MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

[oneClimbs]

You are giving one possible reason for Ether 10:5. Here's another: it wasn't commanded by the Lord. Does that not work?
Where is the consistency, and more importantly, what is it consistent about?

Speaking of consistency, where do we find a single case in scripture where God actually commands men to take more than one wife? Many like to rest "only if God commands" argument which is taken from a bad reading of Jacob 2:30. If it is such a useful thing to have many wives for the sake of population growth then why do we not see a single example of it ever? Not even in the restoration, that polygamy was an Abrahamic test so it doesn't count.

[oneClimbs]

Modern revelation can and does contradict past scripture. Not sure contradict is the best word though. We are about to see changes in the church that just might show this. Policy is often considered doctrine because its traditional. Many old traditional policies have been done away with.

Modern revelation always trumps any previous statements on the matter. Living church...and all living things progress until they reach perfection.

I respect anyone who has studied and sought answers and understanding as much as you have.

If you'll look in the Book of Mormon, you'll find several cases where the servant of the Lord goes to the scriptures to prove that what they are teaching is consistent with what has been revealed. God is not inconsistent. I agree that policy isn't doctrine and I imagine that many of the changes we will see soon will be policy based. Modern revelation is important of course, but it will not contradict prior revelation, that is an important principle to understand and a key to not being deceived. Doctrine is eternal and does not change (Bednar).

[mgridle1]

Modern revelation can and does contradict past scripture. Not sure contradict is the best word though. We are about to see changes in the church that just might show this. Policy is often considered doctrine because its traditional. Many old traditional policies have been done away with.

Modern revelation always trumps any previous statements on the matter. Living church...and all living things progress until they reach perfection.

I respect anyone who has studied and sought answers and understanding as much as you have.

If you'll look in the Book of Mormon, you'll find several cases where the servant of the Lord goes to the scriptures to prove that what they are teaching is consistent with what has been revealed

Bingo.

[MMbelieve]

Modern revelation can and does contradict past scripture. Not sure contradict is the best word though. We are about to see changes in the church that just might show this. Policy is often considered doctrine because its traditional. Many old traditional policies have been done away with.

Modern revelation always trumps any previous statements on the matter. Living church...and all living things progress until they reach perfection.

I respect anyone who has studied and sought answers and understanding as much as you have.

If you'll look in the Book of Mormon, you'll find several cases where the servant of the Lord goes to the scriptures to prove that what they are teaching is consistent with what has been revealed. God is not inconsistent. I agree that policy isn't doctrine and I imagine that many of the changes we will see soon will be policy based. Modern revelation is important of course, but it will not contradict prior revelation, that is an important principle to understand and a key to not being deceived. Doctrine is eternal and does not change (Bednar).

Right, I don't expect any doctrine changes.
The law of Moses used to be...now it's not. We evolved from that to a higher law. We will again evolve to more higher laws.

Used to be eye for an eye and animal sacrifice etc.
Eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek. These are quite different laws to live under. These are the types of things I was speaking of.
And yes, when these changes happen we are assisted in understanding how the new is replacing the old.

[Finrock]

Modern revelation can and does contradict past scripture. Not sure contradict is the best word though. We are about to see changes in the church that just might show this. Policy is often considered doctrine because its traditional. Many old traditional policies have been done away with.

Modern revelation always trumps any previous statements on the matter. Living church...and all living things progress until they reach perfection.

I respect anyone who has studied and sought answers and understanding as much as you have.

If you'll look in the Book of Mormon, you'll find several cases where the servant of the Lord goes to the scriptures to prove that what they are teaching is consistent with what has been revealed. God is not inconsistent. I agree that policy isn't doctrine and I imagine that many of the changes we will see soon will be policy based. Modern revelation is important of course, but it will not contradict prior revelation, that is an important principle to understand and a key to not being deceived. Doctrine is eternal and does not change (Bednar).

Right, I don't expect any doctrine changes.
The law of Moses used to be...now it's not. We evolved from that to a higher law. We will again evolve to more higher laws.

Used to be eye for an eye and animal sacrifice etc.
Eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek. These are quite different laws to live under. These are the types of things I was speaking of.
And yes, when these changes happen we are assisted in understanding how the new is replacing the old.

The Law of Moses is still alive and well. We don't observe many of the additions and traditions that the Israelites observed (we've replaced them with other ordinances and rituals), however, the Law of Moses is just the preparatory gospel which falls under the Aaronic Priesthood. All of the Aaronic Priesthood ordinances and rituals are fall under the category of the law of Moses. The "standard Mormon program" which includes things like going to Church on Sunday, having family home evenings on Mondays, HT/VT (ministering today), Word of Wisdom, Church callings, passing the sacrament, what attire to wear to pass, what attire to wear at Church, mutual, etc. These are all equivalent to the 613 commandments, most of which were added by tradition, and have been defined as the law of Moses by the Jews.

Everything that we have in the preparatory gospel is there to help us to obtain the Holy Spirit, which is a simple way of saying that you know God, you love Him, and are willing to now listen to His voice, because you recognize it. It also means that you are living the highest law, which is loving God and loving others as you love yourself.

The iron rod is the Word of God, which is the Holy Spirit. Everything in the Church is there to help us to learn to obtain, maintain, and then live by the Holy Spirit. We are to be lead by the Spirit, which is God's voice. We are to listen to the Spirit, which is God's voice. We are to do whatever the Spirit tells us to do, which is God's voice. All the rituals, all the policies, all of the commandments, all of the specific rules, guidance, and direction that we have are all intended to be fulfilled and its gets fulfilled when we are baptized by fire, receive the Holy Ghost, and proceed to live our lives under the direction of the Holy Ghost. We move on from preparatory things, to having obtained this promise, the promise of having the Holy Ghost as your constant companion. This can be obtained today, now.

-Finrock

[JohnnyL]

You are giving one possible reason for Ether 10:5. Here's another: it wasn't commanded by the Lord. Does that not work?
Where is the consistency, and more importantly, what is it consistent about?

Speaking of consistency, where do we find a single case in scripture where God actually commands men to take more than one wife? Many like to rest "only if God commands" argument which is taken from a bad reading of Jacob 2:30. If it is such a useful thing to have many wives for the sake of population growth then why do we not see a single example of it ever? Not even in the restoration, that polygamy was an Abrahamic test so it doesn't count.

"A bad reading?" That verse is very clear.

So, I'm assuming your answers are yes, it does work; and no, there is no consistency.

As to why--you'd have to ask God.

Can you share some apostle's statement that "Not even in the restoration, that polygamy was an Abrahamic test so it doesn't count."?

[JohnnyL]

Modern revelation can and does contradict past scripture. Not sure contradict is the best word though. We are about to see changes in the church that just might show this. Policy is often considered doctrine because its traditional. Many old traditional policies have been done away with.

Modern revelation always trumps any previous statements on the matter. Living church...and all living things progress until they reach perfection.

I respect anyone who has studied and sought answers and understanding as much as you have.

If you'll look in the Book of Mormon, you'll find several cases where the servant of the Lord goes to the scriptures to prove that what they are teaching is consistent with what has been revealed. God is not inconsistent. I agree that policy isn't doctrine and I imagine that many of the changes we will see soon will be policy based. Modern revelation is important of course, but it will not contradict prior revelation, that is an important principle to understand and a key to not being deceived. Doctrine is eternal and does not change (Bednar).

And you'll see a prime case of new doctrine that seemed to be shut out by then current revealed truth (the spirit world).

[oneClimbs]

"A bad reading?" That verse is very clear.

Really? Take a look at my recent comments on this thread where I break it down.

https://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 15#p885915

[Finrock]

Modern revelation can and does contradict past scripture. Not sure contradict is the best word though. We are about to see changes in the church that just might show this. Policy is often considered doctrine because its traditional. Many old traditional policies have been done away with.

Modern revelation always trumps any previous statements on the matter. Living church...and all living things progress until they reach perfection.

I respect anyone who has studied and sought answers and understanding as much as you have.

If you'll look in the Book of Mormon, you'll find several cases where the servant of the Lord goes to the scriptures to prove that what they are teaching is consistent with what has been revealed. God is not inconsistent. I agree that policy isn't doctrine and I imagine that many of the changes we will see soon will be policy based. Modern revelation is important of course, but it will not contradict prior revelation, that is an important principle to understand and a key to not being deceived. Doctrine is eternal and does not change (Bednar).

Right, I don't expect any doctrine changes.
The law of Moses used to be...now it's not. We evolved from that to a higher law. We will again evolve to more higher laws.

Used to be eye for an eye and animal sacrifice etc.
Eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek. These are quite different laws to live under. These are the types of things I was speaking of.
And yes, when these changes happen we are assisted in understanding how the new is replacing the old.

The Law of Moses is still alive and well. We don't observe many of the additions and traditions that the Israelites observed (we've replaced them with other ordinances and rituals), however, the Law of Moses is just the preparatory gospel which falls under the Aaronic Priesthood. All of the Aaronic Priesthood ordinances and rituals are fall under the category of the law of Moses. The "standard Mormon program" which includes things like going to Church on Sunday, having family home evenings on Mondays, HT/VT (ministering today), Word of Wisdom, Church callings, passing the sacrament, what attire to wear to pass, what attire to wear at Church, mutual, etc. These are all equivalent to the 613 commandments, most of which were added by tradition, and have been defined as the law of Moses by the Jews.

Everything that we have in the preparatory gospel is there to help us to obtain the Holy Spirit, which is a simple way of saying that you know God, you love Him, and are willing to now listen to His voice, because you recognize it. It also means that you are living the highest law, which is loving God and loving others as you love yourself.

The iron rod is the Word of God, which is the Holy Spirit. Everything in the Church is there to help us to learn to obtain, maintain, and then live by the Holy Spirit. We are to be lead by the Spirit, which is God's voice. We are to listen to the Spirit, which is God's voice. We are to do whatever the Spirit tells us to do, which is God's voice. All the rituals, all the policies, all of the commandments, all of the specific rules, guidance, and direction that we have are all intended to be fulfilled and its gets fulfilled when we are baptized by fire, receive the Holy Ghost, and proceed to live our lives under the direction of the Holy Ghost. We move on from preparatory things, to having obtained this promise, the promise of having the Holy Ghost as your constant companion. This can be obtained today, now.

-Finrock

I want to add that its only after you've move on from preparatory things, to fulfilling the promise of having the Holy Ghost, that it makes sense to start seeking after other promises. In fact, until this basic requirement is met, of being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, it is impossible for a person to receive any other promise.

Being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost fulfills the gospel of Jesus Christ and after that, the rest of the Father's great plan of happiness comes in to play. Once we are on the path, then we press forward, listening to the Holy Spirit, who will lead us to Jesus Christ or to eternal life.

That's how I understand the situation, anyways.

-Finrock

[Sirius]

You are giving one possible reason for Ether 10:5. Here's another: it wasn't commanded by the Lord. Does that not work?
Where is the consistency, and more importantly, what is it consistent about?

Speaking of consistency, where do we find a single case in scripture where God actually commands men to take more than one wife? Many like to rest "only if God commands" argument which is taken from a bad reading of Jacob 2:30. If it is such a useful thing to have many wives for the sake of population growth then why do we not see a single example of it ever? Not even in the restoration, that polygamy was an Abrahamic test so it doesn't count.

Um....God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law..Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob [/b]did none other things than that which they were commanded[/b].

Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord

[francisco.colaco]

Speaking of consistency, where do we find a single case in scripture where God actually commands men to take more than one wife?

Deut. 25:5-10

And polyginy is accomodated in Deut. 21.

Finally, a pronounciation from God's mouth through Nathan to David: 2 Sam. 12:7-8

[oneClimbs]

Speaking of consistency, where do we find a single case in scripture where God actually commands men to take more than one wife?

Deut. 25:5-10

And polyginy is accomodated in Deut. 21.

Finally, a pronounciation from God's mouth through Nathan to David: 2 Sam. 12:7-8

Levirate marriage is not a great example to go to because it isn't a commandment per se. The law speaks of brothers who are living "dwell" together which would indicate that the other brother is probably unmarried because if he was married he would be living on his own. That said, the law would still apply to a married brother but in either case, they have the choice to perform the halitzah and allow the widow to marry whomever she pleases. So the choice comes down to the brother. This isn't a man simply choosing to marry more women as he desires it's a rare circumstance where the needs of a widow and the posterity of the fallen brother are taking into account.

As for David and Nathan, I would refer you back to the Book of Mormon where God says that David's wives were an abomination. I think the Biblical account was whitewashed by David's ancestors after discovering Deuteronomy. There is an account from the Dead Sea Scrolls that says:

The Shoddy-Wall-Builders who went after "Precept" - Precept is a Raver of whom it says, "they shall surely rave" (Mic. 2:6) - they are caught in two: fornication, by taking two wives in their lifetimes, although the principle of creation is "male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27) and those who went into the ark "went into the ark two by two" (Gen. 7:9). Concerning the Leader it is written "he shall not multiply wives to himself" (Deut. 17:17); but David had not read the sealed book of the Law in the Ark; for it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar and Joshua and the elders who served the goddess Ashtoret. It lay buried <and was not> revealed until the appearance of Zadok. Nevertheless the deeds of David were all excellent, except the murder of Uriah and God forgave him for that. https://books.google.com/books?id=218Jb ... &q&f=false

David may not have had access to the Law and know that they should not have many wives. Plus the wives that were given to him by Nathan, was that so he could take them on as multiple wives or as a test for David if indeed he knew the law and would obey it. We don't know what the intentions were but the Book of Mormon is clear that God considered it an abomination. I have to side with the BofM over a single questionable verse in the Bible that offers no additional details.

[oneClimbs]

You are giving one possible reason for Ether 10:5. Here's another: it wasn't commanded by the Lord. Does that not work?
Where is the consistency, and more importantly, what is it consistent about?

Speaking of consistency, where do we find a single case in scripture where God actually commands men to take more than one wife? Many like to rest "only if God commands" argument which is taken from a bad reading of Jacob 2:30. If it is such a useful thing to have many wives for the sake of population growth then why do we not see a single example of it ever? Not even in the restoration, that polygamy was an Abrahamic test so it doesn't count.

Um....God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law..Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob [/b]did none other things than that which they were commanded[/b].

Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord

I find D&C 132 problematic and contradictory to the Book of Mormon and the Bible. We will likely disagree here but we are free to disagree.

[Sirius]

You are giving one possible reason for Ether 10:5. Here's another: it wasn't commanded by the Lord. Does that not work?
Where is the consistency, and more importantly, what is it consistent about?

Speaking of consistency, where do we find a single case in scripture where God actually commands men to take more than one wife? Many like to rest "only if God commands" argument which is taken from a bad reading of Jacob 2:30. If it is such a useful thing to have many wives for the sake of population growth then why do we not see a single example of it ever? Not even in the restoration, that polygamy was an Abrahamic test so it doesn't count.

Um....God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law..Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob [/b]did none other things than that which they were commanded[/b].

Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord

I find D&C 132 problematic and contradictory to the Book of Mormon and the Bible. We will likely disagree here but we are free to disagree.

Oh, so you don't want to be shown one single case that shows plural marriage being commanded, you only want what YOU consider scripture and disregard anything else that doesn't align with your view. Got it

[BKColt]

Hate it when a thread goes down a rabbit hole far from the thread title.

[Col. Flagg]

I find it quite ironic that polygamy is the only subject in the church and in the scriptures where contradictory and conflicting information about it exists. But if we are to hold the B of M as the most correct book on earth, then polygamy is an abomination.

[abijah]

Hate it when a thread goes down a rabbit hole far from the thread title.

Maybe

[setyourselffree]

So any other changes people hearing?

[dewajack]

Along with what Stev is saying, the Lord fulfilled the law of witnesses in scripture where polygamy is concerned. We have Jacob 2-3, there is also King Noah and his priests in Mosiah 11, and of course Riplakish in Ether. With all due respect, I find Stev's scriptural explanation of his viewpoint sound, unemotional, and supported by the word of God.

[setyourselffree]

I find it quite ironic that polygamy is the only subject in the church and in the scriptures where contradictory and conflicting information about it exists. But if we are to hold the B of M as the most correct book on earth, then polygamy is an abomination.

It's interesting you should say that. I was reading in the BOM tonight where Christ is telling Alma the older that if memebers of the Church didn't repent they were going to hell with the devil.

25 And it shall come to pass that when the second trump shall sound then shall they that never knew me come forth and shall stand before me.
26 And then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, that I am their Redeemer; but they would not be redeemed.
27 And then I will confess unto them that I never knew them; and they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

So from this are we to believe that Joseph Smith didn't receive revelation on the 3 degrees of glory? Because clearly Christ is saying here if people don't repent they are going to outer darkness with the devil and not say the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom.

A lot in the BOM contradicts what D&C says.

[cyclOps]

So any other changes people hearing?

It’s not anything I heard, but something I thought of myself... changing the name of the Book of Mormon? I think it doesn’t need changing, however. We do leave off the most important part of the title usually. “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”. It could be a possibility though, depending on how hard Jesus wants to emphasize the correct name of his church and if making such a change would help.

[francisco.colaco]

Moses had two wives. Abraham had four. Moses came to restore keys, so he is sanctioned by the Lord. Abraham is positioned by Christ himself in Paradise.

Deut. 21 accommodates, to say the least, plural wives. Maybe, maybe that passage was not read by those that say that Moses, who incidentally had two wives, forbade plural marriage.

I have no desire to pursuit a polyginous relation. Yet, I do not have to rationalize away that it does not take one from the blessings of exaltation. As long as I am not called to enter plural marriage, I am quite at peace with this matter.

[francisco.colaco]

Col Flagg.,

Have you actually read Jac. 3:5? Really read it? Read again. And see to whom the commandment of not having more than one wife as given. Then report back.

[tribrac]

So any other changes people hearing?

New changes? Seems like too many here can't get over old changes as they continue to wrestle with polygamy.

Joseph Smith lamented that his most difficult task was to get the Saints to move past their traditions. I can see what he means.

Whatever changes come i hope they afford me the wish of my heart to teach and serve (minister) with my wife. I love to teach the gospel because of the special relationship formef between teacher and learner. AND i love my wife deeply and want to share those special times with her.

[shadow]

I find it quite ironic that polygamy is the only subject in the church and in the scriptures where contradictory and conflicting information about it exists. But if we are to hold the B of M as the most correct book on earth, then polygamy is an abomination.

And you'd also pay a tithe on all you had
That funny "most correct book" argument works well when we want it to.