Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_Yoda]

Liz, maybe this will get some back on track. TD has stated that she knows that plural marriage was bad, despicable, Joseph was not a prophet and thus those revealed doctrines were not really revelation, etc.

The history of plural marriage in Christianity is a long one. The first recorded instance is Abraham, who had two wives simulataneously. Then his grandson Jacob had 4 wives. David was given wives by the prophet Nathan. In the time of Jesus plural marriage was still an accepted practice. It was not universally practiced, but it was accepted.

I fail to see why anyone would deny the latter day revelation on plural marriage as being an affront to Christian principles.

And this may be the crux of our differences. My understanding of the Old Testament surrounding plural marriage is that it was a cultural practice. Where, in the Old Testament, did God command it? It was an accepted cultural practice that God did not condemn, but I don't see where he outright commanded it. You mentioned the case of Abraham. Sarah was barren. During that time, women who were barren were considered second class citizens. Prosperity was the name of the game. She wanted to make sure that Abraham had offspring. If she could not provide those offspring, she wanted someone who could, and offered her servant, Hagar, to Abraham as a second wife.

Where, in the New Testament, does plural marriage take place? I have yet to read about it. There is speculation concerning it by Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, regarding Jesus supposedly marrying both Mary and Martha. But where, in the New Testament, is it specifically documented?

I see plural marriage as an affront to Christian principles because when Christ personally dwelled on the earth, he never spoke of it. He spoke of marriage, the institution of one man and one woman.

When Christ came to the earth, he fulfilled the lower law. There was no need for the Law of Moses. The sacrifice of the lamb had occurred. If polygamy was a law of God, like animal sacrifice, it was a lower law, and no restoration was required.

[_charity]

Liz, maybe this will get some back on track. TD has stated that she knows that plural marriage was bad, despicable, Joseph was not a prophet and thus those revealed doctrines were not really revelation, etc.

The history of plural marriage in Christianity is a long one. The first recorded instance is Abraham, who had two wives simulataneously. Then his grandson Jacob had 4 wives. David was given wives by the prophet Nathan. In the time of Jesus plural marriage was still an accepted practice. It was not universally practiced, but it was accepted.

I fail to see why anyone would deny the latter day revelation on plural marriage as being an affront to Christian principles.

And this may be the crux of our differences. My understanding of the Old Testament surrounding plural marriage is that it was a cultural practice. Where, in the Old Testament, did God command it? It was an accepted cultural practice that God did not condemn, but I don't see where he outright commanded it. You mentioned the case of Abraham. Sarah was barren. During that time, women who were barren were considered second class citizens. Prosperity was the name of the game. She wanted to make sure that Abraham had offspring. If she could not provide those offspring, she wanted someone who could, and offered her servant, Hagar, to Abraham as a second wife.

And yet even you accept during this period of plural marraige, Abraham remained a prophet. The Lord continued to reveal His word through Abraham.

And Jacob was given the privilege of being the progentior of the 12 Tribes, and his offspring from 4 different wives were the heads of those 12 tribes. The Lord did not condemn him, either.

Where, in the New Testament, does plural marriage take place? I have yet to read about it. There is speculation concerning it by Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, regarding Jesus supposedly marrying both Mary and Martha. But where, in the New Testament, is it specifically documented?

Matthew 25. There is a marriage and there are 10 virgins waiting for the bridgegroom? So is it your interpretation that there is a marriage with one bridegroom and one bride, and 10 other marriagable young women waiting to hang on his robe? A little unseemly if you ask me.

Also those who know the cultue of the time say that Jesus' relationship with Mary and Martha would be very problematic for a rabbi, if they were not His wives. Mary's address to Him at the tomb indicates "husband."

Paul wrote to Timorthy: (1 Tim. 3: 2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Why did he specify ONE wife? If you were to try to stretch it to say, what Paul really meant was that a man should be married and not single, that seems strange for Paul, since he recommended chastity, according to mainstream Christianity.

There is plenty in the New Testament to indicate plural marriage as we know that plural marriage was an accepted practice of the time.

And show me one place in the New Testament where Jesus said marriage is between one man and one woman.

When Christ came to the earth, he fulfilled the lower law. There was no need for the Law of Moses. The sacrifice of the lamb had occurred. If polygamy was a law of God, like animal sacrifice, it was a lower law, and no restoration was required.

The is the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. All things will be restored.

[_truth dancer]

OMG... here we go again. :-(

TD has stated that she knows that plural marriage was bad,

I have NEVER stated or insinuated such a thing.

I have repeatedly stated that there are those who enjoy alternative relationships of all kinds, and if two consenting, unmanipulated ADULTS want to engage in whatever partnering they wish I do NOT care.

despicable, Joseph was not a prophet

I have NEVER stated or insinuated such a thing.

I have repeatedly stated that I do not BELIEVE Joseph Smith is a prophet, and find it extraordinarily unlikely but he may very well be, just as any man might be.

and thus those revealed doctrines were not really revelation, etc.

I have NEVER stated such a thing.

I have repeatedly stated that ANYONE can be receiving revelation, that any church may be the one and only true one, that the LDS version of God may be the real one as may any or none of the religions on the earth. Again, I find it unlikely but I do not know.

[b]YOU, charity make up stuff.[/

While I want to believe you make stuff up without purposeful dishonesty, at this point I am finding it difficult.

I am trying to be polite and respectful, and honor the intent of this room, but your repeated accusations make it difficult.

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

Charity:

Holy means it is God's way. We are both betting our lives that we are right, and we each are following God's way.

Nope. Maybe YOU are but not me. I have no idea about ultimate truth and have never claimed to be right.

Charity:

I don't hate peole I don't respect. I don't think about them and talk about them all the time. I don't go on message boards where their name is likely to come up. I don't post negative information about them. I simply do not give them any of my emotional energy. And I think the fact that you says you have more invested than a "neutral" feeling.

I find many historical figures of interest, particular cult and religious leaders. I find the human phenomenon of belief fascinating. And much of my life was invested in Mormonism. So, as odd as you may seem to think it is, I am interested in the dynamics of belief particularly those surrounding cult/religious leaders. I have no emotional investment in Joseph Smith, I have no negative feelings for him whatsoever. What fascinates me is how he, and other cult and religious leaders came to be leaders, how and why they create followings, and how and why humans believe as they do.

But you can continue to imagine what you want. (sigh)

Charity: I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you give me a simpler explanation for my simple mind, please

I'm doing my best to be polite which is why I did not go into specifics. I think enough people on this board have given you reasons why some apologists negatively influence struggling members of the church, and why your unique style of participation may not be quite as beneficial to the church as you seem to think.

I feel quite certain based on my years on LDS message boards and listening to the journey of many members and former members, that some apologists do more damage to the faith of struggling members than any critic ever could.

I'll leave it at that.

~dancer~

[_Blixa]

--------liz, this may seem like a derail of your thread, but this is such a good example and it speaks to your sense of "the crux of our differences" as well.

The responses of charity to truthdancer illustrate the issue I was talking about in the "Substantial discussion" thread a while back, a thread in which I think everyone responding to your thread---except charity---had some response.

If you recall, you and others made the suggestion that the Celestial forum with its alleged moderation for "polite, scholarly and respectful" discussion would be a place to bring our desires for better discussions. As I just pointed out on the Terrestial thread, "Skylla lets the cat out of the bag," one can look at this thread to see the same old ecclesiastical threats, sneering personal put downs, and condescending use of the royal we in charity's responses to truthdancer. Examples?

We all know you hate Joseph Smith.

Your own words stand as a witness. We can all read.

[God] will hold those accountable for the sin of dishonoring His chosen servants, for defaming and blaspheming His Son, and for influencing His more vulnerable children out of the faith He wants them to have.

I'm sure God will forgive you for those sins, but you have to repent first. Just a word to the wise.

But you have to be right. Running toward the wrong goal with the football can look impressive, but it scores points for the other team.

This exemplifies a style of "non-discussion" that I think problematic on the board. It proceeds from an unspoken and perhaps largely unconscious series of prior exclusions of topics as not open to discussion. From this position, I honestly think what constitutes "polite, scholarly and respectful discussion" is unintelligible and impossible.

Again, I don't know how one moderates for this exactly---but, if this forum is supposed to be "heavily moderated" for "discussion," then I think its worth thinking about.

[_harmony]

And yet even you accept during this period of plural marraige, Abraham remained a prophet. The Lord continued to reveal His word through Abraham.

And Jacob was given the privilege of being the progentior of the 12 Tribes, and his offspring from 4 different wives were the heads of those 12 tribes. The Lord did not condemn him, either.

Perhaps you need to read your Old Testament more closely, charity. God didn't give Hagar to Abraham, nor did God command Abraham to take Hagar as his wife. What was done, was done by Sarah. There is no record that Abraham married Hagar. She was his concubine. Abraham is a lousy example of plural marriage on so many fronts.

Jacob's situation was similiar. God didn't command Jacob to take any of his wives. His father in law tricked him into it.

Please do as Liz has asked: find any instance in the Old Testament where GOD commands plural marriage (good luck. There aren't any, but by all means, try).

[_charity]

But you can continue to imagine what you want. (sigh)

I really do wonder at how logic can be disregarded when it is used by faithful LDS, and yet put on a pedestal when used by critics. Strange use of the term "imagine."

I'm doing my best to be polite which is why I did not go into specifics. I think enough people on this board have given you reasons why some apologists negatively influence struggling members of the church, and why your unique style of participation may not be quite as beneficial to the church as you seem to think.

I feel quite certain based on my years on LDS message boards and listening to the journey of many members and former members, that some apologists do more damage to the faith of struggling members than any critic ever could.

I'll leave it at that.

I am hardly unique. I really don't think that once an LDS person puts him or herself on the opposite side, that they can be brought back, barring some critical circumstance in their lives. I've trained under expert apologists. It is not an apologists job to re-convert anyone who has "left" the Church. And I mean that in the way of emotionally or philosophically, not as in a name on a membership record.

The Spirit converts. And since there is opposition in all things, it is the "other" influence which de-converts. Not that any person can't be a good person, free from any serious sins, well-intentioned, etc. We often hear of people who are offended by bishops, other leaders, members, etc. and that causes them to leave the Church. That claim can be made against any person. But it is never a person who causes an individual to leave.

Think about it. How weak is a person who leaves the true Church and their eternal reward because someone "offended" them? That doesn't happen. The faithful member stays faithful no matter what.

It is my opinion that apologetics and apolgetists have one purpose--to stand for truth against falsehood. Those who have the Spirit with them can discern the truth. This doesn't mean that everyone will see. But that is within the individual.

[_charity]

[quote="Blixa]

Again, I don't know how one moderates for this exactly---but, if this forum is supposed to be "heavily moderated" for "discussion," then I think its worth thinking about.[/quote]

If one side of the discussion is prevented from presenting that side's viewpoint, then it isn't really a discussion, is it?

[_charity]

Please do as Liz has asked: find any instance in the Old Testament where GOD commands plural marriage (good luck. There aren't any, but by all means, try).

It has been the argument here that Joseph Smith did not act "properly" and either was not ever a prophet, or became a fallen prophet because he instituted plural marriage. That plural marriage is only a product of male lust, it victimizes women, is immoral, breaks God's law agaisnt adultery, and is not one of God's laws.

I don't think these ideas can be upheld with either the Old Testament or the New Testament.

If it is not of God, is immoral, is merely lustful, then God's prophets (Abraham and Jacob and Moses) are immoral and lustful, but evidently can still be prophets with God's approval. But remember, God cannot look upon the least degree of sin. And wouldn't you say men who consort with concubines, take 4 plural wives, or even 2 are committing a little bit more than the "least degree of sin?" So you have to admit, that they were not committing grievous sins.

2. Or, if God has, at various times instituted plural marriage, or has at the least, approved of it, why can't it be instituted now?

[_truth dancer]

I am hardly unique.

I have never encountered an apologists who uses your tactics and techniques to such extreme lengths.

I really don't think that once an LDS person puts him or herself on the opposite side, that they can be brought back, barring some critical circumstance in their lives.

The thing you do not understand is that while many apologists see the normal human spiritual/soul journey as some fight between belief and unbelief, others do not share this view.

I do however agree that when believers of all religions, (FLDS, Scientology, Amish, JW, Mormon), no longer believe in their particular doctrine, they rarely return.

I've trained under expert apologists.

I've never heard about an apologists training program. Could you elaborate?

It is not an apologists job to re-convert anyone who has "left" the Church.

I do not think anyone has suggested it is. Apologists for all religions share a similar purpose. Problem is they all think they are right with the one true God at the helm. :-)

The Spirit converts. And since there is opposition in all things, it is the "other" influence which de-converts.

Who converts someone to Scientology? Islam? JW? Catholicism? Paganism? Who de-converts someone from Scientology? Islam? JW? Catholicism? Paganism?

You seem to suggest that Satan "de-converts" people from the LDS church but it is the HG that de-converts people from every other religion? Conversely, it is the HG who converts people to the LDS church but Satan who converts people to other faiths?

We often hear of people who are offended by bishops, other leaders, members, etc. and that causes them to leave the Church.

I have never heard of this with the exception of unsourced accusations from LDS leaders.

But it is never a person who causes an individual to leave.

I totally agree. It is never a person, it is knowledge, information, growth, expansion, development, ideas, awareness etc. etc. etc. I'm NOT suggesting that new knowledge is true, I'm saying that it seems the reason for disbelief from every religion is new awareness, information, or knowledge, true or not.

The exact same reasons members no longer believe in the LDS church demonstrate themselves in believers of all religions.

The faithful member stays faithful no matter what.

This is nonsense. Faithful members of all religions move on, "de-convert" release belief, or change beliefs.

Now, if you mean True Believers, in the Eric Hoffer sense of the term, then yes, we can all agree that they will never leave their religions regardless of what faith tradition they embrace.

Those who have the Spirit with them can discern the truth. This doesn't mean that everyone will see. But that is within the individual.

This makes me smile. :-)

If it were true, then prophets, leaders, and many who claim to be in tune with the HG would get it right. This is just not the case. Prophets and leaders of the church who very much thought they were in tune were totally and completely wrong on some pretty big stuff. What happened to the mantra, prophets are not infallible? They make mistakes even when they think they are receiving revelation and inspiration. I've heard faithful members bear testimony to completely incorrect things all the time.

Even Joseph Smith himself stated that one could not always tell between revelation from God, Satan, or man.

~dancer~