Mormonism's Greatest Downfall.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Translation:

I choose not to respond to EAllusion's poorly worded thoughts and analyses simply because I'm too dumb to offer a reasonable rebuttal. It was my fault for even responding with "gibberish." (Moderator Note) Offensive language deleted

(Moderator Note) It is unacceptable to misquote another poster. It is also unacceptable to use that type of language, in that manner, in the Terrestrial Forum. Liz

[_beastie]

I choose not to respond to EAllusion's poorly worded thoughts and analyses simply because I lack the time. It was my fault for even responding with "gibberish." In the future I just won't respond.

I find this remarkably unpersuasive.

[_rcrocket]

I choose not to respond to EAllusion's poorly worded thoughts and analyses simply because I lack the time. It was my fault for even responding with "gibberish." In the future I just won't respond.

I find this remarkably unpersuasive.

Of course you do. But, it is my prerogative, is it not, to respond to whomever I choose here, no? Just as it is your prerogative to declare victory all the time, and declare victory for EAllusion when I do not respond, right?

[_rcrocket]

Then what do you make of Deuteronomy 17:

I certainly don't have time to respond in kind with all sorts of proof-texts. But it is generally and fairly acknowledged by Biblical commentators that the greatest of the patriarchs, prophets and kings each had multple wives with not a single word of condemnation. Indeed, the only time multiple wives were condemned is when a foreign wife turned a king's heart to a false god.

Moreover, God apparently did more than just wink an eye at plural marriage; he condoned it. As a reward for David's ascendancy to the kingship, Nathan and God gave him Saul's wives. When David fell into disgrace, the prophet reminded David of that event. Odd, wouldn't it be, if polygamy was roundly condemned. I mean, God knew how to condemn things didn't he? You couldn't be a member of the congregation if you were a Moabite. You couldn't marry outside Israel.

Nor is the practice condemned in the New Testament. True, "one" in Greek means "one" and not "a" in the verses you cite. But God knows how to say "only" one, as he did many times. But, Paul didn't say "only one." Hardly a condemnation. So, I'm looking for that condemnation. It isn't there. Instead, you see the greatest of men in God's eyes with multiple wives and concubines (the latter, of equal status in all regards except for real property).

[_beastie]

Of course you do. But, it is my prerogative, is it not, to respond to whomever I choose here, no? Just as it is your prerogative to declare victory all the time, and declare victory for EAllusion when I do not respond, right?

Of course it's your prerogative. It's your prerogative to not respond, or to respond with "gibberish". It's also my prerogative to point out that his point wasn't difficult to grasp.

You and Justin Thames seem to share confusion about his posts, however.

Now, back to the point: what does God's sanction of concubinage mean in the Celestial Kingdom?

[_Brackite]

Not experienced with the english language or computer programming? What does the for...otherwise in Jacob 2:30 refer to? The subject of the previous verses which is plural marriage.

Here is how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is Correctly interpreted and read:

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [To Marry Monogamously]; otherwise they shall [will] hearken unto these things [The Sins of Polygamy].

A lot of LDS Apologists have read the words, 'shall hearken' in Jacob 2:30 as imperative, and/or as a commandment, 'must hearken.' However, I have found three other places in the Book of Mormon were the words 'shall hearken' occur. These three places in the Book of Mormon where the words shall hearken occur at are in 1 Nephi 14:1, 2 Nephi 3:23, and 2 Nephi 28:31.

Here is 1 Nephi 14:1:

[1] And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks --

Here is 2 Nephi 2:23:

[23] Wherefore, because of this covenant thou art blessed; for thy seed shall not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book.

Here is now is 2 Nephi 28:31:

[31] Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

(I Bolded the Phrase 'shall hearken' in all these three Scriptural Passages.)


In all those three other Passages in the Book of Mormon, the words 'shall hearken' is Not read as imperative, and/or as a commandment 'must hearken, but the words 'shall hearken' in those three places in the Book of Mormon is correctly read as 'will hearken.' The same thing also goes for Jacob 2:30. The words 'shall hearken' in Jacob 2:30 is Not read as imperative, and/or as a commandment 'must hearken, but the words 'shall hearken' in Jacob 2:30 is correctly read as descriptive, as 'will hearken.' A lot of the men of the People were willing to hearken unto the Sins of Polygamy. (Please See e.g. Jacob 1:15 & Jacob 2:34.).

Here is again how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is correctly interpreted and read:

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [To Marry Monogamously]; otherwise they shall [will] hearken unto these things [The Sins of Polygamy].

It's now obvious that raising up a righteous seed is to be done through plural marriage in this verse.

Nope! You are Not correct here. The following Post here is from Seven:

I completely agree with you Brackite. If there was ever a time that God would need to raise up seed unto Him through polygamy, it would have been when Lehi was led to the promised land. Yet God commanded monogamy. The sole purpose in God leading Lehi to this land was to raise a righteous seed!


Jacob 2:

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

[_rcrocket]

If there was ever a time that God would need to raise up seed unto Him through polygamy, it would have been when Lehi was led to the promised land. Yet God commanded monogamy. The sole purpose in God leading Lehi to this land was to raise a righteous seed!

And, isn't it obvious why? A very small group short on women. Recall, they had to go back to Jerusalem to get them. "Where da white women?" I don't think polygamy would have worked all that well for decades.

Nope -- the Book of Mormon condones plural marriage. Come on; where do you think Joseph Smith got the idea?

[_JohnStuartMill]

If there was ever a time that God would need to raise up seed unto Him through polygamy, it would have been when Lehi was led to the promised land. Yet God commanded monogamy. The sole purpose in God leading Lehi to this land was to raise a righteous seed!

And, isn't it obvious why? A very small group short on women. Recall, they had to go back to Jerusalem to get them. "Where da white women?" I don't think polygamy would have worked all that well for decades.

Nope -- the Book of Mormon condones plural marriage. Come on; where do you think Joseph Smith got the idea?

lol

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not aforgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were bone wife, and cconcubines they should have none, and there should not be dwhoredoms committed among them.

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/jacob/3/5#5

lol

[_rcrocket]

Give up.

The Book of Mormon condones polygamy just as the D&C does today -- and God commands it at times.

[_rcrocket]

You and Justin Thames seem to share confusion about his posts, however.

I don't like what Thames says about me -- I think it is just the ravings of an apostate.

However, he does raise some interesting points -- one of which is that a poster's merits should be judged in part on the number of responses he gets. EAllusion gets few. I wonder why?