Posted on 11/17/2008 7:17:25 AM PST by LightedCandle
I can't state it any more clearly.
So do you support the stance of conservatives in regards to traditional marriage? I do! I really want to make that clear. I stand for traditional marriage alongside traditional Churches and those Churches that are not so traditional, like the LDS.
Now you're asking me if I support polygamy and contracted marriages and all the other traditional types of marriage. I don't think the moderator wants us to hijack the thread.
No, I don’t understand. What is your point?
The earliest written Jewish Scripture is the Torah. In there you'll no find no "pre-sanction" for polygamy. In fact, you'll find just the opposite: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, [singular] and they will become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)
He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. (Deut. 17:17)
If you try to say, "Well, let's look at what they actually DID" -- well, Solomon is the living example of Deut. 17:17: He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. (1 Kings 11:3)
Jacob didn't choose polygamy -- he was deceived into it. (And since when is deception "of God?")
Isaac was NEVER a polygamist. He married Rebekah.
Abraham, the angel of the Lord, Moses, Hagar the slave, and the apostle Paul NEVER reference Hagar as a wife or anything other than a concubine/slave. (Since ancient Jewish thought is a male-dominated faith, how is it that you claim it "sanctioned" what Abram did -- yet none of the males involved or those who later commented on it as "Scripture" ever deemed Hagar as a wife?)
So now we're down to David. Simply put, David inherited concubines as part of the kingdom he inherited.
Likewise, see Deuteronomy 17:17
“it’s obvious, Texan Tory, that you’re either 100% ignorant or are just intentionally ignoring two facts”
Ouch. Well, I’m not 100% ignorant, so that leaves us with that other thing you said about ignoring facts. I don’t think that all of the writings of Bruce R. McConkie are accepted as official church doctrine, even though he was an apostle. I will concede that your other point is correct, so that if a Mormon man marries, is widowed, then marries again, he will be considered to be married to both of these women once he dies and enters into the afterlife.
Regardless of Mormon doctrine regarding marital arrangements in the afterlife, Mormons, in terms of actual real-world religious practices, have been devout practitioners of traditional, monogamous marriage since their involvement with polygamy ended about 120 years, and they have fairly good statistics (lower divorce than average) demonstrating their committment to traditional marriage.
I agree with your previous comment that you may be dense. Maybe someone else here can explain it to you. I have tried twice.
You might want to spend some time on reading comprehension and vocabulary building rather than asking if someone is a homosexual.
Suggestion two: look up the definition of tradition.
Third: the definition of hypocrisy
I hadn't heard about this. The Prop 8 backlash has gone both ways.
Alriiightyyyyy then.
Yes and no.
On the one hand, you are right -- there's not necessarily a direct 1:1 correlation of McConkie's book to what is deemed "officially accepted LDS doctrine."
But that understanding basically falls on account of several points:
(1) BYU prof Stephen Robinson, in his co-authored book, HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE, states that LDS consider apostles and prophets to be essentially interchangeable. (That shows how much respectful authority is assigned to LDS apostles -- and nobody has ever specifically called out McConkie "on the carpet" for that 1966 published book...it was done for an earlier version)
(2) It was because of McConkie's earlier version that the LDS "First Presidency" realized in the mid-60s that McConkie's rewrite of Mormon Doctrine needed direct oversight. So, according to McConkie's son, LDS prophet Harold B. Lee assigned another member of the "First Presidency" -- later-to-be-named a "prophet" -- Spencer W. Kimball, to directly oversee the revised book.
That's what happened. Therefore, (3) there's absolutely no way the church would allow a book named "Mormon Doctrine" that's been in print all these years to continue to stand if it didn't represent mainstream Mormon doctrine.
Regardless of Mormon doctrine regarding marital arrangements in the afterlife, Mormons, in terms of actual real-world religious practices, have been devout practitioners of traditional, monogamous marriage since their involvement with polygamy ended about 120 years...
Well, your year numbers are off. LDS, in most cases, didn't dissolve existing polygamous families in the early 1890s. Secondly, they continued on a behind-the-scenes basis to privately sanction over 200 additional polygamous unions between 1890-1910. They started cracking down on a few polygamous unions "for show" in the early 1900s...but real reform didn't set in until Grant was the president in the 1930s. (That's why the fundamentalist Mormons didn't break away until then).
...they have fairly good statistics (lower divorce than average) demonstrating their committment to traditional marriage.
Yes, but surprisingly Utah has a high singles rate among adults...showing that even this high commitment to marriage is starting to undergo cultural change.
“...Torah. In there you’ll no find no “pre-sanction” for polygamy.”
Alright, no pre-sanction. But before moving on, take a look at Exodus 21:10: “If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.”
Also read Deuteronomy 21:15 and 16: “15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.”
Exodus and Deuteronomy are definitely parts of the Torah, and are thought to have been written by Moses himself. Although you won’t find any scipture where Moses openly condones the practice of polygamy, he clearly was attempting to regulate, not forbid it, so it appears that is was an accepted practice among the jews at that time.
OK, look at Exodus 21:2-8. It addresses slavery, does it not?
Since most additional partners in that day were concubines, the context was the ethical treatment of slaves and servant women. Besides, if you use Ex 21:10 as some kind of claim that the Torah sanctioned polygamy, then would you be consistent and try to also tell us that Ex. 21:2-8 sanctions slavery?
The same applies to Deut. 21:15-16. Biblegateway.com heading for Deut. 21:10-14 is "Marrying a Captive Woman." Therefore, Deut. 21 is the exact same context as Ex. 21 -- and the same points I made above apply here.
Exodus and Deuteronomy are definitely parts of the Torah, and are thought to have been written by Moses himself. Although you won’t find any scipture where Moses openly condones the practice of polygamy, he clearly was attempting to regulate, not forbid it, so it appears that is was an accepted practice among the jews at that time.
Then, you are also telling us that both slavery and polygamy were "accepted practices among the Jews at that time?" -- Yes?
In light of the negative comments that LDS leaders have said about Christiandom, Christian sects, Christianity is many, many, many other contexts, what do you all make of this reference to LDS apologists (FAIR) calling us "Christian brothers?"
“Then, you are also telling us that both slavery and polygamy were ‘accepted practices among the Jews at that time?’ — Yes?”
I don’t know if slavery was an accepted practice among the Jews at that time, but you seem to make a pretty good case that it was. I have heard atheists criticize the Bible for this very reason, that it seemed to allow for slavery without condemning it. There may be later passages in the Bible, maybe the New Testament, that do condemn slavery, and if biblical scholars want to weigh in, I’d be glad to know what they think. I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar, and I acknowledge that some of the opinions I have expressed may be incorrect, so if you want to set me straight on something I’m wrong about, that’s fine. I participate in Free Republic not just to state my opinions, but to learn from others, including you. Cheers.
How many times do I have to post this for you to stop spreading distortions about Mormon opinions of others?
For any church, country, nation, or other group to believe that it is the only people in whom God is interested, or that it has special merit because of color, race, or belief, that they are inherently superior and loved by God, without regard to the lives they live, is not only a great and dangerous fallacy, but is a continuing barrier to peace. . . . Let us steadfastly avoid such demoralizing arrogance. The most important problems facing us in working on a long range program for peace is a tolerant and sympathetic understanding between races and creeds.
Hugh B. Brown, LDS Conference, April 1966.
I do not believe that three-hundred-fifty millions of people that live in China in a state of heathen darkness are created to live in this state, and be damned because they do not have the right religion. I do not believe that all the nations that worship various kinds of idols, in different parts of the earth, and knowing nothing about the true God, will be consigned to be burned in fire hereafter, because they know no better than to worship as they do. . . . I was going to say I am not a Universalist, but I am, and I am also a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic, and a Methodist. In short, I believe in every true principle that is embodied in any person or sect, and reject the false. If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace it. I care not what shape it comes to me, who brings it, or who believes it, whether it is popular or unpopular.
John Taylor (third President of the Church)
Salt Lake City, Utah
1853
This is the Mormon theory of God’s revelation to the children of men. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and is one of God’s instrumentalities in making known the truth, yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fullness of truth such as may be found in the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations, and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them. . . Confucius, , , ,Buddha, . . . the sages of Greece and Rome, . . . the reformers of early Protestant times. . . .
B. H. Roberts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.