bcspace wrote:If you claim to be a Christian He did. 2 Samuel 12:7-8 for example.
Actually, no, he did not.
1. Nathan was a man, given to speaking as a man, and thus not above putting words into God's mouth.
2. " thy master’s wives into thy bosom" means to take care of Saul's wives, to give them food, clothing, housing. There is nothing there that says they became David's wives with sexual relations. Certainly nothing that says what the following verse does, about David taking Uriah's wife to be his "wife". Had Nathan meant for David to take Saul's wives to "wife", he would have said so. He didn't. Try again.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
bcspace wrote:If you claim to be a Christian He did. 2 Samuel 12:7-8 for example.
Actually, no, he did not.
1. Nathan was a man, given to speaking as a man, and thus not above putting words into God's mouth.
2. " thy master’s wives into thy bosom" means to take care of Saul's wives, to give them food, clothing, housing. There is nothing there that says they became David's wives with sexual relations. Certainly nothing that says what the following verse does, about David taking Uriah's wife to be his "wife". Had Nathan meant for David to take Saul's wives to "wife", he would have said so. He didn't. Try again.
Much as I hate to do this, I can't agree with you. Verse 11 is pretty explicit:
11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
If God is prepared to give the wives to another to "lie with," presumably David had that authorization as well.
bcspace wrote:practice of plural marriage is one of the things that identifies the true Church.
That's exactly what Warren Jeffs told me the other day.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
1. Nathan was a man, given to speaking as a man, and thus not above putting words into God's mouth.
2. " thy master’s wives into thy bosom" means to take care of Saul's wives, to give them food, clothing, housing. There is nothing there that says they became David's wives with sexual relations. Certainly nothing that says what the following verse does, about David taking Uriah's wife to be his "wife". Had Nathan meant for David to take Saul's wives to "wife", he would have said so. He didn't. Try again.
Much as I hate to do this, I can't agree with you. Verse 11 is pretty explicit:
11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
If God is prepared to give the wives to another to "lie with," presumably David had that authorization as well.
And we have Nathan's word on it.
Again, what we don't have is David being told to take Saul's wives to "wife". He's told to take Saul's wives to his bosom, to take care of them. There's no evidence that says David ever took any of Saul's wives to "wife". The threat there in verse 11 is that his neighbor might take Saul's wives to "wife", but nothing says David did.
I'd trust Nathan exactly as much as I trust Joseph Smith. In order to believe Nathan, I have to believe God doesn't love his daughters. I can't do that.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Again, what we don't have is David being told to take Saul's wives to "wife". He's told to take Saul's wives to his bosom, to take care of them. There's no evidence that says David ever took any of Saul's wives to "wife". The threat there in verse 11 is that his neighbor might take Saul's wives to "wife", but nothing says David did.
I'd trust Nathan exactly as much as I trust Joseph Smith. In order to believe Nathan, I have to believe God doesn't love his daughters. I can't do that.
OK, so we've established that you don't believe Nathan was a prophet. Fair enough.
practice of plural marriage is one of the things that identifies the true Church.
That's exactly what Warren Jeffs told me the other day.
Are you brave enough to accurately quote me?
What rules were in effect after the Law of Moses was fulfilled?
I wouldn't go down that road. The New Testament invalidates polygamy.
I will go down that road. The New Testament compared to the Old Testament shows that God authorizes plural marriage from time to time. The New Testament covers what? 90-100 years? Abraham to Jesus is what? 1800 years?
Again, what we don't have is David being told to take Saul's wives to "wife". He's told to take Saul's wives to his bosom, to take care of them. There's no evidence that says David ever took any of Saul's wives to "wife". The threat there in verse 11 is that his neighbor might take Saul's wives to "wife", but nothing says David did.
I'd trust Nathan exactly as much as I trust Joseph Smith. In order to believe Nathan, I have to believe God doesn't love his daughters. I can't do that.
OK, so we've established that you don't believe Nathan was a prophet. Fair enough.
We've also established that there's no evidence to support the concept that David took Saul's wives to "wife".
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:We've also established that there's no evidence to support the concept that David took Saul's wives to "wife".
Given that the Mosaic Law provided for plural marriage and speaks of the rules governing children born to plural wives, it's a safe bet that Old Testament plural marriage was authorized and involved sexuality.
harmony wrote:We've also established that there's no evidence to support the concept that David took Saul's wives to "wife".
Given that the Mosaic Law provided for plural marriage and speaks of the rules governing children born to plural wives, it's a safe bet that Old Testament plural marriage was authorized and involved sexuality.
Culturally, I'd agree. It's not like the ancients had any use for women but the obvious.
God-given though... never.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.