Carbon Dioxide's Anti-Mormon Training Thread

[One Bad Pig]

Given the foregoing, if polygamy was prohibited in the NT Churches, stated opposition to the practice should be in the New Testament record.

Not necessarily. The NT record is incomplete by its own admission (e.g., John 21:25); The epistles in particular were written to address problems in the church, not to be comprehensive theological works.

[tabibito]

As I recall most marriages are marked by strife, one way or another. Take Mrs. Nabal for instance (1 Samuel 25).
Instruction in the First Century churches, that an elder should be the husband of but one wife would tend to suggest that polygamy wasn't unknown in some sectors, and that it was accepted for ordinary church members.
Additionally

http://christianthinktank.com/polygame.html
Polygamy was practiced somewhat in 1st century Palestinian Judaism
"There is evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai but not by that of Hillel.

Given the foregoing, if polygamy was prohibited in the NT Churches, stated opposition to the practice should be in the New Testament record.

[Cow Poke]

Fair enough - but I had interpreted the statement to mean that Abraham had more than one wife at the same time. Which is not to say that I knew he had taken another wife ... and .... concubineS - that was a surprise.

I think what separates Smith from the examples in the Bible is that Smith married women who were ALREADY MARRIED to other men, often his own loyal supporters. Polyandry, not polygamy.

Source: FairMormon.org

Among Joseph's plural marriages and/or sealings, between eight to eleven of them were to women who were already married. Of the eight well-documented cases, five of the husbands were Latter-day Saints, and the other three were either not active in or not associated with the Church. In all cases, these women continued to live with their husbands, most of them doing so until their husbands died. These eternal marriages appear to have had little effect upon the lives of the women involved, with the exception that they would be sealed to Joseph in the afterlife rather than to their earthly husbands.

© Copyright Original Source

Note that even this MORMON source has a hard time digesting this...

Source: Cont'd

Of all the aspects of Joseph Smith's marital theology, this is the most difficult area to understand, because very little primary evidence exists.

© Copyright Original Source

EVEN IF Biblical justification for polygamy was presented, one would have to advance to the case for polyandry. And note that FairMormon calls it Smith's "marital theology".

I can't make this stuff up!

[One Bad Pig]

In the face of records concerning people who had more than one wife concurrently without any trace of censure, I consider the interpretation unconvincing.

I do not recall a single instance of a positive portrayal of polygamy - every instance depicts strife. It also seems to me that by the time of Christ Judaism was quite firmly monogamous, as was early Christianity.

[tabibito]

Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died.

Fair enough - but I had interpreted the statement to mean that Abraham had more than one wife at the same time. Which is not to say that I knew he had taken another wife ... and .... concubineS - that was a surprise.

Actually, it doesn't. Levirate marriage applied to brothers living under the same roof, i.o.w. unmarried.

First time I've encountered that argument - I'll have to investigate.

Gen. 2:24 is probably a more appropriate defense of monogamy.

In the face of records concerning people who had more than one wife concurrently without any trace of censure, I consider the interpretation unconvincing.

[Cow Poke]

Wrong. Anybody who reads the context of that passage can see that it is an abomination when men multiply wives unto themselves without the command of God.

Therefore, Smith committed an abomination, as he did it without the command of God.

[One Bad Pig]

Abraham had more than one wife? I thought his wife was Sarah, and that he had a concubine as well. (O.K. - there's no real distinction, but ...)

Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died.

Levirate marriage does make monogamy impossible from time to time.

Actually, it doesn't. Levirate marriage applied to brothers living under the same roof, i.o.w. unmarried.

"shall not multiply wives" doesn't prohibit polygamy - "not multiply" doesn't mean only one. A matter that would have been established most readily by saying "take not more than one" where "not mulitply" might lead to ambiguity. Wives weren't the only condition subject to the "not multiply" restriction: acquisition of horses was also covered. Again, you shall not have more than one horse simply isn't a reasonable understanding.
In this point of difference between Mormon and standard church theologies, Mormon teaching was more closely in accord with the Bible.

Gen. 2:24 is probably a more appropriate defense of monogamy.

[Cow Poke]

Joseph's life was very difficult. Any objective observer could see that. He did not benefit in this life, but maybe he benefits for being faithful in this life, and thus is rewarded in the next.

Life GENERALLY was very difficult in his day. He ADDED to that by some really DUMB decisions he made, like bilking people out of money, his banking scandal, owning a hotel in which he ran a bar.. he was always coming up with schemes that made (or ATTEMPTED to make) money, BESIDES "marrying" the wives of some of his faithful followers WHILE THEY WERE STILL MARRIED.

[Cow Poke]

7up: Joseph Smith did not "benefit" from "a new rule" that he "made up".

PLEASE LEARN HOW TO PROPERLY USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION!!!!

[One Bad Pig]

You all approach Joseph Smith with the decision already made in your mind that he was a false prophet. With that perspective, you will interpret everything you see about him in that light.

No, I don't. I judge by the evidence proffered.

The point is that God commanded for and against something; even when that thing is not good or bad in and of itself.

The point is immaterial, for the reasons I stated above.

[tabibito]

Abraham had more than one wife? I thought his wife was Sarah, and that he had a concubine as well. (O.K. - there's no real distinction, but ...)
Levirate marriage does make monogamy impossible from time to time.
"shall not multiply wives" doesn't prohibit polygamy - "not multiply" doesn't mean only one. A matter that would have been established most readily by saying "take not more than one" where "not mulitply" might lead to ambiguity. Wives weren't the only condition subject to the "not multiply" restriction: acquisition of horses was also covered. Again, you shall not have more than one horse simply isn't a reasonable understanding.
In this point of difference between Mormon and standard church theologies, Mormon teaching was more closely in accord with the Bible.

[seven7up]

7up: Critics could always argue that Paul was the one teaching what was "worthy" and what was "unworthy" , thus Paul wanted to exercise power of religion over others. Of course, those critics tend to think that all religions are meant to exercise power over others, and they argue from that assumption.

We're not arguing from that assumption. How about addressing the argument actually made, not the one that's easier for you to dismiss?

It appears that you missed my point.

You all approach Joseph Smith with the decision already made in your mind that he was a false prophet. With that perspective, you will interpret everything you see about him in that light.

I was comparing that to how non-religious people approach the Bible. Their mind is not open to it and view it as a collection of old myths, so they will view those things in a critical and negative light.

Pork, shellfish, and certain other flesh was declared to be unclean under the Mosaic Covenant as a way of marking the Israelites as set apart;...

Some LDS view our dietary laws in the same way.

The New Covenant established by Jesus' blood has different, non-ethnic markers, since it is intended for all people. This is rather different than something being reversed under the same covenant by the same "prophet."

The point is that God commanded for and against something; even when that thing is not good or bad in and of itself.

-7up

[seven7up]

7up: Joseph Smith did not "benefit" from "a new rule" that he "made up".

Yeah, he did.

Joseph's life was very difficult. Any objective observer could see that. He did not benefit in this life, but maybe he benefits for being faithful in this life, and thus is rewarded in the next.

That's a crock -- he was always looking out for himself.

I can provide plenty of evidence that this accusation is false. Anybody who knew him personally testified contrary to your accusations.

So, let's review this....

Yes. Lets.

God tells Smith to write the BoM, INCLUDING the part where polygamy is an abomination.

Wrong. Anybody who reads the context of that passage can see that it is an abomination when men multiply wives unto themselves without the command of God. You, like most other LDS critics on this matter, purposefully ignore a key verse in that passage:

30 For IF I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:30)

Feel free to ask if you cannot comprehend what that verse means, however, I think you do. Just to be sure, I will provide you with Orson Pratt's explanation of that verse:

The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be Divine) which condemns plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. But even that sacred book makes an exception in substance as follows—"Except I the Lord command my people." The same Book of Mormon and the same article that commanded the Nephites that they should not marry more than one wife, made an exception. Let this be understood—"Unless I the Lord shall command them." We can draw the conclusion from this, that there were some things not right in the sight of God, unless he should command them. We can draw the same conclusion from the Bible, that there were many things which the Lord would not suffer his children to do, unless he particularly commanded them to do them.

God commands Smith to serially violate this prohibition.

See above.

God commands Smith to threaten his otherwise faithful wife with DESTRUCTION if she doesn't comply.

See above.

God then changes His mind, and polygamy is an abomination again.

See above.

You SERIOUSLY believe that?

It is consistent with the Bible as well. If two brothers were both married and one had children with is wife and the other didn't and then the childless husband died, the Law of Moses required the first husband who remained alive to marry the widow so that she could have children.

The first instance of plural wives in the Bible was with Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Then, of course, there was Solomon.

So, David was allowed more than one wife and appeared to remain under the approval of the prophet Nathan. It was only in the case of Bathsheba where David made a series of very bad choices. The other polygamous Biblical leaders, kings and prophets erred when marrying wives who worshiped false gods or wives who then led them to make poor choices. The practice of polygamy in and of itself is not condemned in the Bible.

-7up

[One Bad Pig]

Abritrary? What about pork and shellfish? Were these not forbidden in the OT but not in the NT? Is this the arbitrary God you are talking about? One who arbitrarily decides that pork is bad and then changes his mind?

Marvin

Pork, shellfish, and certain other flesh was declared to be unclean under the Mosaic Covenant as a way of marking the Israelites as set apart; the flesh was to be an abomination to the Israelites, but not to God (unless I'm missing something). The New Covenant established by Jesus' blood has different, non-ethnic markers, since it is intended for all people. This is rather different than something being reversed under the same covenant by the same "prophet."

[Cow Poke]

Abritrary? What about pork and shellfish? Were these not forbidden in the OT but not in the NT? Is this the arbitrary God you are talking about? One who arbitrarily decides that pork is bad and then changes his mind?

Marvin

Let's see --- Smith wrote a book that makes polygamy an abomination, then turns it into a COMMANDMENT when it benefits himself, even to the point of coming up with a "revelation" that said that God would DESTROY his wife if she didn't go along with it, then your church subsequently outlaws polygamy again.

OH, and the fact that Smith and your Church flat out LIED about polygamy, even though it was, supposedly, a "commandment"....

Now, can you show where, in the NT we are COMMANDED to eat pork and shellfish?