Replies

Doesn't the Book of Mormon condemn polygamy in no uncertain terms?

Kinda. Here's the reference you are talking about. I'll paste it for those that do not have a Book of Mormon.

Jacob 2:23-28

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 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.

In my earlier reply I mentioned that David and Solomon were both condemned in the Bible for this. However, Abraham and Jacob were not. There must, therefore, be a difference in the way these two groups practiced it.

In context, the people being preached to here in Jacob must have gotten their hands on the scriptures and decided that since David and Solomon did it, we can too. We LDS never taught polygamy to be practiced this way. It was more like an assignment from a church leader. One didn't ask for it.

It would appear that the Lord settled the issue in Jacob by saying nobody could do it. This closely matches what happened to us. Because there was a controversy over polygamy, the Lord told us to stop for the time being. Today, we say polygamy is wrong. We also say that at one time it was correct, and will once again be correct.

Is the BOM the restoration of the "fullness of the Gospel"?

This is a common discussion point, and I will be glad to discuss this and put it away once and for all. We do claim that the BoM is the "fullness of the Gospel." However, we also feel that the Gospel is the "good news" that Christ paid for our sins in the garden and on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day, and that we can return to live with our Father in Heaven if we accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice (through repentance and faith). I trust that you feel the Gospel is the same thing?

Why, then, do we claim that the BoM is the "fullness of the Gospel?" That is because it is a testament of Christ's resurrection. In the BoM, we learn of the prophecy of Christ, of his birth, and of his resurrection. The BoM tells of Christ's appearing to another group of people after his resurrection. These folks testify of the resurrection of Christ. Thus, they tell more fully the "fullness of the Gospel."

It's that simple. We don't claim that our Temple work is the fullness of the Gospel, nor our baptism, nor polygamy, nor any of the other practices. It is other folks that give them that label.

BTW, thanks for keeping the conversation civil, and for encouraging others the same. It certainly helps in the discussion.

Although Abraham was not condemned for his little sojourn with polygamy, his descendants were cursed forever because of it. Had Abraham trusted God's promise that his 80 year old wife Sarah would bear him a son, he would not have gone out of his way to help God out in fulfilling this prophecy by sleeping with Haggar. As a result Abraham had a son Ishmael, and his descendants have been a thorn in the side of Issac's Godly and elect lineage ever since.

Where in the Bible, the Book of Mormon or in real life has polygamy ever been practiced sucessfully?

BTW doesn't the Bible state that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife? If the early Mormon bishops were polygamists, weren't they violating this directive?

Thanks.

On another thread the other day, Restornu quoted an authority of some sort from your church (McConkie or McConkle, something like that] to the effect that the Bible was "pre-eminent" or "foremost" (I am doing this from memory and that may not be the word) among the 'standard works' of your church.

A couple of questions:

1. Does your church establish a prioritization among its 'authorative books' vis-a-vis the Bible? If so, what is that priority? Where is that officially recorded? If one 'authority' states something like that, can some other say something contrary? How does it become the 'official' position of your church? [Obviously, to Biblical Christians, this is an important question.]

2. Has that priority changed at all over the life of your church?

3. Assuming arguendo that the Bible has priority over the other authorative works, is that priority used to justifiy changes in doctrines based upon the "other works", i.e. the Smith books?

4. Finally, on a slightly different but related tack. There have been a very large number of textual discoveries relating to the Biblical text since Smith died (I think, for example, we have 4 or 5 times as many manuscripts and fragments as were known in 1830-1850.) Most Protestant scholars and (I think) even most catholics favor the critical text (derived from these discoveries) while the KJV is based on the much later textus receptus (the Byzantine). I understand your church to favor the KJV. Is that because you think the text is more faithful to the original (like our KJV-only folks do) or because the translated language is closer to that 'translated' by Smith in his books?

5. Finally, is there a central respository for the major changes in your church doctrine as a result of 'visions' (or other form of 'revelation') purportedly given to your church leaders when doctrine is changed. [I noticed a citation to "official decisions". Is that it?] Is that central series on the web?

Thanks in advance for your answers.