Polygamy

[Zechariah]

If your god ( who your "prophet" and his "spostles" claim is nothing more than a "changed" that is "evolved" man) is a changable god, the he changes his mind as well.

Again - like when God says, "Thou shalt not kill," but then says to, "utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Again - if commanding something under certain circumstances and forbidding it under others means that God is changing his mind,


Ye have heard that it hath been said...

But I say unto you...




Don't suppose you care to count all the, "changes."

 

[Ran77]

Obeying the law of the land is a commandment of God. So let me ask you, which takes priority obeying the decree to practice polygamy or obeying the commandment of God to abide by the laws of the nation?


27 And when they had brought them, they set [them] before the council: and the high priest asked them,

28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Peter makes his comment in response to the charges of the high priest, who was teaching the gospel of man rather than Christ. As far as I can see, there is no law being broken here by Peter.


Col. 3: 22

22 Servants, obey in all things [your] masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

Servants were told to obey their masters out of the fear of God. Why is that? Because we are to obey the laws of the land and at that time it was legal to be owned as a slave.


Titus 3: 1

1 PUT them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

There it is, be subject to pricipalities and powers. Translation: obey the law of the land.


Heb. 13: 17

17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

Again, obey those who rule over you. Or in other words obey the laws of the land.


The verse you provided, when read in context, does not conflict with the verses I provided or the view I have expressed.

I couldn't help, but notice that there has been no response to this. I wonder what it indicates when a set of comments can be so easily disproven?

 

[suzybeezy]

Thread has been reviewed and a brief clean up has occured to remove off topic, flaming and blasphemous remarks. Thread is being moved to Ethics and Morality as provided under rule 3.5. Please keep the discussion ON TOPIC and avoid flaming and blasephemous remarks.

1.1 No Blasphemy

You will not use the names or titles of God or Jesus (in any language) as expletives or interjections. You will not refer to God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit in a demeaning, degrading, or insulting way.


2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).


2.8 No Off-Topic

You will not 'de-rail' or 'hijack' threads by making posts unrelated to the original post or other posts in the thread. You will not create threads unrelated to the topic of a forum or subforum.


3.5 Controversial Topics to Be Discussed Only in Certain Forums

A. You will not post content regarding the following subjects anywhere on CF except in Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology, Christian Philosophy, or any subforums in the Congregation or Recovery* categories:

drug use
gambling
polygamy
extramarital or premarital sexual activity
homosexuality
transsexuality
abortion

 

[DLaurier]

What sane man would want to have two wives?
I can usualy barely survive having one girlfriend.
I tell ya, Women are dangerous.
They wont let me always be right. They dont stroke my ego. They keep pointing out my flaws. They even insist that I clean my appartment and not park my motorcycle on the geraniums.

Polygamy just means being corrected in stereo

 

[RedAndy]

Why does not the LDS church support polygamy anymore?

Polygamy is specifically prohibited in the Book of Mormon:

Jacob 2:27
Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.

Jacob 3:5
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 forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

Presumably the original practice of polygamy (as initated by Joseph Smith) was rescinded in the same manner as it was introduced - by divine revelation - although I have to admit my history is rusty in that area.

 

[Jerrysch]

The Church does not support polygamy anymore because direct revelation decreed the end of it. (Official Declaration-1)

I thought it was part of an etenal covenant?

 

[Jerrysch]

Why were so many upset in the NT with the changes to the Law of Moses?


Matter of fact in the OT Lord did change from the higher law, to the lesser Law when he saw that the children of men could not abide by them!


The Lord is always the same it is man who takes forever to grow in the Lord's ways!

It wasn't changed it was fulfilled in Messiah, it applies to no one now, it did however apply to those of ethnic Israel and no other people at all.

 

[Resty]

Polygamy is specifically prohibited in the Book of Mormon:

Polygamy is forbidden in the Book of Mormon, except for those times when the Lord commands it (see Jacob 2:30).

Presumably the original practice of polygamy (as initated by Joseph Smith) was rescinded in the same manner as it was introduced - by divine revelation - although I have to admit my history is rusty in that area.

For reasons I don't understand, the Lord commanded that practice for a period of time from the 1840s until 1890. Yes, it was a Biblical practice for a time, as evidenced by Abraham (see Gen. 25:1-6) and Jacob (see Gen. 29 and 30). The prophet and king David had multiple wives (2 Samuel 12:7-9), as did Solomon (including wives who worshipped strange gods, which was forbidden), Gideon (Judges 8:30), and Jehoiada the priest (2 Chronicles 24:2-3). Deuteronomy 21:15-17 shows polygamy accepted as a valid practice and gives rules governing the inheritance for children of polygamous wives. ~Jeff Lindsay

 

[Resty]

What sane man would want to have two wives?
I can usualy barely survive having one girlfriend.
I tell ya, Women are dangerous.
They wont let me always be right. They dont stroke my ego. They keep pointing out my flaws. They even insist that I clean my appartment and not park my motorcycle on the geraniums.

Polygamy just means being corrected in stereo

LOL You poor thing!

 

[Resty]

From FAIR WIKI

Critics argue that Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages to young women are evidence that he was immoral, perhaps even a pedophile.


Some people have concluded that Helen did have sexual relations with Joseph, which would have been proper considering that they were married with her consent and the consent of her parents.

However, historian Todd Compton does not hold this view; he criticized the anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner for using his book to argue for sexual relations, and wrote:

The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball.

However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality.
(p. 638)

All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage.[1] In other words, polygamous marriages often had other purposes than procreation—one such purpose was likely to tie faithful families together, and this seems to have been a purpose of Joseph's marriage to the daughter of a faithful Apostle. (See: Law of Adoption.)

Critics who assume that everything in plural marriage "is all about sex" reveal more about their own cultural biases and assumptions than they do about the minds of early Church members.

Helen Mar "took pen and paper in hand before she died to describe vividly her ties as a member of the Latter-day Saint Church during its first two decades of existence in a series of articles published in the Woman's Exponent" in the 1880s.[2] Some of her articles dealt with plural marriage: "Her personal remembrances of those days constitute an important source that, taken together with other first-hand accounts by participants, provides a more complete view of the introduction of one of the most distinctive features of nineteenth-century Mormonism."[3]

Helen Mar's writings, an important source of LDS history, were published by BYU's Religious Studies Center in 1997 in a book entitled A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History. The book also includes her 1881 autobiography to her children wherein, concerning her marriage to the Prophet Joseph Smith, she wrote:

I have long since learned to leave all with [God], who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy.

I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises. (Holzapfel, 487)

 

[Zechariah]

Another interesting piece of information it includes, is, that to marry:

The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven!

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

In past centuries, women would often die in childbirth, and men often remarried younger women afterwards. Women often married older men, because these were more financially established and able to support them than men their own age.

 

[BarryK]

one of the things we learn as part of the restoration ...

that is the major flaw of the whoe L.D.S. worldview,
There is no restoration,

The church, the Ekklesia, the Body of Christ has never been destroyed, there is no restoration of what has not been destroyed.

 

[Zechariah]

that is the major flaw of the whoe L.D.S. worldview,
There is no restoration,

The church, the Ekklesia, the Body of Christ has never been destroyed, there is no restoration of what has not been destroyed.

You've got it backwards again, and that is a major flaw of your view.

Something that has been destroyed, cannot be restored. Christ's Church was not destroyed. He took his Church from the earth because man fell away into apostasy.

Christ has restored his Church to the earth again for the last time, to prepare for his second coming. His Church was not destroyed, and it can never be destroyed.

 

[BarryK]

You've got it backwards again, and that is a major flaw of your view.

Something that has been destroyed, cannot be restored. Christ's Church was not destroyed. He took his Church from the earth because man fell away into apostasy. .

You clearly say here that Christs Ekklesia was not destoyed, and I am in full agreement with you on that particular item.

Matthew 16:18(KJV)
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

concerning yourother statement of my Lord and SAvior taking away his church,
Did Christ take away His church? in a word NO

Christ has restored his Church to the earth again for the last time, to prepare for his second coming. His Church was not destroyed, and it can never be destroyed.

We know that Christs church can not be destroyed,

His Church was not destroyed, and it can never be destroyed

since you agree with me, then you agree that there is no need for it to be restored.

please show me a biblical end times scenerio where Christ brings His church back to earth to prepare for His second Advent. All the scenerios that I am familiar with concern Jesus bringing His church home either right before the tribulations, during the tribulations, or right before He comes back.

Please support this vew which you are presenting here, that he takes His chruch away, where He takes them to, and when He does so, and when He brigs them back to prepare for His second coming. Please support this bibically

 

[Resty]

[/font]

You clearly say here that Christs Ekklesia was not destoyed, and I am in full agreement with you on that particular item.

Matthew 16:18(KJV)
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

concerning yourother statement of my Lord and SAvior taking away his church,
Did Christ take away His church? in a word NO



We know that Christs church can not be destroyed,



since you agree with me, then you agree that there is no need for it to be restored.

please show me a biblical end times scenerio where Christ brings His church back to earth to prepare for His second Advent. All the scenerios that I am familiar with concern Jesus bringing His church home either right before the tribulations, during the tribulations, or right before He comes back.

Please support this vew which you are presenting here, that he takes His chruch away, where He takes them to, and when He does so, and when He brigs them back to prepare for His second coming. Please support this bibically

Could it be the reason you can not see the need for restoration is because you have been condition in the Tradition of men?

So instead of being able as you read the scriptures to also be taught by the Spirit the things of God!

Restoration of the Gospel
(See also Restore; Restoration )

Isa. 2: 2 (Micah 4: 2; 2 Ne. 12: 12) Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains.

Isa. 11: 11 (2 Ne. 21: 11) Lord shall set his hand . . . to recover the remnant of his people.

Isa. 29: 14 (1 Ne. 14: 7; 1 Ne. 22: 8; 2 Ne. 27: 26; 2 Ne. 29: 1; 3 Ne. 29: 1; D&C 4: 1) I will proceed to do a marvellous work.
Jer. 31: 31 will make a new covenant with the house of Israel.

Ezek. 37: 26 it shall be an everlasting covenant.

Dan. 2: 44 set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed.

Joel 2: 28 afterward, that I will pour out my spirit.

Amos 3: 7 revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Mal. 3: 1 (3 Ne. 24: 1) send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.

Mal. 4: 6 (3 Ne. 25: 6) turn the heart of the fathers to the children.


Matt. 17: 11 (Mark 9: 12; D&C 77: 14) Elias . . . come, and restore all things.

Matt. 24: 14 gospel of the kingdom shall be preached.

Acts 3: 21 (D&C 27: 6) times of restitution of all things.

Rom. 11: 25 blindness . . . until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Eph. 1: 10 in the dispensation of the fulness of times . . . gather together in one all things.

Rev. 11: 3 (D&C 77: 15) two witnesses, and they shall prophesy.

Rev. 14: 6 I saw another angel . . . having the everlasting gospel.

 

[JohnR7]

I am not trying to debate or attack Mormons. I am just asking. Why does not the LDS church support polygamy anymore?

Because the United States Army was set up and ready to attack Salt Lake City. Also it was a condition for statehood. Brigham Young had 16 wives. You can visit his house and see all the little rooms he kept them in.