Posted on 12/20/2011 11:36:47 AM PST by Colofornian
If a Mormon tells you the LDS church does not practice polygamy, ask what their scriptures teach and prophets have taught about polygamy. Also ask them what LDS prophets teach about the existence of polygamy in the celestial kingdom.
I just HATE it when others show their HATE; don't YOU?
Sorry; but MORMON 'scripture' does EXACTLY that!
THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHICHAPTER 224 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
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.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
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.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
Or even HERE:
1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTSSECTION 13251–57, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of beternal lives in the eternal worlds.
That makes 26. Don't really need anymore. :-)
I am not mormon and I reject the additional books of mormon as not being part of the scriptural canon and in variance to scriptural teachings. Therefore, my point stands.
Yes but they teach women can’t get to heaven without a husband. They’re freaking brainwashed to accept it, it can hardly be said given the teaching these people absorb that it’s done with a free will.
Brainwash someone to believe they can’t get along without something, they’ll agree to do the something. Everyone else in their brainwashed culture reinforces it so it also appears as the norm and they’d be ostracized NOT going along with it.
Sheesh do we have to educate everyone every damn day about this kind of crap?
Hmmm...I guess God, then, had no "standard" to hold Solomon accountable to, then...based upon your supposed solid searching of Scripture??...Why then was God able to assess Solomon? and then conclude to Solomon...?
3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done...9 The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD’s command. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. (1 Kings 11:3-6, 9-11)
Why? I'll tell you why. Here, read Deut. 17:17:
17 He MUST NOT take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.
#1 How long have you had that problem with the Biblical injunction, "Must not" Taxcontrol?
#2 Note that if one of the above happens, the other (an astray heart) WILL kick in.
#3 Are you trying to tell us that Solomon didn't know anything about Deut. 17:17? (Well, no matter; apparently, you, like Solomon, have ignored it)
Please TaxControl, don't export ignorance with your feigned absolutes.
Oh, and btw, if you look very carefully at Lds polygamous history, you'll find that hundreds of Lds men married sisters. Guess what? There's a Biblical injunction against that, too!
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. (Lev. 18:18)
And, furthermore, since Mormons believe all women are literal spirit sisters from the pre-existence, Lev. 18:18 should have applied to the Mormon mindset as well for ALL plural marriages. EVERY SINGLE Mormon who believed in the pre-existence should have presumed that when they took another wife -- no matter the family heritage -- that they were breaking the code of Lev. 18:18 (in addition to the Book of Mormon!)
Pay close attention to the part that reads “... he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.” Now research and found out how many wives and concubines King David had. Find out how many he had before he was King. Find out what the prophet Nathan said about the number of David’s wives.
Deut 17:17 ....OR HIS HEART WILL BE LED ASTRAY
Note that the reason for not taking MANY wives is given. It does not prevent the taking of a couple or even several wives. BTW, the proper translation is not many, it is multiply. In verse 16 it talks about not multiplying horses to himself. Does that mean he can only have one horse?
The reason for not multiplying wives is not a prohibition on polygamy. The reason is to prevent from being led astray. And that is what the Bible’s rebuke of Solomon is about - not polygamy.
Also note that under the Law, in specific situations, polygamy was not only allowed but was REQUIRED. To assert otherwise is ignoring the Law, and exporting an agenda, not truth.
Which was... what?
ONAN?
The NIV translates it as "take many";
the ESV as "acquire";
this online Hebrew Interlinear translates the Hebrew word ("irbe" -- other interlinears say "yarbeh") as "increase": See Online Interlinear
And yes, rabah can also = multiply.
Horses can multiply into generations of horses; wives don't multiply into generations of wives for the same husband (that's called incest).
The reason for not multiplying wives is not a prohibition on polygamy. The reason is to prevent from being led astray.
Think of this word picture -- a fence with a gate.
If, let's say, you had such a fence around your yard as a boy -- and a wild forest on the other side -- sure...the ultimate reason that your father might tell you NOT to go thru that gate is because of where you can wind up -- lost!
Even if we were to agree that the prohibition in such a situation is not that your father had a "thing" about going thru gates; the thing is that that particular gate was a given pathway to "astrayness" -- "lostness" -- then, yes, the given gate does become key.
Elsewise, Deut. 17:17 loses all meaning...Deut 17:17 zeroes in a just a few things that can lead your heart astray: Hoarding wives and hoarding wealth.
It does not prevent the taking of a couple or even several wives. BTW, the proper translation is not many, it is multiply...
The bottom line of Deut. 17:17a is not to take MANY wives. Now I've got "news" for you...by definition, poly = MANY!
The KJV, NKJV, AMP, 21st Century KJV, American Standard, Darby, New American Standard, and Young’s Literal Translation all translate it as multiply.
Your analogy of a fence and a gate is a bad analogy. The correct form would be your father telling you not to go very far into the woods because you will get lost. There is no problem going up to the tree line. You can even go a short distance into the woods, but the further you go, the greater the chances of the consequences of getting lost will occur. There is no prohibition on marrying one wife or two or three. The prohibition is against “a lot”.
In fact, the Common English version translates it as “numerous” and the Contemporary English version translates it to “a lot”.
Further, even if taken literally, and even if the assumption is that multiply means more than one, the law applies to the King. No other person is stated as being bound by that passage.
So once again, King David, which the Bible said was a man after God’s heart, .... how many wives and concubines did he have?
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Eve's statement has always intrigued me.
1. How'd she know WHERE it was, and,
2. Did she make up the touching part? or did Adam try to help GOD out and add a little to the command?
#1...you do admit, then, that your statement in post #18 was overbroad. You said:
There is no scripture that forbids having more than one wife. [post #18]
There are Biblical boundaries you (now) concede for wife accumulation (otherwise known as polygamy ... poly = accumulative; wife = gamy).
King David, which the Bible said was a man after God’s heart, .... how many wives and concubines did he have?
Hosea was told by God to marry Gomer...and Gomer retained her "cottage industry" of prostitution post-marriage.
You're not suggesting that because of the above two Biblical characters, that we have no Biblical prohibitions vs either...
...accumulating wives...
...accumulating concubines...
...or men marrying prostitutes who retain their "cottage industry"...
...and therefore no Biblically moral boundaries exist that would pre-empt taking on such bed partners...
...are you?
There is no prohibition on marrying one wife or two or three. The prohibition is against “a lot”.
You know, I looked real hard. I really tried. But try as I might, I don't see the numbers of "two" "three" "four" "five" or "six" (or higher) in Deut. 17:17.
Hmmm... Nice reading into the text.
Tell me, why did you stop at three?
Wasn't that just as arbitrary as including "four?"
And where does the magic number pop up that delineates a clear line to you?
And why do you draw it there but not elsewhere -- either in wife totals or gold and silver hoarding?
Since Deut. 17:17 also mentions hoarding gold and silver, isn't your legalistic attempt to draw the line post-3 a bit like reading into the text that $100,000 worth of gold and silver is "A-OK" but "$101,000" is excess???
I'm sorry, but if you tried your eisegetic approach to gold and silver based only upon Deut. 17:17
-- and started spitting out actual "poly" $numbers that were supposedly Deut. 17:17 sanctioned and other numbers that weren't --
-- you would be laughed out of any association of exegetes.
Ya wanna either (a) try again; or (b) if not, start floating some mystical amounts of how much gold & silver is "A-OK" based upon your rather loose interpretation of Deut. 17:17??? (Perhaps you have some kind of urim & thummim thing that spits out numbers I just don't have access to)
And don't go bailing out on me now -- now that you've gone this far. After all, you seemed just fine reaching back into v. 16 when horses seemed at first glance to justify your "multiply" angle; but given that the same word also is used for gold and silver in v.17, I guess I'm anxious now to see what kind of real numbers you're gonna float on gold & silver accumulative values...your next post could be real entertaining.
Let's go to the bottom line: If you and I agree that the key is what leads the man's heart astray...
...then isn't even that possible for a man who's added a second wife?
Even if you don't read an absolute of "no plural wives" within Deut. 17:17, are you going to legalistically conclude that Deut. 17:17 could never apply to a government leader who already has a wife?
If that second wife leads his heart astray, and we agree on that, then for you to suddenly shift away from that point
-- which was, btw, the key point you made in post #29
-- this would be a rather odd breakaway that moves you in the opposite direction of your key point in that post...would it not be?
A reminder to what you said in post #29: You said: The reason for not multiplying wives is not a prohibition on polygamy. The reason is to prevent from being led astray.
Your sudden exact numbers game just seems to militate against this point of yours.
If your boss at work gave you an "ideal guideline" on an important policy
-- but it was one that didn't include fine-tuned legalistic "don'ts" components (but did include a couple of generic don'ts)
-- yet emphasized this is the ONE thing you are "to do" on this given policy...
Wouldn't you conclude that if you broke away from that guideline...
...because you felt "outs" existed due to lack of binding constraints & constrictures (lack of "don'ts")...
...wouldn't you be militating vs. the direct, clear, intentional policy set forth?
Let's look at our Lord's "guideline" on marriage, shall we?
...A MAN will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE, and the TWO will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer TWO, but ONE FLESH. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Jesus, Matthew 19:5-6)
24 That is why A MAN leaves his father and mother and is united to his WIFE, and they become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)
I didn't see plural men or plural wives in those two passages? (Did you?...You able to discern non-existent specific numbers in other passages)
I didn't see four-becomes-one as an option available in those two passages. Do you?
And if in marriage, two becomes one FLESH, you're not going to seriously suggest, are you, that another woman or women plural figuring into that becomes part of that overall ONE FLESH...are you?
Are you claiming that "sister wives" become one flesh? (And what would then be the difference between that and two or three or four lesbian women claiming they are "one flesh" coupled with an occasional guy who helps them get pregnant for sheer parenting purposes?)
So. Tell us why Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5-6 don't militate vs. polygamy.
I do know that the book of Mormon forbids polygamy, not that i believe in the book of Mormon, but we have the very same thing going on in most of the other Churches to some extent, and that thing is false doctrine, false Prophets.
Individuals like Joesph Smith or Jim Jones make a mockery out of the word of God, how can people do that some one may ask, the answer is because it was going on even during the time of the early Church and continued through the Holy roman empire.
Paul tells us about it, so any one who reads the scriptures can see it, paid preaches, trying to get more members so they can get more money.
If a main stream Church can make a mockery out of Gods word then what is to keep some one else from doing the same thing? it is just like Government, if Government is run by a bunch of crooks is it so surprising that they will have a lot of competition in thievery?
So we have a habit of picking one thief out ( the one we think is the worse of the lot )of maybe a thousand and try to make an example out of them., get the worlds attention on them so they will not see our own ignorance.
Maybe people should read acts 4 and 5 to find just what it means to be an actual (believers do not have to be members) member of the church.
Read Tim ch 3 to see the qualifications for the church leaders
read 1 Tim ch 5:9 through v 16 not just every one is qualified to be a member of the Church.
It should not even be necessary to say that Church members are under obedience to the Church or are supposed to be.
Believers are not under any obedience to the Church but are only subject to God.
acts 5:14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.) they did not all become church members, they had to work because they had family’s to take care of.
The Church members sold what they had and gave it to the church and they all lived in common, so it is easy to see that the alms that the Church collected could not have come from the members of the Church, it had to come from believers who were not members of the Church.
Well, now that we’ve normalized homosexual behavior I guarantee that pologymay will be right behind it. Followed by pedophelia and bestiality. They are just alternative lifestyles don’tcha know and there are no moral absolutes. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.