For the sake of clarifying the LDS religious beliefs (which people often associate with polygamy), the LDS belief is that a man may only have one wife except in times commanded by God.  "If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [remain monogamous}" (Jacob 2:30).

So the standard is one wife, but this standard is flexible in certain times, particularly when God needs to raise a generation under his church.

Of course, there are two ways to expand the numbers of a church:  births in the church and converts (e.g. missionary work).  (Just take as a premise for a moment that the LDS church is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ with priesthood powers and ordinances revealed.)  If you are God and you see a handful of people but know you need this church to grow and expand to cover the entire world in less than 2 centuries, what do you do?  (1) You have children born into the church so they are raised with the correct teachings, and (2) you send out missionaries.  So the ancient practice of polygyny was temporarily reinstated to raise generations that could spread out upon the earth in an algorithmic fashion, and it became the fastest growing church in the history of the world in terms of proportionate increase.

(Now it was discontinued in 1890 in the US due to the fact that people would use their free will to destroy the church, invade the temples, and do other things that would obviously defeat the purpose of the principle.  Then it was completely discontinued internationally in 1904 or 1905 (I forget the year) because the goal "to raise seed unto Me" was deemed to be accomplished and the practice was no longer necessary.  Therefore, the punishment for polygamy now is excommunication from the Church since it is not at this time ordained of God.)

Yes, but adultery was a crime punishable by stoning!!!  Don't you think if it was such an egregious sin that it wouldn't have been practiced by them?  That God would have told them not to practice it?  Obviously, it was not a practice condemned in the least.  How would a prophet get an entire nation to follow him if he was under such egregious sins?

Sorry, I don't buy that argument.

Where has God been specific?  The cites I listed discuss many of those and blow them out of the water.

What different set of rules are we living under?  You need to be more specific.

I think you do. Else why would LDS ever change it back to single spouse marriages, unless it was from God. That isn't my main argument for 2 people only in a marriage. The bible acts as a record of history as well as being God's word. And while it records men who commited adultery, it also records men who planned murder, worshipped something other than God, and so on. They may or may not have been stoned, or punished by man. Just as we know today a man who commits a crime does not automatically get recognized and punished by the law enforcement. However, God does take care of all punishment in the end.

Back to single wife and husband.

There are verses such as
1 Corinthians 7:2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

And particularly  Matthew 19:5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’

And repeated in Mark 10:8 and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one.



You may feel they are blown out of the water. But like Adam and Eve, man was made with one helper. Two become one in spirit.

The only difference in rules is the law versus grace.

No, I don't buy that argument.  The LDS rule did not change because polygamy is immoral.  The rule changed because the purpose for the polygamy ceased to exist, which means that the reason for it to exist (or a new reason) may arise in the future, and polygamy would be reinstated.  That's very different from saying that it changed because it was found to be wrong.  No one in the LDS church thinks that Abraham and those guys were sinning at all in their polygynous relationships.

(Also, polygamy in the LDS practice was restricted to those who were found worthy of handling such a relationship without sinking into lasciviousness or inability to a wife.  In other words, polygyny is a higher law than monogamy.  Right now, we are not allowed to partake of that higher law.  It will be reinstated when Christ returns.)

Further, polygyny still exists to a limited extent in the LDS church, which recognizes two types of marriage -- marriage for time (i.e. till death do you part) and marriage for all eternity (i.e. eternal marriage).  You are not currently allowed to have two living wives, but if one wife dies and you remarry, both wives are eternal and therefore the plural marriage will exist after the resurrection and continue forever after.
____

Regarding your other points, what version of the Bible are you using?  It certainly doesn't appear to be the KJV or NIV.



KJV:  "Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
As you can see, this says simply that marriage is good and fornication is bad.  Nothing about monogamy.


How do these passages have anything to do with monogamy or polygamy?

The last cite I pointed to says:

What I don't understand, if you are very specific that that there are zero verses in the bible that marriage was meant for one wife and husband only, why did LDS make that decision? Is that to follow culture?

And all the verses were NIV.

1 Corinthians 7:2 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.



And as the verse states, one wife one husband. It doesn't say wives, or husbands, (plural)


As for contradictions, I believe fully that the men listed in the bible, (except Jesus), were sinful. Yes they did things that contradicted what God wanted. They may not have tried to sin every second of the day, but they did not lead perfect lives. That's not argument to say if one commited adultery, and it's in the bible, now means the word of God encourages adultery. It simply recorded what they did.

1 - It is written in the Book of Mormon
2 - Since we have a living prophet, we can receive revelation today instead of relying on something thousands of years old.


Again, this is a translation issue.  I already addressed this, and it is discussed at length in the cites.  By restricting yourself to English, which is many cases is a translation of a translation and was readily changed in the first few hundred years AD, you are holding to a premise built on a shaky foundation.

Kat-FYI our previous discussion on this issue (although we got a bit sidetracked).

I have now actually read the Da Vinci Code...not that it changes much in what I wrote, especially being a work of fiction.

Also, there is some evidence to show that Mary of Bethany is the same as Mary Magdalene.

Wow, really resurrecting threads here...  Which Kat are you refering to?

FYI, apparently some of the documentation in the Da Vinci code is in fact patently false.  Read it with a grain of salt.

What you are referring to are the Sauniere documents, where he apparently forged documents to try to show he was a descendant of Jesus' line.  Don't worry, none of those things are included in any of my arguments.  In fact, I hadn't read the book when I posted here...just finished it a few weeks back.  Anyway, I don't plan to use anything from a fiction book...I think people know me a bit better than that.

Looks like Ron Howard is making a movie of the Da Vinci Code, starring Tom Hanks.  Should be interesting...

A well regarded cardinal has spoken out against the Da Vinci Code, saying some of the documents referred to are fictitious and the book casts the Catholic Church in a very bad light.

While it sounds like an excellent story, I do hope they do something to make sure the audience knows its intended to be fiction.  From what I understand, the author has denied making up his his 'research' when it comes to the disputed documents.

There are alot of things that I disagree with in the catholic church, but this isn't one of them.  Many extra bibical literature is out there that is also very old, it was rejected by the church of it's day.  For a long long time there only was one church.

You guys are simplifying something that is actually much more complicated.  The Catholic Church literally means the "Universal" church and was chosen to be the universal church after there were many different beliefs out there, thus creating one church a few hundred years after Christ's death.

As for the Da Vinci Code, although it is an interesting read, if you are interested in any factual basis, I suggest reading its source books, including the very interesting book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."

So far, I hear the Cardinal saying it's (meaning the Da Vinci Code) all a bunch of lies, but I haven't seen what supposedly disputes the facts that were taken from nonfiction sources.  I think the Cardinal is making the church look exactly like Dan Brown says it is.  I read the "Cracking the Da Vinci Code" book trying to dispute it, but mostly that just says, "The Bible says this.  Therefore, the Da Vinci Code claims can't be true..." which is not much of an argument.

The Bible says so should be the last say in any matter for any fundamentalist christian.

But the books selling point is:  "You've read the fiction, now read the facts."  And then to fill it with religious diatribe that does not directly address the facts in the fiction book is a bit misleading.

And maybe you haven't read the Da Vinci Code but it also points out flaws in how the New Testament and church developed.  So it's something like this:

Da Vinci Code sources:  The New Testament was developed through such and such process and leaves such and such open.  It was also prepared and compiled through such and such motivations and through such and such councils, etc. and therefore what we actually accept as the "Bible" may not be entirely accurate.  And to show this is the case, here are historical facts that prove (or at least show strongly) that there are problems with the text.

Anti-Da Vinci Code sources:  Everything above is not true because the Bible says so!

You see how that leaves me a bit hollow about supposed refutation of the theories?

The other thing that bothers me is that the supposed "refutation" of Dan Brown asserts he says thing in the book that he never says.  It draws conclusions that he never drew.  He stated certain facts but drew very few actual conclusions.  Then the anti-Dan Brown people say he says things (like sex with anyone is okay because it is a spiritual state), which he never said at all.  I don't think those kind of religious people are winning any points by misrepresenting the book or Dan Brown's statements through the characters.

Since it was brought up, it should be noted that scripture was used as scripture before the church said it was scripture. (meaning before councils said it's ok.) Certainly other books were used, and that's not wrong per se, as they were meant to build for God.


I think something that may be pointed out at this point is it's God's word. God is God. Not man. The bible is God's word, not man's. So while we may try and do various things, it's God who has real control over His word.  The bible is the bible.

If the Bible is only God's word, why are there so many versions?  In truth, the Bible was written and compiled by men through inspiration from God.  God didn't write one word of it.  And since this is the case, it is obvious that men may have cut out or changed things over time (which, as I said previously, is expressly provided for in Revelations).  Therefore, if God exercises absolute control over His Word, why would he include references to those who would change His Word.  Wouldn't that be impossible?

And if it is God's Word without any human contribution, what do we say about the contradictions?  Was God contradicting himself?  No, instead we have to apply a certain amount of common sense to the inquiry, nature, and development of the books we hold today.

Back to the other discussion, the other reason that such "because the Bible says so" doesn't work to refute the claims made by Brown and others is because they directly approach the inconsistencies as well.  So it would be, "The Bible says A and the Bible says B.  A and B cannot both possibly exist, so either the Bible is flawed or God contradicted himself."  Then to respond, "Well, they're both true because the Bible says so" doesn't make much sense to me.

They are called translations

God did write the 10 commandments so that disproves the above.

I have no idea what you are asking in this last question.

God's word is without contradictions, no one was ever saying that there isn't any human contribution... at least to my knowledge.

Alot of it is really a question of perspective, if someone goes looking at how the Bible could be wrong then they look for ways it could be wrong.  They don't look at how this could be explained in a way that doesn't look like it contradicts itself.

Unless, of course, those other books were false.  Many of the other books disagree with what we hold now as being holy scripture, oftentimes to the point of direct contradiction.  Check out the gnostics for an example of a totally different offshoot of Christianity that claimed to have scriptural backing.

Not always.  And besides, the translations don't always match.

God did not write the 10 commandments.  Moses the prophet wrote them through inspiration.  So that proves my point.


In Revelations, there is a curse for any who add to these words of God.  If they cannot be added to or changed, that's a ridiculous statement.  Of course they can, and they are all the time, so the statement is very applicable and real.

But what is God's Word?  Is it word-for-word in the Bible or the principles brought out?  I agree that God's word is without contradiction, but the Bible has contradictions.  Hence, the hand of Man is also in the Bible.

Unfortunately, your statement speaks as one who has not read the original nonfiction works, which were not looking for anything wrong at all, and in fact claimed to add more to the Christian faith than it took away.

Boy, do we even want to go there?  The reason I ask is that most people have no clue the complexity of the early Christian churches or the different branches or beliefs.  This is why the need for a "universal" church to be consolidated by Rome -- hence the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church several centuries after Christ.  (Catholic means "universal.")  This universal church for the most part squashed all other Christian beliefs and subsumed and monopolized Christian theology...even to this day.

I would be hard pressed to see significant changes. Have any?
They are God's exact words. God literally spoke them.
That's to make clear that others will claim there is more from God. God was making clear there would not be more.
I imagine this is being shown in another thread? I haven't checked the other threads yet.
I'll add that there are several websites that try and show contradictions in the bible, but do not offer widely known information that would show otherwise. Showing one side only, which is biased, does not mean it is true. If there reallly is a contradiction, why won't these sites show reasonable cause, and historical information. If they are so certain there is a contradiction, it would seem the need to hide information that may show otherwise is a tactic, and not real evidence.

Just look at the last debate we had about the Garden of Eden and your NIV versus my KJV.

But Moses wrote them down.  I don't remember anyone saying he had a photographic memory.

This is absolutely incorrect.
It's true interpretation does not even apply to the whole Bible.  It applies to the words of John the Revelator and particularly to the words in Revelations.  Because they are written with such care in their symbolic nature, that special warning became necessary.
How can anyone even say it applies to the whole Bible?  That completely takes it out of context.
Unfortunately, your statement speaks as one who has not read the original nonfiction works, which were not looking for anything wrong at all, and in fact claimed to add more to the Christian faith than it took away.

I certainly don't refer to these sites.  I think most of them are trash.  What I was referring to was a well-researched book that was not anti-Christian nor pro-Christian.  They took the facts and tried to find explanations from the actual evidence not biased by belief.

It wasn't that clear to me. Want to remind me what the difference was?
I'm not sure what you are disputing? God's words, or Moses memeory?
Nice set up. Pose the very question which you really wanted to answer, whether the verse applied to Revelation or the bible. This is what you said, So to make your original statement true, which part of revelation has been added, or taken away from?

I understand that. Just pointing a common tactic. While you may not use it, they are used by many people often. I should know, I was one of those types a long time ago.