Remnant scriptures on Polygamy

[Finrock]

Your logic fails the Divine test. If plural marriage was improper, then we wouldn't have the Abrahamic Covenant, also renewed with Jacob/Israel. Multiple wives involved.

You have asserted this multiple times, however, you haven't demonstrated or explained why what you say is true. If plural marriage is an abomination we could (and we do) have the Abrahamic Covenant (whatever that means to you, but just using your words).

Leaders and people of every stripe, gender, culture, race, class, etc. can make horrendous mistakes and be in error.

Are you saying that because something good resulted in a condition where people practiced plural marriage, plural marriage is good? Is this what you mean or is that what you are trying to say.

Please, explain why your assertion is true.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

Your logic fails the Divine test. If plural marriage was improper, then we wouldn't have the Abrahamic Covenant, also renewed with Jacob/Israel. Multiple wives involved.

You have asserted this multiple times, however, you haven't demonstrated or explained why what you say is true. If plural marriage is an abomination we could (and we do) have the Abrahamic Covenant (whatever that means to you, but just using your words).

Leaders and people of every stripe, gender, culture, race, class, etc. can make horrendous mistakes and be in error.

Are you saying that because something good resulted in a condition where people practiced plural marriage, plural marriage is good? Is this what you mean or is that what you are trying to say.

Please, explain why your assertion is true.

-Finrock

God condoned plural marriage. It was no mistake. It wasn't because the people were just that way. God was not accepting flawed people. He condoned plural marriage.

What tribe are you in?

Is that proof enough?

[Jesef]

Did God condone slavery or were the people just that way (and wrong). God apparently accepted people who enslaved/owned other people. Are you American? Do you believe in freedom and everyone's God-given, inalienable right to be free? I think you're blaming or ascribing to God what should not be. Applying your same logic and reasoning for polygamy to slavery.

[Finrock]

Your logic fails the Divine test. If plural marriage was improper, then we wouldn't have the Abrahamic Covenant, also renewed with Jacob/Israel. Multiple wives involved.

You have asserted this multiple times, however, you haven't demonstrated or explained why what you say is true. If plural marriage is an abomination we could (and we do) have the Abrahamic Covenant (whatever that means to you, but just using your words).

Leaders and people of every stripe, gender, culture, race, class, etc. can make horrendous mistakes and be in error.

Are you saying that because something good resulted in a condition where people practiced plural marriage, plural marriage is good? Is this what you mean or is that what you are trying to say.

Please, explain why your assertion is true.

-Finrock

God condoned plural marriage. It was no mistake. It wasn't because the people were just that way. God was not accepting flawed people. He condoned plural marriage.

What tribe are you in?

Is that proof enough?

It's not proof at all. With respect, all you've done is make a circular argument. You are trying to prove that God condoned polygamy; that God condoned polygamy can't be your premise if it is also your conclusion. You somehow believe that because people in the past practiced polygamy and God worked with them and blessed them while they practiced polygamy, then polygamy must be good.

Here something you don't appear to be considering: God condescends to interact with us flawed people! God does accept flawed people. He blesses, works with, interacts with, helps, assists, and guides flawed people all of the time.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

Did God condone slavery or were the people just that way (and wrong). God apparently accepted people who enslaved/owned other people. Are you American? Do you believe in freedom and everyone's God-given, inalienable right to be free? I think you're blaming or ascribing to God what should not be. Applying your same logic and reasoning for polygamy to slavery.

God commanded Joseph to practice polygamy. I have no idea why. Some people can't handle it and stay away from the church. Other people can't handle it and make their own break-off sect.

If someone wants to be part of the House of Israel, guess what? Multiple wives. Can you handle it?

[Arenera]

Your logic fails the Divine test. If plural marriage was improper, then we wouldn't have the Abrahamic Covenant, also renewed with Jacob/Israel. Multiple wives involved.

You have asserted this multiple times, however, you haven't demonstrated or explained why what you say is true. If plural marriage is an abomination we could (and we do) have the Abrahamic Covenant (whatever that means to you, but just using your words).

Leaders and people of every stripe, gender, culture, race, class, etc. can make horrendous mistakes and be in error.

Are you saying that because something good resulted in a condition where people practiced plural marriage, plural marriage is good? Is this what you mean or is that what you are trying to say.

Please, explain why your assertion is true.

-Finrock

God condoned plural marriage. It was no mistake. It wasn't because the people were just that way. God was not accepting flawed people. He condoned plural marriage.

What tribe are you in?

Is that proof enough?

It's not proof at all. With respect, all you've done is make a circular argument. You are trying to prove that God condoned polygamy; that God condoned polygamy can't be your premise if it is also your conclusion. You somehow believe that because people in the past practiced polygamy and God worked with them and blessed them while they practiced polygamy, then polygamy must be good.

Here something you don't appear to be considering: God condescends to interact with us flawed people! God does accept flawed people. He blesses, works with, interacts with, helps, assists, and guides flawed people all of the time.

-Finrock

I admit, I don't understand how you reason. Aren't Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Gods now?

[Finrock]

You have asserted this multiple times, however, you haven't demonstrated or explained why what you say is true. If plural marriage is an abomination we could (and we do) have the Abrahamic Covenant (whatever that means to you, but just using your words).

Leaders and people of every stripe, gender, culture, race, class, etc. can make horrendous mistakes and be in error.

Are you saying that because something good resulted in a condition where people practiced plural marriage, plural marriage is good? Is this what you mean or is that what you are trying to say.

Please, explain why your assertion is true.

-Finrock

God condoned plural marriage. It was no mistake. It wasn't because the people were just that way. God was not accepting flawed people. He condoned plural marriage.

What tribe are you in?

Is that proof enough?

It's not proof at all. With respect, all you've done is make a circular argument. You are trying to prove that God condoned polygamy; that God condoned polygamy can't be your premise if it is also your conclusion. You somehow believe that because people in the past practiced polygamy and God worked with them and blessed them while they practiced polygamy, then polygamy must be good.

Here something you don't appear to be considering: God condescends to interact with us flawed people! God does accept flawed people. He blesses, works with, interacts with, helps, assists, and guides flawed people all of the time.

-Finrock

I admit, I don't understand how you reason. Aren't Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Gods now?

For the sake of this discussion I'll just plainly say, yes, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are Gods.

Do you believe that God accepts flawed people? Is that something you've considered in this discussion?

-Finrock

[Arenera]

God condoned plural marriage. It was no mistake. It wasn't because the people were just that way. God was not accepting flawed people. He condoned plural marriage.

What tribe are you in?

Is that proof enough?

It's not proof at all. With respect, all you've done is make a circular argument. You are trying to prove that God condoned polygamy; that God condoned polygamy can't be your premise if it is also your conclusion. You somehow believe that because people in the past practiced polygamy and God worked with them and blessed them while they practiced polygamy, then polygamy must be good.

Here something you don't appear to be considering: God condescends to interact with us flawed people! God does accept flawed people. He blesses, works with, interacts with, helps, assists, and guides flawed people all of the time.

-Finrock

I admit, I don't understand how you reason. Aren't Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Gods now?

For the sake of this discussion I'll just plainly say, yes, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are Gods.

Do you believe that God accepts flawed people? Is that something you've considered in this discussion?

-Finrock

We are all flawed, only Christ was not.

So, Alma 39 talks about the seriousness of being immoral. So, if Abraham and Jacob were being immoral, we wouldn't have the Abrahamic Covenant or be called the House of Israel. Do you follow this logic?

I don't believe that if Abraham was immoral we would have the Abrahamic Covenant. That isn't logical. Are you with me?

If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were doing an abomination of sin, Christ could have easily have turned to Sidney Rigdon and others. Correct?

So reason shows that God condoned plural marriage. The Church says Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Some of our current leaders have been sealed to more than one wife when their first wife passed away. Not temporally married, but sealed eternally.

[TrueIntent]

5tev3,

Mistake or Abomination?

Regards,

George Clay

Personally, I side with the Book of Mormon that categorizes having many wives and concubines as an abomination. I don't believe that Jacob 2:30 is some kind of loophole either and I have written a detailed explanation of why. That said, could God have commanded Joseph? Sure, it's possible, I just don't believe he did. The fruits of men having many wives is bad fruit and Jacob tells his people this.

"Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds." Jacob 2:35

Now what was the cause of these murdered hearts? Was it:

A: Their husbands were practicing plural marriage without authorization.
B: Their husbands were violating their covenants and twisting scriptures to justify them having sex with many women to fulfill their lustful desires.

If these women and children were so damaged and upset because their husbands/fathers were acting without authorization that's one thing, but doesn't it make so much more sense when you look at all the words of strong condemnation in the text that the problem was the act itself, the situation, the man marrying and having sex with many women? So these women and children would have been just fine if polygamy had been commanded by Jacob, they wouldn't have had any problems and been merrily enjoying their lives?

This raises another interesting question. God is ok with commanding his men to marry and have sex with many women while murdering their hearts:

A: Only when he needs to raise populations quickly.
B: Never.

Note that with option A in this scenario, that God has never, not once in recorded history ever commanded his people to take on many wives and concubines for the purpose of rapidly increasing the birthrate of his people. I'll back up that statement from the polygamy apologist and author of the three volume series Joseph Smith's Polygamy:

"Do we know that polygamy will ever be commanded again? In the 6000 years of religious history, the only adherents to be commanded were the Latter-day Saints between 1852 and 1890. Upon what basis does anyone assert that it will be commanded again?" Brian and Linda Hales, http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/u ... fusion.pdf

The Book of Mormon condemns it and I don't believe that God commands men to do anything that murders the hearts of his daughters for any reason.

Have you ever studied the history of women in polygamy? Have you studied modern polygamous relationships? If you do, you'll find the exact situations described in Jacob 2, misery and sorrow. Polygamy is not marriage and can never be. D&C 42:22 states: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else." The woman is the only one who can keep this covenant in a plural marriage. The man may cleave to her along with anyone else he desires. See, this so-called married man never stops courting. Any woman he sees is a potential wife so he is free to flirt, date, and all the things a single man would do while his first through however many he has sit at home with the kids. D&C 132:61 states: "if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another..." See, it is based on if HE desires to espouse another.

That's marriage? No, that's an abomination to even suggest that such a thing is marriage and the Book of Mormon nails it in that respect.

It's not my place to judge or disrespect anyone who has had many wives or concubines. People who do abominable things have been instruments in God's hands and I'd go so far as to say that a majority of God's servants have done bad things at some point in their lives. God didn't push aside Psalms or Proverbs just because of what David and Solomon did.

My personal belief is that Joseph, Brigham, etc. were all instruments in God's hands. While I don't agree with polygamy, I acknowledge that I do not know all things and therefore I cannot judge them, nor do I look down on anyone who believes in polygamy and that it is part of God's plan. I must confess that I do not know for sure, I have prayed from time to time for answers but have been led back to the scriptures and especially the Book of Mormon, which is a new covenant. The teachings concerning having many wives and concubines are clear and I am very suspicious of the origins of D&C 132 and have been for a long time. It seems like it appeared on the scene to promote an agenda while discrediting Emma at the same time. I do think aspects of it are correct, after all the first half of the document teaches truths and they are all monogamous in nature.

I'm no authority on the matter, just an individual with an opinion. If you disagree with me, that's fine, you have the right to your own opinion and may be more correct than I am.

*** and, no, fornication is not Ok. I don't think Sarai's strategy was right at all, she made a mistake and so did Abram by listening to her instead of trusting God. That said, what they did in their situation was done with the intent to fulfill God's purposes. They had been left with a promise of seed without any fulfillment into their old age and beyond what they understood to be childbearing years. They could have given up, but they didn't, they tried to implement a solution. That doesn't mean it was right or had to happen that way. They could have just been 100% faithful and avoided the whole mess, but hey, we make mistakes and thank goodness for a God that is merciful and turns our water to wine.

5tev3,

Thank you for this...I really appreciate all the writing you do. I wish I had more time to compose my thoughts and post more on the subject of polygamy. But alas, I am a busy mom.

Gclayjr,

The apostle Paul taught many things about the Law of Moses....remember, when Jesus came to Jerusalem, their book of scriptures were the Old Testament...there was no New Testament written. Jesus Christ came correcting misinterpretations of the laws of moses, and showed men where they erred in doctrine. They were also twisting scripture so they could "sin" within the law...while claiming that the outward practice of the law made them holy. The law, as Paul taught, was only designed to reveal sin. Meaning, the law itself isn't wicked, but it is designed to reveal our sinful nature....so that we can then take those sins that are revealed to us, and offer them as an acceptable offering with a broken heart and contrite spirit. The law is designed to "turn" us toward christ, so that we repent to Him, by giving him our sins, and then become like him. So, the more perfectly one keeps the law...is not a reflection of righteousness. We are supposed to be using The Law to identify where we sin, and then turn towards christ.

Under the Law of Moses, there were 613 laws. They Jews paid tithes, they worshiped in temples, administered ordinances, they even had a food law...we have all these same things as revealed by Joseph Smith. They are revealed to us, how we should practice religion, through a set of Laws found in the doctrine and covenants. How to pay tithing (increase and law of consecration), how to worship in the temple and administer the priesthood offices throughout the church (not the power of the priesthood....God gives individuals the power), to worship in temples and offer ordinances that teach the mysteries of heaven, and how to eat and live is found in section 89 of the doctrine and covenants. Joseph was called a modern "Moses" in revealed scripture. He was giving us a law, NOT BECAUSE WE ARE RIGHTEOUS....but because we were CHOSEN, Because we were foreordained. Being God's chosen people does not necessarily mean we are righteous. As we study Moses, we understand that the children of Israel were frequently wicked.

The Children of Israel is (the ancient version of us) Mormonism....Moses originally intended to give the children of Israel a higher law (this law most likely resembles the sermon on the mount given by Christ to the Nephites and higher laws like the law of consecration (which I would argue is not administered but is something we begin to do as individuals without a church commanding us). However, you will find, that under the law of moses, The law comes first, but perfection will never come from practicing the law (As taught by Paul..the law makes nothing perfect). The law is designed to reveal our sins. Perfection comes only from Jesus Christ and the healing power of his grace (we can not make anything perfect), when we discover the sin and give it up. We can beat ourselves with a rod, and perform perfect outward obedience, but it is inward obedience out of love that makes a man perfect when he offers the sin to christ--christ changes him.

Now to polygamy. If polygamy was revealed by Joseph Smith...it is most definitely an outward practice of a law...it would have been revealed so that it would reveal the wickedness of the men practicing it. Men who outwardly claimed faithfulness in their hearts, but inwardly were adulterers. Which is why I'm open to the idea that Joseph Smith, may OR may not have practiced it. It would have revealed his own sins.

Now to the old testament. There is a law in the law of moses called "Levrite Marriage". It basically means that if a woman's husband dies, and she becomes a widow, that her brother is required to take his sister-in-law as a wife, and give her a male heir. Basically, make a baby with his sister-in-law and take her to wife (as a second wife depending on the circumstances). Same thing with Sarah and Abraham...basically, a woman was a disgrace if she couldn't bear children, or make a male heir...there were all kinds of cultural customs at the time that women were subject to. BUT REMEMBER....the law of moses was designed to reveal sin. Meaning, even if you perfectly took your sister-in-law as a wife and made a baby with her...that didn't mean that you were holy. The law was designed to reveal where individuals sinned....

Now to a story from the old testament to prove this (What am I proving????....that taking your sister-in-law and making a baby with her as instructed in the law of Moses isn't because you are righteous...it is to reveal where you sin so that you can repent of your wickedness).

The Old Testament story of Tamar

Tamar is a woman who is widowed, and her brother-in-law is commanded within the law of Moses to marry her and "raise up seed" for her dead husband. (this was the custom to keep the bloodline alive and BUT MOSTLY to keep inheritances within the family, because we know from Jesus Christ in the new testament that God has the power to raise up seed from stones and the dust of the earth like adam..so they were faithless too..another sin).

Onan knew that the child would not be his, and that it would affect his own inheritance by taking his brother's widow as a wife...and so, it says that he "went unto his brother's wife, spilled seed on the ground, lest he would give seed" to his dead brother. So basically, he's banging his sister-in-law, but not giving her a son, because he won't spill the seed in her. Why would he do this???...1. because he is a pig and it's fun to bang his sister-in-law. 2. because if she has a son, the inheritance of his dead brother's portion goes to his dead brother's male child, instead of to him (Onan). So the widow gets screwed in all different directions (no pun intended)...unless she has a son with the brother. She can't inherit anything unless she has a son because only male heirs get inheritance...and she can't inherit anything of her dead husband's because she has to have a son within the family bloodline. She can't marry someone unrelated because that means she is also penniless. It's a horrible situation all the way around for the woman. SO, this displeases the Lord, and the Lord "slews" this guy. But the story doesnt end here....

Tamar then goes and lives with her father-in-law, who is also a pig. The father-in-law promises to give his other son to her, but he never does. So what does Tamar do...???? She dresses up as a harlot, puts a veil on her face, and hangs out in a place where she will run into her father-in-law. Her father-in-law sees her, thinks she is a harlot....and begs her to let him "come in unto" her, "for he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law." So she says, I'll let you bang me, if you give me these three things until you can pay me with a goat for her sexual services. She asks for his "signet ring, bracelets, and a staff that is in his hand". So they bang, and he doesn't know that she is actually his daughter-in-law. (her motivation is to get pregnant with an heir, not to fornicate, because they abuse the law...she is being held captive, and so she dresses as a harlot to get pregnant by men who should have been doing their duty, but they were greedy and fornicaters themselves who used the law to hide their sins, instead of letting it reveal them and forsaking the sin)...so God provides the way.

So three months later, we find out that Tamar is pregnant. So what does the father-in-law threaten to do when he finds out"? He accuses her of being a whore, and says, bring her forth so they can burn her. So he's gonna kill her, cuz she's the whore???....so before they kill her...she says bring forth, the signet, the bracelets, and the staff..cuz whosever stuff this is, this is the father of the child. Then the father-in-law acknowledges that she had been more righteous than him....he got caught being the whore..he was the one violating the law (he just did it in secret, and she was the one suffering for it). Duh!

So if the law reveals sins....what are the sins???? LUST, GREED, and MURDER

That we (as the children of Israel) would condone or force a woman OR a man into marriage with someone they don't love.
That we would willfully maneuver around the law, taking an inheritance away from a widow for our own greed.
That we would manipulated the law to "have sex" within God's commands outwardly, but inwardly it was for our lusts.
That an entire family of males would deceive a widow to maintain family property.
That widows would only be taken care of if they married in the family...what happened to just taking care of them because we love them, and they are a widow.
Men (descendants of Abraham) can go around WHORING with women...but she gets "burned" or murdered when she ends up pregnant. She has to "prove" her innocence while they are all sinning in secret.
And the Biggest sin of all....THAT we USE THE LAW OF GOD designed to reveal our own sins, to control or manipulate others....so we can consume it upon our Lusts.

There is always an ESCAPE!!!!!!

D&C 132:50

50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

So we in the church, use section 132 as justification for all the atrocities committed in polygamy. We claim it was for taking care of all the widows, and that we needed to help them make babies and raise up seed (cuz yeah, we like the pharisees believe seed can only be raised up through sex, when jesus taught that God could make it from stones"...BLAH BLAH BLAH. All lies...all you have to do is study what some of the wives said about it, including Brigham Young's wives....the men were out WHORING. And yes, some were deceived and then found themselves participating in an abomination that they wished they could get out of i'm sure. BUT WAIT....for those who wanted a way out....THERE WAS AN ESCAPE????

The story of Abraham offering Isaac is the justification given by those who say we must offer a sacrifice like Abraham did. But I say...Abraham never offered that sacrifice....he never killed Issac. The Lord gave him an escape. What did he offer as an escape so that he did not have to offer Issac???

Genesis 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.


OOOOO....he offered a burnt offering instead...burnt offerings are SIN offerings. That's why it's called a Baptism of Fire. We are cleansed by fire when we offer up sin....what was the sin....OBEDIENCE TO THE POINT OF MURDER. Notice that what he sacrificed instead of Isssac (human sacrifice was a custom of the time), was a horned ram caught in the thorns....hmmm...sounds like he bound satan--the horned ram. This new offering was a symbol of satan/sin. But he had to accept the Lord's grace to do so. Blood sacrifice is always an abomination to the Lord. We're the ones who believe we need to spill blood, not God.

Obedience is righteousness ONLY when it is an offering of something we love...that is the only acceptable type of offering--and then HE will give us an escape. If it's not a firstling of our flock offering...then it's not something we love...and it's not righteous, which means WE ARE WICKED....and it resembles an offering that Cain made...and so, there is NO ESCAPE, because GOD will not accept it. He only accepts "acceptable" offerings. Cain and Abel both made offerings. But one offered a firstling (the best that he had...the one that he loved it was his best, his firstling, because he loved it..if you don't love it, it can't possibly be a firstly...it has to be your favorite.)

Genesis 4: 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.



Now to polygamy.....if Section 132 is a true revelation...then these men failed the offering test. Those men who offered their wives...didn't love their wives as a firstling. They didn't offer what Abraham offered. They offered something different. It wasn't a firstling of their flock....otherwise, the Lord would have been accepted in their offering and provided an escape. The escape...is always the "sin" you found because you were obeying the law.

Human sacrifice was the law of the day in ancient Israel. Adultery and Lust is one of the cardinal sins, which is what the offering should have been for the Saint's day (see all the accusations of adultery amongst the 12, and others serving under Joseph while joseph was alive)....they offered their wives (which was not a firstling for them).....when really some of them should have offered their mistresses or their adulterous thoughts (as a sin offering)...Then if they were command to practice polygamy, after they had forsaken all their sins, loved their wives as firstlings, then and only then would they have been given an escape (which they weren't given an escape)...and so they eventually were compelled by the United States government to quit the practice. TThe government used money (of potential loss of property) to compel them (which like the Saints in the Book of Mormon, the saints were compelled to be humble, so that they would repent).


An acceptable sacrifice of ones wife would have gone something like this (which is how it went for abraham, and this is just an example or idea...its symbolic). You bring your wife, who you love more than anything you have ever loved, and you offer her as a sacrifice to God --and it would bring you great pain to do so because you love her. In Abrahams case, it wasn't taking Hagar.....it was giving up hagar, because he loved Sarah, and he loved Hagar's son (which was also his son). These are true sacrifices.....God gives Hagar an escape because of it...she was an innocent victim, a victim of cultural customs, as was sarah (an angel hears the cries of Hagars infant, after she is cast out, and provides them with water in the wilderness (this is symbolic as well, rachel carries the same pot of water on her shoulder). Then abraham and sarah are given an escape as well. Because Sarah gave Hagar in the first place was a cultural custom after God told her he would provide, sarah was the one who didn't believe...she lacked faith in God. But their sins were atoned for...but they had to make an offering. The offerings are different....its the temple ceremony....we offer sin offerings, and then we need an escape for sins we've already committed, so that we are not caught in a perpetual cycle of suffering for sins, but we must make the offering. God provides the way. He clears the straight path...and its not easy....it's not easy to give up hagar...she was always the victim. But God will heal them all.

So, then, because the Saints didn't offer a firstling when commanded to practice polygamy (which is a sad deal for their wives)....they then are bound to the law. They were adulterers in their hearts. Jesus Christ claimed this same thing of the Jews in his day...and we can only find this passage in the Joseph Smith Translation.

THIS IS THE CLINCHER...JOSEPH SMITH KNEW...Because see the JST version of this...it adds Christ's words on Adultery and the Law.. This is NOT found in the Luke 16 regular version, only in Joseph Smith translation

JST, Luke 16:16–23. Compare Luke 16:16–18
The law and the prophets testify of Jesus. The Pharisees seek to destroy the kingdom. Jesus introduces the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

16 And they said unto him, We have the law, and the prophets; but as for this man we will not receive him to be our ruler; for he maketh himself to be a judge over us.

17 Then said Jesus unto them, The law and the prophets testify of me; yea, and all the prophets who have written, even until John, have foretold of these days.

18 Since that time, the kingdom of God is preached, and every man who seeketh truth presseth into it.

19 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail.

20 And why teach ye the law, and deny that which is written; and condemn him whom the Father hath sent to fulfill the law, that ye might all be redeemed?

21 O fools! for you have said in your hearts, There is no God. And you pervert the right way; and the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence of you; and you persecute the meek; and in your violence you seek to destroy the kingdom; and ye take the children of the kingdom by force. Woe unto you, ye adulterers!

22 And they reviled him again, being angry for the saying, that they were adulterers.

23 But he continued, saying, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her who is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. Verily I say unto you, I will liken you unto the rich man.

The whole section in bold was added and altered, and the passages about Christ accusing the Pharisees of being adulterers only exists in the Joseph Smith Translation. He worked on the JST versions before he died....whether he practiced polygamy, or didn't isn't the issue (because we can also find quotes where people claim Joseph felt he was deceived, The church tends to choose the narrative that he wasn't deceived which is a reflection of what leadership in general believes, the scriptures tell a different story either way)...because the JST clearly shows that those who alter the interpretations of scriptures do it because they are adulterers (why else would such a debate exist???? really whats the big whoop in having one spouse...the women have to do it...why can't the men cleave (or woman if applicable)? its because of what is in their hearts.) We twist scripture for our benefit, not for others, and not for God. So if you have twisted scripture to condone something that exists in your heart....God can heal us...he can make our paths straight. It requires an offering.

[Finrock]

It's not proof at all. With respect, all you've done is make a circular argument. You are trying to prove that God condoned polygamy; that God condoned polygamy can't be your premise if it is also your conclusion. You somehow believe that because people in the past practiced polygamy and God worked with them and blessed them while they practiced polygamy, then polygamy must be good.

Here something you don't appear to be considering: God condescends to interact with us flawed people! God does accept flawed people. He blesses, works with, interacts with, helps, assists, and guides flawed people all of the time.

-Finrock

I admit, I don't understand how you reason. Aren't Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Gods now?

For the sake of this discussion I'll just plainly say, yes, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are Gods.

Do you believe that God accepts flawed people? Is that something you've considered in this discussion?

-Finrock

We are all flawed, only Christ was not.

So, Alma 39 talks about the seriousness of being immoral. So, if Abraham and Jacob were being immoral, we wouldn't have the Abrahamic Covenant or be called the House of Israel. Do you follow this logic?

I don't believe that if Abraham was immoral we would have the Abrahamic Covenant. That isn't logical. Are you with me?

If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were doing an abomination of sin, Christ could have easily have turned to Sidney Rigdon and others. Correct?

So reason shows that God condoned plural marriage. The Church says Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Some of our current leaders have been sealed to more than one wife when their first wife passed away. Not temporally married, but sealed eternally.

I understand what you are saying, but, in truth, and I mean no offense, it isn't logical.

There are other options or avenues to consider. I feel like your reasoning is very bipolar and it relies on assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Further, in your posts you are representing a view that seems to ignore the atonement of Jesus Christ, His mercy, and His grace.

It is completely possible for Abraham to be practicing polygamy, it is not condoned by God, and Abraham was not acting immorally. We are judged by the light that we have. In the grand scheme of things polygamy may not be good, however, God is merciful towards His children who are acting sincerely and with pure intent based on the light that they have or based on what they do know and understand.

The truth is that no mortal, no matter who they are, ever obtain a status in mortality where they are not relying on the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ. No matter how "good" someone thinks they are, they are not "good enough" without God. Or, we don't merit the blessings we receive. We receive them based on our belief and faith that God is willing to give us those blessings.

Further, even if we act contrary to the light that we have, we can be forgiven. There are many instances in the Bible where "prophets" and/or men of God acted immorally. This did not prevent God from working with them, blessing them, and doing great works through them. Even Abraham is recorded as having acted in an immoral manner in the scriptures, yet, he is considered a good man.

God puts up with a lot of crap from us and blesses us even though we don't deserve the blessings, all because He loves us and because He perfectly understands the human/mortal conditions. He expects us to fail in our efforts to live morally good. He isn't surprised or somehow disappointed in us when we act like mortals.

So, Abraham could have acted immorally or he could have been acting in a way that ultimately isn't good, and still be blessed and made great through the grace, mercy, and merits of Jesus Christ.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

It's not proof at all. With respect, all you've done is make a circular argument. You are trying to prove that God condoned polygamy; that God condoned polygamy can't be your premise if it is also your conclusion. You somehow believe that because people in the past practiced polygamy and God worked with them and blessed them while they practiced polygamy, then polygamy must be good.

Here something you don't appear to be considering: God condescends to interact with us flawed people! God does accept flawed people. He blesses, works with, interacts with, helps, assists, and guides flawed people all of the time.

-Finrock

I admit, I don't understand how you reason. Aren't Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Gods now?

For the sake of this discussion I'll just plainly say, yes, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are Gods.

Do you believe that God accepts flawed people? Is that something you've considered in this discussion?

-Finrock

We are all flawed, only Christ was not.

So, Alma 39 talks about the seriousness of being immoral. So, if Abraham and Jacob were being immoral, we wouldn't have the Abrahamic Covenant or be called the House of Israel. Do you follow this logic?

I don't believe that if Abraham was immoral we would have the Abrahamic Covenant. That isn't logical. Are you with me?

If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were doing an abomination of sin, Christ could have easily have turned to Sidney Rigdon and others. Correct?

So reason shows that God condoned plural marriage. The Church says Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Some of our current leaders have been sealed to more than one wife when their first wife passed away. Not temporally married, but sealed eternally.

By the way, I believe that multiple women were sealed to Joseph Smith. This is clear. However, there is a distinction between sealing and marriage. Joseph Smith was never married to more than one woman. I believe Joseph Smith's public testimony on this matter. No one has ever been able to prove that Joseph Smith fathered children with anyone else besides Emma Smith. He had but one wife, even though multiple women were sealed to him. Women were sealed to Joseph Smith for other reasons besides for the intent of them being married and all that a marriage implies to a couple. What Joseph Smith did was very different from what Brigham Young and later apostles did, who were both sealed and married to multiple women with whom they had sexual relations, had children, and the whole nine yards.

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

TrueIntent,

(What am I proving????....that taking your sister-in-law and making a baby with her as instructed in the law of Moses isn't because you are righteous...it is to reveal where you sin so that you can repent of your wickedness).

I can't even make any sense out of the last part of your sentence, here but, if it wasn't a law given by Jehovah, why didn't Christ admonish the Sadducees over the terrible evil and sin of polygamy instead of a more banal

9 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

??

If Polygamy was so bad, this would have been the perfect opportunity to admonish them. You throw out one Old Testament "Thus saith the Lord", and ignore time after time where it is accepted, or various blessing are given to plural marriages as if sanctioned, then imply that poor helpless God is just going along with the evil practices of men. He may punish Cain for murder, He may punish Saul for not waiting for a prophet to offer sacrifices, but heaven forbid he hurt Jacob's feelings by saying anything about his 4 wives. He will bless the world by having the descendants of Jacob bless the whole world, but he better not hurt Jacobs feelings by telling him that all this blessing of the world was done in his great sin, because God can work with that.

What poppycock!

Regards,

George Clay

[Arenera]

I admit, I don't understand how you reason. Aren't Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Gods now?

For the sake of this discussion I'll just plainly say, yes, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are Gods.

Do you believe that God accepts flawed people? Is that something you've considered in this discussion?

-Finrock

We are all flawed, only Christ was not.

So, Alma 39 talks about the seriousness of being immoral. So, if Abraham and Jacob were being immoral, we wouldn't have the Abrahamic Covenant or be called the House of Israel. Do you follow this logic?

I don't believe that if Abraham was immoral we would have the Abrahamic Covenant. That isn't logical. Are you with me?

If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were doing an abomination of sin, Christ could have easily have turned to Sidney Rigdon and others. Correct?

So reason shows that God condoned plural marriage. The Church says Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Some of our current leaders have been sealed to more than one wife when their first wife passed away. Not temporally married, but sealed eternally.

By the way, I believe that multiple women were sealed to Joseph Smith. This is clear. However, there is a distinction between sealing and marriage. Joseph Smith was never married to more than one woman. I believe Joseph Smith's public testimony on this matter. No one has ever been able to prove that Joseph Smith fathered children with anyone else besides Emma Smith. He had but one wife, even though multiple women were sealed to him. Women were sealed to Joseph Smith for other reasons besides for the intent of them being married and all that a marriage implies to a couple. What Joseph Smith did was very different from what Brigham Young and later apostles did, who were both sealed and married to multiple women with whom they had sexual relations, had children, and the whole nine yards.

-Finrock

Again, Alma 39 explains how serious immorality is. Alma the younger was a vile sinner, he repented and then worked tiressly for God. Same with Saul.

If Brigham Young and the others were in the wrong, you might say abominationaly, Christ would have had others to pick up the restoration. Joseph was commanded to practice polygamy and he instructed Brigham Young and others to do the same.

Once you say that Brigham Young was the culprit, you open the door to say the church apostacized. This is exactly what Denver has done with his evil designs.

Some people try to psychologically explain the issues with polygamy, but that doesn't matter. We don't practice it today, but God did condone it previously.

If Joseph Smith was the first to ever attempt it, then you would have a point. But Abraham did it and so did Jacob.

My logic is very good on this. Attempts to come up to a different conclusion just ends up with issues of all kinds. This is why the John Doe incident in the Church of Denver Snuffer is so alarming to Denver, and his trying to sweep it under the rug.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth at this time. The keys, authority and covenants are valid and important for us to receive and follow. President Monson is Christ's Prophet and the Apostles are Christ's too. This is where my logic ends.

If you try another logic, you will not end where I have.

[TrueIntent]

TrueIntent,

(What am I proving????....that taking your sister-in-law and making a baby with her as instructed in the law of Moses isn't because you are righteous...it is to reveal where you sin so that you can repent of your wickedness).

I can't even make any sense out of the last part of your sentence, here but, if it wasn't a law given by Jehovah, why didn't Christ admonish the Sadducees over the terrible evil and sin of polygamy instead of a more banal

9 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

??

If Polygamy was so bad, this would have been the perfect opportunity to admonish them. You throw out one Old Testament "Thus saith the Lord", and ignore time after time where it is accepted, or various blessing are given to plural marriages as if sanctioned, then imply that poor helpless God is just going along with the evil practices of men. He may punish Cain for murder, He may punish Saul for not waiting for a prophet to offer sacrifices, but heaven forbid he hurt Jacob's feelings by saying anything about his 4 wives. He will bless the world by having the descendants of Jacob bless the whole world, but he better not hurt Jacobs feelings by telling him that all this blessing of the world was done in his great sin, because God can work with that.

What poppycock!

Regards,

George Clay

You don't understand George....ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .....there is a spiritual tithe, a spiritual fast, a spiritual ordinance, i.e.baptism of fire. The pharisee were baptized, but christ said their baptism wasn't acceptable. WHY??? Because they did the outward and not the inward. Christ taught that nothing the pharisees did was acceptable--it was all outward. They paid tithing perfectly (but they didn't keep the inward law of caring for their aging and dying parents). So it is, (if polygamy is a law)....It is an outward law. it is designed to reveal sins. Just as the story of Tamar, and all laws found within the Law of Moses. There is a higher law. It is the spiritual law. Its not...thou shalt not commit adultery...christ said....thou shalt not lust (this is the spiritual form of the law...the higher law). There are inward and outward laws. The higher law was to care for the widows and the fatherless....(*which is one of the things the saints claimed they were doing by taking wives.) They could have just done what the jews did, which was open the storehouse to the widows and fatherless (this is what was done in the old testament)...instead they had to take them as polygamist wives??????...even when they did, we can find in pioneer records that the wives weren't being cared for. We pay tithing, so that we can learn how to give when it matters...like taking care of your aging parents. We fast, so that we learn how to not let our carnal body rule our spiritual body, we perform ordinance, not so that we say we are holy, but so that we can learn how to become holy. We perform polygamy...so that we can care for the widows????? nope....we love those in need, we pay tithes, so that when we find a widow in our midst, amongst our own families....we will choose the higher law, and care for them without any conditions....we will open our own storehouses....did you read the story of Tamar? The law of moses is holy...it came from God...to reveal those mens sins.....so that they could repent. That is the purpose of the law...to reveal sin. you wouldn't know what your sins were without the law (I'm quoting the apostle Paul when I say this).

[TrueIntent]

Also, George.....God does all men to be wicked....and it pleases him to do so. Because they will then be compelled to reprint (this is found in the Book of Mormon, and Old testament all over the place...)

D&C 76:103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. (the saints lied constantly about polygamy as they practiced it behind closed doors).

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Proverbs 6:32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

D&C 63:16 And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear. (one of brighams wives claims he would go around town in his carriage looking for a new wife and didn't care for feeding his family...im paraphrasing. But this quote has been on the forum).

D&C 63:14 14 There were among you adulterers and adulteresses; some of whom have turned away from you, and others remain with you that hereafter shall be revealed. (so apparently this revelation claim's that there were adultery all around Joseph that would be revealed)


Ill post more scriptures as I find them.

[gclayjr]

Trueintent,

You don't understand George.... :ymblushing: ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .....there is a spiritual tithe, a spiritual fast, a spiritual ordinance, i.e.baptism of fire. The pharisee were baptized, but christ said their baptism wasn't acceptable. WHY???

You are right. I don't understand. I will take it a step further. This looks like the gospel of TrueIntent! and It is completely incoherent! I agree that there are both physical ordinances, and spiritual components of those ordinances. I agree that Physical ordinances, without the spiritual component is hollow!, but

ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .

is just BS.

OK I will confess. I pay a full tithe What sin of mine does that reveal???

Regards,

George Clay

[carbon dioxide]

Polygamy completely destroys the sanctity of womanhood and the dignity of women while essentially making property out of them and rendering the most beautiful of all of God's human emotions meaningless, which is love between two people.

This is simply your opinion. The scriptures however do not subscribe to this belief.

[Rensai]

Polygamy completely destroys the sanctity of womanhood and the dignity of women while essentially making property out of them and rendering the most beautiful of all of God's human emotions meaningless, which is love between two people.

This is simply your opinion. The scriptures however do not subscribe to this belief.

The prophet Jacob disagrees with you.

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.

That's as plain as can be. Those who think the scriptures condone polygamy, don't understand them, they have wrested them and accepted the philosophies of men.

There's some interesting info about this topic here: http://downloads.miridiatech.com.s3.ama ... nogamy.pdf

[TrueIntent]

TrueIntent,

(What am I proving????....that taking your sister-in-law and making a baby with her as instructed in the law of Moses isn't because you are righteous...it is to reveal where you sin so that you can repent of your wickedness).

I can't even make any sense out of the last part of your sentence, here but, if it wasn't a law given by Jehovah, why didn't Christ admonish the Sadducees over the terrible evil and sin of polygamy instead of a more banal

9 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

??

If Polygamy was so bad, this would have been the perfect opportunity to admonish them. You throw out one Old Testament "Thus saith the Lord", and ignore time after time where it is accepted, or various blessing are given to plural marriages as if sanctioned, then imply that poor helpless God is just going along with the evil practices of men. He may punish Cain for murder, He may punish Saul for not waiting for a prophet to offer sacrifices, but heaven forbid he hurt Jacob's feelings by saying anything about his 4 wives. He will bless the world by having the descendants of Jacob bless the whole world, but he better not hurt Jacobs feelings by telling him that all this blessing of the world was done in his great sin, because God can work with that.

What poppycock!

Regards,

George Clay

You don't understand George....ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .....there is a spiritual tithe, a spiritual fast, a spiritual ordinance, i.e.baptism of fire. The pharisee were baptized, but christ said their baptism wasn't acceptable. WHY??? Because they did the outward and not the inward. Christ taught that nothing the pharisees did was acceptable--it was all outward. They paid tithing perfectly (but they didn't keep the inward law of caring for their aging and dying parents). So it is, (if polygamy is a law)....It is an outward law. it is designed to reveal sins. Just as the story of Tamar, and all laws found within the Law of Moses. There is a higher law. It is the spiritual law. Its not...thou shalt not commit adultery...christ said....thou shalt not lust (this is the spiritual form of the law...the higher law). There are inward and outward laws. The higher law was to care for the widows and the fatherless....(*which is one of the things the saints claimed they were doing by taking wives.) They could have just done what the jews did, which was open the storehouse to the widows and fatherless (this is what was done in the old testament)...instead they had to take them as polygamist wives??????...even when they did, we can find in pioneer records that the wives weren't being cared for. We pay tithing, so that we can learn how to give when it matters...like taking care of your aging parents. We fast, so that we learn how to not let our carnal body rule our spiritual body, we perform ordinances, not so that we say we are holy or corrupt their meaning for our desires, but so that we can learn how to become holy. We perform polygamy...so that we can care for the widows????? nope....we love those in need, we pay tithes, so that when we find a widow in our midst, amongst our own families....we will choose the higher law, and care for them without any conditions....we will open our own storehouses....did you read the story of Tamar? The law of moses is holy...it came from God...to reveal those mens sins.....so that they could repent. That is the purpose of the law...to reveal sin. you wouldn't know what your sins were without the law (I'm quoting the apostle Paul when I say this)...everything Im saying is coming from the new testament...i just didn't list all the scriptures.

Btw, are you familiar with Moses being commanded to slaughter a bunch of people before they enter the promised land. You say that because something is in the Old testament that it is acceptable. Which is why you say polygamy is acceptable. But we don't we slaughter people in the church. You err in your understanding George. The scriptures are teaching lessons...not actions to be performed. if you want actions...then you are going to have to murder some people, rape some people, take wives and concubines..etc.....youre missing the message..the moral of the story...the moral of the story is to find out where we sin so that we can repent. The law reveals sin (Paul teaches this). The scriptures are used for both good and evil purposes. By you're same logic....polygamy is practiced, but not the murders???? come on now...give me something that doesnt contradict scripture or itself. Lot's daughters get him drunk and sleep with him.....we don't we teach that in the church? Come on...restoration of all things...means all things right.???? according to you...or does it just mean polygamy. You read the scriptures as outward works...I read them as lessons on Morality. You view the law as righteous because you obeyed. I view the law as righteous because it reveals to me how I sin, so that I can repent, and forsake my sins.

[TrueIntent]

Trueintent,

You don't understand George.... :ymblushing: ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .....there is a spiritual tithe, a spiritual fast, a spiritual ordinance, i.e.baptism of fire. The pharisee were baptized, but christ said their baptism wasn't acceptable. WHY???

You are right. I don't understand. I will take it a step further. This looks like the gospel of TrueIntent! and It is completely incoherent! I agree that there are both physical ordinances, and spiritual components of those ordinances. I agree that Physical ordinances, without the spiritual component is hollow!, but

ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .

is just BS.

OK I will confess. I pay a full tithe What sin of mine does that reveal???

Regards,

George Clay

Actually...its the gospel preached by Paul and Jesus. Ever heard of them?

Here are some Scriptures George...

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. ...guess who says this...it's not Jesus.

But he does say this...

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

[TrueIntent]

Trueintent,

You don't understand George.... :ymblushing: ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .....there is a spiritual tithe, a spiritual fast, a spiritual ordinance, i.e.baptism of fire. The pharisee were baptized, but christ said their baptism wasn't acceptable. WHY???

You are right. I don't understand. I will take it a step further. This looks like the gospel of TrueIntent! and It is completely incoherent! I agree that there are both physical ordinances, and spiritual components of those ordinances. I agree that Physical ordinances, without the spiritual component is hollow!, but

ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .

is just BS.

OK I will confess. I pay a full tithe What sin of mine does that reveal???

Regards,

George Clay

Actually...its the gospel preached by Paul and Jesus. Ever heard of them?

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance JST (your traditions), but judge righteous judgment.

HERE IS THE TEACHINGS OF PAUL EXPLAINING WHY WE HAVE THE LAW....I will use his words...this has JST for you.

Galatians 3:19
19 Wherefore then, the law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made in the law given to Moses, who was ordained by the hand of angels to be a mediator of this first covenant, (the law.)
20 Now this mediator was not a mediator of the new covenant; but there is one mediator of the new covenant, who is Christ, as it is written in the law concerning the promises made to Abraham and his seed. Now Christ is the mediator of life; for this is the promise which God made unto Abraham.

[TrueIntent]

Trueintent,

You don't understand George.... :ymblushing: ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .....there is a spiritual tithe, a spiritual fast, a spiritual ordinance, i.e.baptism of fire. The pharisee were baptized, but christ said their baptism wasn't acceptable. WHY???

You are right. I don't understand. I will take it a step further. This looks like the gospel of TrueIntent! and It is completely incoherent! I agree that there are both physical ordinances, and spiritual components of those ordinances. I agree that Physical ordinances, without the spiritual component is hollow!, but

ALL LAWS that require outward works are designed to reveal sins. Tithes, fasting, performance of ordinances, .

is just BS.

OK I will confess. I pay a full tithe What sin of mine does that reveal???

Regards,

George Clay

Actually...its the gospel preached by Paul and Jesus. Ever heard of them?

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance JST (your traditions), but judge righteous judgment.

HERE IS THE TEACHINGS OF PAUL EXPLAINING WHY WE HAVE THE LAW....I will use his words...this has JST for you.

Galatians 3:19
19 Wherefore then, the law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made in the law given to Moses, who was ordained by the hand of angels to be a mediator of this first covenant, (the law.)
20 Now this mediator was not a mediator of the new covenant; but there is one mediator of the new covenant, who is Christ, as it is written in the law concerning the promises made to Abraham and his seed. Now Christ is the mediator of life; for this is the promise which God made unto Abraham.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

The law reveals our sins. this is what paul taught....do you understand. When we practice our best obedience to the law, it will reveal our sins, so that we can repent and practice a higher law (law of Christ...spirit of the law)....We can not know where we sin, without practicing the law first. The more obedient you are to laws (just like abraham sacrificing Issac)...if you do it out of fear of God, and sacrifice of a firstling of your flock which is Love...God will reveal himself to you. Im teaching you the meaning of the ordinances right here if you will see it....its the moral of the story...not the outward act.

[Rensai]

Nowhere in the bible did God command polygamy, just the opposite. In deuteronomy he gives his instructions on this.

Deuteronomy 17:14–20

14 “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 AND HE SHALL NOT ACQUIRE MANY WIVES FOR HIMSELF, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
18 “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 AND IT SHALL BE WITH HIM,, AND HE SHALL READ IN IT ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE, THAT HE MAY LEARN TO FEAR THE LORD HIS GOD BY KEEPING ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW AND THESE STATUES, AND DOING THEM. 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

So clearly, God did not condone David or Solomon in any way. As for Abraham, the bible makes it clear having hagar as a concubine was actually sarah idea, to which abraham agreed. Their behavior on that actually shows a lack of faith in God's promise, they made a mistake and God never acknowledges Ishmael in any way. For example:

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

God only acknowledges Isaac as Abrahams son, never Ishmael in any way.

Similarly, God never commands polygamy in the BoM, just the opposite.

[Arenera]

Nowhere in the bible did God command polygamy, just the opposite. In deuteronomy he gives his instructions on this.

Deuteronomy 17:14–20

14 “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 AND HE SHALL NOT ACQUIRE MANY WIVES FOR HIMSELF, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
18 “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 AND IT SHALL BE WITH HIM,, AND HE SHALL READ IN IT ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE, THAT HE MAY LEARN TO FEAR THE LORD HIS GOD BY KEEPING ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW AND THESE STATUES, AND DOING THEM. 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

So clearly, God did not condone David or Solomon in any way. As for Abraham, the bible makes it clear having hagar as a concubine was actually sarah idea, to which abraham agreed. Their behavior on that actually shows a lack of faith in God's promise, they made a mistake and God never acknowledges Ishmael in any way. For example:

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

God only acknowledges Isaac as Abrahams son, never Ishmael in any way.

Similarly, God never commands polygamy in the BoM, just the opposite.

Why did you skip Jacob? Little tougher.

And why do you blame a woman with Abraham? Abraham was much stronger than you think. God did condone polygamy, stop skipping scriptures that do tell, like D&C 132.

[TrueIntent]

Nowhere in the bible did God command polygamy, just the opposite. In deuteronomy he gives his instructions on this.

Deuteronomy 17:14–20

14 “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 AND HE SHALL NOT ACQUIRE MANY WIVES FOR HIMSELF, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
18 “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 AND IT SHALL BE WITH HIM,, AND HE SHALL READ IN IT ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE, THAT HE MAY LEARN TO FEAR THE LORD HIS GOD BY KEEPING ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW AND THESE STATUES, AND DOING THEM. 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

So clearly, God did not condone David or Solomon in any way. As for Abraham, the bible makes it clear having hagar as a concubine was actually sarah idea, to which abraham agreed. Their behavior on that actually shows a lack of faith in God's promise, they made a mistake and God never acknowledges Ishmael in any way. For example:

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

God only acknowledges Isaac as Abrahams son, never Ishmael in any way.

Similarly, God never commands polygamy in the BoM, just the opposite.

I'm agreeing with you....it is important to note for some of the people on this forum....that The old testament is highly symbolic....notice that solomon takes 300 wives and 700 Concubines....this adds up to a perfect 1000...we should be careful about what we interpret to be literal or symbolic...it will trap us in our sins (which may be a good thing, because it will compel us to repent). You are dead on in your interpretations.