The unbelieving Fifth Column

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

What you see is the power of tradition, not the power of God. And man makes traditions.

Upon what basis?

That is my point exactly, Loran. Thank you for finally seeing it. God calls plural marriage an abomination! He never rescinded that. He said if HE commands that mankind engage in the abomination in order to raise up seed, that is his call. But to command man to engage in heinous sins (abominations) is just not his style... so Joseph alone bears the responsibility for bringing the abomination into the lives of the early Saints.

This is linguistic and logical statutory rape. I'm through with you on this issue Harmony, because you are not listening, and you refuse to approach your own arguments, or mine, in a philosophically critical manner. You refuse to engage my points or arguments logically, or look closely at the structure of your own.

You're digging in of your heels and repeating mantras over and over and over again until they become true has run its course on this thread.

But what are the grounds for your position? Besides the fact that all the GA's (and obviously Joseph Smith to being with) have always interpreted it that way?

by the way, your avatar gives me the creeps. What the hell is that?

[_Mister Scratch]

by the way, your avatar gives me the creeps. What the hell is that?

It is some Kung Fu/Martial Arts guy. Loran has said elsewhere that martial arts are among his hobbies, along with fusion music and reading frontpagemag.com.

[_Coggins7]

Old Testament Polygamy is nothing like LDS polygamy. It was tolerated by God due to cultural issues.

And this claim derives preciely from what facts or evidence?

It was not commanded nor ever given in any way as an ordinance for eternal life or entrance into the highest kingdom.

And you know this precisely how?

And it is pretty clear the New Testament rule was one wife. It is also interesting the Jacob 2 gives a blanket condemnation for David and Solomon's polygamy while D&C 132 says it was all ok except for Bathsheba. Compare the two passages. They seem a direct contradiction. No time to cut and paste them right now.

No General Authority of which I'm aware has ever interpreted Jacob 2:30 in any other manner except as a caveat to the general prohibition on plural marriage without divine sanction. When the keys of Presidency are passed along to you, we'll talk. Until then, excuse me if I doubt your authority to contravene the Lords anointed servants in our day.

[_Coggins7]

Loran

Ask any reputable LDS historian on this. They all agree that Joseph and Fanny were sexually involved and that fanny was his first plural wife. Why do you think a number of years ago the intro to D&C 132 says Joseph Smith knew the doctrine as early as 1831.

Except for the utter lack of documentary evidence, even from Fanny herself or her family.

Take this to someone who will fall for it Jason.

[_Brackite]

Where in the Book of Mormon does God say polygamy is NOT an abomination?

~dancer~

Hi There Truth Dancer,

There is No where in the Book of Mormon where it refers or states that Polygamy is Not an abomination. However there are a few more places in the Book of Mormon where it refers and states that Polygamy is a abomination, in addition to Jacob Chapter Two. Here is Mosiah Chapter 11, verses 1-4, and verse 14:

Mosiah 11:1-4, & 14:

[1] And now it came to pass that Zeniff conferred the kingdom upon Noah, one of his sons; therefore Noah began to reign in his stead; and he did not walk in the ways of his father.

[2] For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.

[3] And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain.

[4] And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his concubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom.

...

[14] And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots.

Now, Here is Ether Chapter 10, verses 5-7:

Ether 10:5-7:

[5] And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men's shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings.

[6] And he did erect him an exceedingly beautiful throne; and he did build many prisons, and whoso would not be subject unto taxes he did cast into prison; and whoso was not able to pay taxes he did cast into prison; and he did cause that they should labor continually for their support; and whoso refused to labor he did cause to be put to death.

[7] Wherefore he did obtain all his fine work, yea, even his fine gold he did cause to be refined in prison, and all manner of fine workmanship he did cause to be wrought in prison. And it came to pass that he did afflict the people with his whoredoms and abominations.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

by the way, your avatar gives me the creeps. What the hell is that?

Thou art a Dweeb.

That's Kuo Choi, a Peking Opera graduate, Kung Fu master, and major Shaw Brothers star in Hong Kong films from the mid-seventies to mid-eighties. He was the lead star of the "Venoms" team that made a series of popular martial arts films during that period.

The hairstyle and make-up are Sung/Ming dynasty mixed with traditional Peking Oprah stage amendments (like the eyebrows).

Dolt.

[_Coggins7]

There is No where in the Book of Mormon where it refers or states that Polygamy is Not an abomination.

Yes, except Jacob 2:30, in which a caveat is added in which if the Lord commands, or sanctions plural marriage, it becomes a righteous practice. Your strained biblical exegesis on the subject only makes clear how difficult wriggling out of the plain implication of the text really is.

You can't diffuse the polygamy bomb. You don't have the codes, you can't cut the wires, and you're in far over your heads folding, spindling, and mutilating the scriptures to make them conform to your own cultural, psychological, and emotional prejudices.

Fight against God if your wish. Its your right and privilege. But in eternity, you must accept in return what you were willing to receive here. That is the law of restoration...another hard doctrine.

[_Brackite]

Here is Jacob Chapter two, Verse seven:

Jacob 2:7:

[7] And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;

Now, Here is Jacob Chapter two, Verse 24:

Jacob 2:24:

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

It was Not how or the way how King David and King Solomon had many wives and concubines that was abominable before the Lord God, It is that they just truly actually in fact had many wives and concubines which was abominable before the Lord God. This interpretation is very, very much in harmony with the obvious interpretation of Jacob 2:7, which does Not mean it was the how or the way how the wives' and children's feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, it means very much of what it states is that, the wives; and children's feelings are truly indeed exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before the Lord God. King David and King Solomon in fact truly having many wives and concubines is that which was indeed truly abominable before the Lord God.

[_Coggins7]

Unfortunately, this interpretation, one more time, contradicts 2 Samuel, and Jacob 2:30 which leaves a specific type of plural marriage open as a sanctioned practice. It also, if interpreted in the blanket manner in which you are interpreting it, contradicts the cases of Moses, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, in which cases plural marriage is never condemned or proscribed.

You are trapped with one set of verses that seem to say one thing, and others that seem to imply something else. However, as you have all rejected the living oracles, you have no way of resolving the problem save through the arm of flesh; through your own understanding.

Excuse me if I stay with more reliable sources.

[_Dr. Shades]

The hairstyle and make-up are Sung/Ming dynasty mixed with traditional Peking Oprah stage amendments (like the eyebrows).

I assume you really meant opera? (A Freudian slip, perhaps?)