Support Of The Bible-accordined To Outshined

[Dr T]

Parables were used to augment a teaching. What was the context of that passage (what came before and after). I really have not looked at the whole thing again-I'm not just asking.

[a-train]

The Parable of the Ten Virgins was given in the Saviour's teachings to the Apostles prompted by their question: 'Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?' (Matt 24:3)

The 'things' they were asking about in addition to the LORD's coming and the 'end of the world' were the destructive events which were to come upon Jerusalem and the Holy Temple as Jesus preceding the question said: 'There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.' (Matt. 24:2)

The Saviour's reply mentioned that false teachers would attempt to deceive the saints and would suceed among 'many'. He fortold wars and pestilences.

Matthew 24:9 is where the Saviour outright tells the Disciples that the wicked shall 'deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.' We can here witness an incredible faith and determination to do the will of God in Matthew, as he wrote this knowing wherein his calling on this earth would end.

After their death, deception and falsehood were to continue worsening until 'iniquity shall abound' Without going into to much further detail I'll suffice to say that the LORD told more specifics of the age of His coming and gives council that those alive at that time must endure the tribulations and trials therein and be ever ready to receive Him at His coming for the 'day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.' (Matt 24:36)

The Parable of the Ten Virgins is then given in further instruction in preparation for the LORD's coming.

Many through the ages have attributed a strong symbolism in the marriage of the virgins to the Groom, the impression upon the mind therein is one of union, love, and faithfulness to Christ as He is faithful also to us. As Paul further expressed: 'For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.' (Eph 5:23) Indeed, even as marriage is a covenant between a man and his wife, the relationship between the saved and the Saviour is one of a covenant.

This interpretation is NOT LDS spin. The interpretation has been handed down through the Christian tradition from the earliest age. LDS simply agree that it is correct. Perhaps what is even harder for the antis to believe and accept is the fact that the vast majority of LDS doctrine is or has been believed by at least one or more traditional Christian sects.

Now the question still remains: Why would the LORD use a fordibben and illegitimate form of marriage to symbolize the faithful and pure union between Himself and the saved he so gracefully suffered the Atonement for?

Could it be that this union was NOT therefore considered by Him to be so filthy and carnal as so many would suggest?

-a-train

[Dr T]

Thank you A-Train.

Now the question still remains: Why would the LORD use a fordibben and illegitimate form of marriage to symbolize the faithful and pure union between Himself and the saved he so gracefully suffered the Atonement for?

I don't think so, sir. Because of that, it appears that a better reading and understanding of that passage/parable would be that it had nothing to do with the wedding of these woman to one man and specifically dealt with Jesus' return.

[a-train]

BTW what nonlds groups are you talking about---got a name for them?

Have at look at these links:

www.christianpolygamy.info

I am not really certain there are specific sects of Christian polygamists operating under a single or multiple appellations, but I wouldn't doubt the possibility. Perhaps the greatest reason is because of the legal and social intolerance of the practice as I am sure you can imagine.

Many polygamists live in the united states that have little or nothing to do with the LDS Church, but the general public has heard the practice so repeatedly associated with 'Mormonism' that they imagine every American polygamist to have at least some belief in the revelations of Joseph Smith or some involvement with the LDS Church.

As mentioned already above, there were Christian polygamists within traditional sects of the Faith long before the birth of Joseph Smith.

The truth is, that the legal ramifications of polygamy in the U.S. have gone vastly uninforced throughout the history of the prohibition of plural marriage. LDS have and do consider the law and it's strict enforcement against the LDS people to have been nothing more than a politically and socially acceptable means to impede the progress of the LDS involvement in government. Simply put, our national government feared the implications of Mormon governers, senators, congressmen, and so forth and sought a means to prevent Utah from obtaining statehood without positioning non-Mormon officials. Polygamy and rebellion were the charges brought by US officials to persuade public opinon thereto.

Graphic images of LDS leaders seducing young girls and enjoying the sexual gratification of orgy-like harems were printed in the news and circulated among the people in a time of great sensationalism in American journalism. Utah was depicted as the wildest and wickedest portion of the already 'wild-west'. All of which seemed to express the notion and solidify it in the minds of the public that the seemingly depraved, immoral, and lawless people of Utah were not worthy to have elected officials among members of the U.S. governing bodies.

A non-LDS governor was sent with military inforcement to take power over Utah. The Utah war would eventually be called within the media 'Buchanan's Blunder' for the Presidents mistreatment of the issue. The embarrasing situation for Buchanan resulted his sending of peace commisioners who issued a 'global pardon' to the LDS. While the people felt it was full of lies and incorrect assertions, Brigham Young accepted the pardon in order to prevent further military action against the LDS.

The end wasn't yet. The attacks against the LDS Church on grounds of polygamy would continue until the 1890s when the Supreme Court upheld that Congress had power to dissolve the LDS Church and seize all of it's real properties including Temples. It was in this context that the LDS Church leadership asked the LORD for His counsel regarding the future of the practice of polygamy. They were facing the loss of all temples and Church property in general and the dissolution of the Church's incorporation itself.

Concerning his reflection, supplication to the LORD, and revelation on the subject at that time, Wilford Woodruff (President of the Church at that time) said: 'I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .'

And what did he write concerning the prohibition of polygamy? 'I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.'

Now we could ask: Why was he not like Daniel who went into the Lion's den when the commandments of men outlawed adherence to the LORD's commandments? If you listened, Wilford Woodruff already answered: 'the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do'.

As you can see today, to the disappointment of government officials who sought so diligently to prevent LDS members from rising to various positions within the government, members have been able to rise to such positions and continue to do so. As the years pass, the public opinon seems to continually move away from the previous fears that were so instilled by the sensationalism, slander, and libel of the anti-mormons.

For the most part, as long as our governement has had no other problem with any polygamists, they have turned a blind eye. I wouldn't doubt that polygamy probably exists in every state in the union. Only when child-abuse or other stituations arise do polygamy laws ever get enforced.

It is the sad truth that while this country has touted justice and equality throughout it's history, it has often been discriminatory in the application thereof.

-a-train

[sixpacktr]

The Parable of the 10 Virgins to support polygamy. Gotta admit, never took it that way before...

I always felt that it referred to the church as a whole, and that at least half of them, while professing to be members and waiting, wouldn't be fully prepared for his coming, and therefore not allowed in to the marriage (feast/celebration, whatever).

[a-train]

Now the question still remains: Why would the LORD use a fordibben and illegitimate form of marriage to symbolize the faithful and pure union between Himself and the saved he so gracefully suffered the Atonement for?

I don't think so, sir. Because of that, it appears that a better reading and understanding of that passage/parable would be that it had nothing to do with the wedding of these woman to one man and specifically dealt with Jesus' return.

OK,

What are you asserting?

Are you saying that the parable doesn't contain a reference to polygamy at all, as in the five virgins are not marrying the groom?

You said: 'I don't think so'. What don't you think so? I don't understand.

-a-train

[Dr T]

Yes. I would hold that the parable is only about the return of Jesus and not that they were real women preparing for a polygamous relationship with one man. Kind of like Six just laid out.

[a-train]

The Parable of the 10 Virgins to support polygamy. Gotta admit, never took it that way before...

I always felt that it referred to the church as a whole, and that at least half of them, while professing to be members and waiting, wouldn't be fully prepared for his coming, and therefore not allowed in to the marriage (feast/celebration, whatever).

Nobody is saying that the parable supports polygamy. I am NOT asserting: 'Jesus talked about polygamy so it's OK, go and have many wives.'

I only brought it up because we are here to discuss any New Testament references to plural marriage. This is one.

I am really making little or no assertion at all. On the contrary, I am asking a question:

'Would the Saviour's use of polygamous marriage, and the preparations on the part of the virgins desirous to be included therein, to symbolize the union of Christians with the Saviour at His second coming and their preparations therefore, at least demonstrate that the practice of polygamy is not to be considered utterly foul and wicked, just as the preparedness of the saints to be united with the Saviour are not to be considered foul and wicked?

If polygamy is and always has been deplored and an abomination before God, what are we to understand by this use in the parable? Is there a negative or evil aspect to the union between the LORD and the saved at His coming?

What is the LORD teaching us here?

-a-train

[a-train]

Yes. I would hold that the parable is only about the return of Jesus and not that they were real women preparing for a polygamous relationship with one man. Kind of like Six just laid out.

Yes, I understand what a parable is. The women, the groom, none of this was real. It was a symbolic story. I have understood that since my youth. I understand that the parable is about the return of the Saviour. Has anything I have said even slightly intimated that it is NOT about the return of the Saviour? That is NOT what I am asking. Is this really that hard to understand?

Let me try to break this down as plainly as possible.

Jesus made up a story to represent his coming. The story is only symbolic. Some of the key symbols follow and some of their interpretations follow:

Foolish Virgins = Unbelieving/Unrighteous people who are not prepared for Jesus return.

Wise Virgins = Believing/Righteous people who are prepared for Jesus return.

Lamps = The souls of the respective people

Light from lamps = Enlightenment/Spiritual purity

Oil from Lamps = Spirit of God/Knowledge of God

Groom = Christ

Wait during the night = Our wait for the LORD to return/Darkness of the world in His absence

Arrival of Groom = The LORD's second coming

The Wedding = The union of the wise saints with Christ at his Coming/The rejoicing celebration of his return.

My question: Why did the LORD use a polygamous marriage to symbolize the union and celebration of the saints with the LORD at his coming? Is there some specific meaning to that? If polygamy is wickedness, is there some meaning there? Or, was polygamy not considered wickedness by the LORD at the time he gave that parable?

Do you see the question?

-a-train

[roman]

a-train;

Please don't think I am backing away from listing NT scriptures against polygamy---------I'm sure you pretty much know what i would list anyway, but I find it fasinating reading of what is being posted about the parable of the 10 virgins. Do you mind if I just follow it on out and see where this thread goes to. Any comment that I would make has already been said. So is it okay or do you want to expand things here a bit?

[Dr T]

Yes sir, I understand what you are asking, A-Train. "Why does Jesus describe ten virgins?"

Commentator Matthew Henry wrote the following about Matt. 25

That by which it is illustrated, is, a marriage solemnity. It was a custom sometimes used among the Jews on that occasion, that the bridegroom came, attended with his friends, late in the night, to the house of the bride, where she expected him, attended with her bride-maids; who, upon notice given of the bridegrooms’ approach, were to go out with lamps in their hands, to light him into the house with ceremony and formality, in order to the celebrating of the nuptials with great mirth. And some think that on these occasions they had usually ten virgins; for the Jews never held a synagogue, circumcised, kept the passover, or contracted marriage, but ten persons at least were present. Boaz, when he married Ruth, had ten witnesses, Ruth 4:2.

Pastor David Guzik also commented:

Talmudic authorities affirm that there were usually ten lamps in a bridal procession.

Does anyone know of any references to confirm the "Taludic authorities"?

[a-train]

I think one of the most ingenious and powerful points about the Saviour's use of a wedding to symbolize the Second Coming is that His Coming is not just 'the end of the world' as we often imagine. It is also the beginning of a wonderful eternal union between God and man and there shall be a great celebration of that at his coming.

Dr. T:

So you consider the virgins to have been bridesmaids and NOT brides. OK.

That's really all I am asking here.

This interpretation, though not directly in the scripture, has been accepted by many Christians and I can understand their difficulty and apprehension in considering the virgins to all be marrying the groom because of their utter distaste for polygamy and ardent belief in monogamy.

The designation of the virgins as bridesmaids gives a new question: Who was the groom to marry and in what way can we function as 'bridesmaids' at the Second Coming of our LORD?

-a-train

[Dr T]

I don't know A-Train. That might be looking for more in that parable then was intended.

[CrimsonKairos]

No, Dr. T, a-train is right to ask his last question above.

Jesus compares his disciples to the ten virgins in the parable. If the bridegroom (Jesus) wasn't going to marry the ten virgins (his disciples), then in what way are his disciples like bridemaids (ten virgins)?

In other words, who was the bridegroom (Jesus) going to marry in the parable? The NT speaks of Jesus "marrying" his Church, so it's logical to assume that in this parable the bridegroom is going to marry the figure/s who represent his Church, and if that wasn't the ten virgins, then what is Jesus teaching his disciples about their relationship to him if it's not a spousal one (metaphorically speaking)?

What I'm saying is that the ten virgins were either the brides-to-be of the bridegroom, or the ten virgins were merely the bridesmaids to the unidentified bride. If the ten virgins (who represent the disciples of Christ) were merely bridesmaids, how does that relate to our relationship to Christ?

In what way are we--his disciples--considered "bridesmaids?"

[a-train]

I'll go ahead and offer another idea about the 'who' the groom is marrying. This is highly speculative, but I enjoy exploring these things. In Jewish poetry and literature, the Sabbath is known as a 'bride'. An expression is even made: 'Come see the bride', which is a calling to keep the Sabbath holy. The engagements of the Jewish people on the last day of the week were considered a holiday celebration to a certain extent, not a boring day of nothingness as so many seem to suppose.

Could the bride within this parable be the Sabbath of the Millennial Reign of Christ? Could our involvement in the celebration of that union be in similitude of bridesmaids? Are we more associated with the Sabbath than the LORD? 'The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.' (Mark 2:27-28) It's something to think about.

Still, there is no question that Paul, independent of the Parable of the Ten Virgins used the symbolism of marriage to describe the union of Christ, to the saints: 'For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.' (2 Cor 11:12)

-a-train

[Dr T]

I have already said my take on it. I read it as the "virgins preparing for an awaited event." We being taken as the bridesmaids, are to be prepared for his coming not just look like we are. The church being Christ's bride would have to do with the relationship that is held so dear.

[CrimsonKairos]

Interesting possibility, a-train.

There's also these scriptures that apply to the discussion at hand:

For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. (Isa. 62:5)

Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. (Rev. 19:7-9)

The last passage suggests the the bride is the Church, and the righteousness of its members symbollicaly clothes "it" with clean, white linen. At least, that's my take on it.

[a-train]

Haha, I already had the Revelation to John in my back pocket for discussion in this thread. Fantastic!

Who is the bride?

He says the bride was 'arrayed in fine linen, clean and white', and what did he say that fine linen is? He said it 'is the righteousness of the saints'.

Paul definitely taught us to wear righteousness: 'Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness' (Eph. 6:14)

Perhaps the wife who hath made herself ready, is the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12. Joseph Smith clearly said she is the Church of the Firstborn with the twelve apostles at her head, clothed in celestial glory, standing above the terestrial and telestial.

The notion presented in Isaiah 62:5 is wonderful when considering the sealing work that goes on within the LORD's house.

-a-train

[a-train]

It is interesting, all of the Jewish sites I can find that speak of Jewish marriage traditions and ceremonies make no mention whatsoever of the brides handling lights or anything, nor the bride for that matter. Only Christian sites make the assertion that ancient Jewish weddings had such tradition as a procession of lights by bridesmaides. Anyone have anything authoritative there?

I also recently read that polygamy was not outlawed within traditional Judism until as late as the 11th Century when Rabbeinu Gershom instituted a ban. Polygamy, however, continues among some Jews today. The state of Israel has banned polygamy, but allows provisions for polygamous marriages consumated before the formation of the law or wed in foreign lands.

-a-train

[Dr T]

I recently meet a Jewish man that did some rabbinical studies. I won't see him for a couple of weeks but when I do, I'll ask about that.

[Guest Yediyd]

Each of us have at our fingertips the scriptures, the teachings of the latter-day prophets, huge mountains of historical data, and much more provided by the unprecedented vast information base of the internet. We stand in an age that all our progenitors may have been unable to even fathom.

Still, it is a matter of our own agency what we will search for amongst all this. Will we seek to understand? Will we 'search knowledge'? (2 Nephi 2:37) Will we love darkness more than light? (John 3:19)

Who can doubt that every man is able to formulate his own understanding through the efforts of his own study and supplication to God?

It is with this in mind that we can safely have faith in the LORD that He will edify, instruct, and enable each man as fast as he can endure truth.

Therefore, isn't it good wisdom that if we intend to do the will of God and bless our fellow man that we will seek not to argue and contend with them? Let us not assume that anything but kindness and love will lay contention to annihilation. And understand that when we undertake to convince another man through the mechanisms of logic and semantics of what has been shown to us by revelation, we therein manifest our lack of faith that the LORD will do for them just as he has done for us in revealing the truth.

Let us all be uplifting and in the spirit of brotherhood and faith bear our own testimony and offer what we have been given of God in the reciprocal spirit of humility. And let us be sufficed with what answers our fellow men are able or obliged to give and let both they and us get the rest from God.

-a-train

well said...here,here!

[Snow]

This is a spin off of another thread, of which outshined and I exchanged a few pleasantrys on a couple of lds doctrines of the past. The first was the exclusion of blacks of certain church postions, soley on their skin color and the other was polygamy.

outshined said that the Bible upheld each of these, of which I beg to differ. so outshined kindly offered his services to explain it to me, and I now take him up on it.

Since we are under the New Covenant and the lds church was birthed under the NC and since the LDS church introduced these beliefs and practices under the NC, I would like to see outshined explain to me ------------------------using ONLY the NC ot New Testament the validity of these 2 items.

As I recall, you are Protestant, maybe evangelical or something.

Care to comment on how many blacks were ordained into your Church in the US prior to, oh, say 1950 - or into any mainstream white demonination?

[roman]

]

As I recall, you are Protestant, maybe evangelical or something.

Care to comment on how many blacks were ordained into your Church in the US prior to, oh, say 1950 - or into any mainstream white demonination?

Well my my what a welcoming suprise. I was kinda worried that I would never see you post again. I must say its very good to hear you again.

As to your question. I'm evangelical with the pentecostal twist. The whole pentecostal movement was started thru a black man W. J. Seymour. Well not really started but he was one of the most famous and most of it is attributed to him. Charles Parham was the catalist.

So blacks were accepted from day one in our movement. Now not to say that there weren't tentions and rasism in that movement----------------just no official declaration against any racial group, that I know of

[Outshined]

Good to "see" you again, Snow!

I have only a few weeks left, but it is good to see your posts again before I leave. B)