis was a classic exercise in textual sophistry in which disparate terms and phrases from disparate parts of the Book of Mormon are used in an attempt to combine elements from these disparate texts to attach a completely contrived meaning to another text that ostensively will not support that meaning, but can be made to appear to support it through inferential stretches based upon similar terms used in other parts of the text within other contexts that can be inferentially tortured until they supply the desired meaning.

Not compelling.

[_harmony]

Not compelling.

TD is right. Of course you don't see it, but that doesn't in any way effect her correctness. The Book of Mormon says plural marriage is an abomination. Nowhere does it ever change that. Nowhere. Any addendums do not address the abominableness of the abomination; the addendums only address conditions under which the abomination might be practiced, but the addendums and condition do not in any way take away the abominableness of the abomination.

[_charity]

Not compelling.

TD is right. Of course you don't see it, but that doesn't in any way effect her correctness. The Book of Mormon says plural marriage is an abomination. Nowhere does it ever change that. Nowhere. Any addendums do not address the abominableness of the abomination; the addendums only address conditions under which the abomination might be practiced, but the addendums and condition do not in any way take away the abominableness of the abomination.

We can all see your blind spot here, harmony.

[_Runtu]

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.

Hey, Loran, believe it or not, I used to be like you. I read NRO daily (even had a running email conversation with Rich Lowry) and FrontPage (I used to really like David Horowitz); and need I remind you I know who Paul Shanklin is. I'm still pretty conservative (ask Blixa. LOL). But here's the thing, Loran. You second Crockett's disdainful description of me and call that an archetype. If you're going to spew BS like that, expect to get something in return.

You know what's a dead giveaway with you? your vocabulary dropping. You use "ontology" and "solipsism" more than anyone I know. It's as if you have to use the vocabulary because you're not confident in your intelligence. For what it's worth, you strike me as being very intelligent but educated largely by the Internet. Drop the belligerence and the name-calling, and we might have something to talk about.

[_harmony]

Not compelling.

TD is right. Of course you don't see it, but that doesn't in any way effect her correctness. The Book of Mormon says plural marriage is an abomination. Nowhere does it ever change that. Nowhere. Any addendums do not address the abominableness of the abomination; the addendums only address conditions under which the abomination might be practiced, but the addendums and condition do not in any way take away the abominableness of the abomination.

We can all see your blind spot here, harmony.

I have several, charity. So do you. For example, I can't see the top of my head. So? That doesn't mean it's not there.

God called plural marriage an abomination. I see nothing in his interaction with the early Saints that would lead me to believe he would inflict the abomination onto them. That kind of curse would be unprecedented and doesn't fit at all with the idea of a God that loves his daughters as much as his sons.