 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
moinmoin
Posts:413
 | | 04/05/2008 12:22 PM |
 Alert | I’m moving this over from DaybyDay’s "LDS Church" thread, as the topic of polygamy took on a life of its own on a thread that initially began discussing worldwide uniformity of schedule and curriculum materials. On that thread, RichTig wondered: . . . this is an actual question. Do you, as Mormons, believe that polygamy is bad or do you just 'go along with it as bad' because its against the law? As I understand it, polygamy was the norm, but the church disavowed it, because it is illegal. So, what came 1st? The law against or the church coming out against it? The Book of Mormon was published and the Church was organized in 1830. In 1831, Joseph Smith, upon a question from Lyman Johnson regarding biblical polygamy, inquired of the Lord concerning it and received the answer that under certain circumstances under divine direction, plural marriage was commanded by God. This knowledge was shared with a few trusted associates, but its authorized practice by these associates did not begin until the revelation concerning it was given and recorded in 1843 (Doctrine and Covenants, section 132). In 1852, the full doctrine of celestial marriage, including plural wives when authorized, was publicly taught to the world. From that point through the 1880s, intense national and international persecution was a mainstay of Mormon/non-Mormon relations. In a seeming paradox, when seen from the world’s standpoint, conversions from missionary efforts in northern Europe were extremely strong during these decades, even with all the outcry and propaganda built around the practice of polygamy. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation discontinuing the practice of polygamy in the Church, which has been the law of the Church since then. Polygamy results in excommunication, the most severe action the Church can take. Whether or not polygamy is "bad" depends upon God’s current policy and law. It’s important to remember that even when Mormonism included the practice of plural marriage, it was never intended or taught that it should be generally practiced in the world; it was only ever to be regulated and authorized by priesthood authority. Some people seem to think that Mormons advocated its widespread and indiscriminate practice, and this was not the case at all. I think your question represents something that many people wonder, RichTig: are Mormons grudgingly "biding their time" until they can begin practicing polygamy again? Do Mormons just pay lip service in condemning the polygamist communities of offshoot, apostate Mormon groups? While some may have different views on this, most Mormons I know do not look for the return of polygamy. My personal view is that it served its purposes (rapid raising of several strong generations, sacrifice and commitment, vastly disproportionate national and international interest in Mormonism, etc.), and will not be reinstated on earth, but this is subject to the will of God as manifested through His prophets. I don’t think people fully appreciate or are even aware of how the men who were called upon to practice it reacted to it. About 10% of men ever had plural wives, and only the president of the Church (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, respectively) could approve a man being sealed to additional wives. My heritage is full of polygamy on both my mother’s and father’s sides. These men and women were moral Christians from the Victorian Era, and would have rejected polygamy with abhorrence were it not for the strong witness from the Spirit that they must practice it. Here are some statements that I think many will find enlightening and interesting: While we were in England . . . the Lord manifested to me by visions and his Spirit, things that I did not then understand. I never opened my mouth to any persons concerning them, until I returned to Nauvoo. Joseph had never mentioned this, there had never been a thought of it in the Church that I knew anything about at that time. But I had this for myself, and I kept it to myself, and when I returned home and Joseph revealed these things to me, I then understood the reflections that were upon my mind while in England. But this was not until after I had told him what I understood. I saw that he was after something by his conversation, leading my mind along, and others, to see how we could bear this. This was in 1841; the revelation was given in 1843, but the doctrine was revealed before this; and when I told Joseph what I understood, which was right in front of my house in the street, as he was shaking hands and leaving me, he turned round and looked me in the eyes, and says he—"Brother Brigham, are you speaking what you understand,—are you in earnest?" Says I—"I speak just as the Spirit manifests to me." Says he—"God bless you, the Lord has opened your mind," and he turned and went off. (Brigham Young, June 23, 1874. Journal of Discourses 18:241) I will relate a little conversation that I had with President (Rutherford B.) Hayes, when he was here, on the subject of polygamy. I said to him, we are not generally understood by the people of the world, by the outsiders; and I can look with very great leniency upon the action of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the governors, and others who have expressed strong indignation against this principle. From your standpoint, you think we are a corrupt people; you think it is a part or portion of the thing you call the social evil, that permeates all classes of society, and is sapping the foundation of the life of so many throughout the land. You think that we are trying to introduce something that is encouraging licentiousness and other kindred evils among the people, and to legalize these things by legislative enactment and otherwise, and trying to popularize and make legal those infamies. I continued, that is a false view to take of the subject. Mr. President, I have always abhorred such practices from the time I was quite young; when I have seen men act the part of Lotharios, deceiving the fair sex and despoiling them of their virtue, and then seeing those men received into society and their victims disgraced, ostracised and esteemed as pariahs and outcasts, I could not help sympathising with a woman that was seduced. I looked upon the man who seduced her as a villain; I do so to-day. Said I, when Joseph Smith first made known the revelation concerning plural marriage and of having more wives than one, it made my flesh crawl; but, Mr. President, I received such evidence and testimony pertaining to this matter, scriptural and otherwise, which it was impossible for me as an honest man to resist, and believing it to be right I obeyed it and practised it. (John Taylor, April 9, 1882. Journal of Discourses 23:64) But this was a principle that God had revealed unto us, and it must be obeyed. I had always entertained strict ideas of virtue, and I felt as a married man that this was to me, outside of this principle, an appalling thing to do. The idea of my going and asking a young lady to be married to me, when I had already a wife! It was a thing calculated to stir up feelings from the innermost depth of the human soul. I had always entertained the strictest regard for chastity. I had never in my life seen the time when I have known of a man deceiving a woman—and it is often done in the world, where notwithstanding the crime, the man is received into society, and the poor woman is looked upon as a pariah and an outcast—I have always looked upon such a thing as infamous, and upon such a man as a villain, and I hold to-day the same ideas. Hence, with the feelings I had entertained, nothing but a knowledge of God, and the revelations of God, and the truth of them, could have induced me to embrace such a principle as this. We seemed to put off, as far as we could, what might be termed the evil day. Some time after these things were made known to us, I was riding out of Nauvoo on horseback, and met Joseph Smith coming in, he, too, being on horseback. Some of you who were acquainted with Nauvoo, know where the graveyard was. We met upon the road going on to the hill there. I bowed to Brother Joseph, and having done the same to me he said; "Stop;" and he looked at me very intently. "Look here," said he, "those things that have been spoken of must be fulfilled, and if they are not entered into right away, the keys will be turned." Well, what did I do? Did I feel to stand in the way of this great, eternal principle, and treat lightly the things of God? No. I replied: "Brother Joseph, I will try and carry these things out," and afterwards I did, and I have done it more times than once; but then I have never broken a law of the United States in doing so, and I am at their defiance to prove to the contrary. (John Taylor, date unknown. Journal of Discourses 24:231) And this doctrine of plural marriage which is so much talked about; we have shown our devotion to truth by espousing it. If its practice had been of the same nature as that which is popular with the world, there would not have been a word said against us. It is not because other people do not do wrong with women that the outcry is raised against us. It is not for doing wrong with women, it is for marrying more than one woman, which we could have avoided if licentiousness had been our object, that we are attacked. When God revealed that principle to the Latter-day Saints, there were men who felt as though they would rather go to their graves than carry out that principle. They were men who had lived all their days and had been true to the covenants they had made with their wives, and the thought of marrying more than one woman was as repulsive as it could be to any men in the world. They shrank from it. I heard President Young himself say, that as the hearse passed his house in Nauvoo on the way to the cemetery, he thought he would like to be the occupant of that hearse and of the coffin which it contained, when he thought of this doctrine and the opprobrium that would descend upon him and upon our people, when it became known that we believed in and practised plural marriage. Here is President Taylor, and Brother Woodruff, who has spoken, and other men of mature years in those days—they know how it was. They would have shrunk from it if they could, but the very fact that they have embraced it ought to be sufficient to show the world that they are devoted to principle, that they have been willing to lay down their lives, if necessary, to carry out principle. It would be cheaper, no doubt, to discard plural wives and follow the ways of the world. Do you think I would have any persecution if I had a wife here and one or more mistresses in Washington? Not in the least: there would not be one word said about my marital relations or my domestic affairs; not one word.(George Q. Cannon, June 12, 1881. Journal of Discourses 22:180) | | | |
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 04/05/2008 5:30 PM |
Alert | Oops! I guess you intended for me to post this here instead.  Precision of language, again. Anything and everything one may have said becomes a "claim" to you. I won't embarass you by asking you to provide the source for Joseph Smith's alleged "moon men" statement (hint: it's extremely late --- like the late 19th century --- and not first-hand by any means). For the sake of argument, I'll concede that Joseph and Brigham believed that the moon or sun were inhabited. So what? This shows that your standard of a prophet requires all prophets thoughts, opinions, views, etc. to be fully up to date with current scientific knowledge. A true prophet, according to you, may have no thoughts, opinions, views, etc. of his own; he must be a mindless, will-less automaton, a human fax machine, a puppet. He may not have personal views or believe anything about the natural world that later generations will discount. To you, any view expressed not in lock-step with modern scientific knowledge by Joseph or Brigham proves their "false prophethood," because God would never allow them to believe or entertain any thoughts that we now know to be wrong (such as life on the moon, which was not such a strange thought back then). Are you aware of the cosmology represented in the Bible? As far as I'm concerned, if Moses or Isaiah believed the world to be flat or the sky to be supported by pillars or waters to be restrained by the sky (the windows of heaven), that has nothing to do with the question of whether God spoke through them as prophets. I don't believe that "true prophethood" means that God body-snatches men and uses them as empty vessels. There is a difference between you and I, I use the Bible to determine who is a true prophet, you use your gut feeling and frauduantly label it the Holy Ghost. What are the biblical tests for a prophet: Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says, "You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." Did Joseph Smith ever claim "in the name of the LORD" that something would happen when it did not? Yes, many times in fact. You know it, and have to make excuses for him, when the Bible is clear on recognizing false prophets. There is a world of difference between having plural wives and "multiplying wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (as happened tragically with Solomon). Isn't there? Especially when Moses was a polygamist? In addition to his wife Zipporah, daughter of Jethro, priest of Midian, he married an Ethiopian woman, and this caused criticism from Aaron and Miriam (Numbers 12:1). Are you saying that Moses disobeyed his own commandment concerning polygamy? Like I mentioned before, I recognize polygamy in the OT. Did God command it, No. Even if one concedes that Paul is prohibiting plural marriages for bishops, this raises other questions. Is he saying this would be all right for men other than bishops? As you say, he doesn't come out and condemn it. Not at all, the Bishops and elders are placed there to set an example of how the church should be. All Christian should be above reproach. Plus, this now becomes a very slippery slope for you since the men who you call Prophets and were the leaders of your church were the main ones practicing polygamy which we see contradicts the New Testament command. This proves a long with the verse from Deuteronomy these men are false prophets. It's important to remember that Mormonism isn't based on proof-texts from the Bible; it's based on what the Bible is based on: revelation. The principle at the center of the polygamy question is spelled out in the Book of Mormon. After prohibiting the practice among the people, the prophet Jacob stated: "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 (i.e., the proscription against polygamy)" (Jacob 2:30) This is the current state of affairs as well. For about fifty years, God commanded polygamy, but since 1890, has commanded that it be discontinued. It's practice, as in past eras, is regulated by God and at His command, just as its discontinuance is. So, I wouldn't be so disappointed after all. God can give different requirements at different times, but our day is governed by God's current prophets and apostles. I understand it’s in your book, but it’s not a command in the Bible. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 04/06/2008 12:47 PM |
Alert | EEE wrote:
Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says, "You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him."
Did Joseph Smith ever claim "in the name of the LORD" that something would happen when it did not? Yes, many times in fact. You know it, and have to make excuses for him, when the Bible is clear on recognizing false prophets.
Name one. The example(s) you provide from your anti-Mormon propaganda will be instructive in examining your claims and your assumptions. They have been hashed and rehashed for over 150 years.
Remember the passages from the Old Testament I posted before, where true prophets’ utterances didn’t come true?
Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me
And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.
What about Johah’s prophecy? He was angry with the Lord because the Lord had had him prophesy to Nineveh that it would be destroyed in forty days. When large-scale repentance resulted,
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. — Jonah 3:10
Do you see how your proof-text creates just as many difficulties for Bible inerrantists as you think it does for Mormons?
Note that this passage, contrary to what you assert, doesn’t talk about recognizing “false” prophets. It states the circumstances under which one may know that a message didn’t come from the Lord. The thought that a true prophet can say things at times that don't come from God seems blasphemous to many, but prophets are fellow mortals, too, through whom God communicates to man collectively.
In these cases, according to your proof-text, “that prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” Your assumption seems to be that prophets have a “one strike rule,” that if they at any time express anything that is mistaken or wrong, then they’re done; they’re not a prophet any more, or never were one, by virtue of having been wrong even once.
One of the valuable contributions of the restoration of the fulness of the gospel is a true understanding of how God works through prophets. They are not “body-snatched” fax machines, they are mortal men who must grapple with the effects of the Fall just like everyone else. They, too, must discern revelation (which normally comes through “the still, small voice” Ώ Kings 19:11-12] rather than dramatic manisfestations) from their own thoughts and inclinations, and they are subject to and can have their own opinions and thoughts. While Christianity in general requires the safety of an infallible Bible or an infallible Pope, in reality God wants us all to learn to discern truth from error, and God does not work through infallible prophets. This must seem terrifying to those who crave a safe, “sure thing” (infallibility, in whatever form) that absolves one of the responsibility to seek and obtain confirming personal revelation.
Joseph Smith taught that prophets are prophets “only when . . . acting” as prophets. They are still able to have their own views and opinions on things; their every thought and view on all things are not “the word of the Lord:”
“Wednesday, February 8, 1843. — This morning, I read German, and visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet;’ but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 5:265).
Joseph Smith’s followers recognized that there was a difference between when he spoke in the name of the Lord as a prophet of God, and when he spoke as a man.
Joseph’s followers reacted quite differently to the words spoken as revelation and the words he spoke as a man. When Joseph asked John Whitmer to be Church historian, Whitmer agreed only if the Lord would “manifest it through Joseph the Seer” (John Whitmer, Book of John Whitmer, 55). Whitmer complied only when he was told in the voice of the Lord (Doctrine and Covenants 47:1). — Richard Bushman, “Rough Stone Rolling,” (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), p. 129
Although not a "prophesy," Wilford Woodruff related an interesting example of an instance where he knew through revelation that an adamantly-held view of Brigham Young was wrong. President Young, although having seen the Salt Lake Temple in vision, insisted that the temple would be made of adobe instead of stone or “bastard marble” (granite). Elder Woodruff later noted that he knew by revelation that the temple would be made of the granite that it later was made out of, despite what President Young had insisted:
When in the western country, many years ago, before we came to the Rocky Mountains, I had a dream. I dreamed of being in these mountains, and of seeing a large fine looking temple erected in one of these valleys which was built of cut granite stone, I saw that temple dedicated, and I attended the dedicatory services, and I saw a good many men that are living to-day in the midst of this people. And I saw them called of God and sent forth unto the United States and to [other nations] . . . to bind up the law and seal up the testimony against the nations of the earth, because they had rejected the testimony of Jesus, and of the establishment of the kingdom of God upon the earth. When the foundation of that temple was laid I thought of my dream and a great many times since. And whenever President Young held a council of the brethren of the Twelve and talked of building the temple of adobe or brick . . . I would say to myself, "No, you will never do it;" because I had seen it in my dream built of some other material. I mention these things to show you that things are manifested to the Latter-day Saints sometimes which we do not know anything about, only as they are given by the Spirit of God. — Wilford Woodruff, August 1, 1880. Journal of Discourses 21:299-300 | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 04/06/2008 12:49 PM |
Alert | EEE wrote:
Like I mentioned before, I recognize polygamy in the OT. Did God command it, No.
So it was optional?
This is your response to Moses’ polygamy? Do you not see the irony in insisting that the Law of Moses forbids polygamy, while brushing off the fact that Moses had at least three wives (the daughter of Jethro the Midianite; the Ethiopian woman; and Numbers 10:29 refers to “Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law”)? Your consistent response to this is “Sure, men practiced it, but God didn’t like it. Whatcha gonna do?” We’re talking about Moses, here, whose law you insist forbids polygamy.
The very elect, the patriarchs, practiced it (Abraham, Jacob, Moses). Are you really saying “Well, God didn’t like it, but He let them do it anyway?” Wouldn’t He have intervened? Why not? The Law of Moses commanded it under certain circumstances (Levirate marriage). God commanded the prophet Hosea to marry at least two harlots as a type and shadow.
And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. (Hosea 1:2-3)
Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine. So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley: And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee. (Hosea 3:1-3)
Are you going to be fair and consistent and call Hosea “horny and delusional,” too? He, too, claimed that God commanded him to take additional wives, and as everyone all knows, there is and can only be one motivation for that, right?
Plus, this now becomes a very slippery slope for you since the men who you call Prophets and were the leaders of your church were the main ones practicing polygamy which we see contradicts the New Testament command. This proves a long with the verse from Deuteronomy these men are false prophets.
I would say that your slope is more slippery than mine. You are throwing an awful lot of babies out with the bath water. “The men who you call prophets and were leaders of [the Old Testament] church were the main ones practicing polygamy.” Does this prove “along with the verse from Deuteronomy that these men were false prophets,” as you say? Especially when “the verse from Deuteronomy” comes from Moses himself? | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 04/06/2008 7:19 PM |
Alert | moinmoin, check your Private Messages.  | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 04/06/2008 7:37 PM |
Alert | I will address your other responses at a later time, but I just want to give a quick response on this comment. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. (Hosea 1:2-3)
Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine. So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley: And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee. (Hosea 3:1-3)
Are you going to be fair and consistent and call Hosea “horny and delusional,” too? He, too, claimed that God commanded him to take additional wives, and as everyone all knows, there is and can only be one motivation for that, right?
First off, I apologize for calling your prophet horny. Now on to your comment. The Woman in Hosea 1 is the Same Woman in Hosea 3. That woman is Gomer. I would like you to take your time and read the first couple of chapters in Hosea. After you read it you will find that Gomer, the faithless wife, is symbolic of faithless Israel. The command in chapter one is "Go Take". The command in chapter three is "Go again, love"(NASB), which suggest that Hosea's love was to be renewed to the same woman. Within the analogy of chapter 1, Gomer represents Isreael. As God renews His love toward faithless Israel so Hosea is to renew his love toward faithless Gomer. For Hos 3 to suggest a different woman would confuse the analogy. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
|  | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 04/07/2008 4:48 AM |
Alert | Take your time; no hurry on responses EEE.
As to your response re: Hosea, of course his marriage(s) are symbolic of unfaithful Israel. The thing with types and shadows, though, is that real, concrete outward acts are used to graphically drive the point home. Isaiah really did walk around naked and barefoot to make a specific point (Isaiah 20), and Ezekiel really did breach a wall in plain view and carry part of it on his shoulders to drive home a certain literal meaning (Ezekiel 12:5-12).
Your explanation reminds me of people who say that "virgin" should be read "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. What kind of special "sign" from God would it be for a "young woman" to conceive? Similarly, claiming that the women in chapters 1 and 3 are the same woman (Gomer) destroys the graphic nature of the type. If Hosea was to demonstrate the infidelity of Israel by simply marrying an Israelite, any Israelite, would anyone have gotten the point? Or, would actually marrying a whore drive the point home more graphically?
Looking to a different translation to get "Go again, love" in chapter 3 is the same way. Are you suggesting that the point was to be made by simply continuing to "love" his original wife? What do we do with his purchase price for her, and his command not to play the harlot any more? And aren't there chronology problems with that (he marries her, and then later pays a price for her)? Shouldn't the purchase of her and the stipulation that she "abide for me many days" have been in the first chapter, rather than after she had already "abode with him many days" (if she's actually one and the same person, as you are arguing)?
Just some thoughts on your thoughts! | | | |
|
| | Mr. Whitefolks
Posts:63
| | 04/07/2008 8:37 AM |
Alert | | At the end of round one: Moinmoin 10 - EEE 7 | |
"We are overcome by anguish at this illogical moment of humanity.” - Che
| |
|
| | DaybyDay
Posts:288
| | 04/07/2008 10:49 AM |
Alert | It might make since because Israel (as a nation) was caught in a cycle of loving God, then they would settle into their lifestyle and forget God...then, they became a part of the area for which they were living..in that they forgot about the God of their fathers and began practicing the religion of the time etc...then God would become angry with them, turn them over to their enemies...Israel would repent and God would forgive them making them a prosperous nation once again. So, if we look at Gomer as being "Israel" in this since, then for God to tell Hosea to "go again and love" might make since, because while he never stopped loving Israel, he did become angry with her and then had to "go again and love." I don't know that this verse/chapters are a good example of why polygamy was appropriate, nor does it seem like it is something God required/wanted.
We have to remember, that these were people- albeit incredible men of God. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob...all who had at least two wives at some point in their lives, were still men- fallen and sinful as we all are. WHO MADE MISTAKES. God still blessed them because of their fallenness. I do not remember reading anywhere that God commanded these men, or any others to go and have more than one wife. They just did it (for many different reasons). God still blessed them through their sinfulness (which DID cause problems in their lives) and counted them among the greats of the Bible. | | | |
|
| | joe_2007
Posts:83
| | 04/10/2008 10:44 AM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 04/06/2008 12:47 PM
EEE wrote:
Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says, "You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him."
Did Joseph Smith ever claim "in the name of the LORD" that something would happen when it did not? Yes, many times in fact. You know it, and have to make excuses for him, when the Bible is clear on recognizing false prophets.
Name one. The example(s) you provide from your anti-Mormon propaganda will be instructive in examining your claims and your assumptions. They have been hashed and rehashed for over 150 years. I'll name two. D&C 114:1Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Far West, Missouri, April 17, 1838. HC 3: 23. 1 Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may aperform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world. Patten died on October 25, 1838, due to wounds received in the Battle of Crooked River. He was not alive to go on any mission in spring. of 1839. D&C 84:1-5,31 Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, September 22 and 23, 1832. HC 1: 286–295. During the month of September, elders had begun to return from their missions in the eastern states and to make reports of their labors. It was while they were together in this season of joy that the following communication was received. The Prophet designates it a revelation on priesthood. 1 A arevelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they bunited their hearts and clifted their voices on high. 2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the arestoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his bprophets, and for the cgathering of his dsaints to stand upon eMount Zion, which shall be the city of fNew Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be abuilt, beginning at the btemple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and cdedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city aNew Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which btemple shall be creared in this dgeneration. 5 For verily this generation shall not all apass away until an bhouse shall be built unto the Lord, and a ccloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the dglory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. 31 Therefore, as I said aconcerning the sons of Moses—for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable boffering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated cspot as I have appointed—
Quote Ends Here
To this day, you can see for yourself on Google Earth, there is no temple on the fondations in Missouri. Joseph Fielding Smith finally admitted in 1963 that "it is reasonable to believe that no soul living in 1832, is still alive in mortality on the earth."(Answers to Gospel Questions, vol.4 p 112) In other words, the generation had already passed away. My quote come from those ever anit-Mormon propaganda sites: http://scriptures.lds.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Patten | | | |
|
| | RichTig
Posts:0
| | 04/10/2008 11:38 AM |
Alert | The Government should not dictate how many wives a fella can have. What happened to the pursuit of happiness? | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 04/10/2008 1:48 PM |
Alert | joe_2007 wrote:
I'll name two [alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith].
As I said, these are shopworn retreads from over 150 years.
1. David Patten's call to serve a mission is not a prophecy. It is no different from my mission call from Ezra Taft Benson in 1994 to serve as a missionary in northern Germany. Are you seriously saying that if I had been run over by a bus between receiving my call in June and leaving for my mission in August, that would have made President Benson a "false prophet?" Or that if any one of theca. 52,000 missionaries called annually doesn't end up going for some reason (which happens), the issuing prophet is a false prophet? The will of the Lord as expressed here was for David Patten to "settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can . . . that he may perform a mission unto me next spring." Don't you feel just a little bit silly trying to force this to be a failed prophecy by Joseph Smith?
No? Are you willing to apply this same standard to Jesus Christ? He promised Judas Iscariot that he would sit on a throne along with the other twelve apostles to judge the world (Matthew 19:28). Has Judas forfeited this privilege through His own choices and actions? If so, how is Jesus somehow not guilty of "false prophethood," too, especially given how you insist on employing David Patten's mission call?
2. Allow me to remind you of the important principle already stressed in these two thread: God's prophecies and their fulfillment are conditional and depend on people's response to the warning voice. The people of Nineveh repented upon Jonah's preaching, and "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." — Jonah 3:10. God decreed that Eli and his descendants would walk before Him, but "Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me."
This principle is elaborated on specifically with respect to the commandment to build the temple "in this generation," which you are at great pains to point out didn't happen. A later revelation explained:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings . . . Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God." --- D&C 124:49, 51.
Elsewhere, the Lord said: "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord." (D&C 56:4).
This is precisely what we find in the Bible. Through Jeremiah, God explained:
At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them." Jeremiah 18:7-10
You critics love to point to the commandment to build the temple in Independence "in this generation" as a "false prophecy," but all of you fail to deal with the examples of Bible prophecies that were reversed or did not come to pass because of people's choices (cited earlier in this thread and here). The failure to build the temple as commanded is the fault of both those who drove out the Mormons and Mormons for failing to do what they needed to do to realize the promised blessings (much like the Israelites were not permitted to enter the promised land, contrary to God's original intentions). Like ancient Israel, latter-day Israel will eventually be able to do what it was originally commanded to do and will build the temple in Zion, and "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem" (Isaiah 2:3).
I wonder if critics who comb through Joseph Smith's revelations and history looking for proof-texts to use against him are willing to give credit for everything he got right. Even in this instance, a revelation pointed out from the beginning that the realization of the promised blessings would not happen for many years, the Saints' expectations notwithstanding:
And now, verily, I say concerning the residue of the elders of my church, the time has not yet come, for many years, for them to receive their inheritance in this land (D&C 58:44)
Are you willing to acknowledge this as a true prophecy?  | | | |
|
| | DaybyDay
Posts:288
| | 04/10/2008 6:26 PM |
Alert | Two things:
One, In order to believe in the LDS prophet's "prophecoes" I would think that one would have to accept that the LDS books are true.
second. what prophecy's did Joseph Smith or any other of the LDS prophets make that came true? Whereas the Bible has been proven true time and time again. | | | |
|
| | DaybyDay
Posts:288
| | 04/10/2008 6:28 PM |
Alert | | If we use your last quote from D&C 58:44, of course he wouldn't set a definite date as to when the "residue of the elders" woudl receive the inheiritance, that would be foolhardy since no one can predict the future, except the Lord. Whereas, Bible prophecy's from the Old Testament to the New Testament has been tried and proven. Many scholars have already proved it so. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 04/11/2008 8:41 AM |
Alert | Posted By DaybyDay on 04/10/2008 6:26 PM
Two things:
One, In order to believe in the LDS prophet's "prophecoes" I would think that one would have to accept that the LDS books are true.
second. what prophecy's did Joseph Smith or any other of the LDS prophets make that came true? Whereas the Bible has been proven true time and time again. I'll start another thread on this (but not right this second; I'm at work). Some of the neat ones are the Civil War/World War I prophecy (1832), the Stephen A. Douglas prophecy (that he would aspire to the presidency, and if he ever turned against the Mormon people, he would suffer ignominious defeat), and the Rocky Mountains prophecy (that the Mormon people would be driven to the Rocky Mountains and become a mighty people there). These are good because there is indisputable documentation of the prophecies well before the events happened (including mockery of them in newspapers). In the case of the Civil War one, Mormon missionaries disseminated it in their labors in the East and South in the 1850s. The revelation was recorded in 1832 and printed in 1851 (which can be verified through original editions of the Pearl of Great Price). The vast majority of his prophecies are in latter-day scripture itself. For instance, he reported that the angel Moroni told him in 1823 that his name would be had for good and evil among all people, or that it would be spoken of for good and evil among all people. At the time this was printed in 1838, it was highly unlikely that his name would have even been remotely well-known beyond his immediate area, if he was an imposter. Today, the progress of its literal fulfillment is beyond dispute. Just as one of many examples. Good question, DaybyDay! I would much rather talk about how much he got right, rather than what critics claim he got wrong, but I find it helpful and useful to deal with what critics believe to be "silver bullet" criticisms. There is a certain amount of effectiveness in disarming these criticisms, even if they are generally over 150 years old and have been dealt with before. As will become evident if any more alleged "false prophecies" by Joseph Smith are proposed on this thread, most of these are not prophecies, and often, the logic and assumptions employed by critics to attack Joseph Smith wreak as much or more havoc on the Bible and Bible prophets. Proving yet again that critics of Joseph Smith would not have accepted Jesus or Bible prophets if they lived during their times. Current responses and knee-jerk reactions to the concept of prophecy and revelation are indicative of how people would have reacted back then, and most people back then did not accept prophets (or Jesus Christ). | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 04/11/2008 12:49 PM |
Alert | Carrying the question of the extent of polygamy in the Bible further, I think there is a great deal in the Bible that most people are simply unaware of, and this factors directly into the question of whether God approved (at certain times) of it, or disapproved of it but “tolerated” it.
In the first place, the Law of Moses itself contains more regarding polygamy than just the law of levirate marriage (which required a man whose brother died without children to marry his brother’s wife and “raise up seed unto” carrying the deceased brother’s name — Deuteronomy 25).
1. (Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29) — The Law of Moses required men who seduce women to marry them. While some may claim that this was only to apply to single men, conspicuously, it does not specify this. Given the prominence of the practice of polygamy, this meant that men who violated women’s virtue were required to marry them (unless the woman or her family wanted no part of him, in which case they could require monetary damages).
2. The Law of Moses required men to justly balance their affections for their sons from different wives.
(Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
3. The Law of Moses required that men not be preferential in performing “the duty of marriage” (intimacy) with different wives. (Exodus 21:7-11).
4. (Numbers 31:17-18) — The 32,000 Midianitesses were distributed among the tribes of Israel with the command to “keep alive for yourselves . . . [those] that have not known man by lying with him.” The intent here had to have been for them to be wives; else, why save only the virgins?
5. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) — laws concerning taking captive women as wives.
6. Why so many captives/wives laws? Remember that there was a tremendous surplus of women, due to the draconian Egyptian laws ordering the killing of Hebrew boys, a major factor making the Exodus necessary. The generation that received the above laws was the Exodus generation, and would have suffered massive decimation of males because of conditions in the land of Goshen (Egypt), and therefore a huge disparity between males and females in the Hebrew population the escaped from Egypt.
This is demonstrated in the population figures in the Book of Numbers (which derives its name from the fact that this was one of its major purposes). According to Numbers 1:45-46, the number of males in Israel during the Exodus, age 20 and older was 603,520. The total population is generally believed to have been 2.5 million. Given the decimation of male children in Egypt, the majority of the balance had to have been women. Assuming one male per 250 persons killed annually (a very conservative estimate) during the Egyptian captivity, 10,000 boys would have died each year. This would give us 800,000 more women than men over the 80 year period of the captivity, but for the sake of argument put it at 400,000 more women to be conservative. The females, then, over twenty years of age would be 603,550, added to 400,000 surplus women, making in all 1,003,550 women over twenty years of age. The children, then, under twenty years of age, to round out the two and a half million, would be 892,900.
The number of families in Israel with first-born males over one month old in this same census is 22,273 (Numbers 3:43 ). Assuming families without a first-born male over one month old to be one-third of those with first-born males yields 7,424, giving us an estimated 29,697 families total. In order to give those who insist that polygamy was not prevalent as much advantage as possible, round it up to 30,000 families. Divide 2.5 million by 30,000 families, and you get an average of 83 people per family. How could this be explained in any other way other than polygamy? While people may say that my estimates are too high (they are actually very conservative on purpose in anticipation of this very criticism), and while the average family size was probably not as high as 83, these numbers do not allow for anything near “monogamy” levels of family sizes. In other words, adjusting these estimates based on data from the Book of Numbers to minimize evidence of polygamy still wouldn’t allow for average family sizes anywhere close to even 20 people per family? Where would critics put average family sizes at, and how would they fit that into a predominantly one-wife model?
There are case studies that show that high family sizes are not a flight of fancy. Jair, one of Israel’s judges, had 30 sons and an unspecified number of daughters (Judges 10:3). Gideon, another judge, had 71 sons and an unspecified number of daughters, “for he had many wives” (Judges 8:30-31).
Any thoughts on this?
| | | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:2589
| | 04/11/2008 3:36 PM |
Alert | | That would have been awesome......lots of wives and kids to do the chores.... | |
"My favorite health club is the International House of Pancakes" -- Lewis Black | |
|
| | TheBoymaker
Posts:787
| | 04/11/2008 8:15 PM |
Alert | See, now the smarter idea would have been to give a woman multiple husbands. That way, they can only have one kid at a time. The children would get plenty of attention, and they would be stinking rich. Children shouldn't be had in litters, and housed in barracks, while wives bicker over who will sleep with the senior citizen husband (shudder).. | |
Poster formerly known as Sassafrass. | |
|
| | DaybyDay
Posts:288
| | 04/11/2008 8:36 PM |
Alert | I am not sure why the Lord allowed for men to have many wives...I don't think that was in his plan (i.e. Adam and Even) however, we are no longer under the law of the Old Testament because of what Jesus did on the cross. A lot of things that were practiced in the OT are no longer required in the NT because Jesus death and resurrection took all of that away. Many of the things that the people practiced in the OT was done in order to make them clean and worthy before the Lord. We no longer have to sacrifice animals or go through elaborate rituals in order to be before the Lord. We can do that because of Jesus. The NT gives two requirements for eternal life: Love the Lord your God with all your hearts, souls, and minds and Love your neighbor as yourself (John 10:25-27 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[a] and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'")
So to site instances in the OT where they practiced multiple wives, I think is a sensless argument. After all, we don't read the OT to determine if polygamy is right or not, we read the OT to learn about how to live and how not to live out lives (by their example).
I mean you site all these statistics and say that well in order for this many children to be born, they had to have this many wives....YES, many men in the OT had many wives. Solomon had 100's of wives. But, was this God's will for him? Probably not. After all, Solomon said it was all futile in the end right? Did God tell any of these men to take on more than one wife? NO! Did anyone who had more than one wife have a nice life? Did it make Abraham's life easier having Sarah and Hagar? How about Jacob? What did having more than one wife, who were sisters (none the less) do for his marriage and relationships within his family? Isaac? Having more than one wife did not add anything to their relationships, except children. However, we do learn that there was strife in the relationships.
Their relationships were wrought with angst because there was more than one woman in the household. However, in the NT he certainly has a lot to say about it doesn't he? He is really quite clear on the matter I think. | | | |
|
| | DaybyDay
Posts:288
| | 04/11/2008 8:36 PM |
Alert | | Okay, not sure why the bottom portion is bolded. I certainly didn't add that for emphasis- LOL | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| |
|
|
|