Because of the recent media on the Fundamentalist LDS group that “got busted” in Texas for abuse and polygamy the LDS church has made efforts to distance itself from this sect. Below is a recent interview with the LDS public affairs representative regarding the churches current stance on polygamy and how it wants the world to view the LDS church:
Polygamy is a huge issue and it is a great concern still for members of the LDS church. Some have concerns with polygamy and say the LDS church still “practices” polygamy in the sense that it is still a revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants section 132. In addition, people are still married in temples for eternity to spouses after one spouse passes away, so polygamy is technically still a part of LDS doctrine.
Depending on the Christian you speak with, they will either denounce or embrace polygamy. Generally speaking, the Christian world claims the Bible to be the only word of God. The Bible contains polygamy all throughout it’s text and depending on which Christian denomonation you speak with, they can argue for or against it. Here’s a christian website discussing the issue: http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html. Here’s another website that has people, including pastors arguing for polygamy and that true Christianity should allow polygamy with other Christians arguing against it: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm. As you can see in many cases interpretations of scripture are a matter of semantics as to whether God truly “approved” polygamy in the Bible or not and are up for interpretation.
Those who follow the LDS faith could have an easier time answering the polygamy question than their fellow Christians due to the fact they believe in modern, continuing revelation.
Joseph Smith stated “I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 324). The LDS website also says polygamy isn’t allowed unless God directs it. Therefore, God can take away polygamy or ordain it through his prophets as he did through Nathan in the Bible (2 Samuel 12:8). Currently the LDS church doesn’t practice polygamy on grounds of a reveleation from a prophet named Wilford Woodruff that is contained in the Doctrine and Covenants in the “Official Declaration 1.”
However, there are still some questions that remain for both LDS christians and other Christians who believe in the Bible:
If the LDS church wants to take such a strong stance against polygamy, shouldn’t the church completely take it out of it’s doctrine, since it is still supported in D&C 132? Why or why not?
Also, if one is to consider himself/herself a true Christian, should they believe in polygamy because it is supported in the Bible? Why or why not?
Grace for Grace 
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 24, 2008 at 12:05 am
Christians, LDS, the Bible, and Polygamy
[…] Special Contributor wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptGenerally speaking, the Christian world claims the Bible to be the only word of God. The Bible contains polygamy all throughout it’s text and depending on which Christian denomonation you speak with, they can argue for or against it. … […]
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 1:55 am
Clark Bunch
Polygamy in the Old Testament of the Bible was a typical part of the culture, not necessarily endorsed by scripture. I believe the New Testament is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. I’m also an ordained Baptist minister, not a Latter Day Saint, if anyone is wondering. “A man shall leave his father and mother, cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” How can a man become one flesh with two or more wives at the same time? The mystery of the church and it’s relationship to Christ is compared in the New Testament to marriage. We know from the whole Bible that God wants us fully committed to Himself only and no other. When Israel worship other gods he called it “whoring” after other gods, and used the prophet Hosea to illustrate this point.
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Soy Yo
While I can’t speak for Christians, having never been one, I think I can speak as a disillusioned ex-Mormon because that is what I am. On the issue of polygamy I see so many contradictions that my head starts to spin. Here are two passages from the BoM and D&C that seem to go against one another.
Jacob 2:22-28
22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
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.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
———————————————————
D&C 132
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
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.
So which is it? Was David and others wrong for practicing polygamy like it says in the BoM or were they ok to do it like it says in D&C?
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm
J. Stapley
For fun, here is the entry in Joseph’s journal (written by his secretary), that was used to make the History of the Church/TPJS quote:
This is obviously complicated by the fact that he was actively practicing it during this time and this is the month that Emma came around to it for a bit. I think that is why the editors of the HC changed it the way they did.
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 7:03 pm
ama49
#3
Great question. David was allowed because the prophet Nathan told him to. See 2 Samuel 12:8. I have a link to this scripture in my post…
Your question on the Book of Mormon scripture falls under the quote I gave by Joseph Smith when he said polygamy isn’t allowed unless God commands it…God didn’t command it for the people in the Book of Mormon.
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 7:05 pm
ama49
#4
Interesting! So when was the D&C revelation given? After this or before?
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 7:07 pm
ama49
#2
I agree with you. Most scripture (especially New Testament) points to the fact that polygamy isn’t God’s intention otherwise he would have set it up that way in the beginning, right?
What are your thoughts on how Nathan the prophet gave David wives that were approved by God?
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 7:36 pm
J. Stapley
What we have as Section 132 was written down the previous July of that year.
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Soy Yo
ama49 #5
I was not refering to the people living in Book of Mormon times, I was taking about David.
If David was allowed, why then does the BoM say that what he did was abominable before the Lord? I don’t get how it can be both ok and not ok depending on which book of scripture you read. It’s ok for him in the Bible, not ok in the Book of Mormon, and then ok again in D&C.
I guess I just don’t get it. I don’t get why God would say two very different things. The BoM is the “Most correct book” on the earth so does that mean that I should take what is said there more seriously? If that is the case, then David sinned and the Bible and D&C wrong.
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Jay
Ama49
I think it is disingenuous for him to say the term Mormon should never be used to describe the polygamous sects. That is where they got their start. They believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Quite frankly his statement that
“We don’t look like these people, we don’t dress like these people, we don’t worship like these people, we don’t believe the same things as these people, and the term Mormon should never ever be used to describe these sects…”
sounds rather arrogant. These people have sprung from doctrine of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. We should take responsibility for the existence just like the Catholic Church should take responsibility for the existence of protestant Churches. It’s our fault that these people (FLDS in TX and elsewhere) believe the way the do.
Post #2
Polygamy in the Old Testament of the Bible was a typical part of the culture…
I have heard this explanation many times from other Christians. That it was part of the culture and that somehow excuses what they themselves call a “sin”. After all doesn’t the polygamy of Abraham, Jacob and others go against the commandment to not commit adultery?
Today it is culturally acceptable for two unmarried people to have sexual relations if they both consent to do so. Does that make their intercourse any less of a sin because it is “part of the culture”? No matter how you slice it the polygamy of the OT is hard for Christians to explain away. How did prophets of God get away with it? Why did God give David wives? And how does this square with the seeming monogamous teachings of Christ in the New Testament?
It’s a hard pinch they’re in to condemn the LDS Church and not defame the OT prophets that Christ himself revered. And if you look at post #2 he offers no explanation for 2 Samuel 12:8. Why? What does that verse mean if not that God gave wives to David and would have given him more?
Soy Yo
Jacob also says that God will allow polygamy at times. In the verses you quote he is talking about unauthorized polygamy.
J. Stapley
It is no secret (at least to those that know) that Joseph Smith publicly denied polygamy while he was living it. Many people have called this “lying for the Lord”. The reasoning I’ve been given for it was that he feared for his life if it was known publicly. I don’t know if I buy that but its the best explanation the apologists have.
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Soy Yo
Jay,
I get that there is the explanation that if God says it is ok then it is not sin. I don’t agree with that because I don’t think God would change in regards to something like that, especially since it is taught that polygamy will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom.
What I don’t understand though is how there can be 3 very specific scriptures, all referring to David, that do not agree with each other. In looking at David alone, God calls it a sin in one place but supports it in another. If all of the scriptures were inspired by God then why the contradiction?
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Jay
I guess it takes an acceptance of Mormon theology. I accept that explanation because it does fit with LDS belief that God condones polygamy sometimes and sometimes does not. The argument would go something like this:
God was OK with David’s multiple wives until he murdered a man and took his wife, thus we have 2 Samuel 12:8, D&C 132: 37-39. Then it was an abomination and God took his wives away from him, hence Jacob 2:22-28. In other words, he was no longer authorized to have many wives because of his unrighteousness and therefore the Lord then looked on it as an abomination.
I don’t really see a contradiction, given the clarification that Jacob give in the same book you quote from. I’m not saying that you don’t have an argument, I just don’t think it is very strong. There are other areas of LDS belief that are much more troublesome (i.e. polyandry, translation methods, priesthood ban).
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 2:25 am
Eric Zacharias
First of all, NOWHERE does God say that having multiple wives is acceptable. (Ama49: “Therefore, God can take away polygamy or ordain it through his prophets as he did through Nathan in the Bible.”)
The citation given in 1 Samuel is merely a statement of fact:
God gave David the kingdom of Saul. Evidently, David and others believed that this included Saul’s wives. Nowhere does it say that God approved of David’s action; it just says I gave you all the things that Saul owned. We should be careful not to make a leap of logic by saying that God told David that polygamy was good and acceptable. That is the general rule of not adding to nor taking away from Scripture.
Note that it is only Mormon texts that delve into the issue and that these texts waver between forbidding and accepting. The Christian is rightly perplexed with God’s silence on the polygamy, which not only David and Solomon practiced, but which Jacob practiced when he took Leah and her sister Rachel as his wife; nowhere has God spoken on this issue. Therefore, the Christian begins to think that this is a cultural issue. But, again, the Christian is at least honest when he shrugs his shoulder. Better that than write and rewrite Scripture to approve or disapprove of polygamy.
But the Christian will point to what God does say with clarity. Therefore, when Paul speaks to marriage, the Christian cannot say, “Well, we’ll just wait until another prophet comes about.” Paul does speak to that possibility when he warns that people have itching ears and will glom onto those whose teachings they want to hear.
Secondly, it is mentioned that a strength of the LDS church is the doctrine of “Progressive Revelation.” Well, ironically, the LDS church is a mirror of the Catholic Church, which it seems the LDS simultaneously despises and admires. Despises, because Smith would have lumped the Catholics with all other Christians as deceivers. Admirers, because the LDS is a protestant-style copy of the Catholic Church, making proclamations by their head Prophet in Salt Lake City with the same inerrant authority of the Pope of Rome. See, the Roman Catholic Church has “progressive revelation” also, since they regard the teachings of the councils and popes as having the same (if not greater) authority of holy Scripture.
But that is why Martin Luther had to break away: as a student, he could not understand how the teachings of pope or council could stand against the Word of God. When the papacy would not tolerate a discussion of Scripture, Luther had no other recourse than stand with the Word of God. God’s Word is unified. It has one Author; the message focuses on the salvation that comes through the Only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Hope that helps.
Eric Zacharias
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 2:51 am
Eric Zacharias
Polygamy and Culture
Just wanted to add this thought: culture DOES weigh into the equation, as does human pride. God does not always go about pointing out faults; often we see God being silent on an issue and showing how the arrogance of a man is his own un-doing.
A great example of this is Sampson. Sampson had been consecrated as a Nazarite; his life was directed to a specific goal and vows were made that he refrain from wine and revelry–and, of course, a haircut.) Sampson is a bit of a maverick. God is not on his hide, chiding him for disobedience. The only thing that Sampson keeps from doing is having his hair cut; yet, eventually, he even breaks down and lets this happen. God lets Sampson feel the consequences; he doesn’t have to send a prophet (like Nathan) to tell him that he had done wrong and deserves all this.
My point: Repeatedly, God ALLOWS people to go against his Word; it does not mean that God is approving of the action. Silence should never be taken as proof of acceptance on God’s part; and that is true regarding polygamy. Sampson moved into the culture of the enemy, embracing it even as he sought to destroy the Philistines. He was not attracted to like-minded women, but to the sophisticated Philistine babes. God was patient with Sampson. Sampson’s pride and disobedience brought about his own undoing. Note that when Sampson repented of his action, he called on the Lord to forgive him. Scripture tells that when Sampson pulled down the pillars, collapsing the pagan temple, he destroyed more in that instance than in his entire campaign against the Philistines.
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 3:01 am
Clark
Actually practice of polygamy is in the law via the levirate laws.
Most Christians think it ended because of the scriptural injunction of a Bishop having only one wife. Likewise they, like Jacob in the Book of Mormon, point to David and Solomon’s polygamy as wicked.
In Judaism it ended in the European segment by around the 14th century. Middle eastern Jews continued to practice it and it’s actually practiced in Israel by some Jews despite being technically illegal there. In the US polygamy by Jews was only ended in 1868.
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 5:23 am
Dawby
#13
I can see how you can interpret it (1 Samuel) that way and I can also see how people can interpret it the other way as well.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on your interpretation.
Your last comment on the scriptures is a whole other off topic discussion on God’s word and the Catholic vs. LDS faiths and God’s word.
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Jay
God gave David the kingdom of Saul. Evidently, David and others believed that this included Saul’s wives. Nowhere does it say that God approved of David’s action; it just says I gave you all the things that Saul owned.
I think its pretty clear that it is Nathan speaking for God as his prophet. So unless you want to throw out everything a prophet has said for God (he even says “Thus saith the Lord”) then I think you have to accept that fact that God gave David multiple wives.
2 Sam 12:7-8
7. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and Idelivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8. And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom…
There is no wiggle room here. Are you saying that Nathan lied? Can prophets say “thus saith the Lord” and say what every comes out of their own heart? I don’t think many Christians would agree with that and if so then why do we need Apostles (Peter, Paul, etc. and Prophets Moses, Abraham, etc.)
Note that it is only Mormon texts that delve into the issue and that these texts waver between forbidding and accepting.
LDS theology (as does the Bible) support the notion that polygamy when sanctioned of God is not a sin. Again, how was Abraham punished? Is it possible for a prophet to commit adultery and still be a prophet revered by Christ himself. Wouldn’t God have removed him (Look what happened to David)? How is it possible that God would kill someone on the spot for touching the ark or spilling his seed and yet allow a prophet to continually commit adultery and go down in history as one of the greats?
…culture DOES weigh into the equation, as does human pride. God does not always go about pointing out faults; often we see God being silent on an issue and showing how the arrogance of a man is his own un-doing.
I just can’t believe that God would allow a prophet to set such a bad example just because it was the culture at the time. Culture is no excuse for fornication or adultery. Samson was not a prophet and therefore a poor parallel to Abraham and Jacob.
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Eric Zacharias
You are twisting words, Jay. I am not calling Nathan a liar.
As a real prophet (not a false prophet, BTW) Nathan conveys the word of God: Everything belonging to Saul was conveyed into David’s hands. That included wives.
1) I see that you are still at a loss as to where God says that it is permissible to take a plurality of wives? In the Old Testament this was the practice; how else would the world be populated? I don’t see God commanding or forbidding plurality in the Old Testament. In the New Testament the point is made clear that we are to be monogamous.
2) Jay writes: Samson was not a prophet and therefore a poor parallel to Abraham and Jacob.
Sampson is an exact and not a poor example of Abraham and Jacob. All these were selected to serve God. Sampson was a judge of Israel, appointed at birth to serve God. Does Sampson have to be “a prophet” to be a servant of the Lord? Who are we to inform God what a shameful choice he made in selecting Sampson to do his work? In fact, Sampson’s disobedience stands in stark contrast to God’s forgiveness; God’s grace and salvation always stands in stark contrast to our sin.
Jay wrote: I just can’t believe that God would allow a prophet to set such a bad example just because it was the culture at the time.
Believe it, Jay. God, the one and only, is not an idiot. And God’s word is not broken: the account is just as it is written.
Yes, Sampson was more the maverick and certainly broke the vow made for him as a Nazirite. Yet, God used this maverick to be a thorn in the side of the Philistines, even while Sampson delved into the Philistine culture. Abraham and Jacob were just as good at sinning. Look at Abraham, who lied about Sarah being his wife. He did it to save his skin. Jacob was a conniver –and a superstitious one at that, relying on the superstitions of the culture around him– who thought that his trickery and his superstition was his salvation. Over time, he learns that it is God’s grace that saves. His deception, to his father, his brother, and his uncle is not befitting one who belongs to the covenant, is it? But at the Jabbok River, we see how the Lord redeems him; from that point on, he becomes the one who holds onto the Lord’s promise.
Let’s not fail to notice God’s grace! The Bible tells how we fall short of the glory of God. Grace, however, is what saves us. God redeems the life of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob…and the life of Sampson… and my life and the lives of everyone everywhere… entirely by the blood of Jesus Christ, who cleanses us of our sins.
In Christ,
Eric
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Eric Zacharias
Jay, I’m confused about what you are saying here:
“Again, how was Abraham punished? Is it possible for a prophet to commit adultery and still be a prophet revered by Christ himself. Wouldn’t God have removed him (Look what happened to David)? How is it possible that God would kill someone on the spot for touching the ark or spilling his seed and yet allow a prophet to continually commit adultery and go down in history as one of the greats?”
I don’t lay claim to having a perfect understanding of Scripture, Jay, but I’ll try to guide you through your confusion.
1) Abraham wasn’t punished for his sins. The blood of Jesus Christ was the atoning sacrifice for any of his sins (John 8:56-58; 1 Peter 1:9-12). Along with the people of God, Abraham was saved by his faith in Christ, for God credited his faith as righteousness.
2) It is possible for a prophet to commit adultery and still be a prophet revered by Christ himself! David did commit adultery with Bathsheba. God exposed the sin and would have destroyed David, by David’s own judgment (“Such a man must die!” 2 Samuel 12:5). Grace is shown by God: David confesses his sin and God allows him to live and serve him. Even greater grace is shown, as David is the promised ancestor of Jesus Christ. David is not removed from any blessing, is he? God is not ashamed to state that Jesus would flow from the line of David. All this comes not from David’s obedience; it comes, despite his passionate sin and disobedience. David remains as a prophet and a king, made worthy ONLY because God is merciful and forgiving. He is faithful to his promise, as we see in the light of Jesus Christ.
3) Ill try to help you with your last statement, but frankly, I’m not sure what you are trying to say:
A)”How is it possible that God would kill someone on the spot for touching the ark or spilling his seed and yet B) allow a prophet to continually commit adultery and go down in history as one of the greats?””
A) Killing the person “on the spot for touching the ark” was God’s call, not ours to make. It was probably because the ark was where God chose to dwell with his people. This might be hard to understand, since platonic thought so pervades our thought that we like to think that God is “up there” in heaven while we are “down here” on earth. But, as with God’s very nature, he can be wherever he wishes to be; biblically, we see God always desires to be among his people–from Adam and Eve to Abraham to the time of Jesus Christ and to the present day. The Ark of the covenant was not a symbolic presence, but the real presence of God. It was really Christ among his people: in the ark, in the pillar of cloud and fire–even in the manna and water, according to St. Paul (1 Corinthians 10:1-4; Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 7:14; John 6:53). The one who reached out to steady the ark was among those who really questioned the authority of Moses and the priesthood of Aaron; similarly, judgment awaits all who undermine or misrepresent the Word and Kingdom of God.
B) “…and yet allow a prophet to continually commit adultery and go down in history as one of the greats?”
For this answer, read point 2 very carefully. It’s about God’s grace, not about our ability to keep the Law in thought, word or deed.
Hope that helps.
In Christ,
Eric
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Jay
I see that you are still at a loss as to where God says that it is permissible to take a plurality of wives?
Well I guess if you still insist that Nathan did not speak for God, when he said “Thus saith the Lord … I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom…” (I’ve only pointed to this now four times) then you’re right. Not only that but you keep insisting that if it is the cultural practice of the time its OK. Well if that’s the case I guess living together isn’t that big of a deal. As long as I’m a good person I can live with a few women and I’m good with God.
In the Old Testament this was the practice; how else would the world be populated?
Whoa! I’ve heard this explanation from Moromons (i.e. polygamy was for rising up a righteous generation) but never from a non-Mormon before? I think it’s justifiable to say that it is entirely possible to populate the earth without taking multiple wives. I don’t think there was ever a shortage of males.
Does Sampson have to be “a prophet” to be a servant of the Lord?
No, I think you know that and I was not implying that at all. Anyone can be a servant of the God that desires to be. However, Prophets speak for God himself as if he were there. They are leaders of God’s flock, not simply a thorn in someone’s side. Sampson did not hold the calling of a prophet.
Look at Abraham, who lied about Sarah being his wife. He did it to save his skin.
Jacob was a conniver –and a superstitious one at that, relying on the superstitions of the culture around him– who thought that his trickery and his superstition was his salvation.
This sounds familiar also. Mormons justify Joseph Smith’s lying about his polygamy and Brigham Young’s (and others) racist statements by saying they were just human. Critics point to that as proof that they were false prophets. That somehow they have to hold some impossible standard that the rest of us don’t. It is nice to know that is not the case. I guess the faults of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young must not be such bad things after all.
Abraham wasn’t punished for his sins.
Interesting. This is a new explanation I have not heard before from a non-LDS. Usually, I’m told that Abraham was punished. I always ask how and have never been given a good answer. You’re explanation is much better and more honest. Thank you.
David is not removed from any blessing, is he?
2 Sam 12
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he (notice the word he, not they) shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
For this answer, read point 2 very carefully. It’s about God’s grace, not about our ability to keep the Law in thought, word or deed.
I understand the concept of God’s grace saving us from sin. Mormons believe this too. Yes, I know there are minor differences but it boils down to the same idea. No one can enter into heaven with out God’s grace no matter what they do.
We have touch on so many topics that we could spend months talking about them. So I’ll just have to end by saying we just interpret the scriptures differently and leave it at that. It’s not that I think you are not presenting a fair argument based on your interpretation, I just don’t agree with how you choose to interpret the Bible. It’s the same story with all Bible believing people. They all have their interpretation and everyone else is wrong. That’s why we have so many different sects, denominations, etc. etc.
I’m sorry you’ve had such a hard time understanding what I’m trying to say. It think we’re probably just talking past each other. Thanks for the good discussion. I’ve learned some new things from your comments that I wasn’t aware of before. God speed!
Jay
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Eric Zacharias
For the record:
1) Polygamy was not necessary to populate the earth.
2) I can see your concern: I am NOT justifying lying, as you insist. I’m saying that Abraham and Jacob lied. They were human and relied on lies (or cunning or superstition) to save themselves. Yes, I know the extent that Joseph and Brigham and others are excused for the same. I can see how you are concerned that the Biblical accounts seem to justify their shady activities. The difference, as I see it, is that Abraham is shamed for his deception; Jacob learns that ultimately you meet God, who strips away all the deception and calls you to walk in faith.
3) You are right; David received punishment for his sin: his child died and his house was divided, his wives taken away from his house by his own son, Absalom. There was a consequence of his sin, a physical punishment which God delivered. But that did not atone for sin, as I’m sure you realize; God’s grace was seen in establishing the throne with David, despite his adulterous action.
4) Grace is often misunderstood, so I’m not sure Mormons or even some Christians understand it. Grace is all about what God does to save us, not what we do for God. When we say our works contribute to this, we err. To believe in the work of Jesus Christ is the sum and substance of our salvation in Christ.
5) I agree that we are probably talking past each other; and yes, it is a matter of how we approach our Biblical studies.
Thank you for your comments. Blessings in Christ,
Eric
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 10:16 pm
ama49
Whew! This was a hot topic! Won’t it be great when the Good Lord comes back and sets us all straight! : )
LikeLike
April 26, 2008 at 7:55 am
ht
seriously!!!! one debate I never get into is freakin’ polygamy!
LikeLike