My wife recently picked up a fascinating book in the Denver Airport written by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. The book has the title “Thou Shall Prosper: Ten Commandments for Making Money.” On the surface the book seems like just another you-can-do-it motivational book for entrepreneurs. It is not. The depth of the Rabbi’s insights are remarkable. He spends the first two chapters providing the biblical justification, from a Jewish perspective, for the morality of gainful work and the profit-making enterprise. He attacks with great intellectual force what he terms the “popular misconception” that “charity is good; business is selfish.” He, of course, agrees that charity is virtuous; however, his primarily intent is to dismantle the notion that only philanthropic activity is godly while business is somehow morally suspect or even evil.
Rabbi Lapin chronicles the relatively recent cultural denigration of business by rehearsing the overwhelming media and entertainment bias against private enterprise. While this is interesting, Lapin’s writing goes much deeper by bringing key Old Testament insights to bear on the bias against business. I believe the heart of his argument comes in his chapter “The Dignity and Morality of Business.” As a preface to his argument, Lapin demonstrates that American popular culture overwhelmingly supports sexual immorality while strongly condemning the pursuit of profit and wealth. In his words, the slightest failing in the business world will “immediately and unconditionally be condemned as immoral by American popular culture.” Meanwhile, the most outrageous acts of adultery and sexual immorality by entertainment personalities will generally be celebrated.
Lapin applies the principles of Jewish wisdom to this obvious double-standard. This is where Lapin is at his best. Allow me to quote:
“On some subconscious level, humans find it convenient to view themselves not as very special beings touched by the finger of God, but rather as just a bunch of very smart animals. The smart-animal view of humanity is convenient because it liberates people from complex moral analyses of their lives: In the same way that no animal ever looks disapprovingly at itself, neither should I…If humans view themselves as just smart animals, then they are freed from any discomfort at their own actions—they would never have to reflect on whether some thoughts they allow into their minds are indeed worthy. If humans are sophisticated animals, but animals nonetheless, everything they do is genetically predetermined, and they are less morally accountable.”
Lapin goes on to note that in contrast to the smart-animal view of humanity, Judaism views man as uniquely touched by God to be a moral and spiritual being. He points to a number of human rituals that indicate that we are more than animals including our habits of “not allowing (our) bodies to emit loud noises in public,” raising food our “mouths instead of lowering (our) mouths to the plate, and privately eliminating bodily excrement rather than doing this wherever it is convenient. These things, he notes, indicate that humans are “unique and special beings” with the ability to rise above their animal nature and express themselves spiritually.
Now here is the “big idea.” Lapin makes the case that from an OT and Jewish perspective, the creation of wealth is at least “partially how people express their spirituality.” He goes on to say that wealth creation, “is an unnatural act—no animals in nature ever do it—but overcoming nature, all nature, especially human nature, is what Judaism sees people as obligated to do.”
Lapin then contrasts the cultural denigration of business to the traditional view of man as a being touched by God. He says the following.
“People (in contemporary culture) tend to be more tolerant of activities that would fit a materialistic and animalistic worldview and less tolerant of activities that are uniquely human and spiritual…It is almost as if the culture yearns to tear down anyone whose activities suggest that there is more to life than the material…In the same way, those who occupy themselves by making a living in business are also defying the materialistic (smart-animal) stereotype and become unwitting enemies of naturalistic materialism and its spokespeople.”
In short, Lapin makes the case that the animus against business is a manifestation of a deeper desire in contemporary culture to view man as just a smart-animal and thereby abrogating ourselves of any culpability for our sexual immorality. Who can blame an animal for being “in heat.”
|
I believe it is wrong to say that Jesus hated money, he did not speak ill of money, and he certainly did not hate those who worked for profit. All of his disciples were called from places of employment and some from very well paid positions I'd wager, what with physicians and tax collectors in the lot. He is also noted as spending a great deal of time with people very interested in making money even illegally, or at least immorally.
However, I think Jesus would teach us that making money should never be the end, and we are measured more by what we do with out money than how much money we have. Consider the parable of the widow who gave two mites from her complete lack and how blessed she was verses a rich man giving talent upon talent from his wealth.
Thom,
I have a feeling that I'd need to read this to learn more before I could judge it. I believe there is a danger in theology that teaches we should seek wealth simply because it tends to run the danger of giving rise to judging the poor because they are poor. There is a difference between the poor that work very hard and still remain poor because it is difficult to rise out of your class in a single generation do to educational issues, and the poor that simply refuse to work because it is easier to live off welfare. I would wager that a strict understanding of the ideas being laid out here would suggest that those who work hard but remain poor are not to be judged because they work hard and value their own work, but those who live off of others and work hard to avoid work are not achieving what they should as mankind and so are far from what they are created to be.
Of course, since I haven't read this I can say if this is clearly defined as such. It needs to be made very clear though, or it just gives rise to the rich concept that the poor are poor because they don't deserve to be rich ... It is an old and constantly reoccurring lie.
I have a feeling that I'd need to read this to learn more before I could judge it…I would wager that a strict understanding of the ideas being laid out here would suggest that those who work hard but remain poor are not to be judged because they work hard and value their own work, but those who live off of others and work hard to avoid work are not achieving what they should as mankind and so are far from what they are created to be.
●I do highly recommend Lapin’s book. In fact, I am going to copy his first chapter and have my youth guys study it with me.
●Lapin does touch on the subject of the worthy and “unworthy” poor. The term “unworthy poor” was the common parlance of 19th century Catholic, Protestant and Jewish charitable organizations. However, Lapin mostly establishes the biblical foundations for work and business as worthy endeavors. He explains how this has been the cultural and religious understanding of the Jewish people for millennia. What are most remarkable are his insights about secular materialism as inherently anti-business while also fostering sexual immorality. These insights, in my view, are worth the price of the book.
I really don't see how a human who selfishly squirrels away more than he needs is nothing but an animal. And little more.
●First, you may want to consider that Rabbi Lapin is not defining prosperity as a “human who selfishly squirrels away more than he needs.”
●Secondly, you may want to consider the economic truth that you could never live on the Big Island and be employed as an educator if humans did not produce more than they need. If they didn’t, you literally (not figuratively) would likely not even be in existence since the human capacity for productivity—well beyond bare subsistence--makes it possible for hundred of millions of people to live in the United States instead of a just a few thousand stone-age people. However, even if we posit that you existed in a bare-subsistence society, you certainly would not have an advanced education; in fact, you wouldn’t even be able to read, much less sit at your computer interacting with people in real-time from all over the world.
●Yet, if you choose to live at a bare-subsistence level, there are some places left on earth where you could fly by jetliner using our advanced communication-transportation systems and strip yourself of all technological support. There you could live—hopefully being able to squirrel away enough extra food and fuel to make it through the next drought or winter season. Oh, sorry, you wouldn’t squirrel away more than you need because that would be selfishly acting like an animal.
Oh, but Lapin states that squirreling away more than you need is not an animal trait but higher human. He is obviously wrong about the distinctive quality of wealth creation given the skills of the squirrel. I would be inclined to believe the higher quality of intellect comes in the form of the male lion who waits for food to be delivered to him, if it can be so arranged. Today's Dominoes.
Thom, from someone who lives on the Big Island, with its densely wooded areas and remarkably constant climates, people live outside for years with or without work...sleeping in trees or under tarps. For the most part these are peaceable folk. They use the banks of internet computers at local public libraries to stay current, learn the Hawaiian way of net and spear fishing. And they share what they gather, rather like the principle God taught with the Israelites with Manna. Manna needed to be collected and eaten. It was never fit to eat later. No gathering of wealth when it came to manna. Funny that a your wealthy Jewish author did not find this in his text. But then that's not where he got his stuff from.
Thom, from someone who lives on the Big Island, with its densely wooded areas and remarkably constant climates, people live outside for years with or without work...sleeping in trees or under tarps. For the most part these are peaceable folk. They use the banks of internet computers at local public libraries to stay current, learn the Hawaiian way of net and spear fishing. And they share what they gather, rather like the principle God taught with the Israelites with Manna. Manna needed to be collected and eaten. It was never fit to eat later. No gathering of wealth when it came to manna. Funny that a your wealthy Jewish author did not find this in his text. But then that's not where he got his stuff from.
●You can leave the trees and climate, but you must remove the tarps, computers, libraries, nets, spears, matches, TVs, internet, roads, homes, buildings, boats, ships, food supplies, medical clinics and hospitals, doctors, schools, water resources (other than rain water), water filtration, bathrooms, waste treatment facilities, A/C refrigeration, teachers, homes, cattle (all transplanted there from other regions), cars, trucks, concrete, asphalt, and all vegetation brought from other locations. There you go. Have fun gathering your manna for the day.
●I love it when someone who lives on an island paradise at the pinnacle of the greatest system of economic advancement in the history of the world and who enjoys a level of luxury the pharaohs and kings of old could only have dreamed of, declares that others would be better off if they subsisted on just grubs and snails. I think it was Marie Antoinette who said, “Let them eat cake.” Gecko, no one is holding you back—go for it; a stick is all you need to get at them grubs.
●By the way, as a public school educator your…ah…grasp??...of basic economics seems to fit.
Holy smoke, Frankie, you can sure pack a lot of stuff and questions into one paragraph! I’ll try to tackle most of them.
1. How would you define secular materialism? Why would it be anti-business? Philosophical materialism is the belief that only that which is material exists. Therefore, secular materialism is a philosophy that excludes religion and “spirituality” as a way of defining existence. Consequently, according to materialism, man can only be defined as a “smart-animal.” It is Rabbi Lapin’s contention that a society organized around philosophical materialism will view man as an animal and, therefore, ultimately resist such things as A) self-restraint; B) sexual control for the sake of the family; C) personal responsibility; D) moral responsibility, etc. All these things are necessary for a successful economy. It is self-evident that animals cannot build economies—neither can humans who act like animals. This is why philosophical materialism will inevitably be anti-business.
2. Being a man of the cloth, I am obliged to take your word for it that many of the disciples were wealthy, something I had never heard before. Of course, giving up great wealth for moral reasons, makes a strong case for Religion. I think it would be more accurate to describe the disciples as coming from the “artisan” class of Jewish society. Some were small business owners. Jesus was an artisan.
3. Tell me, did Jesus as a Jew, teach the Torah as the Jews understand it today, or did he make serious alterations as the Gospels suggest? Jesus did teach the Torah. He did not make serious alterations of it; rather, he taught the proper way to understand it. For instance, he taught that the Sabbath was made for man’s benefit and not that man was made to benefit the Sabbath.
4. The trouble with Religious Faith is it doesn't stand still, it can be white today and black tomorrow, yet still be held equally valid. This is not true of Judaism or Christianity. However, as we learned in the thread from our last post, this is true in regard to Mormonism.
5. How does a man work very hard, yet remain poor? Sounds like slavery. There can be many reasons for this. There is nothing morally wrong with a man who is a hardworking individual of meager means. By the way, most wealthy people are older while—as a rule--younger people are far less affluent. The reason for this is obvious. The longer one has to accumulate intellectual and personal capital, the greater the chances are that one will accumulate wealth. For instance, I started working in the third grade in the strawberry and bean fields of Oregon. My daughter hates for me to tell her all the menial jobs I have had over the course of my life. The fact is, though, I learned something valuable from every single job I have ever had. Obviously, my income is now greater than when I was working as an orderly in a hospital in my twenties.
6. The middle class is the major class in any industrial society. They are, by and large, self-sustaining. If everybody worked, and were self-sustaining, with all the prestige that accrues to that morality, we wouldn't need a Welfare State, so how would government gain oppressive power? Poor people as a tool of moral tyranny, is the invention of the Bible. Actually the Bible teaches that some people are poor because of their sinful habits. Many religious people “freak out” when I mention this, however, it is true. For instance, a majority of the “homeless” in American cities don’t have homes because they have the vicious habit of drug addition or alcoholism. Certainly, there are some people who—through no fault of their own—have fallen on hard times (e.g. the people suffering from the floods in the Mid-West). These people need extra help and with that help will get back up on their feet. On the other hand, welfare was designed to be “a hand up and not a hand out.” That was literally stated by LBJ. Unfortunately, it very often has become a system that keeps people in poverty through its negative unintended consequences (e.g. fostering fatherlessness).
"RICHES are not desired except for the sake of something else: for of themselves they do no good, but only as we use them. But the highest good is desired for its own sake, and not for the sake of something else.
2. The possession or preservation of those things cannot be the highest good, which benefit man most in being parted with. But such is the use of riches, to spend.
3. The act of liberality and munificence, the virtues that deal with money, is more praiseworthy, in that money is parted with, than that money is got. Man's happiness therefore does not consist in the possession of riches. [566]
4. That in the gaining of which man's chief good lies must be some thing better than man. But man is better than his riches, which are things ordained to his use.
5. The highest good of man is not subject to fortune: for fortuitous events happen without effort of reason, whereas man must gain his proper end by reason. But fortune has great place in the gaining of riches. [567]
[566] But perhaps in the spending of them, which presupposes possession. Not in the spending of them for the mere sake of spending, which is called `throwing money away.' And if they are spent for a purpose, in that purpose rather than in the spending must happiness lie.
[567] Especially in persons `born to fortune.'"
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles III, Chapter XXX
How does this view from Aquinas square with the Rabbi's with respect to the "creation of wealth"?
Timbo:
●Great question! Actually, I wrote a post simply titled “Money” using the portion from Aquinas that you quoted.
●I think Rabbi Lapin and Aquinas largely agree. Aquinas takes the time to specify what money actually is. Money, according to him, is artificial wealth that we use for symbolic exchange. Money, therefore, is a measure of the value of the natural things that we want to sustain and enhance our lives. As Aquinas points out, we would never seek money for its own sake if it did not secure for us the necessities and luxuries of life. It would be like yesterday’s newspaper. The downside of money is that is can serve as a means for “disordered concupiscence” which is simply the out-of-control desire for pleasure. Too much pleasure is a very dangerous thing. Pleasure in itself is not bad. Too much pleasure is destructive. Obesity from overeating is an example of too much pleasure-seeking. This is why Paul said that the “love of money” leads to “many sorrows.” The love of money is really the love of excessive pleasure.
●My point is that wealth in itself is not illicit. External possessions (what we call wealth) are necessary for human survival. Either we take care of our own needs or someone will have to do it for us. What makes the possession of wealth illicit is when a man does not justly handle what he has. According to Paul and Aquinas, a man must not set his will on wealth as the ultimate “good” of life. Only God is the ultimate good of life. Paul says we are not “to trust in uncertain riches…but in the living God.” Additionally, a man must use his wealth in a proper way for the benefit of his family and others.
●Additionally, Aquinas taught of the virtue of magnificence. This is what he states:
Wherefore the magnificent man does not intend principally to be lavish towards himself, not that he does not seek his own good, but because to do so is not something great. Yet if anything regarding himself admits of greatness, the magnificent man accomplishes it magnificently: for instance, things that are done once, such as a wedding, or the like; or things that are of a lasting nature; thus it belongs to a magnificent man to provide himself with a suitable dwelling, as stated in Ethic. iv. ST Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 134, A. 1.
●Aquinas had a high regard for those who are able to be extremely liberal with their money doing great works for their family, friends, the poor and for God’s glory. In fact magnificence is a virtue made possible by great possessions. It is also made possible by moderation in the lavishing oneself. Rabbi Lapin is fully in favor of this and believes that the OT proclaims this view of biblical leaders.
We should understand markets and market engineering determine much of what happens in a community.
If you don't believe this, watch the price of corn and everything that depends on mid-west corn go up in the next year following the floods this spring in Iowa, the largest corn producer in the world. Through the wonderful energy policy engineering of the current administration (white house and congress), we will know pay more for gas because 15 to 20% of all gas must contain ethanol which is made from corn which is now under 12 feet of water. There is not going to be much corn in those fields so every kernal of corn will be worth more than an ounce of gold. Of course, the commodity traders will continue to engineer the market (as they are doing with the barrels of oil) so they get rich.
I find it interesting that the good Rabbi wants to build a case for wealth-creation based on the Torah. So here is my question, what does he do with the texts about Jubilee in the Old Testament? Does he recommend that the plantation owners give back the land to the original owners after 49 years? It seems to me that Jubilee was to be the 'corrective' by God for human greed. Poverty was considered in the Torah to be a part of the human condition which is why farmers were instructed not to harvest to the very edge of the field and to leave some crop in the field for the poor to harvest so they could support themselves. I assume that Lapin suggests some modern equivalents which assist the poor with the dignity that the Torah commends.
those are my thoughts.
ron
"CHAPTER CXXXIV--In what the Good of Poverty consists
LET us observe in riches what is to be thought of poverty. Exterior riches are necessary to the good of virtue inasmuch as by them we support the body and succour other people. Means to an end must derive their goodness from the end. Exterior riches therefore must be some sort of a good to man, still not a principal but a secondary good: for the principal good is the end, -- other things are good as subordinate to the end. Therefore it has been held that the virtues are the greatest of good things to man, and exterior riches the least. Now the means to any end must be checked by the requirements of that end. [801] Riches therefore are so far forth good as they make for the exercise of virtue. But if that measure is exceeded, and the exercise of virtue impeded by them, they are no longer to be counted among good but among evil things. Hence it comes about that the possession of riches is a good thing for some men, who turn them to a virtuous use; and an evil thing for other men, who thereby are withdrawn from virtue, either by excessive solicitude or excessive affection for their wealth, or by elation of mind thence arising."
It goes on to say that poverty can also be a good and an evil. Good if it frees a person to contemplate spiritual things but evil insofar as it prevents the good of riches.
"But the good of one's own subsistence is so necessary, that the lack of it can be compensated by no other good: for on the offer of no other good should a man deprive himself of the means of supporting his own life."
Summa Contra Gentiles III, Chapter CXXXIV
Even spiritual contemplation (which is good) is not a sufficient good to give up the means to support oneself and one's family. These are essential obligations which "can be compensated by no other good".
In Ron's example, he points to the big plantation's rape of the people and the land and the removal of the wealth, both natural and cultural, which is a good example of riches impeding virtue.
Tremendous examples can be found to illustrate the good and the evil.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an example of using wealth to a virtuous end.
I think that the quote often attributed to Wesley comes in here: "Get all you can, keep all you can, give all you can"
Thank you for your response. It was helpful and an encouragement.
ron
●Notice Aquinas’ balanced and insightful view here: poverty is only a “good” if it allows one to contemplate spiritual things, whereas, riches are a good unless they distract man from virtue. On the other hand, poverty is an evil when it keeps one from riches. This obviously implies that God’s purpose for mankind is that he be able to attain riches and use them virtuously. Rabbi Lapin would be in complete accord.
Timbo wrote: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an example of using wealth to a virtuous end.
●Agreed. However, it is also a great “good” that Bill Gates used his abilities to develop Microsoft which manufactures products by which thousands of people have excellent jobs with great benefits and millions more are able to use those fine products to be productive members of society. To only see charitable activity as virtuous or good is to imply that legitimate business is an “evil.” It clearly is not seen this way biblically nor did Thomas Aquinas see the activity of commerce as an evil. You’ll notice above that Aquinas described the building of a nice home as a virtuous activity. Of course, modern popular culture sees business as inherently evil. Even the word “business” has a malevolent connotation. This is unbiblical and, I believe, a purely materialistic (philosophical) notion.
Ron wrote: Timbo, you quoted, "Riches therefore are so far forth good as they make for the exercise of virtue."…I think that the quote often attributed to Wesley comes in here: "Get all you can, keep all you can, give all you can"
●While I like Wesley’s quote, I think it can lead to a false assumption. Again, the use of riches for charitable activity is not the only virtue. This is the false assumption that, I believe, Aquinas and Rabbi Lapin would oppose. For instance, to gainfully work to support one’s own family is obviously a virtuous activity. It is so much so that Paul laid down a strict rule that “he who does not work shall not eat.” Hence, it is an evil thing to choose “subsistence living” when one can do otherwise if it produces a detrimental impact on one’s family. Even engaging in religious activities—no matter how wonderful—which result in the financial neglect of one’s family (the Thessalonian practice) is wrong.
You must exaggerate your offense and any level headed counter here in arriving at this comment. Need I say nobody made this absurtd pt.? Then to turn to Gates and Microsoft... suggesting he, somehow, runs the typical benevalent business.
Sorry, Gates does not get the scumbag defense attorney off the hook...you know the ones that get a murdering waste of flesh off on a technicality in exchange for money. Jesus had it right. Follow the advice of Jesus concening these rascals.
It seems this is yet another time where the virtue of the mean should be applied. The way I see it, on the one hand you have the extreme where poverty is viewed as a curse from God and affluence is the blessing of God. This leads to the wrong notion that the more money a person has the more righteous they must be by default and the less money a person has the more sinful they must be.
On the other hand is the view that money itself is evil and so anything we do to attain money must be evil. Thus work is evil and must only be endured to the level of attaining good such as self preservation and charity.
Somewhere between these two extremes is the correct view. I figure that the Rabbi's book is probably close to the truth even though it could be easily misconstrued into something incorrect.
I believe that one could, for example, make a case that people that pursue industrious lives use this to justify their own choices as well, "I've earned my sexual choices" such a person might think. It also gives way to that danger of looking at those who appear less industrious as being less virtuous.
Still, one must not fall into the other trap of leaning to far away. Instead staying true on the virtuous path one is likely to find that we should work to build wealth so that we can provide for our families, but also so that we can be generous. I think of the Virtuous Woman in the 31st chapter of Proverbs. It seems to me that she did all the things expected of her, but then went beyond that providing an even better life for her family and raising the level of esteem for them in her community, even to the point that they could give of their plenty. Or of Joseph, who planned for the drought in the time of plenty, but also gave judiciously to all those who did not have the foresight and resources to plan for this catastrophe.
In every case I can think of, when a person is truly virtuous in the Bible, they had a right view of money and resources as not only providing for their family, but also providing for those who are unable to help themselves. One without the other is a failure in right thinking.
I think some people are blessed with the ability to work honestly (or run a business honestly) and make money. On ocassion, I have asked people before taking the offering on Sunday morning if there is any one who wished they could give more. I asked for hands. Then I prayed for God to prosper these people. One particular businessman was complaining a few weeks later about how busy he was. I said, 'Well, you asked us to pray that God would prosper you so you could give more, didn't you? Thank God for your business!" I base this on the text from Romans 12 where various spiritual gifts are listed including the 'gift of giving liberally'. I think some people are blessed of God to earn money. It is their spiritual gift then to give liberally. That is my take on what Wesley meant.
I know Dallas Willard in his book, Disciplines of the Spirit, has a long discourse on Wesley's quote. He doesn't like it. He didn't make his point to me - I still like my understanding better than his.
(Quoting me) "To only see charitable activity as virtuous or good is to imply that legitimate business is an “evil.”
(Your response) You must exaggerate your offense and any level headed counter here in arriving at this comment. Need I say nobody made this absurtd pt.?
●Actually my point is not an exaggeration in the least. The point is—again—to say or to see charitable activity as the only virtuous activity that one can engage in with money is to imply that legitimate business is evil. Oh, and by the way, even major businesses like Starbucks and Microsoft engage subtly in this error by propagating the notion that they “give back” to the community through their charitable activities. This, obviously, implies (to rational people), that these businesses have somehow “taken” something from the community by providing excellent goods, services and jobs. This is a subtle use of language which speaks volumes as to how pervasive philosophical materialism has become. I doubt that Microsoft would dare run a public service campaign saying that they “give” to the community by providing a great product, great jobs, and wonderful benefits for their employees.
You wrote: Then to turn to Gates and Microsoft... suggesting he, somehow, runs the typical benevalent business…Sorry, Gates does not get the scumbag defense attorney off the hook...you know the ones that get a murdering waste of flesh off on a technicality in exchange for money. Jesus had it right. Follow the advice of Jesus concening these rascals.
●You probably didn’t notice this since you were working so hard to find something to disagree with me about; however, I didn’t bring up Microsoft.
●Regarding “scumbag defense” attorneys: you probably didn’t notice this, but, my point was about “legitimate business.” Anyone who is engaged in illicit activities whether he is an attorney or an educator does not fit within my point.
I think of the Virtuous Woman in the 31st chapter of Proverbs. It seems to me that she did all the things expected of her, but then went beyond that providing an even better life for her family and raising the level of esteem for them in her community, even to the point that they could give of their plenty..”
●Hmmm…great biblical example which I think Rabbi Lapin would say provides us with the balanced and proper view of godly wealth.
You wrote: I believe that one could, for example, make a case that people that pursue industrious lives use this to justify their own choices as well, "I've earned my sexual choices" such a person might think. It also gives way to that danger of looking at those who appear less industrious as being less virtuous.
●Such thinking, however, would be a non sequitur. Because I have acted justly in my business affairs does not give me license to act unjustly in my sex life. This would be as absurd as saying that because I am an honest businessman I can, therefore, freely murder people.
You wrote: On the other hand is the view that money itself is evil and so anything we do to attain money must be evil. Thus work is evil and must only be endured to the level of attaining good such as self preservation and charity.
●This, by the way, is a great point brought up by Rabbi Lapin. He notes that if attaining money is inherently evil, then God’s people must immediately cease and desist from doing so. Many religious people have the subtle notion in their minds that somehow legitimate business is tainted with evil. “Making money” is somehow corrupt. However, if this is true then the biblical principle is that to continue in such activity will darken one’s conscience and make a person a moral reprobate. There can be no such thing as engaging or enduring in evil money-making only to the level of self-preservation without acting evilly. Aquinas, of course, teaches that making money is not evil; therefore, Christians are free to engage in it virtuously.
I think Paul also would agree. Right after saying that the LOVE of money was the root of all evil, he said this:
"17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.
18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.
19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." 1 Timothy 6:17-19.
Obviously, Paul does not say it is evil to be rich but gives Timothy guidance on the proper use of those blessings after they are received.
I also thought it was an interesting point when Aquinas, in the post I put up last night, attributed in large part, riches and wealth to fortune.
Quoted again for clarity- "5. The highest good of man is not subject to fortune: for fortuitous events happen without effort of reason, whereas man must gain his proper end by reason. But fortune has great place in the gaining of riches."
To often something other than than charming pastor oozes between your manicured fingers. Starbucks offers a uniquely valued product and ambiance. They do not jam a collection plate under anybody's nose; nor do they sell "growth" plans while taking a percentage of the take as a kickback.
To run such a public service campaign is inconsistant and money down the toilet. These companies certainly provide a product at fair market value. I think what is inherent in their business is that they provide consistant quality and innovation and, thus, do not swindle the public.
I suppose you believe Gates has entirely left running the core business and is personally involved in the charitable side of his business because all his "stealing" has gotten the better of him.
To often something other than than charming pastor oozes between your manicured fingers. Starbucks offers a uniquely valued product and ambiance. They do not jam a collection plate under anybody's nose; nor do they sell "growth" plans while taking a percentage of the take as a kickback.
●It is interesting how you can take the most gentlemanly and refined discussion and almost immediately turn it into an opportunity for personal invective and venom. You do great harm to your religion by acting as its great champion while viciously and personally attacking others who are merely discussing ideas.
You wrote: To run such a public service campaign is inconsistant and money down the toilet.
●Thank you for proving my point.
You wrote: These companies certainly provide a product at fair market value. I think what is inherent in their business is that they provide consistant quality and innovation and, thus, do not swindle the public…
●Again, thank you for substantiating my point as well as agreeing with Rabbi Lapin.
You wrote: I suppose you believe Gates has entirely left running the core business and is personally involved in the charitable side of his business because all his "stealing" has gotten the better of him.
●No.
I made no personal attack (Borrowing your words, any rational mind can see that) Do you see any reference to yourself? Do you see any reference to the current church where you are presently employed? Do you justify the practices I revealed? You cry a bit too loud to be victim.
Ludicrous! You implied, no stated, that Thom was taking kickbacks and implied dishonesty and thievery. And you compound your vile innuendo with the latest lie.
Obviously, simply scrolling up one comment reveals how empty your this lie is. Its clear that all you did was make a personal attack. You make no point about the topic. Do you not think we can scroll up a comment?
Seriously, have you nothing to add to what otherwise was a civil discourse. You don't even make a salient point.
Such a silly man.
Such a shame.
I have never had a problem being direct whenever I mean to be.
If you think I was implying that Thom personally gets kickbacks from investment/banking services available through Covenant Baptist, I categorically deny that he gets such kickbacks from those revenues. I couldn't care less. Whatever departure from Christ's mandates made by any of you in the clergy always eventually sees the light of day.
To often something other than than charming pastor oozes between your manicured fingers.
Contrasting charming and manicured with oozing and something different is clearly a direct insult that any person with even the slightest grasp of the English language would pickup on.
You are lying about the simplest of things that can be easily verified. Is it so hard to just apologize for your rudeness and insults? You cannot find a single honest bone in your body can you? You are like my wife's college roommate what would lie about even the simplest things. She could knock over the salt shaker right in front of you, then claim she didn't touch it with complete sincerity and even claim offense that it was suggested she did such a thing. The sort of thing that needs clinical help. I suggest you seek counseling for this disease of the mind for your own good.
(Addressing Thom) To often something other than than charming pastor oozes between your manicured fingers. Starbucks offers a uniquely valued product and ambiance. They do not jam a collection plate under anybody's nose; nor do they sell "growth" plans while taking a percentage of the take as a kickback.
When confronted by Thom about personal invective, Gecko states:
I made no personal attack (Borrowing your words, any rational mind can see that) Do you see any reference to yourself? Do you see any reference to the current church where you are presently employed? Do you justify the practices I revealed?
Gecko continues his denial by writing to Timbo:
I have never had a problem being direct whenever I mean to be. If you think I was implying that Thom personally gets kickbacks from investment/banking services available through Covenant Baptist, I categorically deny that he gets such kickbacks from those revenues. I couldn't care less. Whatever departure from Christ's mandates made by any of you in the clergy always eventually sees the light of day.
●First of all, my “current church” doesn’t engage in any of the “practices” that Gecko “revealed.” My church is not the “Covenant Baptist.” Furthermore, we don’t provide any “investment/banking services” so it is impossible for anyone to get any “kickbacks.” Additionally, we never “jam a collection plate under anybody’s nose” nor do we “sell ‘growth’ plans.”
●Second, it is obvious to any reader that Gecko was directly addressing me in regard to “something other than charming pastor (oozing) from (my) manicured fingers;” jamming a collection plate and selling growth plans for a percentage kickback. Just for the record, I use finger clippers and I have never had my nails manicured because I’m a mountain backpacker and gun enthusiast. My firearms buddies would “love” my manicured nails : - ). That would be a real hoot.
●Gecko, as an educator, I’m wondering if you know the definition of the word “incorrigible.” I think the term aptly describes your ethical character in regard to truth-telling.
Your rousing defense against your inspired implied meaning of my words once again brings me to the acknowledgement that not only are you the best at accurately splicing then mangling my meaning and LDS doctrine but also you are superior at revealing hidden meanings in all LDS text, and expert at mine...if only because of the cheers of your dependable shadows....even if it means that you all swallow hard and remain silent as an RC declares Catholics wrote the Bible.
The fact that you were aware that the case against Joseph Smith which you profusely dissected ended before charges were filed, didn't slow you down. You nonetheless ALSO found an implied level of guilt in Joseph without finding a complaint from the supposed offended woman, without acknowledgement that the complaint came from a known low life, and that the law would not file charges because they were spurious. You saw hidden implications of guilt for Joseph, but not in Abraham, Saria, and Hagar where Abraham performed the act and where the account can be read explicitly in the Old Testament. With that you do ooze something other than the charmer you show the public on Sundays.
Apart from that it is common form for Baptist churches generally to offer some sort of Bible financial planning classes in order to restructure investments to the interest of Baptist Foundations and sponsored investments. I have no interest in what your particular brand of Baptist church is about. It simply doesn't matter where Baptists have the greatest latitude of all denominations as to defining the truth and splitting with their brethren.
It just becomes that much more important for me to say. given all of that, that you really miss the mark in not being tolerant enough to acknowledge the LDS as Christians, given that is who we acknowledge as God.
I mean really Thom. This is the virtual world. If here you choose not to repeat the charge so common to other evangelicals when they link Catholics to Satan, there comes a chuckle from time to time you cannot be as tolerant of the LDS?
I say that Thom, because when you and your shadow can bring yourself to be tolerant with us, I will allow you the greatest joy you can experience here.
I'll post parts of Joseph Smith's justification for his sexual appetite which is found in the Doctrine and Covenants section 132 which is LDS scripture. http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
Here are some excerpted verses. The citation is posted for any who want to read it all.
"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 bJacob 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 cexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be be glorified."
I especially like how God speaks directly to and promises to destroy Joseph's wife Emma if she doesn't go along with the program. You have to give the guy some credit for having the gonads to pull that one off.
No Christian denomination that I am aware of believes that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are now gods. This is polytheistic....many gods.
Christianity, by definition, is monotheistic. There is one God.
This definition is incompatible with LDS belief in many gods. Therefore, one can only conclude in truth that the LDS religion is not a Christian one. Objectively, there is no other conclusion once one is aware of the doctrine.
●Oh, boy, here we go again. Okay, I’ll take them one at a time.
1. Hidden implication of guilt for Joseph (Smith): You know as well as I do that I only use recognized LDS sources and the historical evaluations made by your own highly qualified scholars and historians. All I do is quote them and point out to you what they are saying. However, these individuals (who remain Mormon) are also intellectually honest. You give no indication of being willing to be honest with yourself. My heart goes out to you.
2. Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar: I presume that you mean that because Abraham lied to Pharaoh that Mormons are free to “lie for the Lord.” This, I consider to be a debased reading of Scripture which most Mormons have eschewed. The Christian and Jewish reading of that Scripture is that Abraham lied and nearly caused Pharaoh to be unjustly punished for adding a married woman to his harem (hmm….remind you of anyone???). Pharaoh was warned by God and avoided the illicit relationship and, therefore, was not punished by God (hmmm…in contrast to others who “married” women who were already married to others and were punished). The whole biblical narrative teaches the disastrous affects of lying and not trusting in God. Mormons, ironically, have often taken the same passage as a text that teaches them they can lie to the “Gentiles” about their “deeper” teachings (i.e. plural marriage, Kolob, multiple gods, etc.). This should be a clear indicator to you that there are serious problems with LDS interpretation of Scripture. However, it is hard to look at these things objectively when one is deeply entrenched in the warmth of a community.
3. I “ooze something other than the charmer (I) show the public on Sundays:” This is such a goof-ball attempt at an insult, Gecko; I don’t know whether to laugh or get upset. Right now I am laughing. I am a lot of quirky things, but I’ve never been said to be someone who “oozes charm.” I hope that on Sunday morning what comes across to people is the message that I am just like everyone else with my own set of failings, challenges, problems and occasional victories. You’ll have to stop by sometime and check it out.
You wrote: It just becomes that much more important for me to say. given all of that, that you really miss the mark in not being tolerant enough to acknowledge the LDS as Christians, given that is who we acknowledge as God…I mean really Thom. This is the virtual world. If here you choose not to repeat the charge so common to other evangelicals when they link Catholics to Satan, there comes a chuckle from time to time you cannot be as tolerant of the LDS?... I say that Thom, because when you and your shadow can bring yourself to be tolerant with us, I will allow you the greatest joy you can experience here.
●Gecko, there is an obvious reply to this. I don’t write this to be hurtful, because my experience has always been that Mormons are very good people. However, the question is not about the individual, but, about the teaching or the doctrine. LDS doctrine is clearly not Christian. Just including the name Jesus in one’s title does not make a movement or religion Christian. LDS doctrine is fundamentally contradictory to Christian doctrine. In some of the most vital areas, it is not even in the same ball-park.
●Evangelicals who link Catholics to Satan are grossly misinformed or mistaken. There are clear differences between Catholic and Evangelical doctrines; but, the essentials in regard to the Trinity, Incarnation, deity of Christ, salvation by grace, etc. are the fundamentally the same.
●I don’t know what you mean by “shadow.” Does this refer to a “shadow” self? Some people believe that humans have a “dark side” or shadow-self. Is this what you mean? Or do you mean that I have some “shadow” follower? Perhaps you mean that the “shadow” is a ghost-writer for me. Maybe you think that I have a shadow ghost-writer who does my research on the LDS. I’m not sure what you mean. At any rate, I do all my own research and writing. Sorry.
●I have great tolerance for LDS people. I think LDS doctrine is deadly and my heart is broken for those who are enmeshed in its social system.
I especially like how God speaks directly to and promises to destroy Joseph's wife Emma if she doesn't go along with the program. You have to give the guy some credit for having the gonads to pull that one off.
●Again, I don’t want to be hurtful, but I too have to admit that this statement by the “Lord” through Joseph Smith to his wife Emma is pretty amazing. If I tried something like that, my wife would send me to heaven in a hurry.
Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Act 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
1Cr 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
----------------------------------------------------------
A knowledge of gods does not make one polytheist, when prayer is offered only to the One God. The LDS pray to God the Eternal Father only. We do not pray to Mary the mother of Jesus, nor to any one of the numberless dead Saints for aid. Nor do we bow in reverence to the graven images of those gods.
Where you use "recognized LDS sources", I wonder what the alternative would be; regardless, I do not recognize many of your sources. You claim to use "evaluations made by highly qualified scholars and historians". I presume now that in your ignorance you either publish accurately though piecemeal and are not up to the task of useful personally evaluate OR you simply publish from nefarious sources, echoing your present sentiment.
Simply disregard anything that disagrees with your preconceived notion. It is the equivalent to holding your hands over your ears and chanting blah, blah, blah to yourself to avoid hearing something unpleasant.
It is sad.
You and others have tried to make a great deal of Joseph Smith's purported sexual appetite (wondering at this moment who your esteemed sources were for that thought), being the only path you can take to justify an uncomfortable revelation from God concerning a return to polygyny.
Well, Thom...........Abram took a second wife (although the Bible does not state it prior to he having sexual intercourse with her). He apparently was displeased because Sarah had been barren for too long. Hagar (not your pair of slacks), was the much younger handmaided to his first wife. Sarah approved, even encouraged him.
The Bible seems to be a recognized source on the subject of second wives and beyond but you completely avoid it. That is simply because the conclusions you need to drive home run arecompletely at odds with the doctrine of plural marraige as seen in the Bible.
My earlier point ignored twice by you has been that the Bible should be your most esteemed source on this matter but you cannot see the possibility that God could ever require of you anything contrary to your western tradition.
Where you use "recognized LDS sources", I wonder what the alternative would be; regardless, I do not recognize many of your sources. You claim to use "evaluations made by highly qualified scholars and historians". I presume now that in your ignorance you either publish accurately though piecemeal and are not up to the task of useful personally evaluate OR you simply publish from nefarious sources, echoing your present sentiment.
●No, I quote directly from LDS historians like Richard S. Van Wagoner. As you know, he has won numerous accolades from such prestigious organizations as:
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
Saints’ Herald
John Whitmer Historical Association
Mormon History Association.
●I have also quoted directly from the archive of Deseret Books found here:
http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/toc#letters
●The problem is that you have refused to read these sources. As Timbo mentioned, this is the ostrich defense.
You say the Bible is the source for multiple wives because so many characters had multiple wives.
They also killed and pillaged, should we do this as well?
Of course not, but lets consider the truths taught in what happens in the polygamous relationships. You like to bring up Abraham and Sarah with Hagar. Interestingly it is never said that Abraham marries Hagar, but rather it seems clear that Abraham takes the handmaiden to his bed at the insistence of his wife, but not after marriage. Further, the child from this union was the father of endless turmoil for the sons of Israel, even going on today in the hate for Israel in the middle east. This is prophesied in the Bible as condemnation for what happened.
In fact, every single instance of plural marriage and extra marital relations in the Bible lead to misery for all parties involved. Look at Solomon, the wisest of all the richest and most prosperous but brought low because of his desire to forge bonds through marriage to every neighboring kingdom.
Still, God makes provision for our failings and even blesses those living in sin for His own glory, such as David and Bathsheba, who lost their first child in judgment, but who were given Solomon who would build the Temple to show that God had restored David even in this relationship.
Seriously, if this is a God ordained, as opposed to God allowed, practice, show me just one instance where no ill came from the plural marriage practices ... just one I dare you.
The Bible seems to be a recognized source on the subject of second wives and beyond but you completely avoid it. That is simply because the conclusions you need to drive home run arecompletely at odds with the doctrine of plural marraige as seen in the Bible…My earlier point ignored twice by you has been that the Bible should be your most esteemed source on this matter but you cannot see the possibility that God could ever require of you anything contrary to your western tradition.
●You are making a critical error in your understanding of Scripture. You are confusing the descriptive with the prescriptive. All kinds of things are described in the Bible which are not prescribed by the Bible. For instance, David had sex with Bathsheba and then had her husband Uriah killed in battle. The Bible describes these things but does not prescribe that we do the same. Therefore, Abraham’s unfortunate and unfaithful actions with Hagar are not to be taken as examples for us as to how to act. As Puri has pointed out, mostly we learn what not to do from the Hagar and Ishmael incident.
●Regarding what the Bible prescribes for marriage.
1. The only regulations of what could possibly be interpreted as plural marriage are these:
Deut 21:15-17 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
●Deut 21:15-17, by the way, does not have to be understood as regulating plural marriage. It can just as easily be applied to a man who had a second wife due to the first wife’s death. Whatever the case, the intention of the passage is not to validate or encourage plural marriage. The purpose of the passage is to insure the rights of the firstborn son.
The second passage is the following:
Deut 17: 17 He (the king) must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
●If this regulation had been followed by David and Solomon, then much grief would have been avoided.
2. The standard for the Christian is, of course, set by Jesus in Mark 10:
Mark 10: 3-9 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.” 5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
●As I’ve mentioned several times before, Jesus told the Jews that the OT regulations regarding divorce were something that God “permitted” because “of the hardness” of the hearts of His people. However, this was not what God intended from the creation of mankind. His perfect will is that a “man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” They are then no longer “two, but one flesh.”
●God’s intention for monogamous marriage is then clearly stated as a prescription by the Apostle Paul:
1Tim 3: 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Tim 3: 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
●Obviously, Paul’s prescribed behavior for church leaders categorically ends any legitimacy for Joseph Smith’s habit of “sealing” scores of women to himself.
http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/clayton.htm
Born in Lancashire in 1814, William Clayton was baptized into the Mormon faith in 1837, migrated to the United States in 1840, and settled in Mormon Nauvoo, where his talents as a scribe and record-keeper brought him to the attention of Mormon prophet Joseph Smith and gained him entry into the very highest levels of the Mormon leadership. In 1842 he was appointed "private clerk" to Smith, temple recorder, and later that year city treasurer of Nauvoo, as well as recorder and clerk of the Nauvoo city council.
Clayton was initiated into the secrets of plural marriage by Brigham Young in March 1843, performed the plural marriage of Almera Johnson to Joseph Smith on 2 April and took his own first plural wife (a sister of his first wife) on 27 April (altogether he married ten wives and fathered forty-seven children). It was Clayton who on 12 July recorded Joseph Smith's revelation authorizing plural marriage. In 1844 he was initiated into the secret Council of Fifty—a theocratic political organization called the Kingdom of God—and appointed as its clerk, thus becoming a major historical source for an organization that eluded scholarly investigation for nearly a century.
In William Clayton's diary, he tells of Joseph Smith having a problem with Emma over the Partridge sisters (“sealed” to Smith in March 1843 and hidden from Emma). After the D & C “revelations” on plural marriage and the “warning” specifically directed at Emma, she relented and allowed the Partridge sisters to live with Joseph and Emma. This did not go well. Smith finally told Emma that he would relinquish his other wives. However, Clayton indicated that Joseph deceived her by telling her he would "relinquish all" for her sake when he really didn't intend to "relinquish any thing.” Here is the actual text of Clayton’s entry:
Wednesday 16 ... This A.M. J. [Joseph] told me that since E. [Emma] came back fro St Louis she had resisted the P. [ Priesthood?] in toto & he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. She said she would [sic] given him E. & E. P [Emily and Eliza Partridge] but he knew if he took them she would pitch on him & obtain a divorce & leave him. He however told me that he should not relinquish any thing O. God deliver thy servant from iniquity and bondage. (William Clayton's Diary, August 16, 1843, typed excerpts, page 24)
All of William Clayton’s collected diary entries can be found here:
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/clayton-diaries
Thank you for confirming that during the thousands of years encompassing the Old Testament where righteous men of God at times had more than one wife (at one time, not serially as so many today)...There is not a single condemnation of the practice as long as it isn't a concubine (an abuse of marriage where women are not treated equally). The one pertinent law you quoted speaks to this principle.
New dispensations require new understandings.
You have written this statement on several occasions like a mantra. It comes out each time you are backed into a corner.....like here again.
"New dispensations" is the handiest tool if you are making things up as you go along. You never have to worry about being inconsistent with any prior understandings, including your own prior "new dispensation" that didn't suit. It really gives the person in charge of dispensing the dispensation carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want. It can mean anything at any time.
The "new understandings" seem related to ignoring the plain meaning of biblical understandings to allow plenty of room for inconsistent and logically incoherent doctrines. When they cannot be explained or defended, they become "new understandings".
Clever statement because it sounds sort of obtusely deep when it doesn't really mean anything at all.
I guess the morale of the story is that whether its monogamy or whatever they might be best kept in separate beds and in separate houses. Certainly for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that wasn't an indicator that plural marriage wasn't working. I guess there are women who prefer living without the burden of a man full time, given the nature of men they have known. I guess in California you are now attracting women generally who don't want to have anything to do with the opposite sex in marriage. And "men" likewise.
Isn't that a great story about Joseph Smith in making a humble adjustment to his first wife. When the living arrangement didn't work out? Joseph allowed that arrangement to change for the good of his first wife. In the old testament, Abraham should have been as generous to Sarah.
Speaking of experiments in marriage, since you frequently return to it, wasn't it interesting what all the respected sources said concerning the FLDS (unaffiliated to LDS)....that it was about the children and not the religion? I smelled that out early. In fact, the courts revealed the truth didn't they. The action was taken in seizing those children out of a charade....where none of the children in question had any evidence of abuse, it was done as an attack against a different kind of lifestyle. Every child was returned after their fishing expedition revealed nothing they suspected.
You know, perhaps they should have looked more closely at diaries (as you have) to discover the heinious reality that husband and wives argue at times, that life was not all roses. And maybe by the harrassment shown those families from others, some might not prove to be strong enough to wish to endure it over time. Then small minds can say, "see, look, it never was supposed to be."
When all one believe in is Aesop reruns this kind of change must create real drama.
Jesus was quite clear and anyone should be able to read, listen and understand. He didn't raise the bar. He showed us where the bar has always been, and if we're Christians that's where we will set our aim. His dispensation wasn't new as He taught us what God intended from the beginning. Departure from that isn't new understandings, it's old recycled rationalizations.
Thank you for confirming that during the thousands of years encompassing the Old Testament where righteous men of God at times had more than one wife (at one time, not serially as so many today)...There is not a single condemnation of the practice as long as it isn't a concubine (an abuse of marriage where women are not treated equally). The one pertinent law you quoted speaks to this principle…New dispensations require new understandings.
●Of course you are wrong on several levels here.
1. “There is not a single condemnation of the practice:” actually there are only two statements in the OT that possibly pertain to polygamy. One (Deut 17:17) directly prescribes that kings are not to take plural wives.
2. New Testament declarative revelation must always take precedence over OT narrative stories and unclear law. Jesus clearly gives God’s intention for marriage as monogamy in Mark 10. Paul clearly commands that church leaders are to be “husbands of one wife.” These two direct statements clarify and supersede any unclear OT statements. Therefore, Joseph Smith and all other polygamous LDS leaders were living in open sin and rebellion against God.
●Regarding “New dispensations: I forthrightly stand with the D&C 101: 4 statement as follows:
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." -D&C 101:4, History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247
Since only official LDS doctrine that is binding is what is found in the “Standard Works” and because the Article on Marriage (AoM) was voted on by “common consent,” approved, and published in 1835, and because Joseph Smith lived another nine years with D&C 101:4 in place as binding doctrine—without ever abrogating it-- I believe that the “New dispensation” is settled. Additionally when Smith tried to have his “revelation on celestial marriage” approved on August 12, 1843, by the Nauvoo High Council, the attempt failed. This was necessary for “common consent.” This is probably why he did not add any more “wives” to his harem during the last eight months of his life.