The unbelieving Fifth Column

[_Brackite]

I read your post. I agree with nevo. You have not effectively engaged on the "otherwise" issue, in my opinion.

Hello Charity,

The Following is from the Online Book Titled, "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy," From Chapter #18:

The true interpretation of the passage shows that it is definitely monogamous, and that it is in harmony with all the rest of the revelation which the Lord gave through Jacob. The true interpretation is:

For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed unto me, I will command my people [the Lord will be their commander—He will give them commandments to obey]: otherwise [if the Lord is not their commander; or they do not obey His commandments], they shall hearken unto these things [they shall practice the sins of polygamy].

This is the true meaning of this passage—and therefore it condemns polygamy, rather than justifying it as the Mormon Church leaders claim.


( http://restorationbookstore.org/article ... /chp18.htm )

Now the Following Here is another part of my Exegesis of Jacob Chapter Two and Jacob Chapter Three, Particularly Jacob 2:30:

Now I am going to go on to the second part of Jacob 2:30. Here is Jacob 2:30 again:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now here is 2 Nephi 28:31:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In all those three other places 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.'


( http://p094.ezboard.com/Reading-Jacob-C ... =415.topic )

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Not compelling.

TD is right. Of course you don't see it, but that doesn't in any way effect her correctness. The Book of Mormon says plural marriage is an abomination. Nowhere does it ever change that. Nowhere. Any addendums do not address the abominableness of the abomination; the addendums only address conditions under which the abomination might be practiced, but the addendums and condition do not in any way take away the abominableness of the abomination.

TD is only doing what Brackite is doing, and what EV's do to proof text concepts like the doctrine of the Trinity and salvation by grace alone: isolate disparate verses of scriptural text that contain related terms and contextual similarities and combine them into the desired interpretation in an intellectual cut and paste exercise that involves intemperate leaps of inference and assumption. I know of no GA or official church teaching manuals that take any other position than that this is a prohibition of plural marriage without direct revelation through legitimate Priesthood authority. You're contention that the Lord is here saying that if he desires to raise up seed, he will command his people to commit sexual abominations, or command them to commit heinous sins, is just, uh...ah little silly, is it not? Or do you now include God himself as a notch on your lipstick case of those who have "dropped their mantle"?

Not, as I said, compelling.

[_Coggins7]

The true interpretation of the passage shows that it is definitely monogamous, and that it is in harmony with all the rest of the revelation which the Lord gave through Jacob. The true interpretation is:

For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed unto me, I will command my people [the Lord will be their commander—He will give them commandments to obey]: otherwise [if the Lord is not their commander; or they do not obey His commandments], they shall hearken unto these things [they shall practice the sins of polygamy].

This is the true meaning of this passage—and therefore it condemns polygamy, rather than justifying it as the Mormon Church leaders claim.

1. I see no logical basis for this interpretation. The Lord begins by condemning polygamy, and then inserts a caveat while still within this context, that if I will...raise up seed (this is childbearing Brackite), I will command my people, otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things. What things? Well, what was the context? Some general mandate to obey the Lord's commands? No, the context was the raising up of seed, and they shall hearken unto the command to avoid polygamy-the context of the discourse in question, unless God commands his people to "raise up seed". Here is the problem: in both cases, either monogamy or plural marriage, we still have the raising up of seed. Plural marriage changes nothing beyond the family structure involved in this process. Torturing the text until it confesses in this manner is intellectually sloppy, and shows exegesis driven more by an ulterior agenda then a sincere willingness to understand the text. Were it not so, the logical weaknesses here would not be so seep seated.

2. The General Authorities of the Church have the authority to settle doctrinal issues and interpretations of scripture, not Harmony, Brackite, or anyone else who has a bone to pick with scripture a, b, or c.

3. I went through a deep and serious work-out with this principle long ago, and the revelation I received regarding it was not along the lines of the criticisms here, but in harmony with those of the Lord's servants in our day. The truth is one, and we are to be one with both the Lord and each other. It is the Holy Spirit which allows this to occur, but we must become as little children again, or we cannot partake of this spiritual endowment.

[_harmony]

I know of know GA or official church teaching manual that takes any other position than the this is a prohibition of plural marriage without direct revelation through legitimate Priesthood authority.

What you see is the power of tradition, not the power of God. And man makes traditions.

You're contention that the Lord is here saying that if he desires to raise up seed, he will command his people to commit sexual abominations, or command them to commit heinous sins, is just, uh...ah little silly, is it not? Or do you now include God himself as a notch on your lipstick case of those who have "dropped their mantle"?

That is my point exactly, Loran. Thank you for finally seeing it. God calls plural marriage an abomination! He never rescinded that. He said if HE commands that mankind engage in the abomination in order to raise up seed, that is his call. But to command man to engage in heinous sins (abominations) is just not his style... so Joseph alone bears the responsibility for bringing the abomination into the lives of the early Saints.

Not, as I said, compelling.

And yet you agree with me.

[_Coggins7]

What you see is the power of tradition, not the power of God. And man makes traditions.

Upon what basis?

That is my point exactly, Loran. Thank you for finally seeing it. God calls plural marriage an abomination! He never rescinded that. He said if HE commands that mankind engage in the abomination in order to raise up seed, that is his call. But to command man to engage in heinous sins (abominations) is just not his style... so Joseph alone bears the responsibility for bringing the abomination into the lives of the early Saints.

This is linguistic and logical statutory rape. I'm through with you on this issue Harmony, because you are not listening, and you refuse to approach your own arguments, or mine, in a philosophically critical manner. You refuse to engage my points or arguments logically, or look closely at the structure of your own.

You're digging in of your heels and repeating mantras over and over and over again until they become true has run its course on this thread.

[_harmony]

The Following is from the Online Book Titled, "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy," From Chapter #18:

The true interpretation of the passage shows that it is definitely monogamous, and that it is in harmony with all the rest of the revelation which the Lord gave through Jacob. The true interpretation is:

For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed unto me, I will command my people [the Lord will be their commander—He will give them commandments to obey]: otherwise [if the Lord is not their commander; or they do not obey His commandments], they shall hearken unto these things [they shall practice the sins of polygamy].

This is the true meaning of this passage—and therefore it condemns polygamy, rather than justifying it as the Mormon Church leaders claim.

( http://restorationbookstore.org/article ... /chp18.htm )

This is exactly correct, and is how I have interpreted this passage since I first read it 35 years ago. Which is why I was so devastated to find that Joseph had gone against God's own words (or at least what he claimed were God's own words) and instituted the Abomination among the early Saints.

[_Coggins7]

This is exactly correct, and is how I have interpreted this passage since I first read it 35 years ago. Which is why I was so devastated to find that Joseph had gone against God's own words (or at least what he claimed were God's own words) and instituted the Abomination among the early Saints.

And I am awaiting a logically cogent argument that would provide a reason to believe that this is the correct interpretation, and not what appears to be the clear intent of the writer.

[_harmony]

What you see is the power of tradition, not the power of God. And man makes traditions.

Upon what basis?

That is my point exactly, Loran. Thank you for finally seeing it. God calls plural marriage an abomination! He never rescinded that. He said if HE commands that mankind engage in the abomination in order to raise up seed, that is his call. But to command man to engage in heinous sins (abominations) is just not his style... so Joseph alone bears the responsibility for bringing the abomination into the lives of the early Saints.

This is linguistic and logical statutory rape. I'm through with you on this issue Harmony, because you are not listening, and you refuse to approach your own arguments, or mine, in a philosophically critical manner. You refuse to engage my points or arguments logically, or look closely at the structure of your own.

You're digging in of your heels and repeating mantras over and over and over again until they become true has run its course on this thread.

Ah, because I have the unmitigated gall to not agree with you, you're going to bail.

Have a nice life, Loran. Looks to me like I just won this round.

[_harmony]

This is exactly correct, and is how I have interpreted this passage since I first read it 35 years ago. Which is why I was so devastated to find that Joseph had gone against God's own words (or at least what he claimed were God's own words) and instituted the Abomination among the early Saints.

And I am awaiting a logically cogent argument that would provide a reason to believe that this is the correct interpretation, and not what appears to be the clear intent of the writer.

It's not the writer's fault that you have incorrectly attributed the word "otherwise", Loran. It's quite clear: For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed unto me, I will command my people [the Lord will be their commander—He will give them commandments to obey]: otherwise [if the Lord is not their commander; or they do not obey His commandments], they shall hearken unto these things [they shall practice the sins of polygamy].

There is no other logical way to look at that passage. To interpret as you and our leaders have is to twist God's own words in order to rectify what we know happened (Joseph and his many wives) with what we know God said (plural marriage is an abomination). A straightforward reading ties the prohibition against the abomination with the "otherwise". Your interpretation of the "otherwise" is only to absolve Joseph of his wickedness and no other reason.

[_truth dancer]

Loran,

This isn't even a viable attempt at straw grasping TD. Very, very disappointing.

Rather than continue with your nastiness, why not just address the issue?

Any unprejudiced reading of the text would indicate, quite unambiguously, that the Lord is saying that if he desires to raise up seed, he will command his people to enter into plural marriage under the laws and conditions of the Priesthood. Otherwise, monogamy is the rule.

Regardless of whether your interpretation is true or not, it does not address my question which is:

Where in the Book of Mormon does God say polygamy is NOT an abomination?

It seems quite clear to me that God is clearly stating polygamy IS an abomination and (going with your interpretation), that if God wants seed raised to him he will command the abomination.

Again, I see nothing at all suggesting god does not think it is an abomination.

The way I read it, God is saying it is a horrible thing, it breaks the hearts of women, it is cruel. Period.

The idea that he may require it says NOTHING about it not being an abomination.

~dancer~