Mormonism's Greatest Downfall.

[_Bond James Bond]

EA is far more studied in philosophy in general, and in particular in regards to the theism/atheism debate, than the vast majority of posters. I think they avoid him because he's over their heads, and would hand them their head on a platter. I've seen him do it many times on ZLMB.

I fear him.

[_karl61]

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).

You try to make it complex but lets make it simple -

[_Ray A]

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.

The Bible contradicts itself in regard to polygamy. That's where the real problem lies.

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).

Did Jesus, Paul and other Christians teach polygamy, as it is taught in Section 132? If not, why not? I would suggest it wasn't condemned, because it wasn't a problem.

And what does this have to do with "exaltation"? You have turned polygamy into a "commandment", as per Section 132. Show me anywhere in the Bible where polygamy was ever a commandment given by God. I'm not talking about Saul's wives being handed to David, but polygamy as a commandment, as Brigham Young taught, "only those who enter polygamy become Gods".

[_Gazelam]

I think Brackite makes a lot of sense. It seems quite clear where the Book of Mormon stands on polygamy.
>
>
>

I covered the Book of Mormon stance on Polygamy on page three: Here

[_harmony]

The most problematic part of Joseph's "marriage" to Fanny is that entering plural marriage required the very strict law of using the Priesthood sealing keys. Section 132 makes that clear.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

Joseph didn't receive the keys to practice the New and Everlasting covenant of marriage until 1836.

In 1836 Joseph Smith received, in the Kirtland Temple, additional fundamental priesthood keys. These priesthood powers included the keys of the gathering of Israel, the keys of the gospel of Abraham, and the keys of the sealing power, each set of powers restored personally by Moses, Elias, and Elijah. (See D&C 110.) At other times, additional keys and powers of the priesthood were also restored. (See D&C 128:21.) These included the keys of the kingdom pertaining to the dispensation of the fulness of times, keys that have subsequently passed to Joseph Smith’s successors, including President Ezra Taft Benson today. (See D&C 90:1–5.)

This is the single most important piece of evidence that Joseph fell from grace, and on his way down, put words into God's mouth.

Fanny = 1833.
Sealing power = 1836.

Remember Fanny. Always remember Fanny. There is simply no way to correctly interpret Mormon history, without remembering that Joseph relationship with Fanny was three years prior to the restoration of the power needed to legitimize that relationship. Three years.

Oliver was right. It was dirty little affair and no fancy footwork by subsequent prophets or modern apologists is going to make it anything but the dirty little affair it was. Joseph was guilty of adultery, and because of that and his unrepentent ego-driven agenda, he lost the prophetic mantle and started inventing revelations. It all went to hell very quickly after that. God will not be mocked.

[_Ray A]

If we understand the prophet's words, we can understand why the Nephites were forbidden to have plural wives and why the early Latter-day Saints were enjoined to do so. The time to "raise up seed unto me" (see Jacob 2:30) came with the Latter-day Saints, not the Nephites. Much of the leadership of the Church has been drawn from just that seed. Many members of the Church today are products of plural marriage. So the temporary need was met and the commandment suspended. Of course, there are still eternal needs yet to be met, so in due time the Lord will speak again on the subject.

But according to D&C 132, this was a law given to Abraham. That's not what the Bible says. In fact it was Sarah who suggested that Abraham take Hagar as a wife as she (Sarah) was barren. Their purpose, indeed, was to "raise up seed" (as the Book of Mormon teaches).

How does this compare with early Mormon polygamy, which was:

1) A commandment necessary for exaltation.

2) Not done out of necessity to "raise up seed" (was Emma barren?).

3) Included Joseph Smith being "sealed" to married women (what does that have to do with "raising up seed"?)

[_Kevin Graham]

Recap....

Will: Is that why he later decided that plural marriage was a divine commandment, and practiced it on his own? Are we to conclude that old Sidney “fell” or “saw the light” in the end?

Beastie: I really don't recall him practicing polygamy.

Will: Check out Richard Van Wagoner's Rigdon bio...that's at least one place it can be found

Beastie: I do have Van Wagoner's bio in front of me, and I can't find it.

Will: I'll check the reference as soon as I can. If I'm mistaken, I'll stand corrected at that time. If not, I'll provide the reference.

Will: I talked with someone who I knew to have the book handy. After reviewing together the pages that speak of Rigdon and polygamy, I think it would more accurate to say simply that there were people who charged Rigdon with some form of "spiritual wifery." In fairness to old Sid, those people were hostile witnesses, so, on second thought, I'll give Sid the benefit of the doubt. Was he accused of having dabbled in polygamy? Absolutely. But the evidence is no more conclusive than are the allegations that Joseph Smith had sex with other men's wives.

Kevin: Actually there is more reason to believe Smith had sex with other women, than there is to believe Rigdon was a polygamist.

Will: I also see no appreciable difference between the allegations against Sidney Rigdon in this case and the hostile witnesses who would have us believe Joseph Smith consummated his sealings to already-married women.

Kevin: Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys.
(Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Fifteen Years Among the Mormons", page 34; also Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" pages 301-302, 437-39)

Ray: I was about to reply to this, but I think Kevin just did.

Will: So you also planned a torrent of non sequiturs?

- Will is so dumb he doesn`t even know what a non sequitur is. My citation proved that this "anti-Mormon" claim is supported by direct evidence by a woman who said she had sex with both her husband and Smith, her "spiritual" husband, whereas the Mormon rumor that Rigdon practiced polygamy, is supported by no direct evidence from anyone claiming to have been his plural wife....Ray then talks about how polygamist husbands ignored many responsibilities.Will calls Ray an anti-Mormon -

Will: Tell you the truth, I don't think plural marriage could work at all in a world like the one we currently live in. I can see why it was discontinued when it was.

- Will is showing his ignorance yet again in Mormon history. Polygamy was doen away with due to political/social pressures imposed by society and the government. Leave it to Will to turn this obvious 'about face' into some kind of evidence for divine inspiration -

Will: Not only did I not make a mistake, I eventually produced the reference.Sidney Rigdon was accused...

- Will is such an idiot if he thinks he can flat out lie like this about something he just said yesterday and we're supposed to pretend otherwise. Will didn't initially stated that Rigdon was merely accused of polygamous activity. Will initially stated it as a matter of fact. When asked for a reference, he cited a book that doesn't support him. So what does Will do? Exactly what you'd expect from a disingenuous apologist. He changes his statement to avoid being wrong. In providing a "reference" all he did was show us how he misrepresented the author by miusunderstanding that reference.-

Will: Are the charges true? Hard to say.

-Not for historians. Nobody believed Rigdon was a polygamist, even the lying Mormons who were trying to discredit him. No historian today believes it is "hard to say."-

Will: Upon examination, they appear to me to have as much, if not more, credibility as the allegations that Joseph Smith had conjugal relations with the wives of other men to whom he was married for "eternity," while leaving them married to the existing husband for "time."

-ROFL. "Upon examination" as if Will is in a position to examine anything. Those who understand history know Will's is a fantasy he just conjured up to suit an apologetic cause. Historians seriously doubt Rigdon was a polygamist. Historians don't seriously doubt Joseph Smith had sex with women already married. Will doesn`t have the intelligence to understand the difference-

[_Danna]

PS: I'm having some trouble finding the original William Law Interview, but here is it from MRM. I'm kind of wondering just how far apologists will go, and to what extent they will try to eradicate original material from the Internet. I don't think anything is beyond them.
>

Uncle Dale´s got it covered:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT ... htm#070387

[_Ray A]

Uncle Dale´s got it covered:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT ... htm#070387

Thanks, Danna. A lot more covered there.

[_Danna]

This is the single most important piece of evidence that Joseph fell from grace, and on his way down, put words into God's mouth.

Fanny = 1833.
Sealing power = 1836.

Remember Fanny. Always remember Fanny. There is simply no way to correctly interpret Mormon history, without remembering that Joseph relationship with Fanny was three years prior to the restoration of the power needed to legitimize that relationship. Three years.

Oliver was right. It was dirty little affair and no fancy footwork by subsequent prophets or modern apologists is going to make it anything but the dirty little affair it was. Joseph was guilty of adultery, and because of that and his unrepentent ego-driven agenda, he lost the prophetic mantle and started inventing revelations. It all went to hell very quickly after that. God will not be mocked.

This nails it alright. If JSjr marrying Fanny was doctrinally acceptable, then the restoration of the keys is not. Or vice versa. They cannot both make sense doctrinally as each discredits the legitimacy of the other.