The Book of Mormon contridicts Mormonism

[_Mittens]

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2013/ ... etics.html

How Mormon apologetics work

[_Uncle Ed]

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2013/09/the-5-stages-of-lds-apologetics.html

How Mormon apologetics work

I see very little ad hominem used by Mormon apologists. So the five stages illustration is broken from the getgo....

[_Brackite]

Brackbite, you don't get credit because you failed to fully quote the verses involved and as a result provided a distorted comparison. That was very naughty of you.

Here is an interesting Post about the subject of the practice of polygamy among Kings David and Solomon from an LDS Apologist:

Just my two cents - for the record, I am a current LDS member and believer.

Going back to the question in the OP - was David's polygamy OK or not OK with God, I suppose that you have to ask God to find out. However, in the context of the question, which looks at scriptural texts, its not really about what God thinks, but rather about how you can reconcile the scriptural texts. I don't think you can actually reconcile the Book of Mormon text with the D&C. I think you can explain the issue, and talk about why there is a contradiction, but I don't think you can actually harmonize them, and I don't think that there should be a real need to do so.

Jewish culture has had a very difficult issue with this same question. The reasons are in some ways very similar (as are the results). The Jewish conflict stems from the fact that David and Solomon both had many wives, but, this fact conflicts with Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 17:17 (a part of a piece of text called the Kingship code). This part of the Old Testament denounces the king having "many wives". What was an acceptable number? It varied widely in rabbinic interpretations, but, eventually, the number settled on was four (not wanting to make Jacob/Israel a sinner in this fashion - even if Mosaic Law postdated Jacob/Israel).

The classic example of how Jews at the time of Jesus dealt with this problematic issue can be found in the Damascus Document (found both in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the Cairo Genizah). The specific passage there reads this way (it's part of a commentary on Noah and his ark):

As to the prince it is written, "He shall not multiply wives unto himself" but David read not in the Book of the Law that was sealed, which was in the Ark. For it was not opened in Israel from the day of the Death of Eleazar and Joshua and the Elders who worshiped Ashtareth. And it was hidden and was not discovered until Zadok arose. But they concealed the deeds of David save only the blood of Uriah.

In other words, even though the commandment was for the king not to have many wives, David did. And the excuse is that the Book of the Law (which refers to Deuteronomy - where the Kingship Code is found), was not available to David - it was hidden in the Ark, and wasn't discovered until Zadok found it. Of course, given the other issues, the Dead Sea Scrolls text still finds fault with David over the issue of Bathsheba.

This actually is surprisingly similar in some ways with the passage in D&C 132:9, where David is justified for his many wives - except of course for the wife of Uriah - it reads in verse "in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife".

Next up, we get at some point, a ban on polygamy among the northern european Jews - following Gershom's ban (about 1000 A.D.). This ban suggested that polygamy was no longer acceptable, and that the sandal ceremony was now required. Up to this point, polygamy was required under certain circumstances by the Law of Moses (levirate marriage). Gershom's ban was rejected by southern european Jews. This was almost certainly a culturally related issue. In northern europe, polygamy was not generally allowed. Where Muslims held sway, it was, and so that was in many ways the reason for the split. Gershom's ban was later elevated through legal rulings called takanot until it was held to be equivalent to the Law of Moses. Those who opposed Gershom's ban did so on the grounds that it superceded Moses in the case of Levirate marriage, and placed restrictions on the command to multiply from Genesis. Under some later interpretations, if your wife did not have children after a certain amount of time, you could be required to divorce her and marry another woman (avoiding polygamy that way) as opposed to earlier traditions of simply taking a second wife. I am of the opinion that the Book of Mormon is addressing a similar kind of situation (a similar kind of argument) when Lehi decides to eliminate polygamy. The Book of Mormon seems to be responding to these same kinds of arguments.

Now to answer the question. I am not sure that God is opposed to polygamy. I don't think God necessarily promotes it either. I believe that any relationship (monogamous or polygamous) which is abusive, demeaning, or otherwise harmful to women is morally wrong (and this is what God opposes). With this kind of definition in mind, I believe that its easy perhaps to justify something - to use the phrase from the D&C - David didn't sinned against God in doing what he did, without answering the question of whether or not God approved of it. If we believe that the family unit is as important as we do, then I think that we cannot believe that David adequately met the needs of his many wives. I also think that early LDS engaged in polygamy because they saw it as part of the "restoration of all things" and believed that in doing so, they were hastening the second coming. They did not use Jacob 2:30 as a defense for their polygamy until long after the practice had begun (it was essentially an apologetic argument at that point).

Working on the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record, I would suggest that Jacob is using the Old Testament to defend Lehi's commandment of monogamy - and that in doing so, he assumes that the Kingship Code reflects a genuine tradition from Moses. Whether that assumption is right or not, Jacob uses it to contradict those who want to hold up David and Solomon as examples of appropriate behavior (or even behavior that wasn't a sin against God).

So, as I noted, the contradiction exists. And I think it exists because of the larger body of scripture having challenges. The Law of Moses clearly required polygamy in some circumstances. I am not sure we should take that as a ringing endorsement from God of polygamy either.

viewtopic.php?p=416380#p416380

[_huckelberry]

Scripture is God-breathed

Could we assume a heavy use of garlic in Mediterranean based scripture breathing?

Never considered it before, but I wonder if the Elder Edda had more than a hint of herring?

A savory thought on an important matter. On the other hand I did not think the tragic huffing image at all savory.Though the proposal that man made is demonic I though toxic in like manner.

I believe scripture is God breathed and that is a plausible starting point to consider why I believe. I am not going to do so something as unproductive as try to say why an unbeliever should believe the Bible. There is ample space to disbelieve. The Bibles unity argues little. The material included was selected on that very basis. Books that would not fit simply are not included such as Peters cross Gospel. The only people who see fulfilled prophesy are believers. If you do not believe Jesus is the messiah then he does not fulfill much of any prophesy. If a person is not committed to finding fulfilled prophesy the Isaiah comment about Cyrus is commentary on recent events instead of prophesy. None of that sort of thing pushes people to believe. Belief must be discovered

I do not think for a moment God breathed means God told the writers what to say. I think each writer has enough of his own thinking concerns experience and writing style to show that the words come from the mind of a human author. Jeremiah thinks like Jeremiah , Ezekiel quite different mind and feeling sees differently.one may taste of garlic another fish and bread and Yet God has called each to witness and try to understand the faith which God has given them. If I have some faith in my heart I recognize what they are doing and can participate in their thought and faith. The writers of the Bible are like pathfinders for the people of faith who follow. Because I can share that path I find the Bible to be something to believe. Because Bible writers struggle with their own uncertainties ignorance and hope I can see that they follow Gods lead.

The book is an exodus which we can all participate in.

[_Uncle Ed]

...

I do not think for a moment God breathed means God told the writers what to say. I think each writer has enough of his own thinking concerns experience and writing style to show that the words come from the mind of a human author. Jeremiah thinks like Jeremiah , Ezekiel quite different mind and feeling sees differently.one may taste of garlic another fish and bread and Yet God has called each to witness and try to understand the faith which God has given them. If I have some faith in my heart I recognize what they are doing and can participate in their thought and faith. The writers of the Bible are like pathfinders for the people of faith who follow. Because I can share that path I find the Bible to be something to believe. Because Bible writers struggle with their own uncertainties ignorance and hope I can see that they follow Gods lead.

The book is an exodus which we can all participate in.

This is very practical reasoning, imho. It lets "unbelievers" still pursue the Infinite in their own ways.

The trouble I had for years was getting myself freed up to think without violating thousands of years of Judeo-Christian thought and "truth". Every way I turned my imagination seemed to be in conflict with the notion that I was denying the Christ and his infinite atonement, i.e. I was flirting with eternal damnation, by disbelieving the atonement as literal and necessary.

Once the Book of Mormon fell to the level of manmade literature, no matter how inspired, it completed the reduction of the Bible to the same level, and thus removed the historicity of Christianity as I had been taught it. My favorite kind of reading had always been the historical novel, which led to reading the English translations of original sources, which resulted in being made aware of the vast interpretive exercises that historians go through to make sense of the contradictions in the original sources; even supplying details that are not actually anywhere stated as facts, etc. I was disillusioned to say the least. "How can the Bible be any different?" I asked myself. The Book of Mormon upheld the Bible for a time, but as I say, it was brought down to become Joseph Smith's creation. Under inspiration, I also believe, but nevertheless not a scripture of unique truth, only one paradigm among many.

At this point, I feel that Earth's religions are all of a complex, interwoven skein. They've borrowed from each other for so long and so many times, crisscrossing each other repeatedly, that there is no such thing as "one true faith" and there never was even in the earliest stages of man's first religious pondering. All such assertions of dogmatic exclusivity are the work of men and not of "God"....

[_huckelberry]

. lets "unbelievers" still pursue the Infinite in their own ways.

The trouble I had for years was getting myself freed up to think without violating thousands of years of Judeo-Christian thought and "truth". Every way I turned my imagination seemed to be in conflict with the notion that I was denying the Christ and his infinite atonement, i.e. I was flirting with eternal damnation, by disbelieving the atonement as literal and necessary.

At this point, I feel that Earth's religions are all of a complex, interwoven skein. They've borrowed from each other for so long and so many times, crisscrossing each other repeatedly, that there is no such thing as "one true faith" and there never was even in the earliest stages of man's first religious pondering. All such assertions of dogmatic exclusivity are the work of men and not of "God"....

Hi Uncle Ed, your name puts one in mind of a talking horse. I like your avatar image, talking horse sense.

My own belief sees believers and unbelievers in cooperation with God. Well at least potentially. I have friends who are believers in Christianity and friends who are not. I think I can be connected in a positive way to either. There are people who do not have a sense of what moral hope is who I think a person must be more cautious about.("do not be unequally yoked")

I like your description of Earths religions being part of a complex interwoven skein. I have proposed from time to time that the variety of religious groups are all looking towards hints of the same one God. At least some folks here are unconvinced by such an idea.

[_Uncle Ed]

. lets "unbelievers" still pursue the Infinite in their own ways.

The trouble I had for years was getting myself freed up to think without violating thousands of years of Judeo-Christian thought and "truth". Every way I turned my imagination seemed to be in conflict with the notion that I was denying the Christ and his infinite atonement, i.e. I was flirting with eternal damnation, by disbelieving the atonement as literal and necessary.

At this point, I feel that Earth's religions are all of a complex, interwoven skein. They've borrowed from each other for so long and so many times, crisscrossing each other repeatedly, that there is no such thing as "one true faith" and there never was even in the earliest stages of man's first religious pondering. All such assertions of dogmatic exclusivity are the work of men and not of "God"....

Hi Uncle Ed, your name puts one in mind of a talking horse. I like your avatar image, talking horse sense.

My own belief sees believers and unbelievers in cooperation with God. Well at least potentially. I have friends who are believers in Christianity and friends who are not. I think I can be connected in a positive way to either. There are people who do not have a sense of what moral hope is who I think a person must be more cautious about.("do not be unequally yoked")

I like your description of Earths religions being part of a complex interwoven skein. I have proposed from time to time that the variety of religious groups are all looking towards hints of the same one God. At least some folks here are unconvinced by such an idea.

The evidence points toward such a belief in religions being influenced by all the rest. Especially true today. The process has been ongoing, but slow until now. We ought to see some very dramatic religious shifts as a result of all this increased, almost instantaneous sharing of ideas that we can engage in now.

It's all part of "God" manifesting through us. Yes, we are all pursuing answers to the same core questions, even though many people are not aware that the pursuit exists for them....

[_Tobin]

Sorry to not have gotten back to you right away Brackite, but it has been a busy week and I didn't have much time to respond to this.

Anyway, let me first restate my views of the Book of Mormon, God, and polygamy so it is clear how I approach this topic. Some of my views are rather unique for a Mormon, but you may have read my prior posts on these topics.

1) I do not know that the Book of Mormon is actually based in fact. At this time, I have no direct evidence that it is and that leads me to the view it is likely fictional. However, I hold open the possibility I am wrong and am open to and like to entertain the view that some parts of the Book of Mormon MAY have some basis in fact. My response here is mostly based around the view that the verses in question were related in some way to human-beings from God (I'll talk about that in moment) and somehow was transmitted to us in English through what we call the Book of Mormon today.

2) I do not believe in a traditional God. I believe if there is a God, or more precisely god-like beings, they are hyper advanced beings with little in common with us. They are likely millions or billions of years in advance of ourselves and we may have more in common with ants than they do with us. As a result, I really doubt they care or have any concerns about what we consider good or evil or moral and so on. They are so far beyond us and our views of such topics, that whatever we may think of these topics are likely completely irrelevant and do not apply to these beings. They exist in a state of superior morality. Our concerns are immaterial to such beings, just as the concerns of an ant would be immaterial to a human-being.

3) I view sin as doing other than what these beings would think would be in our best interest. However, it is unlikely we could ever know what these beings intend since we are so primitive and really have no idea what these beings think. So a better view is when we do things that are for our benefit and in our best interests (even if we can not see what those are) we generally are blessed as a consequence of those actions. When we do things that are not our best interests (i.e. sin), we do not enjoy those benefits or that may lead to bad consequences and so we are punished.

So let me give you a practical example of that. Murder is a sin and likely abominable to God (from a scriptural point of view). However, that is likely not accurate. Just as if two opposing ants from different colonies were to fight and one were to kill the other, I think such beings are unlikely to notice if we (primate insects) murder each other. Such beings may have communicated the idea to us that we, as intelligent beings, should not engage in the murder of each other. This should act as a guiding principle of how to develop and evolve as a species and promote civil order. However, there are always exceptions to such principles (due to our primitive circumstances). For example, we may need to defend ourselves against an aggressor, certainly murder may be necessary in such a circumstance.

Now, I would argue the same could be said of polygamy. In general, it is a bad idea. However, in certain circumstances (i.e. in some primitive cultures, such as when Solomon and David were king, the power and viability of the leader were determined by the sexual virility of the leader). And as I said, such beings are unlikely to care how we procreate otherwise. They teach us some principle and let us determine whether we'll see the benefits and common-sense of such principles or not.

-----------------------------------

Ok, I'll approach the Book of Mormon from the point-of-view it has a basis in fact. One of the themes I believe in the Book of Mormon is this superior morality. What God intends is right, and if we do otherwise, we sin and are punished either as a consequence of the action or because we don't enjoy the benefits from the proper action. In fact, we see this rather soon in the Book of Mormon. Nephi slays Laban. Clearly a case of murder and abominable to the Lord. Yet here Nephi is commanded by the Lord to do it. Why? Because even though in general murder is a bad idea as a practice for our species, the death of this primate insect had some benefits (the death of Laban would mean the Lehites would not be pursued, it would give them access to the Brass Plates, and so on).

Now, let me address polygamy.

Brackbite, you don't get credit because you failed to fully quote the verses involved and as a result provided a distorted comparison. That was very naughty of you.

The reason I said this is in one of the later verses of Jacob, God makes it clear that even though polygamy is a bad idea for our species, that he at times may specify we primate insects behave otherwise.

Here is basically an old Post of mine on the subject of the practice of polygamy among Kings David and Solomon originally from the FAIR/MADD Board:

Even If Jacob 2:30 does allow for the plausibility of Plural Marriage (which I really don't believe that it does), Jacob Chapter 2 would still be in contradiction with Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. Here is Jacob 2:23-24:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Ok, let's deal with this and the quote below. Think about what is the "thing [that] was abominable before me"? In my view, the Lord is stating in general it is a bad idea to practice polygamy. But the thing that is abominable before him here is how the Lehites are practicing polygamy. They are not doing so because God has permitted them to (as he did with David and Solomon). They are doing so because THEY decided to and justified themselves by saying David and Solomon did so. This is what is abominable to the Lord. They are not doing it for a good reason, but only because of what they perceive other people were allowed to do and not sought the Lord in such matters. Remember, the Lord gave David and Solomon these wives and concubines (one reason I suspect is because they would be considered strong leaders as a result). The Lehites took wives and concubines without the Lord's blessing.

So, in my view, you are wrong to compare the verses here because it is a distorted view of what is going on. When we do things for good reasons, we are blessed. When we don't, we are sinning. It is a question of superior morality and reason that I believe is present within the Book of Mormon.

Now here is Doctrine and Covenants 132:1 & 38-39:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

Jacob 2:24 states that King David having many wives and concubines was abominable before the Lord God.
Doctrine and Covenants 132:1 & 38-39 states that King David received all of his wives and concubines except for the wife of Uriah. Doctrine and Covenants 132:39 states that David only received one wife, which was a sin before the Lord God. Remember that Jacob 2:24 states that David had many wives and concubines which were abominable before the Lord God.

[_LittleNipper]

There is no "superior" morality. There is God's morality and that is second to none. And what God presents in the Bible is not inferior. God never blesses sin. And God expected man to have only one wife, if he had any. And having a wife is not the end all purpose of man. There is one creation and one creator. And man will never became another God.

[_Tobin]

There is no "superior" morality. There is God's morality and that is second to none.

Uh huh. Sounds like you disagree and then immediately turn around and agree with me. Doesn't that make you dizzy?

And what God presents in the Bible is not inferior. God never blesses sin. And God expected man to have only one wife, if he had any. And having a wife is not the end all purpose of man. There is one creation and one creator. And man will never became another God.

The Bible seems to disagree with you in the case of the Patriarchs, King David and King Solomon. So, either the Bible is wrong and contrary to the word of God, or you aren't getting it.