Is this dishonest or is it okay?

[brlenox]

Brlenox,

I've prepared a simple diagram that shows what the Book of Mormon REALLY SAYS about polygamy in Jacob 2:30. I hope you do more than glance at it, but read every word. It will only take you 3 minutes. Will you let yourself be open to what it is actually saying? I didn't write these verses, but I can READ them.

Chip, here is a thought experiment. Just staying with verse 23 of Jacob 2, make a list of every verse that speaks to that situation of David and Solomon. Dig up the Doctrine and Covenants verses and any others you can find that speak only to this issue of David and Solomon. It is a short experiment. However, each has a flavor to it and each should match in interpretive interlocking understanding. How you have interpreted verse 23 places it at odds with other revelation. Why? and what should it be.

I know where you are going with this.

I must tell you that I think Section 132 is phony scripture. It's way too discordant with everything else and God sounds like impatient, impassioned man in it. I trust the Book of Mormon 100x more than D&C 132.

I did a scriptural search for "David Solomon", but didn't find much else applicable. Was there something else?

Nevermind, this is tragic. I apologize for thinking that you actually thought the scriptures were the scriptures and the word of God. However, you are actually bold enough to cherry pick even them. Some are true and some are not? Even where translated incorrectly the Bible is a brilliant work if the spirit guides you. I would be in such a spiritual disarray if I took your approach. Now, I have no more jesting, no more verbal word plays. I am truly sad. I must sleep now but it is unfortunate that our little bit of sparring here must end on such a sincerely tragic note. I am sorry I let you bait me into participating into such a hopeless cause - such promise and all wasted.

[brlenox]

It's depressing to me how members not only can't believe this, they don't even care. Their thinking has already been done for them and they are NOT interested in understanding new things. Their truth cup runneth over and they have no need for any more truth. It's enough to just keep their Mormon helmets tightly strapped to their noggins.

This would be funny in light of our two approaches to this subject, if I weren't so tired....no never mind it is funny still. Fact is it is hilarious. Accusing me of someone doing my thinking for me in light of the tens of thousands of hours I have put into my research and study over the years and the fact that I can provide you with 20 quotes (More if you wish) and half as many verses on the subject before you can say Jacob 2:30 as pretty much your single trump card. I could post the one irrefutable angle but I don't like seeing people step all over themselves trying to hold on to their sacred cows after the cow dies. I've already given you several sound and reasonable considerations. At least more than one...a one trick pony and you think you have it all figured out. Marry all of the verses on David and Solomon into a consistent and cohesive line of reasoning - just a few verses and if you can still put that out here without making a fool of yourself while holding to your current line of reasoning, then you will have my undying respect. I have had one person actually do this (different subject) and I was wrong but it was a few years ago but I can deal with it if you can do it.

Brlenox, I wasn't talking about you, as I know you've done a lot of studying and have reason to believe your own conclusions. I was talking about most church members here.

That's ok. Thanks for the efforts.

[Chip]

And, Brlenox, I used to not think really one way or another about the matter of polygamy. It was after my in-laws left the church and joined a polygamous sect in Utah that I really started looking into it. I had no idea what an unmitigated disaster polygamy was. I've met old ladies in Manti who knew it was a farce put on by MEN, having been tangentially involved, themselves. They witnessed lots of unrighteous dominion, even birth defects from people intermarrying too closely. Big mess, just like Jacob 2 warns of. My disbelief in polygamy is based on things like this, not some prudish notion. It sure would be neat to be able to go back in time and see what Mormon life was really like in Salt Lake City, with polygamy in full swing.

[Chip]

Brlenox,

I've prepared a simple diagram that shows what the Book of Mormon REALLY SAYS about polygamy in Jacob 2:30. I hope you do more than glance at it, but read every word. It will only take you 3 minutes. Will you let yourself be open to what it is actually saying? I didn't write these verses, but I can READ them.

Chip, here is a thought experiment. Just staying with verse 23 of Jacob 2, make a list of every verse that speaks to that situation of David and Solomon. Dig up the Doctrine and Covenants verses and any others you can find that speak only to this issue of David and Solomon. It is a short experiment. However, each has a flavor to it and each should match in interpretive interlocking understanding. How you have interpreted verse 23 places it at odds with other revelation. Why? and what should it be.

I know where you are going with this.

I must tell you that I think Section 132 is phony scripture. It's way too discordant with everything else and God sounds like impatient, impassioned man in it. I trust the Book of Mormon 100x more than D&C 132.

I did a scriptural search for "David Solomon", but didn't find much else applicable. Was there something else?

Nevermind, this is tragic. I apologize for thinking that you actually thought the scriptures were the scriptures and the word of God. However, you are actually bold enough to cherry pick even them. Some are true and some are not? Even where translated incorrectly the Bible is a brilliant work if the spirit guides you. I would be in such a spiritual disarray if I took your approach. Now, I have no more jesting, no more verbal word plays. I am truly sad. I must sleep now but it is unfortunate that our little bit of sparring here must end on such a sincerely tragic note. I am sorry I let you bait me into participating into such a hopeless cause - such promise and all wasted.

Okay, I hope you get good sleep and wake up refreshed.

[Chip]

I just realized that verse 31 is a logical continuation from verse 30. I noticed this for the first time after coloring condemnations RED and commandments GREEN. Reading from verse 30 into 31 makes this all really clear. Man, how we've been trained to read this section has really put some mental impediments in place.

The first half of verse 30 sums up preceding verses and the second half of verse 30 sets up for what follows in verse 31. Cool!

Real_Jacob_2_30.png (172.41 KiB) Viewed 322 times

[Chip]

Brlenox, I am still interested to know if you think Jacob 2:30 is an allowance for polygamy, or if it is a reiteration of God having commanded the Nephites in preceding verses to have only one wife, so that they wouldn't take license to commit whoredoms.

You should be able to answer that question with half your brain tied behind your back. And the question is not about polygamy in the broader scriptural context, but just what the BoM says in Jacob 2. What do you say?

[topcat]

Well, I somehow question your appreciation of the peace I've found after you labeled my experience of increased testimony and peace I've found in Christ as "teddy bear comfort doctrine".

I'm sorry that I'm not going to go tit for that and try to refute your interpretation of scripture with my own, along with my host of scriptural refutes... We both know that won't go anywhere.

I merely wanted to share my experience and maybe refute the accusation of being a victim of cognitive dissonance.

I hope you are also open to alternate possibilities as you encouraged me to be. We are likely ALL going to be flabbergasted when the truth of all things is made manifest.

Point taken...and I agree that it does sound a bit disingenuous. However, they are actually the same point twice made. I firmly believe that your stance keeps you from having to deal with the issue from a perspective of true analysis and hence why I would call it a teddy bear doctrine. It brings comfort to your soul and keeps you from looking under the bed to see if there is a boogy man lurking beneath. As for peace in Christ, I hope you grasp it correctly as even that is often suspect on this forum for so many. However, I genuinely do hope yours is rightly understood and a mature perspective of soundly revealed insight and I'll assume it is barring evidence to the contrary.

If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis. Few are willing to go the distance to provide sound cases for their conclusion on volatile subjects such as this proffering instead weak opinion couched in societally popular terms and morays as if truth should bow to the prevailing winds.

I'm not trying to goad you into your evidences but it is hard to think there is truly anything that you have that can refute the exactness of my effort. We might differ on the whys and wherefores and so my DuBious insert perhaps is a speculative possibility but as far as the scriptural exegesis without some comparison I can't see where I have missed much...and I question that you can show me where I have.

BrLenox,

I do appreciate your research and approach because your approach is exactly the approach I embrace and practice, which I believe leads to truth and wisdom.

And when faced with scriptures and logic and sound reasoning, it requires the honest truth-seeker to do some homework and digging, which takes time and effort.

So that's what I'm doing now.

You said earlier to someone else: "If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis."

I accept the challenge. My response amounts to an important concession (if you will, though your train of logic is what I too HAD used for almost 30 years), and a legitimate analysis, which is the pointing out of a conflation, something that we all do because we're not asking the right question(s).

Based on the apparent scriptural facts you've quoted (which I see no rebuttal for, and therefore accept as an apparent fact of history, assuming the translation is correct and the text hasn't been tampered with), there appears to be loopholes built into the Israelite culture whereby a "form" of plural marriage is practiced. Abraham's case is illustrative, isn't it? Perhaps the perfect case study.

My quick and "intermediate" conclusion on this complicated topic is expressed in this question:

Is the loophole form of plural marriage evidenced by the OT scriptures you have quoted what Brigham Young and his associates were practicing?

I don't believe so. They were too busy tripping over themselves pointing at Joseph as the promulgator of plural wives, even many decades after Joseph's death, saying, "He told me to do it, privately. He secretly practiced it to boot! He's the culprit!" Were they quoting the verses you quoted and the logic you've offered to justify themselves? Please answer.

I'm not aware of such justification.

Secondly, did BY claim to be commanded by Jesus to practice this loophole form of plural marriage by pointing to said and dated revelation?

We know HE said he was not a prophet like Joseph was, just a "Yankee guesser", I think was his phrase. So BY would logically then have attempted to tie his polygamy and world renown libido to Joseph Smith's teachings, which would provide motive to do some massive rewriting of Joseph's quotes and history on the subject.

I'm compelled, for the present moment, to concede there was a fairly rare loophole for plural marriage to be practiced back in OT times. What this means is that God might have given some allowance for the practice in a very limited way with specific conditions.

But I ask you to consider the recklessness of painting with broad strokes by asking, Do the limited scriptures you've quoted translate into what unfolded in Brigham's day?

I think the answer is hell to the no. Do you agree?

And if you agree?

That puts you back on the hot seat, doesn't it?

What I mean is you have correctly (apparently) -- and this reasoning (the official rebuttal taught by the Church) is the line of reasoning I too have used for 30 years -- you have pointed out that if people today are going to "absolutely" condemn BY and his polygamous gang as criminals, apostate from God, then that means you'd have to similarly convict the ancients as apostate, rogue, criminal, sexual predators too.

I do not believe you have intentionally conflated a narrowly-allowed, ad hoc form of plural marriage with what Brigham Young engaged in.

But how do you respond now that I point out the distinction?

Furthermore, here's the million dollar question that most people don't ever get past:

Stated generally, are you willing to consider the possibility you may be wrong?

A believing Christian would answer NO to an atheist who asked them if they could POSSIBLY be wrong about the existence of God.

Some other common examples: A typical Mormon would answer NO if questioned "Could the Church POSSIBLY be in a state of apostasy?" A typical non Mormon Christian would answer NO if asked, "Could Joseph Smith POSSIBLY be a true prophet sent by God?" A typical Mormon would answer NO if asked, "Could God POSSIBLY choose and send an "outside" prophet who is not part of the ranks of the LDS Church hierarchy and whom the hierarchy condemns as "apostate"?"

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

That's the million dollar question I invite you to answer publicly, if you don't mind.

[simpleton]

Well, I somehow question your appreciation of the peace I've found after you labeled my experience of increased testimony and peace I've found in Christ as "teddy bear comfort doctrine".

I'm sorry that I'm not going to go tit for that and try to refute your interpretation of scripture with my own, along with my host of scriptural refutes... We both know that won't go anywhere.

I merely wanted to share my experience and maybe refute the accusation of being a victim of cognitive dissonance.

I hope you are also open to alternate possibilities as you encouraged me to be. We are likely ALL going to be flabbergasted when the truth of all things is made manifest.

Point taken...and I agree that it does sound a bit disingenuous. However, they are actually the same point twice made. I firmly believe that your stance keeps you from having to deal with the issue from a perspective of true analysis and hence why I would call it a teddy bear doctrine. It brings comfort to your soul and keeps you from looking under the bed to see if there is a boogy man lurking beneath. As for peace in Christ, I hope you grasp it correctly as even that is often suspect on this forum for so many. However, I genuinely do hope yours is rightly understood and a mature perspective of soundly revealed insight and I'll assume it is barring evidence to the contrary.

If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis. Few are willing to go the distance to provide sound cases for their conclusion on volatile subjects such as this proffering instead weak opinion couched in societally popular terms and morays as if truth should bow to the prevailing winds.

I'm not trying to goad you into your evidences but it is hard to think there is truly anything that you have that can refute the exactness of my effort. We might differ on the whys and wherefores and so my DuBious insert perhaps is a speculative possibility but as far as the scriptural exegesis without some comparison I can't see where I have missed much...and I question that you can show me where I have.

The above highlighted is exactly how it is today, yesterday and how it has always been with the masses. Very very few can withstand the "prevailing winds". Lehi's vision very clearly points that out. And what is even more discouraging, is even some of those that truly taste of His "redeeming love" fall away after the "prevailing winds" start to blow. Does it mean that God does not love us? Absolutely not, but rather points out that we do not truly love God, fully, or the truth, but "hold it in unrighteousness" as apostle Paul points out in Roman's 1.
But nevertheless, truth makes no concessions for mankind.

[Thinker]

A religion that omits material facts regarding it's beliefs and history is hiding something they don't want members or investigators to see. There is no other explanation. Yesterday's anti-mormon lies, late 1970's early 1980's for me, are now considered truth. (See church essays) Had I known truth back then would I have gone on a mission? I certainly didn't have all the facts. Seriously, I taught people what I now know to be outright lies. Looking back I see how prideful I was thinking I had the truth and these people that questioned my beliefs were lost.

I wish someone in a leadership role in the church would have the integrity to tell the whole truth, the good the bad and the ugly. Open up the various "vaults" of church documents and let real historians have at it. Investments and membership numbers be damned.

I can relate. I believed what I was taught. Sure, I questioned here and there but I was carefully led to doubt my doubts, until, my conscience wouldn’t allow any more of it.

If God is truth, openness and honesty - then what is the opposite? Or even more relevant & challenging: how do you sift through to find truth when mixed with lies?

I question the definition of G-d as "openness".
When showing Moses His creations he did not show him all things pertaining to all His creations, he cut parts out and showed him all things pertaining to this earth. Which I take to mean all things that pertained to Moses and his questions/ interests.

Good point. God is truth and light - but we can’t handle it all at once - rather line upon line. Still, God is not deception, or hiding things in order to appear different. That’s the adversary.

• “Faith declares what the senses do not see, but not the contrary to what they see.” - Pascal

What does it mean to be “damned”? - To be held back from progressing - or lost. Ultimately it is my responsibility to seek truth, but if I’m surrounded or bombarded with lies over and over again, external influences can contrbute to holding me back.

• “It is easier to believe a lie one has heard a hundred times before than to believe a truth one is hearing for the first time.”

It’s not all or nothing. The church’s ways are not 100% true, nor 100% dishonest. The way we help each other - and the sense of community are awesome! It’s also great to be encouraged to do better. Yet financial dishonesty from tithing collectors and cult-like teachings (treating leaders as infallible) are not good or true.

[cab]

Brlenox,

I've prepared a simple diagram that shows what the Book of Mormon REALLY SAYS about polygamy in Jacob 2:30. I hope you do more than glance at it, but read every word. It will only take you 3 minutes. Will you let yourself be open to what it is actually saying? I didn't write these verses, but I can READ them.

Can you look at this and say that the Book of Mormon truly supports polygamy? I think it's impossible to not see that Jacob 2:30 was hijacked to make a false allowance for polygamy.

Let's say that Joseph really was commanded... They still lied about what the Book of Mormon clearly says about the practice.

Joseph said that the Book of Mormon was the truest book on earth and someone would get closer to God by reading it than by any other book. You know the devil would really like to invert such an important and rather unique lesson contained in the Book of Mormon. The chapter heading and footnotes are completely jiggered around on this section to support the God-commanded-polygamy narrative. It's something that this has never been detected and corrected!


Real_Jacob_2_30.png

That's very good, Chip. I love it!

It sure seems like part of the context here is that the Nephites were likely justifying this practice in order "to raise up seed" (as did we). Jacob masterfully corrects this erroneous train of thought.... Boy he sure is clear how these "things" were considered an "abomination" and a "whoredom" in the sight of the Lord.

Please see post below the one you replied to from Chip. I'm not sure that you are as sharp as Chip could be but it applies nonetheless.

Brlenox... Clearly until I choose to agree with you, you will continue to label me as not humble as yourself, not as sharp as yourself, not as well studied as yourself, and not as honest with myself as yourself. In your mind, my sincere study of truth and the doctrine of Christ is merely an effort to proof-text my own foolish comfort doctrine... I should have known better than to engage with someone who's been sanctioned on this forum for always insisting on being the smartest guy in the room...

[topcat]

Well, I somehow question your appreciation of the peace I've found after you labeled my experience of increased testimony and peace I've found in Christ as "teddy bear comfort doctrine".

I'm sorry that I'm not going to go tit for that and try to refute your interpretation of scripture with my own, along with my host of scriptural refutes... We both know that won't go anywhere.

I merely wanted to share my experience and maybe refute the accusation of being a victim of cognitive dissonance.

I hope you are also open to alternate possibilities as you encouraged me to be. We are likely ALL going to be flabbergasted when the truth of all things is made manifest.

Point taken...and I agree that it does sound a bit disingenuous. However, they are actually the same point twice made. I firmly believe that your stance keeps you from having to deal with the issue from a perspective of true analysis and hence why I would call it a teddy bear doctrine. It brings comfort to your soul and keeps you from looking under the bed to see if there is a boogy man lurking beneath. As for peace in Christ, I hope you grasp it correctly as even that is often suspect on this forum for so many. However, I genuinely do hope yours is rightly understood and a mature perspective of soundly revealed insight and I'll assume it is barring evidence to the contrary.

If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis. Few are willing to go the distance to provide sound cases for their conclusion on volatile subjects such as this proffering instead weak opinion couched in societally popular terms and morays as if truth should bow to the prevailing winds.

I'm not trying to goad you into your evidences but it is hard to think there is truly anything that you have that can refute the exactness of my effort. We might differ on the whys and wherefores and so my DuBious insert perhaps is a speculative possibility but as far as the scriptural exegesis without some comparison I can't see where I have missed much...and I question that you can show me where I have.

The above highlighted is exactly how it is today, yesterday and how it has always been with the masses. Very very few can withstand the "prevailing winds". Lehi's vision very clearly points that out. And what is even more discouraging, is even some of those that truly taste of His "redeeming love" fall away after the "prevailing winds" start to blow. Does it mean that God does not love us? Absolutely not, but rather points out that we do not truly love God, fully, or the truth, but "hold it in unrighteousness" as apostle Paul points out in Roman's 1.
But nevertheless, truth makes no concessions for mankind.

Simpleton,

Unfortunately, one of our leaders is out teaching the exact opposite of what you and Br. Lenox are saying.

Br. Lenox said above:

If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis.

Would you agree that to obtain "scriptural refutes" requires at least a careful research of the scriptures, and a careful analysis which adheres to the formula articulate by the Lord in DC 8-9 where He says you must "study it out in your mind" instead of "just asking"?

Without such careful research, then truly we are like a ship tossed about on the sea and subject to "prevailing winds".

What leader is out teaching that research isn't at least part of the answer? None other than Dallin H. Oaks last month on Feb 2, 2019.

See https://www.lds.org/church/news/preside ... -?lang=eng

Here's the key excerpt from the article:

President Oaks acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.

“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

The Church does offer answers to many familiar questions through its Gospel Topics essays found at LDS.org.

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

A "matter of Church history and doctrinal issue" would 100% be POLYGAMY. That is probably the #1 issue, if I were to hazard a guess. And what does Elder Oaks suggest to spouses whose spouse has questions? "RESEARCH IS NOT THE ANSWER!"

Then the article steers the reader to the official narrative at the Gospel Topics links at lds.org, which is another way of saying, "If you choose to research it, just look at what we say about it. Otherwise, don't waste your time looking at other viewpoints!"

Then, Br. Oaks teaches, and I quote, "Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church," but he doesn't elaborate on the confusing statement.

What does "conversion to the Church" mean? What does "the Church" mean? How are you "converted" to "the Church"? If you are converted to the Lord, do you HAVE TO BE converted to the Church?

Great questions that really SHOULD BE asked since he brought up the topic.

Then he goes on to contradict his earlier statement that research isn't the answer by saying, "...conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study..."

Truly, part of the formula for learning truth involves "studying it out in your mind" through scripture study, research and pondering, and of course praying. But Elder Oaks DISSUADES folks from the rigorous "study" phase.

Or am I misinterpreting his quotation?

[cab]

Well, I somehow question your appreciation of the peace I've found after you labeled my experience of increased testimony and peace I've found in Christ as "teddy bear comfort doctrine".

I'm sorry that I'm not going to go tit for that and try to refute your interpretation of scripture with my own, along with my host of scriptural refutes... We both know that won't go anywhere.

I merely wanted to share my experience and maybe refute the accusation of being a victim of cognitive dissonance.

I hope you are also open to alternate possibilities as you encouraged me to be. We are likely ALL going to be flabbergasted when the truth of all things is made manifest.

Point taken...and I agree that it does sound a bit disingenuous. However, they are actually the same point twice made. I firmly believe that your stance keeps you from having to deal with the issue from a perspective of true analysis and hence why I would call it a teddy bear doctrine. It brings comfort to your soul and keeps you from looking under the bed to see if there is a boogy man lurking beneath. As for peace in Christ, I hope you grasp it correctly as even that is often suspect on this forum for so many. However, I genuinely do hope yours is rightly understood and a mature perspective of soundly revealed insight and I'll assume it is barring evidence to the contrary.

If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis. Few are willing to go the distance to provide sound cases for their conclusion on volatile subjects such as this proffering instead weak opinion couched in societally popular terms and morays as if truth should bow to the prevailing winds.

I'm not trying to goad you into your evidences but it is hard to think there is truly anything that you have that can refute the exactness of my effort. We might differ on the whys and wherefores and so my DuBious insert perhaps is a speculative possibility but as far as the scriptural exegesis without some comparison I can't see where I have missed much...and I question that you can show me where I have.

The above highlighted is exactly how it is today, yesterday and how it has always been with the masses. Very very few can withstand the "prevailing winds". Lehi's vision very clearly points that out. And what is even more discouraging, is even some of those that truly taste of His "redeeming love" fall away after the "prevailing winds" start to blow. Does it mean that God does not love us? Absolutely not, but rather points out that we do not truly love God, fully, or the truth, but "hold it in unrighteousness" as apostle Paul points out in Roman's 1.
But nevertheless, truth makes no concessions for mankind.

Simpleton,

Unfortunately, one of our leaders is out teaching the exact opposite of what you and Br. Lenox are saying.

Br. Lenox said above:

If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis.

Would you agree that to obtain "scriptural refutes" requires at least a careful research of the scriptures, and a careful analysis which adheres to the formula articulate by the Lord in DC 8-9 where He says you must "study it out in your mind" instead of "just asking"?

Without such careful research, then truly we are like a ship tossed about on the sea and subject to "prevailing winds".

What leader is out teaching that research isn't at least part of the answer? None other than Dallin H. Oaks last month on Feb 2, 2019.

See https://www.lds.org/church/news/preside ... -?lang=eng

Here's the key excerpt from the article:

President Oaks acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.

“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

The Church does offer answers to many familiar questions through its Gospel Topics essays found at LDS.org.

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

A "matter of Church history and doctrinal issue" would 100% be POLYGAMY. That is probably the #1 issue, if I were to hazard a guess. And what does Elder Oaks suggest to spouses whose spouse has questions? "RESEARCH IS NOT THE ANSWER!"

Then the article steers the reader to the official narrative at the Gospel Topics links at lds.org, which is another way of saying, "If you choose to research it, just look at what we say about it. Otherwise, don't waste your time looking at other viewpoints!"

Then, Br. Oaks teaches, and I quote, "Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church," but he doesn't elaborate on the confusing statement.

What does "conversion to the Church" mean? What does "the Church" mean? How are you "converted" to "the Church"? If you are converted to the Lord, do you HAVE TO BE converted to the Church?

Great questions that really SHOULD BE asked since he brought up the topic.

Then he goes on to contradict his earlier statement that research isn't the answer by saying, "...conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study..."

Truly, part of the formula for learning truth involves "studying it out in your mind" through scripture study, research and pondering, and of course praying. But Elder Oaks DISSUADES folks from the rigorous "study" phase.

Or am I misinterpreting his quotation?

It is interesting that the further converted to the Lord I get, the more inconsequential my conversion to the church becomes.

[topcat]

Point taken...and I agree that it does sound a bit disingenuous. However, they are actually the same point twice made. I firmly believe that your stance keeps you from having to deal with the issue from a perspective of true analysis and hence why I would call it a teddy bear doctrine. It brings comfort to your soul and keeps you from looking under the bed to see if there is a boogy man lurking beneath. As for peace in Christ, I hope you grasp it correctly as even that is often suspect on this forum for so many. However, I genuinely do hope yours is rightly understood and a mature perspective of soundly revealed insight and I'll assume it is barring evidence to the contrary.

If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis. Few are willing to go the distance to provide sound cases for their conclusion on volatile subjects such as this proffering instead weak opinion couched in societally popular terms and morays as if truth should bow to the prevailing winds.

I'm not trying to goad you into your evidences but it is hard to think there is truly anything that you have that can refute the exactness of my effort. We might differ on the whys and wherefores and so my DuBious insert perhaps is a speculative possibility but as far as the scriptural exegesis without some comparison I can't see where I have missed much...and I question that you can show me where I have.

The above highlighted is exactly how it is today, yesterday and how it has always been with the masses. Very very few can withstand the "prevailing winds". Lehi's vision very clearly points that out. And what is even more discouraging, is even some of those that truly taste of His "redeeming love" fall away after the "prevailing winds" start to blow. Does it mean that God does not love us? Absolutely not, but rather points out that we do not truly love God, fully, or the truth, but "hold it in unrighteousness" as apostle Paul points out in Roman's 1.
But nevertheless, truth makes no concessions for mankind.

Simpleton,

Unfortunately, one of our leaders is out teaching the exact opposite of what you and Br. Lenox are saying.

Br. Lenox said above:

If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis.

Would you agree that to obtain "scriptural refutes" requires at least a careful research of the scriptures, and a careful analysis which adheres to the formula articulate by the Lord in DC 8-9 where He says you must "study it out in your mind" instead of "just asking"?

Without such careful research, then truly we are like a ship tossed about on the sea and subject to "prevailing winds".

What leader is out teaching that research isn't at least part of the answer? None other than Dallin H. Oaks last month on Feb 2, 2019.

See https://www.lds.org/church/news/preside ... -?lang=eng

Here's the key excerpt from the article:

President Oaks acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.

“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

The Church does offer answers to many familiar questions through its Gospel Topics essays found at LDS.org.

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

A "matter of Church history and doctrinal issue" would 100% be POLYGAMY. That is probably the #1 issue, if I were to hazard a guess. And what does Elder Oaks suggest to spouses whose spouse has questions? "RESEARCH IS NOT THE ANSWER!"

Then the article steers the reader to the official narrative at the Gospel Topics links at lds.org, which is another way of saying, "If you choose to research it, just look at what we say about it. Otherwise, don't waste your time looking at other viewpoints!"

Then, Br. Oaks teaches, and I quote, "Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church," but he doesn't elaborate on the confusing statement.

What does "conversion to the Church" mean? What does "the Church" mean? How are you "converted" to "the Church"? If you are converted to the Lord, do you HAVE TO BE converted to the Church?

Great questions that really SHOULD BE asked since he brought up the topic.

Then he goes on to contradict his earlier statement that research isn't the answer by saying, "...conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study..."

Truly, part of the formula for learning truth involves "studying it out in your mind" through scripture study, research and pondering, and of course praying. But Elder Oaks DISSUADES folks from the rigorous "study" phase.

Or am I misinterpreting his quotation?

It is interesting that the further converted to the Lord I get, the more inconsequential my conversion to the church becomes.

The gulf between the Lord and the institution is widening at breakneck speed.

Therefore, there must needs be attempts to stop the widening, else the institution will collapse. Efforts to slow the collapse (note, not "stop" it but just "slow" it) will be characterized by things said or done by the president of the Church to engender belief IN THE PRESIDENT as a holy man of God. All eyes must gaze upon the man. People must arrive 30 minutes before a meeting in which he is to preside, and arise in unison when he enters the room. Priestcraft and instilled idolatry that is totally AVOIDABLE, if the leadership would teach, "Stop the nonsense. We are just men, equal to you."

The John the Baptist message (John 3:30) of "Christ must increase, and I must decrease" can't be the trend, because the entire house of cards is built on the idea that the Church (the president/ the Brethren with a capital "B") is EQUAL to the Lord.

[brlenox]

BrLenox,

I do appreciate your research and approach because your approach is exactly the approach I embrace and practice, which I believe leads to truth and wisdom.

And when faced with scriptures and logic and sound reasoning, it requires the honest truth-seeker to do some homework and digging, which takes time and effort.

So that's what I'm doing now.

You said earlier to someone else: "If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis."

I accept the challenge. My response amounts to an important concession (if you will, though your train of logic is what I too have used for almost 30 years), and a legitimate analysis, which is the pointing out of a conflation, something that we all do because we're not asking the right question(s).

Based on the apparent scriptural facts you've quoted (which I see no rebuttal for, and therefore accept as an apparent fact of history, assuming the translation is correct and the text hasn't been tampered with), there appears to be loopholes built into the Israelite culture whereby a "form" of plural marriage is practiced. Abraham's case is illustrative, isn't it? Perhaps the perfect case study.

My quick and "intermediate" conclusion on this complicated topic is expressed in this question:

Is the loophole form of plural marriage evidenced by the OT scriptures you have quoted what Brigham Young and his associates were practicing?

I don't believe so. Were they quoting the verses you quoted and the logic you've offered to justify themselves? Please answer.

Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form. What Abraham practiced was a legitimate form of plural marriage for his day. It was sanctioned of God and it served a specific purpose for Abraham - that of providing offspring. It did not provide him an heir or not the heir that God intended he should have.

Did modern day prophets recognize these Old Testament sources? Did they find justification through them? I've said several times we claim to be a restoration vehicle. Joseph was directed to restore the bits and pieces of the Gospel that could be pulled from every dispensation and gather the pieces together into a cohesive and collective whole that we now consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you want one of the best articles discussing the ideology which was extolled by early leaders so much that a copy was placed in a time capsule in the Salt Lake Temple then you should dig up a copy of Spencer's Letters. He does a beautiful job of using Old Testament sources to validate the practice.

I'm not aware of such justification.

Secondly, did BY claim to be commanded by Jesus to practice this loophole form of plural marriage by pointing to said and dated revelation?

We know HE said he was not a prophet like Joseph was, just a "Yankee guesser", I think was his phrase. So BY would logically then have attempted to tie his polygamy and world renown libido to Joseph Smith's teachings, which would provide motive to do some massive rewriting of Joseph's quotes and history on the subject.

I'm compelled, for the present moment, to concede there was a fairly rare loophole for plural marriage to be practiced back in OT times. What this means is that God might have given some allowance for the practice in a very limited way with specific conditions.

But I ask you to consider the recklessness of painting with broad strokes by asking, Do the limited scriptures you've quoted translate into what unfolded in Brigham's day?

I think the answer is hell to the no. Do you agree?

And if you agree?

I'm trying to be courteous just by giving you moments of my life without just writing you off as one more smart person who thinks he can build a cohesive argument that sustains his preconceived notions and pass it off as truth. You have already tipped your hand that you can make up logical titles for polygamy, titles completely unique to you, then insinuate and slander prophets as if that makes any sense at all accusing of licentious behavior because they have the same libido that you probably have. Do you think that you even have an inking of sounding objective - no you sound like you are trying to be sly and careful to build a preconceived notion that you cannot understand. Sure there are men who were just like you describe. Not everyone can practice polygamy without it being their death knell for eternal life because they cannot manage it properly - David in the Old Testament surely qualifies (Read 2 Samuel 12:7-...) However, Brigham Young is not your man. Nor Heber C. Kimball or dozens of others who practice an honest God sanctioned form of the doctrine.

That puts you back on the hot seat, doesn't it?

What I mean is you have correctly (apparently) -- and this reasoning (the official rebuttal taught by the Church) is the line of reasoning I too have used for 30 years -- you have pointed out that if people today are going to "absolutely" condemn BY and his polygamous gang as criminals, apostate from God, then that means you'd have to similarly convict the ancients as apostate, rogue, criminal, sexual predators too.

I do not believe you have intentionally conflated a narrowly-allowed, ad hoc form of plural marriage with what Brigham Young engaged in.

But how do you respond now that I point out the distinction?

Furthermore, here's the million dollar question that most people don't ever get past:

Stated generally, are you willing to consider the possibility you may be wrong?

I can't even make heads or tails of the distinction you think you are making. However, you are still painting with your insinuative brush of bias. I can't accuse the ancients of error except where the scriptures indicate some erred. Where they indicate they did not err then it would be silly for me to claim they did.

A believing Christian would answer NO to an atheist who asked them if they could be wrong about the existence of God.

A typical Mormon would answer NO if questioned "Could the Church be in a state of apostasy?"

Despite history demonstrating apostasy almost always follows restoration.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

That's the million dollar question I invite you to answer publicly, if you don't mind.

Oh my goodness it is a Chip Scenario all over again. Your problem is when you used to hear that in the last days the very elect would be deceived you thought you were going to be so smart that you could sit on the sidelines and poke holes in all of the arguments that might be used to lead people out of the church 'cause I'm the smartest guy in the room. You didn't realize that it would be compelling arguments that the adversary would weave. You thought he was too stupid to get by your defenses and keen insight for recognizing truth. You didn' t realize that you would get sucked in by rewritten histories, or even accurate histories twisted. You didn't realize that the stories would pull on your testimony and challenge everything you thought you believed. Now here you are seduced and deceived becoming the apostate in the state of apostasy you accuse the church of being in spite of the scriptures that speak to you and yours.

I don't know why you would waste a moment doing any further research - you have already made your bed and are sleeping in it with your first or second or third wife or husband, whichever the case maybe.

[brlenox]

Brlenox,

I've prepared a simple diagram that shows what the Book of Mormon REALLY SAYS about polygamy in Jacob 2:30. I hope you do more than glance at it, but read every word. It will only take you 3 minutes. Will you let yourself be open to what it is actually saying? I didn't write these verses, but I can READ them.

Can you look at this and say that the Book of Mormon truly supports polygamy? I think it's impossible to not see that Jacob 2:30 was hijacked to make a false allowance for polygamy.

Let's say that Joseph really was commanded... They still lied about what the Book of Mormon clearly says about the practice.

Joseph said that the Book of Mormon was the truest book on earth and someone would get closer to God by reading it than by any other book. You know the devil would really like to invert such an important and rather unique lesson contained in the Book of Mormon. The chapter heading and footnotes are completely jiggered around on this section to support the God-commanded-polygamy narrative. It's something that this has never been detected and corrected!


Real_Jacob_2_30.png

That's very good, Chip. I love it!

It sure seems like part of the context here is that the Nephites were likely justifying this practice in order "to raise up seed" (as did we). Jacob masterfully corrects this erroneous train of thought.... Boy he sure is clear how these "things" were considered an "abomination" and a "whoredom" in the sight of the Lord.

Please see post below the one you replied to from Chip. I'm not sure that you are as sharp as Chip could be but it applies nonetheless.

Brlenox... Clearly until I choose to agree with you, you will continue to label me as not humble as yourself, not as sharp as yourself, not as well studied as yourself, and not as honest with myself as yourself. In your mind, my sincere study of truth and the doctrine of Christ is merely an effort to proof-text my own foolish comfort doctrine... I should have known better than to engage with someone who's been sanctioned on this forum for always insisting on being the smartest guy in the room...

I have? Oh my I'm blushing. Thank you, thank you, you are all too kind. Thank you.

I could quote some claim on logical fallacies or such but I am by far the easy target. I'm brash, bold, obnoxious, BUT I'm also right. You can't take on the doctrine I have espoused you can't refute the analysis I've proposed with the same level of expertise I have illustrated and so fire away. What you will never see in my brashness and boldness and arrogance is me speaking evil against the Lord's church or the Lord's chosen leaders or other acts of true hubris against God. You wouldn't even need to agree with me on any doctrine whatsoever for me to see you as humble. You would need to illustrate that you understand the principles of sustaining the brethren and the Lord's church and the Savior himself and we could disagree on doctrine all day long. But thus far that is not what I have observed.

[topcat]

BrLenox,

I do appreciate your research and approach because your approach is exactly the approach I embrace and practice, which I believe leads to truth and wisdom.

And when faced with scriptures and logic and sound reasoning, it requires the honest truth-seeker to do some homework and digging, which takes time and effort.

So that's what I'm doing now.

You said earlier to someone else: "If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis."

I accept the challenge. My response amounts to an important concession (if you will, though your train of logic is what I too have used for almost 30 years), and a legitimate analysis, which is the pointing out of a conflation, something that we all do because we're not asking the right question(s).

Based on the apparent scriptural facts you've quoted (which I see no rebuttal for, and therefore accept as an apparent fact of history, assuming the translation is correct and the text hasn't been tampered with), there appears to be loopholes built into the Israelite culture whereby a "form" of plural marriage is practiced. Abraham's case is illustrative, isn't it? Perhaps the perfect case study.

My quick and "intermediate" conclusion on this complicated topic is expressed in this question:

Is the loophole form of plural marriage evidenced by the OT scriptures you have quoted what Brigham Young and his associates were practicing?

I don't believe so. Were they quoting the verses you quoted and the logic you've offered to justify themselves? Please answer.

Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form. What Abraham practiced was a legitimate form of plural marriage for his day. It was sanctioned of God and it served a specific purpose for Abraham - that of providing offspring. It did not provide him an heir or not the heir that God intended he should have.

Did modern day prophets recognize these Old Testament sources? Did they find justification through them? I've said several times we claim to be a restoration vehicle. Joseph was directed to restore the bits and pieces of the Gospel that could be pulled from every dispensation and gather the pieces together into a cohesive and collective whole that we now consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you want one of the best articles discussing the ideology which was extolled by early leaders so much that a copy was placed in a time capsule in the Salt Lake Temple then you should dig up a copy of Spencer's Letters. He does a beautiful job of using Old Testament sources to validate the practice.

I'm not aware of such justification.

Secondly, did BY claim to be commanded by Jesus to practice this loophole form of plural marriage by pointing to said and dated revelation?

We know HE said he was not a prophet like Joseph was, just a "Yankee guesser", I think was his phrase. So BY would logically then have attempted to tie his polygamy and world renown libido to Joseph Smith's teachings, which would provide motive to do some massive rewriting of Joseph's quotes and history on the subject.

I'm compelled, for the present moment, to concede there was a fairly rare loophole for plural marriage to be practiced back in OT times. What this means is that God might have given some allowance for the practice in a very limited way with specific conditions.

But I ask you to consider the recklessness of painting with broad strokes by asking, Do the limited scriptures you've quoted translate into what unfolded in Brigham's day?

I think the answer is hell to the no. Do you agree?

And if you agree?

I'm trying to be courteous just by giving you moments of my life without just writing you off as one more smart person who thinks he can build a cohesive argument that sustains his preconceived notions and pass it off as truth. You have already tipped your hand that you can make up logical titles for polygamy, titles completely unique to you, then insinuate and slander prophets as if that makes any sense at all accusing of licentious behavior because they have the same libido that you probably have. Do you think that you even have an inking of sounding objective - no you sound like you are trying to be sly and careful to build a preconceived notion that you cannot understand. Sure there are men who were just like you describe. Not everyone can practice polygamy without it being their death knell for eternal life because they cannot manage it properly - David in the Old Testament surely qualifies (Read 2 Samuel 12:7-...) However, Brigham Young is not your man. Nor Heber C. Kimball or dozens of others who practice an honest God sanctioned form of the doctrine.

That puts you back on the hot seat, doesn't it?

What I mean is you have correctly (apparently) -- and this reasoning (the official rebuttal taught by the Church) is the line of reasoning I too have used for 30 years -- you have pointed out that if people today are going to "absolutely" condemn BY and his polygamous gang as criminals, apostate from God, then that means you'd have to similarly convict the ancients as apostate, rogue, criminal, sexual predators too.

I do not believe you have intentionally conflated a narrowly-allowed, ad hoc form of plural marriage with what Brigham Young engaged in.

But how do you respond now that I point out the distinction?

Furthermore, here's the million dollar question that most people don't ever get past:

Stated generally, are you willing to consider the possibility you may be wrong?

I can't even make heads or tails of the distinction you think you are making. However, you are still painting with your insinuative brush of bias. I can't accuse the ancients of error except where the scriptures indicate some erred. Where they indicate they did not err then it would be silly for me to claim they did.

A believing Christian would answer NO to an atheist who asked them if they could be wrong about the existence of God.

A typical Mormon would answer NO if questioned "Could the Church be in a state of apostasy?"

Despite history demonstrating apostasy almost always follows restoration.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

That's the million dollar question I invite you to answer publicly, if you don't mind.

Oh my goodness it is a Chip Scenario all over again. Your problem is when you used to hear that in the last days the very elect would be deceived you thought you were going to be so smart that you could sit on the sidelines and poke holes in all of the arguments that might be used to lead people out of the church 'cause I'm the smartest guy in the room. You didn't realize that it would be compelling arguments that the adversary would weave. You thought he was too stupid to get by your defenses and keen insight for recognizing truth. You didn' t realize that you would get sucked in by rewritten histories, or even accurate histories twisted. You didn't realize that the stories would pull on your testimony and challenge everything you thought you believed. Now here you are seduced and deceived becoming the apostate in the state of apostasy you accuse the church of being in spite of the scriptures that speak to you and yours.

I don't know why you would waste a moment doing any further research - you have already made your bed and are sleeping in it with your first or second or third wife or husband, whichever the case maybe.

The Chip Scenario?

I figured this out early, and used this qualifying line of questioning (using a hypothetical) on my mission a thousand times. Some examples:

* If God lived, would that be good news?
* If He spoke with a man face to face, and commanded that man to share what was taught, would you want to hear the teaching?
* If what we are saying is true, would you get baptized?

If the person would not answer these hypotheticals affirmatively, then that was a sign they weren't open to truth, and I moved on to find people who were open.

So I ask you again, to cut to the chase:

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

[brlenox]

Then, Br. Oaks teaches, and I quote, "Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church," but he doesn't elaborate on the confusing statement.

Or am I misinterpreting his quotation?

Completely misinterpreting - Doctrine and Covenants 1 has all of your answers.

[cab]

That's very good, Chip. I love it!

It sure seems like part of the context here is that the Nephites were likely justifying this practice in order "to raise up seed" (as did we). Jacob masterfully corrects this erroneous train of thought.... Boy he sure is clear how these "things" were considered an "abomination" and a "whoredom" in the sight of the Lord.

Please see post below the one you replied to from Chip. I'm not sure that you are as sharp as Chip could be but it applies nonetheless.

Brlenox... Clearly until I choose to agree with you, you will continue to label me as not humble as yourself, not as sharp as yourself, not as well studied as yourself, and not as honest with myself as yourself. In your mind, my sincere study of truth and the doctrine of Christ is merely an effort to proof-text my own foolish comfort doctrine... I should have known better than to engage with someone who's been sanctioned on this forum for always insisting on being the smartest guy in the room...

I have? Oh my I'm blushing. Thank you, thank you, you are all too kind. Thank you.

I could quote some claim on logical fallacies or such but I am by far the easy target. I'm brash, bold, obnoxious, BUT I'm also right. You can't take on the doctrine I have espoused you can't refute the analysis I've proposed with the same level of expertise I have illustrated and so fire away. What you will never see in my brashness and boldness and arrogance is me speaking evil against the Lord's church or the Lord's chosen leaders or other acts of true hubris against God. You wouldn't even need to agree with me on any doctrine whatsoever for me to see you as humble. You would need to illustrate that you understand the principles of sustaining the brethren and the Lord's church and the Savior himself and we could disagree on doctrine all day long. But thus far that is not what I have observed.

You are a riot.

[Thinker]

The gulf between the Lord and the institution is widening at breakneck speed.

Therefore, there must needs be attempts to stop the widening, else the institution will collapse. Efforts to slow the collapse (note, not "stop" it but just "slow" it) will be characterized by things said or done by the president of the Church to engender belief IN THE PRESIDENT as a holy man of God. All eyes must gaze upon the man. People must arrive 30 minutes before a meeting in which he is to preside, and arise in unison when he enters the room. Priestcraft and instilled idolatry that is totally AVOIDABLE, if the leadership would teach, "Stop the nonsense. We are just men, equal to you."

The John the Baptist message (John 3:30) of "Christ must increase, and I must decrease" can't be the trend, because the entire house of cards is built on the idea that the Church (the president/ the Brethren with a capital "B") is EQUAL to the Lord.

That’s true and kind of sad. The church has some awesome things about it - like the way everyone pitches in to help each other. The sense of community is unbeatable - though conditional. With the church taking steps to decrease financial burden (less church, reminder of MEMBERS to be financially responsible etc), while the corporate empire is expanding, I’ve wondered if they are gradually ducking out of the less lucrative aspect of their financial portfolio - even if it was the original purpose.

It seems the direction is going so that members will increasingly be required to bring to pass righteousness by their own initiative. So, maybe eventually the majority will be even more lost on the wide highway to hell, and few - not “members” but human beings - will prioritize God (love based on truth) above all.

Sunday, was brought up a suggestion that the church may have flaws (in reading Christ’s words about the children of heaven going to hell). Someone assumed this meant leaving the church and repeated a GA, “where would you go?” - as if there are not 37,000,000 other churches (34,000 Christian denominations)... all who we’re taught to hate/dismiss - and they us. This is why we all are failing - we as Christians - literally can’t get it together. When Christ’s disciples wanted to stop others from healing in Christ’s name - Christ said not to prevent them - and how if they are not against us they are for us. If CHRIST were truly prioritized, then there would be a focus on Christ more than there is. Leaders would not act like politicians or advertisements trying to keep loyal voters or customers but would steer people away from them, and toward Christ.

[brlenox]

So I ask you again, to cut to the chase:

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

I am always willing to accept truth. Let's see your compelling evidences. If you think that you have found something that I have not already considered multiple times over then present your case. I will give you an honest evaluation.

Edit: One more thought spiritual wifery was not, never will be, plural marriage. Of course it was denounced. It was Bennetts concoction to justify his own adulterous behavior.

[cab]

The above highlighted is exactly how it is today, yesterday and how it has always been with the masses. Very very few can withstand the "prevailing winds". Lehi's vision very clearly points that out. And what is even more discouraging, is even some of those that truly taste of His "redeeming love" fall away after the "prevailing winds" start to blow. Does it mean that God does not love us? Absolutely not, but rather points out that we do not truly love God, fully, or the truth, but "hold it in unrighteousness" as apostle Paul points out in Roman's 1.
But nevertheless, truth makes no concessions for mankind.

Simpleton,

Unfortunately, one of our leaders is out teaching the exact opposite of what you and Br. Lenox are saying.

Br. Lenox said above:

If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis.

Would you agree that to obtain "scriptural refutes" requires at least a careful research of the scriptures, and a careful analysis which adheres to the formula articulate by the Lord in DC 8-9 where He says you must "study it out in your mind" instead of "just asking"?

Without such careful research, then truly we are like a ship tossed about on the sea and subject to "prevailing winds".

What leader is out teaching that research isn't at least part of the answer? None other than Dallin H. Oaks last month on Feb 2, 2019.

See https://www.lds.org/church/news/preside ... -?lang=eng

Here's the key excerpt from the article:

President Oaks acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.

“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

The Church does offer answers to many familiar questions through its Gospel Topics essays found at LDS.org.

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

A "matter of Church history and doctrinal issue" would 100% be POLYGAMY. That is probably the #1 issue, if I were to hazard a guess. And what does Elder Oaks suggest to spouses whose spouse has questions? "RESEARCH IS NOT THE ANSWER!"

Then the article steers the reader to the official narrative at the Gospel Topics links at lds.org, which is another way of saying, "If you choose to research it, just look at what we say about it. Otherwise, don't waste your time looking at other viewpoints!"

Then, Br. Oaks teaches, and I quote, "Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church," but he doesn't elaborate on the confusing statement.

What does "conversion to the Church" mean? What does "the Church" mean? How are you "converted" to "the Church"? If you are converted to the Lord, do you HAVE TO BE converted to the Church?

Great questions that really SHOULD BE asked since he brought up the topic.

Then he goes on to contradict his earlier statement that research isn't the answer by saying, "...conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study..."

Truly, part of the formula for learning truth involves "studying it out in your mind" through scripture study, research and pondering, and of course praying. But Elder Oaks DISSUADES folks from the rigorous "study" phase.

Or am I misinterpreting his quotation?

It is interesting that the further converted to the Lord I get, the more inconsequential my conversion to the church becomes.

The gulf between the Lord and the institution is widening at breakneck speed.

Therefore, there must needs be attempts to stop the widening, else the institution will collapse. Efforts to slow the collapse (note, not "stop" it but just "slow" it) will be characterized by things said or done by the president of the Church to engender belief IN THE PRESIDENT as a holy man of God. All eyes must gaze upon the man. People must arrive 30 minutes before a meeting in which he is to preside, and arise in unison when he enters the room. Priestcraft and instilled idolatry that is totally AVOIDABLE, if the leadership would teach, "Stop the nonsense. We are just men, equal to you."

The John the Baptist message (John 3:30) of "Christ must increase, and I must decrease" can't be the trend, because the entire house of cards is built on the idea that the Church (the president/ the Brethren with a capital "B") is EQUAL to the Lord.

The future will certainly be interesting. A whole lot of nonsense going on. I believe that we're on the cusp of something big, and that we will begin to see the Lord's hand revealed in a miraculous way that we only have read about up until this point. If history or scripture teaches us anything, it's that trusting in men or in institutions (regardless of their offices, keys, or titles) is not the same as trusting in the Lord himself. Just because he "called" a people 5 generations ago, this doesn't mean they were "choosen", and it certainly doesn't mean we're choosen by association. We must truly humble ourselves before the Lord, be teachable, and seek him with all our hearts and then trust him. Then I believe we will be partakers in his "strange work" going forward...

[topcat]

BrLenox,

I do appreciate your research and approach because your approach is exactly the approach I embrace and practice, which I believe leads to truth and wisdom.

And when faced with scriptures and logic and sound reasoning, it requires the honest truth-seeker to do some homework and digging, which takes time and effort.

So that's what I'm doing now.

You said earlier to someone else: "If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis."

I accept the challenge. My response amounts to an important concession (if you will, though your train of logic is what I too have used for almost 30 years), and a legitimate analysis, which is the pointing out of a conflation, something that we all do because we're not asking the right question(s).

Based on the apparent scriptural facts you've quoted (which I see no rebuttal for, and therefore accept as an apparent fact of history, assuming the translation is correct and the text hasn't been tampered with), there appears to be loopholes built into the Israelite culture whereby a "form" of plural marriage is practiced. Abraham's case is illustrative, isn't it? Perhaps the perfect case study.

My quick and "intermediate" conclusion on this complicated topic is expressed in this question:

Is the loophole form of plural marriage evidenced by the OT scriptures you have quoted what Brigham Young and his associates were practicing?

I don't believe so. Were they quoting the verses you quoted and the logic you've offered to justify themselves? Please answer.

Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form. What Abraham practiced was a legitimate form of plural marriage for his day. It was sanctioned of God and it served a specific purpose for Abraham - that of providing offspring. It did not provide him an heir or not the heir that God intended he should have.

Did modern day prophets recognize these Old Testament sources? Did they find justification through them? I've said several times we claim to be a restoration vehicle. Joseph was directed to restore the bits and pieces of the Gospel that could be pulled from every dispensation and gather the pieces together into a cohesive and collective whole that we now consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you want one of the best articles discussing the ideology which was extolled by early leaders so much that a copy was placed in a time capsule in the Salt Lake Temple then you should dig up a copy of Spencer's Letters. He does a beautiful job of using Old Testament sources to validate the practice.

I'm not aware of such justification.

Secondly, did BY claim to be commanded by Jesus to practice this loophole form of plural marriage by pointing to said and dated revelation?

We know HE said he was not a prophet like Joseph was, just a "Yankee guesser", I think was his phrase. So BY would logically then have attempted to tie his polygamy and world renown libido to Joseph Smith's teachings, which would provide motive to do some massive rewriting of Joseph's quotes and history on the subject.

I'm compelled, for the present moment, to concede there was a fairly rare loophole for plural marriage to be practiced back in OT times. What this means is that God might have given some allowance for the practice in a very limited way with specific conditions.

But I ask you to consider the recklessness of painting with broad strokes by asking, Do the limited scriptures you've quoted translate into what unfolded in Brigham's day?

I think the answer is hell to the no. Do you agree?

And if you agree?

I'm trying to be courteous just by giving you moments of my life without just writing you off as one more smart person who thinks he can build a cohesive argument that sustains his preconceived notions and pass it off as truth. You have already tipped your hand that you can make up logical titles for polygamy, titles completely unique to you, then insinuate and slander prophets as if that makes any sense at all accusing of licentious behavior because they have the same libido that you probably have. Do you think that you even have an inking of sounding objective - no you sound like you are trying to be sly and careful to build a preconceived notion that you cannot understand. Sure there are men who were just like you describe. Not everyone can practice polygamy without it being their death knell for eternal life because they cannot manage it properly - David in the Old Testament surely qualifies (Read 2 Samuel 12:7-...) However, Brigham Young is not your man. Nor Heber C. Kimball or dozens of others who practice an honest God sanctioned form of the doctrine.

That puts you back on the hot seat, doesn't it?

What I mean is you have correctly (apparently) -- and this reasoning (the official rebuttal taught by the Church) is the line of reasoning I too have used for 30 years -- you have pointed out that if people today are going to "absolutely" condemn BY and his polygamous gang as criminals, apostate from God, then that means you'd have to similarly convict the ancients as apostate, rogue, criminal, sexual predators too.

I do not believe you have intentionally conflated a narrowly-allowed, ad hoc form of plural marriage with what Brigham Young engaged in.

But how do you respond now that I point out the distinction?

Furthermore, here's the million dollar question that most people don't ever get past:

Stated generally, are you willing to consider the possibility you may be wrong?

I can't even make heads or tails of the distinction you think you are making. However, you are still painting with your insinuative brush of bias. I can't accuse the ancients of error except where the scriptures indicate some erred. Where they indicate they did not err then it would be silly for me to claim they did.

A believing Christian would answer NO to an atheist who asked them if they could be wrong about the existence of God.

A typical Mormon would answer NO if questioned "Could the Church be in a state of apostasy?"

Despite history demonstrating apostasy almost always follows restoration.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

That's the million dollar question I invite you to answer publicly, if you don't mind.

Oh my goodness it is a Chip Scenario all over again. Your problem is when you used to hear that in the last days the very elect would be deceived you thought you were going to be so smart that you could sit on the sidelines and poke holes in all of the arguments that might be used to lead people out of the church 'cause I'm the smartest guy in the room. You didn't realize that it would be compelling arguments that the adversary would weave. You thought he was too stupid to get by your defenses and keen insight for recognizing truth. You didn' t realize that you would get sucked in by rewritten histories, or even accurate histories twisted. You didn't realize that the stories would pull on your testimony and challenge everything you thought you believed. Now here you are seduced and deceived becoming the apostate in the state of apostasy you accuse the church of being in spite of the scriptures that speak to you and yours.

I don't know why you would waste a moment doing any further research - you have already made your bed and are sleeping in it with your first or second or third wife or husband, whichever the case maybe.

You said, "Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form."

I agree my chosen phrase "loophole polygamy" may not be the best term. What would be better?

The point beyond a possibly-less-than-ideal phrase is that God may very well have sanctioned such relationships. It APPEARS He did in fact do that. From a court of law's perspective in TODAY's world, if somebody caught you on video chopping off a man's head, stealing his clothes, impersonating him for the purpose of stealing his personal and valuable belongings, how would the jury rule on the charge of murder, plus the other crimes? You'd probably be found guilty. But maybe avoid the death sentence if you convinced the court that God told you to do it, i.e., you were insane.

God did tell Nephi to kill Laban and take his property.

God may have commanded people to practice some version of polygamy. It APPEARS so. And what details do we have of how He commanded it? What form? What was it like? Was it widespread? We have virtually ZERO answers to these questions. Mostly we just have our imaginations to fill in the blanks. Anthropologically speaking, what do we know about the context? Very, very little. Agreed?

And yet you are wanting to grossly over-simply and say, "Look, those ancient guys did it. So Brigham was justified in what he did."

But what is "it"? We don't know exactly. Looks like polygamy, sort of. Is the Bible accurate on the scant records we do have? Who knows? At best, BrLenox, all you have is some nebulous idea of what "it" was. It is clear as mud.

Now contrast that clear as mud state of "polygamy" back in the OT with what Brigham was doing, and what God clearly described as an abomination in Jacob 2.

Well, we KNOW what Brigham did. Sex, sex, sex, and more sex. And more sex. Sex, sex, sex. With teenagers, and with LOTS of DIFFERENT women. We also know he was all about money, money, money, and more money. On sex alone, Brigham indisputably accomplished more than most any red-blooded, carnal man who's ever lived on earth could hope for.

What you are doing is CONFLATING. You are equating the clear-as-mud, hardly-know-anything-about polygamy of the OT with the known sexual escapades of Brigham and his cohorts. Is that a fair equating? Let the reader judge. And you are totally avoiding the sharp rebuke the Prophet Jacob (in Jacob 2) gave of the practice.

At best, all you could say is what I'm reasonably saying, "There IS some apparently condoned, albeit UNKNOWN form of polygamy in OT times. We know virtually nothing about it. We do know God called it an abomination in Nephi/ Jacob's day (570 BC let's say) in Jacob 2:24 ("which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord"). We do know people in Brigham's day wholeheartedly practiced it openly as a religious sacrament, but there is no unchallenged evidence that it was condoned or commanded by God. Every bit of evidence points to a dead man who couldn't defend himself other than his living wife (at the time) who solemnly declared (even to her death) that Joseph condemned the practice and only wedded her."

[cab]

BrLenox,

I do appreciate your research and approach because your approach is exactly the approach I embrace and practice, which I believe leads to truth and wisdom.

And when faced with scriptures and logic and sound reasoning, it requires the honest truth-seeker to do some homework and digging, which takes time and effort.

So that's what I'm doing now.

You said earlier to someone else: "If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis."

I accept the challenge. My response amounts to an important concession (if you will, though your train of logic is what I too have used for almost 30 years), and a legitimate analysis, which is the pointing out of a conflation, something that we all do because we're not asking the right question(s).

Based on the apparent scriptural facts you've quoted (which I see no rebuttal for, and therefore accept as an apparent fact of history, assuming the translation is correct and the text hasn't been tampered with), there appears to be loopholes built into the Israelite culture whereby a "form" of plural marriage is practiced. Abraham's case is illustrative, isn't it? Perhaps the perfect case study.

My quick and "intermediate" conclusion on this complicated topic is expressed in this question:

Is the loophole form of plural marriage evidenced by the OT scriptures you have quoted what Brigham Young and his associates were practicing?

I don't believe so. Were they quoting the verses you quoted and the logic you've offered to justify themselves? Please answer.

Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form. What Abraham practiced was a legitimate form of plural marriage for his day. It was sanctioned of God and it served a specific purpose for Abraham - that of providing offspring. It did not provide him an heir or not the heir that God intended he should have.

Did modern day prophets recognize these Old Testament sources? Did they find justification through them? I've said several times we claim to be a restoration vehicle. Joseph was directed to restore the bits and pieces of the Gospel that could be pulled from every dispensation and gather the pieces together into a cohesive and collective whole that we now consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you want one of the best articles discussing the ideology which was extolled by early leaders so much that a copy was placed in a time capsule in the Salt Lake Temple then you should dig up a copy of Spencer's Letters. He does a beautiful job of using Old Testament sources to validate the practice.

I'm not aware of such justification.

Secondly, did BY claim to be commanded by Jesus to practice this loophole form of plural marriage by pointing to said and dated revelation?

We know HE said he was not a prophet like Joseph was, just a "Yankee guesser", I think was his phrase. So BY would logically then have attempted to tie his polygamy and world renown libido to Joseph Smith's teachings, which would provide motive to do some massive rewriting of Joseph's quotes and history on the subject.

I'm compelled, for the present moment, to concede there was a fairly rare loophole for plural marriage to be practiced back in OT times. What this means is that God might have given some allowance for the practice in a very limited way with specific conditions.

But I ask you to consider the recklessness of painting with broad strokes by asking, Do the limited scriptures you've quoted translate into what unfolded in Brigham's day?

I think the answer is hell to the no. Do you agree?

And if you agree?

I'm trying to be courteous just by giving you moments of my life without just writing you off as one more smart person who thinks he can build a cohesive argument that sustains his preconceived notions and pass it off as truth. You have already tipped your hand that you can make up logical titles for polygamy, titles completely unique to you, then insinuate and slander prophets as if that makes any sense at all accusing of licentious behavior because they have the same libido that you probably have. Do you think that you even have an inking of sounding objective - no you sound like you are trying to be sly and careful to build a preconceived notion that you cannot understand. Sure there are men who were just like you describe. Not everyone can practice polygamy without it being their death knell for eternal life because they cannot manage it properly - David in the Old Testament surely qualifies (Read 2 Samuel 12:7-...) However, Brigham Young is not your man. Nor Heber C. Kimball or dozens of others who practice an honest God sanctioned form of the doctrine.

That puts you back on the hot seat, doesn't it?

What I mean is you have correctly (apparently) -- and this reasoning (the official rebuttal taught by the Church) is the line of reasoning I too have used for 30 years -- you have pointed out that if people today are going to "absolutely" condemn BY and his polygamous gang as criminals, apostate from God, then that means you'd have to similarly convict the ancients as apostate, rogue, criminal, sexual predators too.

I do not believe you have intentionally conflated a narrowly-allowed, ad hoc form of plural marriage with what Brigham Young engaged in.

But how do you respond now that I point out the distinction?

Furthermore, here's the million dollar question that most people don't ever get past:

Stated generally, are you willing to consider the possibility you may be wrong?

I can't even make heads or tails of the distinction you think you are making. However, you are still painting with your insinuative brush of bias. I can't accuse the ancients of error except where the scriptures indicate some erred. Where they indicate they did not err then it would be silly for me to claim they did.

A believing Christian would answer NO to an atheist who asked them if they could be wrong about the existence of God.

A typical Mormon would answer NO if questioned "Could the Church be in a state of apostasy?"

Despite history demonstrating apostasy almost always follows restoration.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

That's the million dollar question I invite you to answer publicly, if you don't mind.

Oh my goodness it is a Chip Scenario all over again. Your problem is when you used to hear that in the last days the very elect would be deceived you thought you were going to be so smart that you could sit on the sidelines and poke holes in all of the arguments that might be used to lead people out of the church 'cause I'm the smartest guy in the room. You didn't realize that it would be compelling arguments that the adversary would weave. You thought he was too stupid to get by your defenses and keen insight for recognizing truth. You didn' t realize that you would get sucked in by rewritten histories, or even accurate histories twisted. You didn't realize that the stories would pull on your testimony and challenge everything you thought you believed. Now here you are seduced and deceived becoming the apostate in the state of apostasy you accuse the church of being in spite of the scriptures that speak to you and yours.

I don't know why you would waste a moment doing any further research - you have already made your bed and are sleeping in it with your first or second or third wife or husband, whichever the case maybe.

You said, "Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form."

I agree my chosen phrase "loophole polygamy" may not be the best term. What would be better?

The point beyond a possibly-less-than-ideal phrase is that God may very well have sanctioned such relationships. It APPEARS He did in fact do that. From a court of law's perspective in TODAY's world, if somebody caught you on video chopping off a man's head, stealing his clothes, impersonating him for the purpose of stealing his personal and valuable belongings, how would the jury rule on the charge of murder, plus the other crimes? You'd probably be found guilty. But maybe avoid the death sentence if you convinced the court that God told you to do it, i.e., you were insane.

God did tell Nephi to kill Laban and take his property.

God may have commanded people to practice some version of polygamy. It APPEARS so. And what details do we have of how He commanded it? What form? What was it like? Was it widespread? We have virtually ZERO answers to these questions. Mostly we just have our imaginations to fill in the blanks. Anthropologically speaking, what do we know about the context? Very, very little. Agreed?

And yet you are wanting to grossly over-simply and say, "Look, those ancient guys did it. So Brigham was justified in what he did."

But what is "it"? We don't know exactly. Looks like polygamy, sort of. Is the Bible accurate on the scant records we do have? Who knows? At best, BrLenox, all you have is some nebulous idea of what "it" was. It is clear as mud.

Now contrast that clear as mud state of "polygamy" back in the OT with what Brigham was doing, and what God clearly described as an abomination in Jacob 2.

Well, we KNOW what Brigham did. Sex, sex, sex, and more sex. And more sex. Sex, sex, sex. With teenagers, and with LOTS of DIFFERENT women. We also know he was all about money, money, money, and more money. On sex alone, Brigham indisputably accomplished more than most any red-blooded, carnal man who's ever lived on earth could hope for.

What you are doing is CONFLATING. You are equating the clear-as-mud, hardly-know-anything-about polygamy of the OT with the known sexual escapades of Brigham and his cohorts. Is that a fair equating? Let the reader judge. And you are totally avoiding the sharp rebuke the Prophet Jacob (in Jacob 2) gave of the practice.

At best, all you could say is what I'm reasonably saying, "There IS some apparently condoned, albeit UNKNOWN form of polygamy in OT times. We know virtually nothing about it. We do know God called it an abomination in Nephi/ Jacob's day (570 BC let's say) in Jacob 2:24 ("which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord"). We do know people in Brigham's day wholeheartedly practiced it openly as a religious sacrament, but there is no unchallenged evidence that it was condoned or commanded by God. Every bit of evidence points to a dead man who couldn't defend himself other than his living wife (at the time) who solemnly declared (even to her death) that Joseph condemned the practice and only wedded her."

Let's also not forget the 2nd witness in the Book of Mormon... When King Noah took over from his righteous father, he turned immediately to this type of practice. This was clearly and sharply condemned by Abinidi. This was similar to what the Nephites did immediately after the death of Nephi, which Jacob clearly condemned... How do we not see the comparisons in these 2 examples and what we did immediately after the death of Joseph Smith? Is it too crazy to think that when Mormon and Moroni saw our day (Mormon 8:35-36), that they may have included stories in their abridgement to warn us accordingly?

[brlenox]

At best, all you could say is what I'm reasonably saying, "There IS some apparently condoned, albeit UNKNOWN form of polygamy in OT times. We know virtually nothing about it. We do know God called it an abomination in Nephi/ Jacob's day (570 BC let's say) in Jacob 2:24 ("which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord"). We do know people in Brigham's day wholeheartedly practiced it openly as a religious sacrament, but there is no unchallenged evidence that it was condoned or commanded by God. Every bit of evidence points to a dead man who couldn't defend himself other than his living wife (at the time) who solemnly declared (even to her death) that Joseph condemned the practice and only wedded her."

I hope this isn't the effort you said you were going to make. More opinions without support. Where's your evidence? If this is your best...what a poor miserable piece of work.

[John Tavner]

BrLenox,

I do appreciate your research and approach because your approach is exactly the approach I embrace and practice, which I believe leads to truth and wisdom.

And when faced with scriptures and logic and sound reasoning, it requires the honest truth-seeker to do some homework and digging, which takes time and effort.

So that's what I'm doing now.

You said earlier to someone else: "If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis."

I accept the challenge. My response amounts to an important concession (if you will, though your train of logic is what I too have used for almost 30 years), and a legitimate analysis, which is the pointing out of a conflation, something that we all do because we're not asking the right question(s).

Based on the apparent scriptural facts you've quoted (which I see no rebuttal for, and therefore accept as an apparent fact of history, assuming the translation is correct and the text hasn't been tampered with), there appears to be loopholes built into the Israelite culture whereby a "form" of plural marriage is practiced. Abraham's case is illustrative, isn't it? Perhaps the perfect case study.

My quick and "intermediate" conclusion on this complicated topic is expressed in this question:

Is the loophole form of plural marriage evidenced by the OT scriptures you have quoted what Brigham Young and his associates were practicing?

I don't believe so. Were they quoting the verses you quoted and the logic you've offered to justify themselves? Please answer.

Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form. What Abraham practiced was a legitimate form of plural marriage for his day. It was sanctioned of God and it served a specific purpose for Abraham - that of providing offspring. It did not provide him an heir or not the heir that God intended he should have.

Did modern day prophets recognize these Old Testament sources? Did they find justification through them? I've said several times we claim to be a restoration vehicle. Joseph was directed to restore the bits and pieces of the Gospel that could be pulled from every dispensation and gather the pieces together into a cohesive and collective whole that we now consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you want one of the best articles discussing the ideology which was extolled by early leaders so much that a copy was placed in a time capsule in the Salt Lake Temple then you should dig up a copy of Spencer's Letters. He does a beautiful job of using Old Testament sources to validate the practice.

I'm not aware of such justification.

Secondly, did BY claim to be commanded by Jesus to practice this loophole form of plural marriage by pointing to said and dated revelation?

We know HE said he was not a prophet like Joseph was, just a "Yankee guesser", I think was his phrase. So BY would logically then have attempted to tie his polygamy and world renown libido to Joseph Smith's teachings, which would provide motive to do some massive rewriting of Joseph's quotes and history on the subject.

I'm compelled, for the present moment, to concede there was a fairly rare loophole for plural marriage to be practiced back in OT times. What this means is that God might have given some allowance for the practice in a very limited way with specific conditions.

But I ask you to consider the recklessness of painting with broad strokes by asking, Do the limited scriptures you've quoted translate into what unfolded in Brigham's day?

I think the answer is hell to the no. Do you agree?

And if you agree?

I'm trying to be courteous just by giving you moments of my life without just writing you off as one more smart person who thinks he can build a cohesive argument that sustains his preconceived notions and pass it off as truth. You have already tipped your hand that you can make up logical titles for polygamy, titles completely unique to you, then insinuate and slander prophets as if that makes any sense at all accusing of licentious behavior because they have the same libido that you probably have. Do you think that you even have an inking of sounding objective - no you sound like you are trying to be sly and careful to build a preconceived notion that you cannot understand. Sure there are men who were just like you describe. Not everyone can practice polygamy without it being their death knell for eternal life because they cannot manage it properly - David in the Old Testament surely qualifies (Read 2 Samuel 12:7-...) However, Brigham Young is not your man. Nor Heber C. Kimball or dozens of others who practice an honest God sanctioned form of the doctrine.

That puts you back on the hot seat, doesn't it?

What I mean is you have correctly (apparently) -- and this reasoning (the official rebuttal taught by the Church) is the line of reasoning I too have used for 30 years -- you have pointed out that if people today are going to "absolutely" condemn BY and his polygamous gang as criminals, apostate from God, then that means you'd have to similarly convict the ancients as apostate, rogue, criminal, sexual predators too.

I do not believe you have intentionally conflated a narrowly-allowed, ad hoc form of plural marriage with what Brigham Young engaged in.

But how do you respond now that I point out the distinction?

Furthermore, here's the million dollar question that most people don't ever get past:

Stated generally, are you willing to consider the possibility you may be wrong?

I can't even make heads or tails of the distinction you think you are making. However, you are still painting with your insinuative brush of bias. I can't accuse the ancients of error except where the scriptures indicate some erred. Where they indicate they did not err then it would be silly for me to claim they did.

A believing Christian would answer NO to an atheist who asked them if they could be wrong about the existence of God.

A typical Mormon would answer NO if questioned "Could the Church be in a state of apostasy?"

Despite history demonstrating apostasy almost always follows restoration.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

That's the million dollar question I invite you to answer publicly, if you don't mind.

Oh my goodness it is a Chip Scenario all over again. Your problem is when you used to hear that in the last days the very elect would be deceived you thought you were going to be so smart that you could sit on the sidelines and poke holes in all of the arguments that might be used to lead people out of the church 'cause I'm the smartest guy in the room. You didn't realize that it would be compelling arguments that the adversary would weave. You thought he was too stupid to get by your defenses and keen insight for recognizing truth. You didn' t realize that you would get sucked in by rewritten histories, or even accurate histories twisted. You didn't realize that the stories would pull on your testimony and challenge everything you thought you believed. Now here you are seduced and deceived becoming the apostate in the state of apostasy you accuse the church of being in spite of the scriptures that speak to you and yours.

I don't know why you would waste a moment doing any further research - you have already made your bed and are sleeping in it with your first or second or third wife or husband, whichever the case maybe.

You said, "Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form."

I agree my chosen phrase "loophole polygamy" may not be the best term. What would be better?

The point beyond a possibly-less-than-ideal phrase is that God may very well have sanctioned such relationships. It APPEARS He did in fact do that. From a court of law's perspective in TODAY's world, if somebody caught you on video chopping off a man's head, stealing his clothes, impersonating him for the purpose of stealing his personal and valuable belongings, how would the jury rule on the charge of murder, plus the other crimes? You'd probably be found guilty. But maybe avoid the death sentence if you convinced the court that God told you to do it, i.e., you were insane.

God did tell Nephi to kill Laban and take his property.

God may have commanded people to practice some version of polygamy. It APPEARS so. And what details do we have of how He commanded it? What form? What was it like? Was it widespread? We have virtually ZERO answers to these questions. Mostly we just have our imaginations to fill in the blanks. Anthropologically speaking, what do we know about the context? Very, very little. Agreed?

And yet you are wanting to grossly over-simply and say, "Look, those ancient guys did it. So Brigham was justified in what he did."

But what is "it"? We don't know exactly. Looks like polygamy, sort of. Is the Bible accurate on the scant records we do have? Who knows? At best, BrLenox, all you have is some nebulous idea of what "it" was. It is clear as mud.

Now contrast that clear as mud state of "polygamy" back in the OT with what Brigham was doing, and what God clearly described as an abomination in Jacob 2.

Well, we KNOW what Brigham did. Sex, sex, sex, and more sex. And more sex. Sex, sex, sex. With teenagers, and with LOTS of DIFFERENT women. We also know he was all about money, money, money, and more money. On sex alone, Brigham indisputably accomplished more than most any red-blooded, carnal man who's ever lived on earth could hope for.

What you are doing is CONFLATING. You are equating the clear-as-mud, hardly-know-anything-about polygamy of the OT with the known sexual escapades of Brigham and his cohorts. Is that a fair equating? Let the reader judge. And you are totally avoiding the sharp rebuke the Prophet Jacob (in Jacob 2) gave of the practice.

At best, all you could say is what I'm reasonably saying, "There IS some apparently condoned, albeit UNKNOWN form of polygamy in OT times. We know virtually nothing about it. We do know God called it an abomination in Nephi/ Jacob's day (570 BC let's say) in Jacob 2:24 ("which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord"). We do know people in Brigham's day wholeheartedly practiced it openly as a religious sacrament, but there is no unchallenged evidence that it was condoned or commanded by God. Every bit of evidence points to a dead man who couldn't defend himself other than his living wife (at the time) who solemnly declared (even to her death) that Joseph condemned the practice and only wedded her."

Interestingly enough, She also remarried a man, who if I remember correctly, was a serial adulterer - and even with that, she still maintained Joseph did not practice polygamy. She was known for her integrity and claimed, if I remember correctly she hadn't even heard of a revelation about polygamy until 1853.