Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

[_Mad Viking]

He has heard the cry of His tender daughters and those cries will not be ignored.

Unless your name happens to be Emma. Then your cries are met with threats.

[_truth dancer]

Jacob 2:23-25
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.

Even as a believer I would read this passage and think... isn't this EXACTLY what Joseph Smith & Co. did? Isn't this EXACTLY what apologists do?

They excuse what Jesus Christ clearly calls an abomination and a whoredom because a few powerful tribal nomads in the Old Testament engaged in this despicable behavior.

~td~

[_Scottie]

Jacob 2:23-25
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.

Even as a believer I would read this passage and think... isn't this EXACTLY what Joseph Smith & Co. did? Isn't this EXACTLY what apologists do?

They excuse what Jesus Christ clearly calls an abomination and a whoredom because a few powerful tribal nomads in the Old Testament engaged in this despicable behavior.

~td~

They also set up secret meetings with secret signs and handshakes.

[_truth dancer]

He has heard the cry of His tender daughters and those cries will not be ignored.

Unless your name happens to be Emma. Then your cries are met with threats.

Very nice point MV.

Also Liz... As you point out, God calls the practice of polygamy an abomination. EVEN if one wants to go with the belief that God implies he may allow or command polygamy at some time, God NEVER says it is not an abomination or that it does not break the hearts of his daughters. God clearly says it does.

In other words, EVEN if you go with the apologetic rationalization that God may require polygamy, God clearly states it does and will break the hearts of his daughters and that it is an abomination.

The fact that polygamy is an abomination is doctrine in the official LDS scripture, (whether one believes it may be commanded or not) as revealed by Jesus Christ.

~td~

[_Seven]

Hi Liz, :)

How do you feel about this statement in Mormon Doctrine I bolded that comes right before the one you quoted?

From such fragmentary scriptural records as are now available, we learn that the Lord did command some of his ancient saints to practice plural marriage. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- among others (D. & C. 132) -- conformed to this ennobling and exalting principle; the whole history of ancient Israel was one in which plurality of wives was a divinely accepted and approved order of matrimony. Those who entered this order at the Lord's command, and who kept the laws and conditions appertaining to it, have gained for themselves eternal exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world.
In the early days of this dispensation, as part of the promised restitution of all things, the Lord revealed the principle of plural marriage to the Prophet. Later the Prophet and leading brethren were commanded to enter into the practice, which they did in all virtue and purity of heart despite the consequent animosity and prejudices of worldly people. After Brigham Young led the saints to the Salt Lake Valley , plural marriage was openly taught and practiced until the year 1890. At that time conditions were such that the Lord by revelation withdrew the command to continue the practice, and President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto directing that it cease. (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 213-218.) Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium. (Isa. 4.)

I don't believe his statements on the Book of Mormon Prophets completely conflict with Mormon Doctrine on polygamy/exaltation. I know some TBMs who believe those Prophets will also be required to enter plural marriage in the CK to achieve Godhood/fulfill the law, but they were not commanded to on earth because of the wickedness of man. (just as LDS are not commanded to at this time) This isn't my belief....only what they have shared with me.

Mormon Doctrine (the book) is considered opinion now and was not approved by the First Presidency when it was published. I have even read that some of the apostles were very upset about the book when it came out. The TBM apologist types I have discussed this with do not take that book seriously anymore. They view 131 and 132, Isa.4, and Jacob 2:30 as the only doctrine on the subject.

[_Yoda]

The only conflict comes from antiMormons who can't accept the Church's own statements on doctrine because it conflict with their pet theories.

BS!!!!

First of all, I am NOT an anti-Mormon.

Secondly, I'm not trying to establish some "pet theory". I am trying, as a MEMBER of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, to understand a practice that is abhorrent, and goes against everything Christian that I have ever felt in my being...and measuring that against words that the Lord God, himself, is quoted as saying in "the most correct book of scripture".

[_Yoda]

Again, Nehor, I would encourage you to read Jacob 2:30 within the context of the entire passage, instead of using it as a "get out of jail free card" for polygamy practice.

Yes, the Lord says, basically, if I want you to raise up seed this way, I'll command it. BUT.. He is quick to explain, much as ANY parent is quick to explain consequnces and reasons, that this is NOT what He is doing and why.

He has heard the cry of His tender daughters and those cries will not be ignored.

Okay, I just read it again. He gave his rationale for not doing it then. I don't see how that applies to the 1800's.

What you and BC don't seem to understand is that morality is morality. How can something be an abomination one minute and OK the next? For a religion that claims to be so black and white on so many issues, I just don't understand this particular blind spot.

[_Scottie]

The only conflict comes from antiMormons who can't accept the Church's own statements on doctrine because it conflict with their pet theories.

b***s***!!!!

First of all, I am NOT an anti-Mormon.

Secondly, I'm not trying to establish some "pet theory". I am trying, as a MEMBER of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, to understand a practice that is abhorrent, and goes against everything Christian that I have ever felt in my being...and measuring that against words that the Lord God, himself, is quoted as saying in "the most correct book of scripture".

Liz, the thing you need to understand here is that any all all atrocities that we can imagine have been sanctioned by God in the Bible at some point.

So, Joseph Smith could have gone into a village, slaughtered men, women and children, and apologists today would say, "So? God commanded it in the past. Why couldn't he do it again?"

Joseph Smith could have raped an infant, then eaten it's still beating heart and apologists would find some way to spin this as holy.

[_Scottie]

What you and BC don't seem to understand is that morality is morality. How can something be an abomination one minute and OK the next? For a religion that claims to be so black and white on so many issues, I just don't understand this particular blind spot.

Sorry, sweetie, but I gotta disagree with you here. Morality is about as subjective as it comes.

[_Yoda]

What you and BC don't seem to understand is that morality is morality. How can something be an abomination one minute and OK the next? For a religion that claims to be so black and white on so many issues, I just don't understand this particular blind spot.

Sorry, sweetie, but I gotta disagree with you here. Morality is about as subjective as it comes.

True... But morality from the LDS perspective is preached in a VERY black and white fashion, with the exception of this area. There is a puritanical view of sex, in particular, with the very strong exception of this issue.

Let's face it. Isn't Polygamy the main hot button item that apologetics exists for?