The Mormon Moment

[OtherCheek]

OC, where was the commandment from God to build the Temple in Jerusalem? You do realize that it was something that David wanted to do for God without a commandment, right?

Yes. But why would David even want to build a temple? Where did he get the idea in the first place if it weren't a requirement of the Lord? Also, God reserved that work for Solomon to do by commandment.

In 1st Kings 5, we read:

2 And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying,

3 Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto the name of the Lord his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet.

4 But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent.

5 And, behold, I purpose to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spake unto David my father, saying, Thy son, whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room, he shall build an house unto my name.


So, the temple was not built until Israel's enemies were subdued. In a similar way and reason, (because of enemies), the practice of plural marriage was ended.
And in Isaiah 44:28 we read regarding the commandment to rebuild the temple as recorded in Ezra:
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Also where was polygamy commanded to any Biblical prophet?

It is written in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, that Abraham was commanded in this thing. But it is not mentioned in the Bible.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.


It is also mentioned in that section that David was also commanded of this thing. And he did not offend God except in the case or Uriah.

Abraham was promised by the Lord, a tremendous number of posterity. It is arguable, that he he obtained a child from Sarah, that he would not have taken Hagar and others to wife. But for some reason, known to the Lord, (and it is interesting for LDS people to ponder the WHY), Sarah bore no child until AFTER Abraham took Hagar and through her had a son.

I'd also like a real answer to my earlier question about how we are supposed to divide what was "official" prophetic revelation, and what wasn't. Especially when you have people like Mohammed teaching what he did.

How did Abraham know to proceed with the command to sacrifice his son Isaac? He knew that human sacrifice was morally wrong. This discerning occurs chiefly by the power of the Holy Ghost, IMO. The hearer and reader is therefore placed under obligation and requirement to be in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. Secondary ways might include comparing the newly received command, with previous commandments of morality. IMO.

[OtherCheek]

The covenant offered to Abraham is not the same covenant that is offered to Christians now, and is called the New Covenant, because it is NEW. Circumcision isn't a necessary part of the New Covenant, but believing in Christ is. Baptism is also a new part (although not 100% essential as the thief on the cross next to Jesus was never baptised, and no baptism of the dead doesn't count), and is something all believers should do if they are capable. These things weren't a part of the Old Covenant, but things like ritual purity, and Temple sacrifices were(the Tabernacle was of course the center of sacrificial acts before the Temple was built). In short Abraham wasn't given the same covenant that Christians are a part of today.

The token of circumcision "then" is comparable to the ordinance of baptism "now". But that had, and has nothing to do with the covenant of marriage, which is what I am referring to. They are different (separate) ordinances and covenants. Abraham was given both.

[Cow Poke]

The token of circumcision is comparable to the ordinance of baptism. But that had, and has nothing to do with the covenant of marriage, which is what I am referring to.

Well, with the obvious difference that a man can only be circumcised once.

[ZackMartin]

Well, with the obvious difference that a man can only be circumcised once.

Not quite true - ever tried converting to (Orthodox) Judaism? Even if you are already circumcised, they'll try circumcising you again! (OK, the second circumcision is just a little nick to draw a bit of blood, but it's still considered a circumcision.)

[Cerebrum123]

Yes. But why would David even want to build a temple? Where did he get the idea in the first place if it weren't a requirement of the Lord? Also, God reserved that work for Solomon to do by commandment.

In 1st Kings 5, we read:

2 And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying,

Point one fails, because our desires don't always match up with God's commands, and David desired to build the Temple, but was commanded NOT to do so. Solomon wasn't commanded directly by God to do so either, but he knew that God told his father David that it would be his son who would do this honor for God.

Point 2, It's not mentioned in the Bible, because that's not how it happened. Sarah came up with the ide
3 Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto the name of the Lord his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet.

4 But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent.

5 And, behold, I purpose to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spake unto David my father, saying, Thy son, whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room, he shall build an house unto my name.


So, the temple was not built until Israel's enemies were subdued. In a similar way and reason, (because of enemies), the practice of plural marriage was ended.
And in Isaiah 44:28 we read regarding the commandment to rebuild the temple as recorded in Ezra:
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.


It is written in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, that Abraham was commanded in this thing. But it is not mentioned in the Bible.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.


It is also mentioned in that section that David was also commanded of this thing. And he did not offend God except in the case or Uriah.

Abraham was promised by the Lord, a tremendous number of posterity. It is arguable, that he he obtained a child from Sarah, that he would not have taken Hagar and others to wife. But for some reason, known to the Lord, (and it is interesting for LDS people to ponder the WHY), Sarah bore no child until AFTER Abraham took Hagar and through her had a son.



How did Abraham know to proceed with the command to sacrifice his son Isaac? He knew that human sacrifice was morally wrong. This discerning occurs chiefly by the power of the Holy Ghost, IMO. The hearer and reader is therefore placed under obligation and requirement to be in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. Secondary ways might include comparing the newly received command, with previous commandments of morality. IMO.

No the Temple wasn't built due to the blood on David's hands, and it was never a commandment at all, but God seeing that David was so intent on honoring Him promised that his son would build the Temple in his stead. Also a desire to do something isn't necessarily due to a commandment(and can often be in opposition to such a commandment).

For point 2, It wasn't mentioned in the Bible, because it didn't happen that way. Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, because she was trying to force God's hand, and Abraham consented. This was an act that showed that they weren't fully trusting God to do this on His own time(btw D&C is not trustworthy on this issue)

For point 3, Abraham had already been having direct dealings with God, and trusted Him. Also this is entirely different, than what I was asking anyway. I was asking how we are supposed to know when someone is speaking in "official" prophet capacity, and when he's just airing his opinion, so far no real answer has been given. BTW the Biblical way of doing this is to see if ALL of their prophecy is true, AND they teach about the ONE True God, otherwise they are a false prophet(like Mohammed and Smith).

For your second post in response, your post was much more seeming to say that Abraham was given the exact same covenant that Christians are today. You could have much more clearly stated that the covenant of marriage is the same now as it has always been, but that's not the way your post was worded. Also Christ made it clear that marriage is when one woman and one man become "one flesh", and this is different than polygamy, in fact it is explicitly monogamy, just like Adam and Eve. They were after all the original intention of marriage(just like divorce wasn't a part of that original intention).

[Cow Poke]

Not quite true - ever tried converting to (Orthodox) Judaism? Even if you are already circumcised, they'll try circumcising you again! (OK, the second circumcision is just a little nick to draw a bit of blood, but it's still considered a circumcision.)

I actually think I could have gone to my grave quite happy not knowing that.

But since you WENT THERE .... no, not gonna say it.

[OtherCheek]

No the Temple wasn't built due to the blood on David's hands, and it was never a commandment at all, but God seeing that David was so intent on honoring Him promised that his son would build the Temple in his stead. Also a desire to do something isn't necessarily due to a commandment(and can often be in opposition to such a commandment).

You and I will not likely never agree on the "purpose" of the temple. You believe it was something that David thought up as a way to honor God, while I believe it was commanded of God to build a temple.

For point 2, It wasn't mentioned in the Bible, because it didn't happen that way. Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, because she was trying to force God's hand, and Abraham consented. This was an act that showed that they weren't fully trusting God to do this on His own time(btw D&C is not trustworthy on this issue)

Where does the Bible say that Sarah was "forcing God's hand?" Or is this just an inference that you draw?
You and I will likely never agree on the issue of plural marriage, or on the trustworthiness of the Doctrine and Covenants.

For point 3, Abraham had already been having direct dealings with God, and trusted Him. Also this is entirely different, than what I was asking anyway. I was asking how we are supposed to know when someone is speaking in "official" prophet capacity, and when he's just airing his opinion, so far no real answer has been given. BTW the Biblical way of doing this is to see if ALL of their prophecy is true, AND they teach about the ONE True God, otherwise they are a false prophet(like Mohammed and Smith).

I gave you a real answer. The primary way of discerning is by the power of the Holy Ghost.

For your second post in response, your post was much more seeming to say that Abraham was given the exact same covenant that Christians are today.

Only given to LDS today.

[Cerebrum123]

You and I will not likely never agree on the "purpose" of the temple. You believe it was something that David thought up as a way to honor God, while I believe it was commanded of God to build a temple.



Where does the Bible say that Sarah was "forcing God's hand?" Or is this just an inference that you draw?
You and I will likely never agree on the issue of plural marriage, or on the trustworthiness of the Doctrine and Covenants.


I gave you a real answer. The primary way of discerning is by the power of the Holy Ghost.


Only given to LDS, today.

Is God commanding David to build the Temple in the text, or is it an inference that you draw?

No the "forcing God's hand" isn't worded into the text, but when you look at all of it, it's what makes sense.
Well one day I will hope you will see that polygamy isn't God's original plan, and that D&C isn't really Scripture.

How does discerning from the Holy Ghost work when you have been told by said prophet that he IS speaking in official prophet capacity, and it still contradicts previous revelation(remember God is not the author of confusion, and polygamy has been causing much confusion).

You claim that LDS are Christian, don't you? Also if this covenant is only given to LDS, then why did God change His covenant back to what it was before Christ came(with Christ came a New Covenant, and that's what Christianity is all about)?

[Cow Poke]

How does discerning from the Holy Ghost work when you have been told by said prophet that he IS speaking in official prophet capacity, and it still contradicts previous revelation(remember God is not the author of confusion, and polygamy has been causing much confusion).

I think this is a crucial point. Where ELSE do we find God temporarily "commanding" something that is so controversial, and has caused so much trouble and heart-ache and even death, then rescinding that, coincidentally, when things got really rough?

And, assuming God WOULD do something like that --- what was the offset? What BENEFIT came of it?
To the critic, of course, the only benefit was that it dealt with Smith's sexual desires and fantasies.

But, what do MORMONS claim is the real benefit of polygamy during Smith's and Young's days?

[OtherCheek]

Is God commanding David to build the Temple in the text, or is it an inference that you draw?

The command was there, but it was not for David to fullfil. But his son, Solomon.

No the "forcing God's hand" isn't worded into the text, but when you look at all of it, it's what makes sense.

From you paradigm, not mine.

Well one day I will hope you will see that polygamy isn't God's original plan, and that D&C isn't really Scripture.

And I have the opposite hope for you.

How does discerning from the Holy Ghost work when you have been told by said prophet that he IS speaking in official prophet capacity, and it still contradicts previous revelation(remember God is not the author of confusion, and polygamy has been causing much confusion).

Confirming the words of any prophet by the power of the Holy Ghost is required of us. Even when he says he is speaking in an official capacity.

You claim that LDS are Christian, don't you?

Yes, but there are obvious differences.

Also if this covenant is only given to LDS, then why did God change His covenant back to what it was before Christ came(with Christ came a New Covenant, and that's what Christianity is all about)?

The "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage" is only available in the LDS Church today. And only the LDS Church teaches it. That is not the covenant that you are referring to, is it?

[Cow Poke]

Well one day I will hope you will see that polygamy isn't God's original plan, and that D&C isn't really Scripture.

And I have the opposite hope for you.

If polygamy was God's original plan, why didn't He create Adam and Eve and Maribeth and Sarah and Chloe.....

Adam certainly had more than one rib!

[OtherCheek]

But, what do MORMONS claim is the real benefit of polygamy during Smith's and Young's days?

The Lord's way's are not man's ways. I don't pretend to know ALL the purposes of God regarding plural marriage. But ONE of them, I think, is outlined in the BoM from the prophet Jacob.

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30)

I think this is a valid reason that the Lord might have-- to raise up seed unto himself.

However, if Abraham was a wicked prophet, I would have to think that this scripture is untrue.

[Hamster]

Abraham married his sister. Is it cool to marry your sister?

[Cerebrum123]

The command was there, but it was not for David to fullfil. But his son, Solomon.


From you paradigm, not mine.


And I have the opposite hope for you.



Confirming the words of any prophet by the power of the Holy Ghost is required of us. Even when he says he is speaking in an official capacity.


Yes, but there are obvious differences.


The "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage" is only available in the LDS Church today. And only the LDS Church teaches it. That is not the covenant that you are referring to, is it?

Ok, 1 there was no command to Solomon, or David to build a Temple, it all came from David's selfless desire to please ,and honor God.

2, Well, when you are reading documents that aren't Scripture, and treating them as if they were it's going to mess with your "paradigm".

3, Smith already failed the Biblical test of prophethood, and I'm not going to trust any of his new "scriptures".

4, How are you supposed to do that, when you have already accepted the contradictions of your own prophets (allowing then disalllowing polygamy, and within a short amount of time, plus Smith's threat to have his wife "destroyed" if she didn't get in line with his polygamy).

5, Yes, LDS, have accepted a false prophet, and his works of fiction.

6, Jesus preached monogamy, and Smith didn't, this is a contradiction, but you claim that it was part of a "covenant" given to Abraham. Why then, did God give the LDS, something that He removed when Christ was alive?

[Cow Poke]

The Lord's way's are not man's ways. I don't pretend to know ALL the purposes of God regarding plural marriage. But ONE of them, I think, is outlined in the BoM from the prophet Jacob.

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30)

I think this is a valid reason that the Lord might have-- to raise up seed unto himself.

However, if Abraham was a wicked prophet, I would have to think that this scripture is untrue.

You're totally ignoring Cerebrum's use of the word "original" in "original plan", OC.