h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What makes you say Abraham is now at the right hand of God?

Anyway, why would he be prevented from doing so by having committed a sin? Don't all men commit sins? Didn't Abraham die as a sinner, just like every other man who has ever existed apart from Jesus?

The Book of Mormon can say what it likes, frankly. It was translated by one man from an unknown language on a set of gold plates, which mysteriously vanished afterwards, using a pair of magic glasses. I have found nothing in it that gives testimony to it's being from God. That fact that even in this matter, it is contradicting scriptures that state 'Every man should have his own wife and every woman should have her own husband', gives evidence against it.

And in Genesis 16:8, God shows that he views Hagar as 'Sarahs slave girl'. In Genesis 21:12, he refers to Hagar as "your slave girl" (speaking to Abraham). God never referred to Hagar as Abraham's wife - always as his slave girl. It is reasonable to believe that that is how God viewed her.

Insight, you're argument is pretty shaky and is based on what you think, and not what is written anywhere. Plus, you are using arguments that are about the same as "the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence". If you don't have any stronger evidence proving that God never allows polygamy, then you have a weak position.

Besides, this is a Mormon discussion forum. Of course the Mormons here will refer to their scriptures because they are MORMONS. They believe them! Whether or not these books are really true is another question. But you can't exclude the use of Mormon scripture to support Mormon beliefs without encountering the real question of: Are they true? And that is a question that you might not be willing to find an answer to. You might be willing to read parts or even all of the Book of Mormon, for instance, but if you already have decided they are not true or are not willing to act on an answer from God that they are true, then you will most likely not get an answer. That is what this faith is about - personal answers motivating members to act on that knowledge.

But you probably think I'm just harping on, don't you? My intention is not to offend you, but to boldy state my views.

God called Hagar a slave-girl, not a wife. If you're unwilling to accept that as evidence that he viewed her as a slave-girl, not a wife, then it's not worth saying any more.

Bible scriptures are against polygamy, as I quoted. If scriptures in the Book of Mormon are in favour of polygamy, it contradicts the Bible. If it then simultaneously claims to be complementary to the Bible, it is wrong.

Suppose I were to say, "Bob likes football, and he's stupid. Joe hates football, and he's clever. Fred loves football, and he's an idiot. Sam can't stand football, and he's great. ..." And suppose I went on following the same pattern for half an hour. I haven't said anything about football. But what would you say is my opinion of it? Would you get the impression that I thought football was a good thing?
God has written a book. He has said, "Abraham had two wives, and they got jealous about each other and fought with each other. Jacob had four wifes, and there was lot's of jealousy and rivalry among them. Solomon took hundreds of wives, and they turned him away from serving me. Elkanah had two wives, and the fertile one would make fun of the barren one." He has told of many bad experiences, and never a good result. Finally in the new testament, he has said, "Elders in the congregation must have one wife ... Each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband." Is it not enough for you to figure out God's viewpoint?

You say that God doesn't tolerate things, but have you not read the account in Mark 10:2-12?
"2 Pharisees now approached and, to put him to the test, began questioning him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 In answer he said to them: “What did Moses command YOU?” 4 They said: “Moses allowed the writing of a certificate of dismissal and divorcing [her].” 5 But Jesus said to them: “Out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness he wrote YOU this commandment. 6 However, from [the] beginning of creation ‘He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.” 10 When again in the house the disciples began to question him concerning this. 11 And he said to them: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.”"
God's principles don't change. If it was adultery to divorce and remarry then, then it was always adultery to divorce and remarry. Yet it was tolerated until the time that Jesus came to make the truth of God's views more clear - the same time that it was stated that those in charge of a congregation must have one wife, and that a woman should have her own husband.

Consider the book of Mormon. When the old testament was written, it was prophesied that there would be something else, that a messiah would come. So when the new testament came, it was logical to attach it to the old testament, that had prophesied about the things that happened in it. Yet neither the old nor the new testament spoke of anything else to come after them. And why should they? Nothing else is needed. Anyone who read the old prophets must have thought, 'Who is this Messiah? What will he do? What will happen to our nation in the future?' The new testament left no such questions. Using the whole Bible, it could be seen where we came from, why the world is like it is, what the future holds and what God is going to do. There was no reason to believe that a new book would be necessary. And there still isn't.

What is your view on the law in the old testament that adulterers are to be stoned.

Presumably as the Bible says it you too believe that adulterers should be stoned? No - of course not, because the old Mosaic law is superseded by the Gospel Law thanks to the atonement.


That things are tolerated by men does not make them right. Abortion is tolerated in Western Society but is an abomination before God. Heavenly Father simply DOES NOT tolerate any sin. You cannot have sin and live in His presence. Repentance (Recognition of sin, Sorrow for sin, forsaking sin and making good any damage caused) is possible through the atonement - It also requires that we keep the commandments henceforth. Jesus took on Him our sins to make this possible.

The Old testament DOES talk about other books and testaments. Joseph Smith is prophesied in the Old Testament and there are many reference in the Bible to other books of scripture than we simply do not have! The Bible proves itself that it is incomplete by making reference to scriptures that are apparently non-existent!

The Book of Mormon compliments and clarifies Doctine by giving it another fixed point of reference - much meaning in the Bible being altered by the translations and omissions over the centuries.

It is simply ANOTHER Testament of Jesus Christ. It is very odd at other Christians do not welcome with open arms corroborative evidence that Jesus is the Saviour.

Insight has stated repeatedly that the Bible is against polygamy. But none of your examples show that God is against polygamy, but that it is a difficult commandment for people to follow righteously:

"Abraham had two wives, and they got jealous about each other and fought with each other. Jacob had four wifes, and there was lot's of jealousy and rivalry among them. Solomon took hundreds of wives, and they turned him away from serving me. Elkanah had two wives, and the fertile one would make fun of the barren one."

If you want an example of polygamy, look at David. He had at least three wives before he was crowned king and he never lost the anointing given him by Samuel. The Lord removed his favor from Saul when he sinned against God, so why not David? Because he was acting within God's law. The Lord doesn't condemn him until he acts in lust, not in righteousness. 2 Samuel 12:7-12

Solomon is condemned for the same reason. He took wives and concubines(which God never allows) for his own purposes and not for God's. He turned from serving God when he took pagan wives, not as a result of his wives' actions.

As your examples show, polypamy is a very difficult commandment to follow in righteousness. Therefore, God only requires it in specific circumstances. President Woodruff did not rescind this commandment of himself, "But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do."

snazoo

I was a little confused that Abraham couldn't sit at the right hand of God unless he hadn't sinnned. Christian and Mormon theology allows that only Christ is sinless. What about atonement and forgiveness.

I am not sure that polygamy was allowed then or not. but Christianity has not allowed it.

We have moved on with God since Abrahams time.

Especially Mormons who should accept that, else why have a prophet?

Interesting point that was made earlier. Yes Moemons do accept both the Bible and the book of Mormon are the words of God. But their acceptance of the bible is only "as far as it is translated correctly" (articles of faith) no such limitaton is on the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon states that polygamy is a sin.

The only reference to polygamy in the Book of Mormon is Jacob 2:24, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

This is referring to the same thing I mentioned in my previous posting. Polygamy should only occur when God commands it. When a man takes it upon himself to act out of lust or political reasons, he sins.

snazoo

You'll find it hard using the Book of Mormon as evidence in a debate against someone who doesn't believe in it.

As a side note, here's a quote from Matthew 24:

"4And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Christ,' and will deceive many."

I think it speaks for itself more than adequately!

I dislike Mormon history that systematically censors out anything problematic, tragic, or reflecting human fallibility (i.e., real humanity) in church members or culture. This kind of history is, to me, dishonest, and the opposite of "faith-promoting." (Authentic faith is never dependent on dishonesty or covering up the balanced truth.) Furthermore, this kind of history is often insipid and sentimental.

But on the other hand, I also dislike Mormon history that systematically censors out anything "positive." Mormon history is filled with wonderful people who have performed authentically Christlike actions. There are many stories of heroism and sacrifice. While some church leaders have been authoritarian and controlling, others have been warm and inclusive. Anyone who continually hammers on only the negative is guilty of censorship and coverup, just as is the person who censors out the negative. Both write unrealistic and unbelievable history. Furthermore, the person who includes only the negative can be guilty of sensationalism and the low moral atmosphere of yellow journalism.

In my view, the most honest Mormon history is a history that attempts to have balance, that is not afraid of negative or positive. When "negative" is found, balanced history will try to understand it, put it into historical and psychological context, instead of oversimplifying and sensationalizing it. On the other hand, positive events should not be turned into hagiography (one should not lose sight of the limited human dimensions of even very good people). Human beings, human social groups, and historical events are, of course, very complex. I remember my first reading of the Tanner's Shadow and Reality -- you come away from it believing that there has been no good Mormon at any time in all of Mormon history. The true story, of course, is that there are good Mormons, bad Mormons, and everything in between. Those who are againt the church, in their thirst for negative judgment, radically oversimplify human history.

It is a natural human tendency to react against extremism by a contrary extremism. In other words, when conservative Mormons produce history without shadows, human faults, or problems, it is easy to respond by producing history intended to refute it that includes only shadows, human faults and problems. But that history is as unbelievable as the history it responds against. Even though some of the details may be true (as in the overidealized positive history), the whole perspective is false. The honest reaction to dishonest extremist history is to write balanced history.

If the those opposed to the church had been committed to providing a balanced perspective in discussing Mormon polygamy, they might have emphasized that polygamy was an accepted part of the culture of the Old Testament, practiced by a great prophet such as Abraham, so is not inherently evil. It is very understandable that a restorationist religion such as Mormonism would feel that it was necessary to "restore" it. Personally, I think that many elements of the Old Testament were not eternal, but related to the Semitic culture of the day, and that polygamy was a very patriarchal custom that does not fit with our present culture, in which women are seen as equal human beings. But if you had the restorationist idea that everything in the Bible needed to be restored (as many Protestants in early America and Protestant Europe did), practicing polygamy is very understandable, and given that limited perspective, even courageous. In addition, some may have known that other Protestant groups (such as the early Anabaptists) believed in polygamy and practiced it, and that Luther sanctioned polygamy, in fact he suggested it to Henry VIII as a reolution to his problem with Catherine of Aragon. A book that gives some of this background is John Cairncross, After Polygamy Was Made a Sin (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974). Luther and polygamy is a fascinating, complicated story that also includes disparities between public pronouncement and private practice, just as we find throughout the history of Mormon polygamy.

On an individual basis, Mormons made many mistakes with polygamy, a social system that I believe does not work for "modern" (nineteenth and twentieth century) women. As I mentioned earlier, I do not think polygamy is an eternal system that needed to be "restored"; it is rather a cultural artifact from Semitic culture, resurrected by restorationist enthusiasm. But it is inconsistent for Protestants to accuse Mormons of gross sin in practicing polygamy when they accept the Old Testament, with its righteous polygamous prophets, and have polygamous Protestants in their background, motivated by the same restorationist enthusiam. Even Abraham, though a righteous prophet, had human failings, and did one of his plural wives a serious injustice by casting her out of his household when pressured by his first wife.

Some might ask me, what about many statements by General Authorities saying that polygamy was an eternal principle? I believe in Joseph Smith's adage that "a prophet is not always a prophet"; he, and other Mormon leaders, may have had moments of inspiration, and other moments in which they were expressing their own limited, fallible views. I am a practicing Mormon, of a liberal, Lowell Bennion sort, but I reject absolutist, oversimplified views of religion -- the idea that religious leaders, Biblical or modern, Mormon or Protestant, can be perfect or infallible. I think a non-absolutist view of religion, that allows for cultural and human complexity, is the only religious viewpoint that works, for the thoughtful believer.

Interesting view about whethervpolygomy is an eternal principles or was adopted as a culture because of the restorationism of it.

I understood two things, that it WAS a specific commandment, in that God commanded it to happen. That is aquite categoric in statements by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

In making such declarations they made it clear that they were speaking as Prophets and not of men.

Secondly, to apply logic to it as an eternal principle, we are told that we can only enter into the highest degree of glory through the being sealed in the marriage covenant.

Here it is a simple math problem - there are now, and will be, more women than men accepting the Gospel and qualifying for that Glory with the intents of their hearts being opure and righteous. To deny the excess women that Glory because there are not enough men to go roun simply ain't fair - but God is a just God. He has therefore provided for this through polygamy.

Also, while it may have been against the usual culture of the late 19th Century in the US, it was actually polygomous women who lobbied the Government and wrote to the president in an attempt to have it allowable in law - because they actually lived it and recognised some advantages in it.

Your 'simple math' makes no sense to me whatsoever. Overly simplistic and sounds like a forced excuse which does not really apply to the situation. What about all the women now who are members of the church who are not married in the temple? Will God reject them? Of course not. We are taught that provision will be made in the hereafter.
I suggest that you read In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton. Very good book on Mormon Polygamy. Todd Compton is a member of the church and is a contributer of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Dudeyone,

Simple Math is simple Math.

There will be more women that men who qulify for the Celestial Kingdom. To attaine salvation they will need to be married in the covenant.

By the way you attitude to brother Deuce is quite without chrity or Christlike Love.

I would suggest you put the gosple into your heart rather than just rationalise it in your head.

Yes you made the point about 'brother Deuce' in another post. I chose to ignore it!

I also really disagree with you over the polygamy thing and I refer you to my earlier posts.

Besides, where do you get this utter nonsense about more women going to the Celestial Kingdom? Who said that?
Mormons do not believe in pre-destination, we believe that individuals make individual choices. The born again concept of 'being saved' is not prevelant in Mormon theology for this reason. You cannot make a declaration that you are saved because that is based upon obedience to the principles of the gospel.

With that in mind, you are in no position to state that more women will reach the Celestial Kingdom. You are not God! What do you know? That is merely your opinion.

Mr Dudyone,

reda my post. I dis not say that "women go to the Celestial kingdom" I said MORE of them than men would. And I do not believe in predestination.

Simple fact : there are many times more women than men in the Church. To get to the CK you need the ordinances, live righteously and endure to the end.

Yes, work for the dead will redress some of the imbalance, but simply more women than men will qualify for eternal life. They are gentler, less warelike, more spiritual, generally than men. They are more Christlike. More will get to the CK than men.

Are you seriously a member of the Church? Do you attend your meetings? Do you read the scriptures?

Do you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet?

Do you accept the Doctrine & Covenants as scriptural cannon?

Then Read D&C 132 28:40.

Joseph Smith certainly claims to have written that as a prophet, and not as his "interpretation of what he felt he ought to do". It IS part of the scriptures we use. Plain as day.

It is a very precarious balancing act to have one foot in the Kingdom of God and the other in the world.

Why do you question whether I am a member of the church? Because I'm questioning you? I have never heard as much claptrap as I am hearing from you.

Yes I am a member of the church. Ward Clerk, renewed my temple recommend only tonight in fact.

Yes I do acknowledge Joseph Smith as a prophet. I don't know how the reference supplied supports the idea that 'more women' will go to the Celestial Kingdom!

Less warlike? Are you serious? You have never met my wife. Women on the whole can be far more ferocious and scary than any man.

I suggest you open your eyes and look at the world as it really is.

I am questioning it beacuse you put yourself forth as arrogant, rude and if you have Christlike qualities you hide them very well.

You simply do not show forth qualities that I witness in faithful church members, quite the opposite in fact.

As Saints we are supposed to be a light to the world - a good example of kindness, tolerance and love. We can teach with boldness, without overbearance, and certainly not how you express yourself to people.

As you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet I presume therefore that you accept his teachings. However earlier you have flatly said you disagree with them. How did you square your beliefs about that when you answered the questions in your temple recommend interview......?

Either you accept that Joseph Smith taught polygamy as a revealed Church Doctrine or you do not. If you do not then answering that TR questioon must have bee pretty tricky.


There appears to be something amiss with your ability to add up. In the UK there are at least twice the number of women in the Church, probably closer to 4 or 5 times as many. Where do they each get a husband?

Presumably you respond that they are waiting beyiond the veil.... well what about the 4-5 times as many women who are also waiting beyond the veil?

Two questions Researcher 1. Do you think that all Mormons are perfectly Christlike? You have accused me of arrogance several times but I have said what I have said and hide nothing and have been perfectly honest. I say things to you and not to others behind your back. Which is more arrogant? I say, 'hooray for arrogance'.

Are you suggesting also that you understand my nature from these boards? I may even be someone that you know, you know!

As for polygamy, to be serious for a moment, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. There are some very disturbing episodes from early church history. However this does not affect my testimony one bit.

I am aware of Joseph's calling as a prophet of God and if he recieved the revelation, then so be it.

But I can also accept that a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet and that not all policies and decisions made by the church and it's leaders are inspired. Some decisions are based upon social, political, domestic and even personal reasons.

I am prepared to accept the idea that Joseph Smith restored the concept of polygamy because HE thought it was appropriate as the church was a restorationist movement.

Either way, I have no doubts that Joseph was called of God, we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost in order to discern between truth and error.

i haven't actually made up my mind which view I shall take. But do I need to? Plural Marriage is no longer an issue. It is a concept that is as alien to me as any non member. It was abolished more than a century ago, practiced for a relatively short period of time by just a few. Yet it has become the defining feature for those who are not of our faith.

So I am happy to leave it hanging in the air. happy to swing to the revelation thing or the social thing. I'm fine with it.

I certainly think that it is healthy to talk about it and explore it, but not to get too hung up about it. We don't need to convince anybody that it was 'right'. It was just there, and now it isn't.

It is inescapable. part of our history. part of what defines us.

Am I making myself clear?

In a previous life I was Hippydudeyone!)

Dudeyone,

No I do not always see Christlike behaviour from members. We are far from perfect and the church is after all for sinners to help them (us) repent, change our lives, and become more Christlike - put off the natural man.

We should have humility and meekness - not the same as weakness - far from it. But is means we recognise our weaknesses that God can help us overcome them.

Blowing one' own trumpet about how good one is (or how good a missionary we were) is not really giving Glory to God.


I agree with you (Hurray, cheers....!) about a prophet not alway speaking with his "prophet hat" on, but in the case of Polygamy, Jospeh Smith, then Brigham Young, and then John Tayor all stated explicitly that it commanded of them by God.

Brigham Young's initial reaction was something along the lines of he would rather die... He seems to have gotten used to the idea in the end.

In a previous life I was Rocker riding around on Large Kawasakis...amazing how the Spirit can change you.

You do know me Researcher! On Sunday I shall give you a knowing wink OK?

By the way, you adore me!

Yes I actually agree with much of what you say! (another hurray/?)