Genesis 2:21–24
Old Testament
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
To me and many others this shows that they were to become on flesh... united as one forever...
Cleve to: to stay very close to (someone)
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
All of this suggest that it was meant to be, one wife and one husband together as one flesh and united by marriage.... nothing indicates otherwise.
this is the Mosaic Law... they did not practice the higher law or celestial law, because they were a wicked and rebellious nation...
Abraham and Joseph Smith covenanted to live the New and Everlasting Covenant.
- Thread starter Richard7
- Start date
The irrefutable fact is that the bible explicitly points this fact out to the reader, not just with Abraham, but Jacob as well:
Exhibit A:
"she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman,,,12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, HEARKEN UNTO HER VOICE:...etc."
Exhibit B:
"Now therefore, my son, OBEY MY VOICE according to that which I COMMAND THEE.,,,14 And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother:..."
Q.E.D.
Why the Jacob ref?
Clearly, your calling is to show how to deflect, obfuscate, and ignore the truth. You are not showing anyone how to find the truth for themselves at all. If you cannot find the truth, you certainly can't show anyone else how to find it; the blind leading the blind.
Your "Chuckles" are obviously meant to be annoying. Ignored.
dberrie2020
Super Member
Paul testified the Mosaic Law was added:
Galatians 3:19--King James Version
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Added to what?
The gospel--which Abraham had:
Galatians 3:8--King James Version
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
It demonstrates Abraham kept the commandments--and received of God's grace because he did so:
Genesis 26:4-5---King James Version
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Richard7
Well-known member
Well right there you see Gods approval...."Genesis 21 ....
And God said unto Abraham: hearken unto her voice;
So for all the critics such like Theo, God did not accuse Abraham of committing adultery or of sinning... thx for finding that verse which validates my OP...
Exhibit B has nothing to do with Abraham and plural marriage...
Richard7
Well-known member
There is a mechanism on this forum where you can block my post.... hint, use it ....
No. he didn't.
You're seriously confused, but don't feel bad, most of Christianity has no idea what they're talking about.
First off, one cannot transgress laws that do not exist in the first place. The law exists prior to sin for sin is the transgression of the law.
Paul is explicitly referring to the 'curse' or 'penalty' of the law. The law "that was added because of transgressions" is the same law or "handwriting of ordinances that were against us" which is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 31:26.
Take careful note of the distinction between what is INSIDE the Ark versus what is BESIDE the Ark.
"Take this book of the law, and put it BESIDE side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee."
The tables of STONE should never be confused with the scroll or book. The commandments are written FOR our benefit (e.g. "The Sabbath was made FOR man...etc.") while the curses are a witness against those who transgress God's commandments.
Jesus uses the fourth commandment as an example, but it applies to each and every commandment.
Richard7
Well-known member
Yes, we should remember (importance of) the Sabbath and keep it holy... the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed (consecrated) it.
dberrie2020
Super Member
Paul was the author of Galatians--and Paul testified the Mosaic Law was added because of transgressions:
Galatians 3:19--King James Version
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
So--what was the law added to?
Here's some context which might help you understand what Paul is talking about:
"For as many as are of the works of the law ARE UNDER THE CURSE: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
The curse of the law is not the commandments, but the consequence of those who do not follow God's commandments.
"11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
Here's the topic that Paul addresses repeatedly which most Christians fail to comprehend, i.e. justification was what the legalists of the day were constantly harping on. No one is justified by the works of the law, but just because no one is justified by the works of the law, it doesn't then follow that the law is done away with. However, when one is justified by faith, that faith allows them to keep God's commandments, and as Paul points out, it is only the doers of the law who are justified. He points this out in the very next verse:
"12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."
Again, pay careful attention to the fact that Paul is NOT referring to the commandments at all, but the "curse".
"13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto."
No man disannulleth? That's what Paul just said, no? Neither you nor anyone else can annul God's commandments.
"16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
Likewise, the promise doesn't do away with the commandments either as it evident in the preceding verses which clearly point out that one lives according to the law.
"18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one."
Note again, that he is referring to "transgressions" and one cannot transgress laws that do not exist. Therefore, the law existed already. The law is eternal. Not one jot or title of the law will disappear before heaven and earth pass away. Heaven and earth are still here so it's safe to say the law still exists and is still in effect. Moreover, the "curse" is still in effect for those who continue to sin. Likewise, Christ's sacrifice is still in effect for those who must continue to rely upon his sacrifice to cover their sins. For those who have entered into the new covenant, Christ's sacrifice is no longer relevant as it only covers sins committed under the first testament (Hebrews 9:15) Christ does not mediate a covenant of sin under the second testament.
"23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
The Greek word for "schoolmaster" is Paedegagos which as anyone who knows what a schoolmaster is, knows that they do not teach anything. They are administrators, and Paul speaks of the "ministration" which was what was done away with, not the law that was administered. The veil covered Moses' face, not the tablets.
The schoolmaster administered the penalties, punishments, curses, etc. which were what motivated Israel to follow God's commandments, but when those means of motivation are no longer necessary, they are what are done away with, not the commandments which are kept perfectly under the New Covenant.
It is not the law that allows one to keep the law, but God's promise.
Some people believe God's promises, others don't.
Richard7
Well-known member
What does this have to do with the topic? Was plural marriage practiced in the Bible? and if so why? Were Abraham and other Patriarchs not keeping the commandments......??
This part is for Theo...
So Theo if I got this wrong, please correct me or admit you believe this...not wanting to put words in your mouth...
Theo indicates that even though Abraham was a righteous man and the father of many nations, he was also a adulter....
Theo1689
Well-known member
Thanks for pointing this out, as it caused me to look into it. I think you are confusing "schoolmaster" (which is a teacher) with "head master" (who is the administrator).
The actual Greek term is "παιδαγωγος", which translates as "boy-leader". In the first century, well-to-do families would have a slave, an adult, who would be in charge of looking after or supervising the children of the house, somewhat like a nanny. They didn't perform formal school instuction. This is why modern translations render the term with the gloss, "guardian", as it is more accurate.
The law was our guide, until Christ came.
And then the part Mormons have difficulty with, now that Christ came, we no longer need the law.
Exactly.
Paul explained this most succinctly in Romans:
Rom. 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Mormons don't seem to like this passage.
I'm not sure why... ?
dberrie2020
Super Member
The LDS believe the Mosaic Law was fulfilled--and the gospel comported with the New Covenant.
That's why this can't be a reference to the Mosaic Law:
1 John 1:7--King James Version
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
That's a reference to the Mosaic Law--not the gospel:
Acts 2:38--King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The Prophet
Well-known member
The Book of Mormon is clear polygamy is an abominable sin Jacob 2:
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.
Bonnie
Super Member
Show us from the Bible where God COMMANDED "plural marriage". Show us.
Plural marriage was not actually commanded by God in the OT anywhere. And in the NT, Paul, under the inspiration of the HS, said that elders and overseers should be the husbands of ONLY one wife.
ONLY ONE. Ergo, Smith, Young, etc. disobeyed God, speaking through His servant Paul.
Show us from the OT where God actually commanded Abe to marry Hagar. COMMANDED. Instead, it was Sarah who sent Hagar to Abram, to have children by him. And he was never actually married to her--the phrase "took her to wife" was a euphamism for having sex.
www.mrm.org explains this very well:
Hagar was not truly Abraham's wife.
Jacob had two wives because he was tricked--not his own fault. He married sisters. Yet later, under the LoM, men were forbidden to marry sisters or mother and daughter sets. But Joseph Smith did BOTH.
So, if the LDS church is going to try to use the OT to support Smith's polygamy, then why didn't he obey ALL of what the OT says about having more than one wife?
And do show us from the Bible where it--or even D and C 132--says that it is okay to marry other men's wives, while they are still married to their first husbands...?
Richard7
Well-known member
Where did God condemn Abraham for sinning or committing adultery? In fact because of his righteousness he made him the father of many nations. Why would God do that to a man who Christians claim was a adulter.
Two different issues... and plural marriage was never condemned of those who had many wives... such as our great Patriarchs in the Old Testament.
You got to be kidding me.... Genesis 25... Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
The Prophet
Well-known member
Where did God condemn Abraham for sinning or committing adultery? In fact because of his righteousness he made him the father of many nations. Why would God do that to a man who Christians claim was a adulter.
Jacob 2:
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.
Two different issues... and plural marriage was never condemned of those who had many wives... such as our great Patriarchs in the Old Testament.
You got to be kidding me.... Genesis 25... Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
Bonnie
Super Member
You sidestepped answering my actual question--where did God actually COMMAND Abe to take another wife? COMMANDED?
Again, you did not answer my question--in the Bible where did God actually COMMAND Abe et. al. to take plural wives?
No, I am not kidding. I was talking about Hagar, not Keturah--you would know that if you had read my link to the MRM article. Also, Sarah was dead when Abe married Keturah.
Now kindly answer my question: where in the Bible did God COMMAND polygamy?
And while you are are it, where does the D and C 132 say it was fine and dandy for Smith to marry other men's wives while they were still legally married to their first husbands?
If you condemn Joseph Smith you have to condemn Abraham... what say you ?
I say that this is just another insipid example of Mormons trolling, and it seems to be the only thing that they are serious about.
Richard7 said:
Where did God condemn Abraham for sinning or committing adultery? In fact because of his righteousness he made him the father of many nations. Why would God do that to a man who Christians claim was a adulter.
Ditto
Theo indicates that even though Abraham was a righteous man and the father of many nations, he was also a adulter....
Ditto
Their religion is established on a pack of lies, and perpetuated by more lies. Is it any wonder then why they have no intention of entering into any sort of honest discourse about the history of Joseph and his lifetime of lies?
Oh, but of course, they are moral, upstanding citizens.
I say that this is just another insipid example of Mormons trolling, and it seems to be the only thing that they are serious about.
Richard7 said:
Where did God condemn Abraham for sinning or committing adultery? In fact because of his righteousness he made him the father of many nations. Why would God do that to a man who Christians claim was a adulter.
Ditto
Theo indicates that even though Abraham was a righteous man and the father of many nations, he was also a adulter....
Ditto
Their religion is established on a pack of lies, and perpetuated by more lies. Is it any wonder then why they have no intention of entering into any sort of honest discourse about the history of Joseph and his lifetime of lies?
Oh, but of course, they are moral, upstanding citizens.