15
Mar
12

Plural Marriages

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 12 is a study of Jacob 1-4 in the Book of Mormon.  There are a number of things that could be looked at in these chapters.  One of its main topics is a condemnation of polygamy or plural marriages.  The following verses are from Jacob 2.

“22  And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you. 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 24  Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.  25  Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26  Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.  27  Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;  28  For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.  29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.”

Here is how the teacher’s manual addresses this section:

“1. Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage

• Whom did the Nephites claim as examples to justify their whoredoms?

(See Jacob 2:23–24.) Why were David and Solomon unworthy examples?

(See D&C 132:38–39. The Lord gave wives and concubines to David and

Solomon, but they sinned by marrying additional wives outside of the

covenant.) You may want to explain that anciently, a concubine was not

an immoral mistress, but a legal wife of lesser social standing (see Bruce R.

McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 154).

• What marriage law did Jacob teach to the Nephites? (See Jacob 2:27–28.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “I have constantly said no man shall have

but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise” (Teachings of the

Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 324).

Explain that the Lord gave such direction (see D&C 132), but He later withdrew

His sanction of plural marriage when conditions changed (see Official

Declaration 1). Emphasize that the law of the Lord regarding marriage today is

the same as it was in Jacob’s day.”

It’s interesting that Joseph Smith didn’t get a revelation (D&C 132) until July, 1843 that David and Solomon sinned only “by marrying additional wives outside of the covenant”. Until that time, all LDS members must have thought, on the basis of Jacob 2, that they sinned by having many wives – period.  Why would not the Lord have clarified this sooner?

It’s also interesting that the teacher’s manual doesn’t specify exactly how the conditions changes for the Lord to withdrew his sanction of plural marriage.  Was it because of the pressure being brought on the LDS Church by the United States government?  It’s obvious from the wording of the Official Declaration that political considerations were paramount.

But even more to the point, if it truly was a revelation from the Lord allowing, even encouraging, plural marriage during the mid 1800’s, why are so many Mormons so hesitant to talk about it and its role in Mormonism’s history?

Advertisements

194 Responses to “Plural Marriages”


  1. 1 choosethechrist
    March 15, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    “It’s interesting that Joseph Smith didn’t get a revelation (D&C 132) until July, 1843 that David and Solomon sinned only “by marrying additional wives outside of the covenant”. Until that time, all LDS members must have thought, on the basis of Jacob 2, that they sinned by having many wives – period. Why would not the Lord have clarified this sooner?”

    Maybe because the Lord had already spoken on this matter, and it was the “living prophet” who had it all wrong.

    They knew they were sinning based on Jacob 2, but they were following the “prophet”, so it was ok to break the laws of the government in spite of what God said i.e. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God Romans 13:1; and what was written in the scriptures (Jacob 2).

    And they want us to believe this:

    “First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.”

    “Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.”

    Isn’t it interesting that a great deal of trouble followed them in their sin?

    The moral of this story:

    Matthew 15:14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

  2. 2 choosethechrist
    March 15, 2012 at 11:33 pm

    “Was it because of the pressure being brought on the LDS Church by the United States government? It’s obvious from the wording of the Official Declaration that political considerations were paramount.”

    “Fundamentalist groups who believe that the church discontinued polygamy only because of government pressure continued the practice. As they were discovered by the LDS Church, they were excommunicated. Some of these polygamists have appointed leaders and continue to live in groups, including those in Colorado City (formerly Short Creek), Arizona, and Hilldale, Utah. Others, such as Royston Potter, practice polygamy but have no affiliation with an organized group.” ~http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/p/POLYGAMY.html

  3. 3 Joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 12:13 am

    Which biblical figure worked 7 years per daughter he married, because he wanted to marry the youngest daughter? 3daughters, @7yrs a piece.. He married all 3, yet he was blessed. How many wives did david and solomon have, and each were blessed in their own right. It was not until David had a man killed to have that mans wife that he was wrong.
    I see the clarification of their wives outside of covenant to those not understanding this before hand, people wanting more wives just because…
    There is another thing that I believe, that I havent had a chance to look up, but as people moved west, the trek was most certainly perilous, and I am sure many husbands lost their lives. Should this woman go childless because her husband died? Should she just get pregnant and foregoe marriage? We all know this isnt correct. We know that plural marriage has been accepted during certain circumstances in the past. Do I know for a fact that there were not enough men for each woman? No I dont. Do I know if Joseph had 33 wives? No I dont. I do know that on the site quoted it is possible to add people randomly, and that there is a book that quotes that number. My understanding is the actual number was around 6. Do I agree with plural marriage? If everyone is treated equal, then yes. My opinion is not God’s though, and as such, he can make happen whatever whenever, and take it back away just as obscurely.
    Something else I love here is how only LDS beliefs are on trial, as I have said before. Plural marriage (which is NOT practiced any more) is constantly brought up, but I see absolutely no mention of “Christian Churches” that CURRENTLY allow GAY marriage.

  4. 4 Joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 12:54 am

    (subscribed………..)

  5. 5 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 2:49 am

    “I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.” – Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.

    This is for Shem who thinks that polygamy was a wonderful thing:

    The women of Mormonism; or The story of polygamy as told by the victims

    http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00421780$&id=8ecQAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA18-PA417&lpg=RA18-PA417&dq=The+Women+of+Mormonism%3B+Or,+The+Story+of+Polygamy+as+Told+by+the+Victims+Themselves#v=onepage&q=The%20Women%20of%20Mormonism%3B%20Or%2C%20The%20Story%20of%20Polygamy%20as%20Told%20by%20the%20Victims%20Themselves&f=false

  6. 6 JBR
    March 16, 2012 at 3:01 am

    Josh,
    What a surprise. A blog whose ministry is by design focused to those in Mormonism … what did you expect?

    btw… if Mormonism endorsed your gay marriage issue, then it would be.
    ———————————————————————————
    God did not bless Jacob and others because of plural wives .. he blessed them despite of it.

  7. 7 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 3:13 am

    Unfortunately, mormons seem to miss the whole point as to why the plural marriage thing just won’t go away. Maybe it has more to do with the teachings of “prophets”, breaking the law, and doing away with something that was so important to ones exaltation?

    LDS President Wilford Woodruff said, “If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can’t do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past.” (Journal of Discourses 13:166)

    “Today the church still teaches polygamy except its location has shifted from earth to heaven. Does the location makes this right? Actually it makes it more wrong. Does God’s values change because the location has gone from earth to heaven where his abode is? Of course not. But what was prohibited on earth because of the law of the land, but it becomes restored where the Mormon thinks he will rule, because he is God of his own world.Yet the late Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie claimed that polygamy would be reinstituted in the millennium here on earth. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578).” http://www.letusreason.org/LDS%209.htm

    Josh said, “Something else I love here is how only LDS beliefs are on trial, as I have said before. Plural marriage (which is NOT practiced any more) is constantly brought up, but I see absolutely no mention of “Christian Churches” that CURRENTLY allow GAY marriage.”

    Heresy is heresy. This blog is about Mormon heresy so why would you expect us to be discussing Christian churches that “allow” gays. Like it or not, allowed or not, there are gays in the LDS church.

    Gary Watts, former president of Family Fellowship, estimates that only 10% of homosexuals stay in the church.

  8. 8 joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 5:48 am

    JBR: “btw… if Mormonism endorsed your gay marriage issue, then it would be.”

    My point is there are things CURRENTLY wrong with CHRISTIANITY, and what you CONSIDER wrong in the PAST with LDS. There are SEVERAL sources in the BIBLE saying multiple marriages were acceptable at a certain time, for a certain reason. This is not actively practiced by LDS, because the USA decided to go against its own right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

    IF the US government came in right now and said no one could be married, for any reason, whatsoever, or they would go to prison, a majority of people would accept that and move on. religious or not. there are some that would continue to get married. IF the government did that, and IF God directed the people to obey the laws of the land, then marriage would be done away with, Christian, LDS, Muslim and all.

    Well, the US government did that with polygamy. Has anyone ever stopped to consider why? I have… you would have a lot of REALLY angry guys that are horrid at life that would be even less happy. Having someone to go home to keeps “equality” in every home in the nation. Now, this may have been less of the case back then, but CURRENTLY if polygamy were allowed, why would it be wrong? man and woman enter into covenant before God. all parties being fully knowledgeable. Divorce is (unfortunately) still legal in the world.

    Honestly now, would you rather a woman be treated with respect and caring, and have the support of a (polygamist) family? Or would you rather that she be married to an abusive husband? I am not saying that every man in the world is abusive. I am a man. I am married to ONLY one woman (and no, i have never been married before). I am not abusive. My point is that you took the choice away from millions of people “for the greater good”.

    LEGALLY: What difference would it make if i had multiple wives if i support them the same? They would have equal rights to everything i own. WHY does it matter? OTHER THAN saying we dont tolerate polygamy, name 5 GREAT reasons for it to not exist…
    1. A husband might hide a family… WELL, they do that now anyway, and if it was legal, you wouldnt have to hide it.
    2. The wives would fight when the husband died… Families ALREADY fight when someone dies, and these arent even polygamist families. these are just greedy people. From the studying i have done on polygamy, when everyone knows they are in a plural marriage, there is generally no more discord than you would find in my house right now.
    3. People feel they are forced into it…. everyone always has had, and always will have their agency. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink. How many children growing up today are “forced” into religion, Christian, LDS or other? How many are “forced” into college? How many are “forced” into ANY marriage? Kids?? Living in a certain part of the country? Paying for Social Security? Getting vaccinations (kids going to school)?
    Its all the same “problem”, but is acceptable in all these different instances.

    One of the things mentioned in the rather lengthy website posted above (i did not read it all, or i would be here for several nights just reading) is incest. INCEST is different from POLYGAMY, i would hope this is obvious, but thought i would put it out there. To my knowledge, INCEST has never been condoned. Giving a woman at young age for marriage has been acceptable, in several cultures for several thousands of years. Whether anyone, times past or now, is practicing incest i have no idea. All i can say to that is i truly hope not.

  9. 9 joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 6:00 am

    Choose: Heresy is heresy. This blog is about Mormon heresy so why would you expect us to be discussing Christian churches that “allow” gays. Like it or not, allowed or not, there are gays in the LDS church.

    It is not heresy to have multiple wives. If that were the case, David and Solomon would not have been able to have a relationship with God. You really think God was looking at David and said “well David, you have killed a lot of people, and for this reason i will not let you build my temple. Oh and by the way, i missed all the wives you had too, and that’s another good reason, but im going to leave that out of the Bible, just because”.. And then turn around and say to Solomon “well, Solomon, I see you have a ton of wives there, in your castle. This is complete and total heresy! Yet, if you dont mind, i do still need a temple, would you mind building it… I mean come on, all the stuff is sitting in a pile in your kingdom already…. You might as well finish what you started..

    Here is a list of POLYGAMIST in the BIBLE.. you tell me if this is HERESY

    1. After him Abdon the son of Hil­lel the Pirathonite judged Israel. 14He had forty sons and thirty grand­sons, who rode on sev­enty don­keys, and he judged Israel eight years. The Book of Judges 12:13–14
    2.But Abi­jah grew mighty. And he took four­teen wives and had twenty-two sons and six­teen daugh­ters. The Sec­ond Book of Chron­i­cles 13:21
    3.Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no chil­dren. She had a female Egypt­ian ser­vant whose name was Hagar. 2And Sarai said to Abram, “Behold now, the Lord has pre­vented me from bear­ing chil­dren. Go in to my ser­vant; it may be that I shall obtain chil­dren by her.” And Abram lis­tened to the voice of Sarai. 3So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egypt­ian, her ser­vant, and gave her to Abram her hus­band as a wife. The Book of Gen­e­sis 16:1–3
    4.Ben-hadad the king of Syria gath­ered all his army together. Thirty-two kings were with him, and horses and char­i­ots. And he went up and closed in on Samaria and fought against it. 2And he sent mes­sen­gers into the city to Ahab king of Israel and said to him, “Thus says Ben-hadad: 3’Your sil­ver and your gold are mine; your best wives and chil­dren also are mine.’” The First Book of Kings 20:1–3
    5.Queen Vashti also gave a feast for the women in the palace that belonged to King Aha­suerus. The Book of Esther 1:9
    6.Ashur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Helah and Naarah; The First Book of Chron­i­cles 4:5
    7.Bels­haz­zar, when he tasted the wine, com­manded that the ves­sels of gold and of sil­ver that Neb­uchad­nez­zar his father had taken out of the tem­ple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his con­cu­bines might drink from them. The Book of Daniel 5:2
    8.Caleb the son of Hezron fathered chil­dren by his wife Azubah, and by Jerioth; and these were her sons: Jesher, Shobab, and Ardon. 19When Azubah died, Caleb mar­ried Ephrath, who bore him Hur. The First Book of Chron­i­cles 2:18–19 Ephah also, Caleb’s con­cu­bine, bore Haran, Moza, and Gazez; and Haran fathered Gazez. The First Book of Chron­i­cles 2:46 Maacah, Caleb’s con­cu­bine, bore She­ber and Tirhanah. The First Book of Chron­i­cles 2:48
    9. King David – On the con­trary, 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and the sur­round­ing con­text reveal that David rebelled against the Lord despite hav­ing mul­ti­ple wives. The Scrip­tures go so far as to say that God Him­self gave David mul­ti­ple wives and that, if they were not suf­fi­cient, He would give David even more!
    10. The sons of Elip­haz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz. 12(Timna was a con­cu­bine of Elip­haz, Esau’s son; she bore Amalek to Elip­haz.) These are the sons of Adah, Esau’s wife. The Book of Gen­e­sis 36:11–12

    To see a more complete (i have not verified EVERY polygamist in the Bible is on this list), please see this link:
    http://rickbeckman.org/men-of-the-bible-with-multiple-wives/

  10. 10 joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 6:09 am

    Just because the U.S.A. says it is wrong, doesnt mean it is. They also say it is wrong to smoke marijuana, a plant that grows naturally from the ground (and whose smoking causes 0 deaths per year), yet that it is Legal to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol (the 2 single biggest killers in America). This is obviously getting off course, but the reasoning is EXACTLY the same. WE dont like it so it MUST be WRONG!

    So, HONESTLY, what has shaped your view of plural marriage? The Bible that says over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that it is okay, or the USA, that has said it is wrong?

  11. 11 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Josh said, “It is not heresy to have multiple wives.”

    I said, “Heresy is heresy. This blog is about Mormon heresy so why would you expect us to be discussing Christian churches that “allow” gays. Like it or not, allowed or not, there are gays in the LDS church.”

    Context is soooo important! My heresy statement had to do with gays as in anyone who teaches it is not a sin to practice homosexuality is teaching heresy. Also, Mormonism in general is heretical.

    Josh said, “Honestly now, would you rather a woman be treated with respect and caring, and have the support of a (polygamist) family? Or would you rather that she be married to an abusive husband?”

    God has told men that they must LOVE their wives:

    Ephesians 5:25-32 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

    Josh, Your analagy of comparing polygamy and abusive marriage is ridiculous especially since abuse happens in polygamous marriage.

    Josh said, “Do I agree with plural marriage? If everyone is treated equal, then yes.”
    I personally think this is another ridiculous statement. How long have you been married Josh? Do you understand that when God commands men to love their wives as “Christ loved the church” he is talking about agape or sacrificial love. Are you seriously going to tell me that it is possible for one man to sacrificially love many women?

    Jacob couldn’t do it:

    Genesis 29:30 Jacob made love to Rachel also, and his love for Rachel was greater than his love for Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.

    Genesis 29:31-32 When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, he enabled her to conceive, but Rachel remained childless. 32 Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben,for she said, “It is because the LORD has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.”

    Genesis 29:33 She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “Because the LORD heard that I am not loved, he gave me this one too.” So she named him Simeon.

    Genesis 29:34 Again she conceived, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “Now at last my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” So he was named Levi.

    Genesis 30:1 Genesis 30:1 When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!”

    Sounds truly wonderful doesn’t it? I wish there were a sarcasm font.

    Polygamy brought trouble in the Bible i.e. Ishmael, the idolotrous wives of solomon, etc.

    Josh said, “Here is a list of POLYGAMIST in the BIBLE.. you tell me if this is HERESY”

    I think a more accurate statement would be that the Bible is full of SINNERS and that does not justify the sins.

    Solomon and King David sinned:

    Deuteronomy 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

    1 Kings 11:4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

    I think this is a huge deal: “his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God”

    1 Corinthians 7:8-9 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    1 Corinthians 7:32-35 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

    I think this is a difficult concept for the LDS since they have placed such a HUGE emphasis on marriage and family for exaltation.

  12. 12 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Josh said, “There are SEVERAL sources in the BIBLE saying multiple marriages were acceptable at a certain time, for a certain reason.”
    Does the Bible SAY that plural marriage was acceptable or does the Bible say that plural marriage occurred?

    Please provide examples of where the Bible said this was acceptable. In my opinion the Bible clearly shows the trouble that came about due to multiple marriage. There are lessons to be learned from the practice of plural marriage and they all seem to be screaming that it is not a good idea!

    Josh said, “This is not actively practiced by LDS, because the USA decided to go against its own right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION.”

    LDS President Wilford Woodruff said, “If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can’t do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past.” (Journal of Discourses 13:166)

    Is this the same Wilford Woodruff who signed ‘The Manifesto’ that ended plural marriage?

    If Mormons truly believed in the great importance of plural marriage and exaltation, they would have held their position regardless of the consequences, but Mormons do not honor God’s Word as taught in the Bible:

    From http://www.gotquestions.org/civil-disobedience.html

    “Civil Disobedience – Examples in Scripture
    In Exodus 1, the Egyptian Pharaoh gave the clear command to two Hebrew midwives that they were to kill all male Jewish babies. An extreme patriot would have carried out the government’s order, yet the Bible says the midwives disobeyed Pharaoh and “feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live” (Exodus 1:17). The Bible goes on to say the midwives lied to Pharaoh about why they were letting the children live; yet even though they lied and disobeyed their government, “God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them” (Exodus 1:20–21).

    In Joshua 2, Rahab directly disobeyed a command from the king of Jericho to produce the Israelite spies who had entered the city to gain intelligence for battle. Instead, she let them down via a rope so they could escape. Even though Rahab had received a clear order from the top government official, she resisted the command and was redeemed from the city’s destruction when Joshua and the Israeli army destroyed it.

    The book of 1 Samuel records a command given by King Saul during a military campaign that no one could eat until Saul had won his battle with the Philistines. However, Saul’s son Jonathan defied his father’s order and ate honey to refresh himself from the hard battle the army had waged. When Saul found out about it, he ordered his son to die. However, the people resisted Saul and his command and saved Jonathan from being put to death (11 Samuel 14:45.

    Another example of civil disobedience in keeping with biblical submission is found in 1 Kings 18. That chapter briefly introduces a man named Obadiah who “feared the Lord greatly.” When the queen Jezebel was killing God’s prophets, Obadiah took a hundred of them and hid them from her so they could live. Such an act was in clear defiance of the ruling authority’s wishes.

    In 2 Kings, the only apparent approved revolt against a reigning government official is recorded. Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, began to destroy the royal offspring of the house of Judah. However, Joash the son of Ahaziah was taken by the king’s daughter and hidden from Athaliah so that the bloodline would be preserved. Six years later, Jehoiada gathered men around him, declared Joash to be king, and put Athaliah to death.

    Daniel records a number of civil disobedience examples. The first is found in chapter 3 where Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to the golden idol in disobedience to King Nebuchadnezzar’s command. The second is in chapter 6 where Daniel defies King Darius’ decree to not pray to anyone other than the king. In both cases, God rescued His people from the death penalty that was imposed, signaling His approval of their actions.

    In the New Testament, the book of Acts records the civil disobedience of Peter and John towards the authorities that were in power at the time. After Peter healed a man born lame, they were arrested for preaching about Jesus and put in jail. The religious authorities were determined to stop them from teaching about Jesus; however, Peter said: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20). Later, the rulers confronted the apostles again and reminded them of their command to not teach about Jesus, but Peter responded, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

    One last example of civil disobedience is found in the book of Revelation where the Antichrist commands all those who are alive during the end times to worship an image of himself. But the apostle John who wrote Revelation states that those who become Christians at the time will disobey the Antichrist and his government and refuse to worship the image (Reveleation 13:15) just as Daniel’s companions violated Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to worship his idol.

    Civil Disobedience – Conclusion
    What conclusions can be drawn from the above biblical examples? The guidelines for a Christian’s civil disobedience can be summed as follows:

    • Christians should resist a government that commands or compels evil, and should work nonviolently within the laws of the land to change a government that permits evil.
    • Civil disobedience is permitted when the government’s laws or commands are in direct violation of God’s laws and commands.
    • If a Christian disobeys an evil government, unless they can flee from the government, they should accept that government’s punishment for their actions.
    • Christians are certainly permitted to work to install new government leaders within the laws that have been established.

    Lastly, Christians are commanded to pray for their leaders and for God to intervene in His time to change any ungodly path that they are pursuing: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Timothy 2:1–2).”

    “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269, August 19, 1866)

    “You might as well deny ‘Mormonism,’ and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives.” (JOD 5:203)

    “We are told that if we would give up polygamy–which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven and it is God and the world for it–but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them.” ~Brigham Young
    Later in the sermon President Young asked, “Will the Latter-day Saints do this? No” (JOD 11:239).

    “Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God…When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom” (JOD 11:221).
    ~John Talor

    “…if plurality of marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinances, and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true.” ~ Orson Pratt (JOD 21:296).

    In light of these statements, maybe Warren Jeffs had it right and the LDS church that caved in to the US government are the “apostates”.

  13. March 16, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Josh

    “but I see absolutely no mention of “Christian Churches” that CURRENTLY allow GAY marriage.”

    This is a excellent example of a common problem. Christian churches that allow gay marriage are substituting their own their human reason in place of what the BIble says. They have allowed poison into their teaching. They are allowing false doctrine into their midst which will be deadly because it condones what the Bible condemns. Those lost gay individuals will not see the sin they continue to live in and, absent some intervention to bring them to repentance, will die in ongoing unrepentant sin. The fact that a church or denomination has decided to substiute their own “wisdom” over scripture DOES NOT MEAN the Bible itself was ever corrupted, it means that it was ignored. What is it that leads a church or demonination to think they can ignore any part of scripture they disagree with? SImple – It is the natural and inevitable result of the mistaken belief that the Bible contains errors.

    How many things does the LDS church choose NOT to believe because they don’t agree with it. I’ll just cite just one because it is so fundamental. Mormons refuse to believe that ALL unbelievers are condemned. Even an unrepentant serial killer with absolutely NO faith in Jesus whatsoever and who has even been baptized is not condemned. The LDS church says this man is not condemned – he goes to the Telestial Kingdom – a paradise.
    “89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the atelestial, which surpasses all understanding;” D&C 76:89. What does Jesus say?

    Mark 16:16
    He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    Explain how the LDS church is a church following Jesus Christ when don’t believe what He says.

  14. March 16, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Sorry – one correction on the above post

    “Even an unrepentant serial killer with absolutely NO faith in Jesus whatsoever and who has NEVER even been baptized is not condemned.”

  15. 15 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Josh said, “Honestly now, would you rather a woman be treated with respect and caring, and have the support of a (polygamist) family?”

    Is this your idea of respect:

    From http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm:

    Joseph also did not always seek his first wife’s permission

    The revelation itself (verse 61) makes it clear that the first wife must “give her consent.” Joseph Smith, however, did not follow the rules of his own revelation, for he took plural wives without seeking consent. Emily Dow Partridge, for instance, testified that she and her sister were married to Joseph without Emma’s consent (emphasis added):

    “…the Prophet Joseph and his wife Emma offered us a home in their family,… We had been there about a year when the principle of plural marriage was made known to us, and I was married to Joseph Smith on the 4th of March 1843, Elder Heber C. Kimball performing the ceremony. My sister Eliza was also married to Joseph a few days later. This was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith. Two months afterward she consented to give her husband two wives, providing he would give her the privilege of choosing them. She accordingly chose my sister Eliza and myself, and to save family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed. Accordingly on the 11th of May, 1843, we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time, in Emma’s presence,… From that very hour, however, Emma was our bitter enemy. We remained in the family several months after this, but things went from bad to worse until we were obligated to leave the house and find another home.”

    (Historical Record, vol. 6, page 240)

  16. 16 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    More on happiness and respect:

    Brigham Young gives Mormon women 2-week ultimatum to quit complaining about polygamy [emphasis added]:

    “Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are UNHAPPY. Men will say, ‘My wife, though a most excellent woman, has NOT SEEN A HAPPY DAY SINCE I TOOK MY SECOND WIFE,’ ‘No, NOT A HAPPY DAY FOR A YEAR,’ says one; and another HAS NOT SEEN A HAPPY DAY FOR FIVE YEARS. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not the liberty they ought to have; that many of them ARE WADING THROUGH A PERFECT FLOOD OF TEARS,…

    “I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going TO SET EVERY WOMAN AT LIBERTY and say to them, Now go your way, MY WOMEN WITH THE REST, go your way. AND MY WIVES have go to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, OR THEY MAY LEAVE, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have SCRATCHING AND FIGHTING AROUND ME. I WILL SET ALL AT LIBERTY. ‘WHAT, FIRST WIFE TOO?’ YES, I WILL LIBERATE YOU ALL….

    “I wish my women, and brother Kimball’s and brother Grant’s to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel -the whole of it….say to your wives, ‘Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too WITHOUT ANY MURMURING AND WHINING. You must fulfil the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to WALK UP TO THE MARK WITHOUT ANY GRUNTING.’ “Now recollect that two weeks from to morrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, ‘It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;’ then I say IT IS TIME THAT YOU GAVE HIM UP TO OTHER WOMEN WHO WILL BEAR CHILDREN. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me TO TAKE YOUNG WOMEN that would have children….

    “SISTERS, I AM NOT JOKING, I do not throw out my proposition to banter your feelings, to see whether you will leave your husbands, all or any of you. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE IS NO CESSATION TO THE EVERLASTING WHINING OF MANY OF THE WOMEN IN THIS TERRITORY; I am satisfied that this is the case. And if the women will turn from the commandments of God and continue to despise the order of heaven, I will pray that the curse of the Almighty may be close to their heals, and that it may be following them all the day long….

    “Prepare yourselves for two weeks from to morrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I HAVE SET YOU FREE, YOU MUST BOW DOWN TO IT, and SUBMIT yourselves to the CELESTIAL LAW. You may go where you please, after two weeks from to-morrow; but, remember, that I WILL NOT HEAR ANY MORE OF THIS WHINING.”

    (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4., pp. 55-57; also printed in Deseret News, Vol. 6, pp. 235-236)

    ~http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm

  17. 17 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    Love and Respect?

    Mitt Romney’s great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she “used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow” over her own husband’s multiple marriages.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/02/24/politics/p101652S30.DTL

    Sarah Pratt

    “Here was my husband,” she said, “gray headed, taking to his bed young girls in mockery of marriage. Of course there could be no joy for him in such an intercourse except the indulgence of his fanaticism and of something else, perhaps, which I hesitate to mention.”
    -Sarah Pratt speaking of her husband, the apostle Orson Pratt who dated a 16 year old girl (and then married her) when he was 57.

    Mary Ann Angell

    “God will be very cruel if he does not give us poor women adequate compensation for the trials we have endured in polygamy.”
    -Mary Ann Angell Young, Brigham Young’s second wife http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/polygamy_sex.htm

    Helen Kimball (14 year-old wife of Joseph)

    “I had, in hours of temptation when seeing the trials of my mother, felt to rebel. I hated polygamy in my heart.”

    http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-HelenMarKimball.htm

    “I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it.”
    -Helen Mar Kimball
    Mormon Polygamy: A History, p. 53

    See Helen’s story.

    Emma Smith (first wife of Joseph)

    Emma was very much against polygamy. Her story is told in the pro-LDS book: Mormon Enigma. When asked where the doctrine of ‘spiritual wifery’ came from she responded ‘straight from the devil’. After Joseph died, she remarried a non-Mormon and had nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy again. Mormon Enigma can be previewed on-line.

    For anyone wishing to really know the pain of what these women endured, you need to read about their lives. A few good, well-researched books such as the following will likely convince anyone that those women suffered dearly for their devotion to their involvement in polygamy:

    Mormon Polygamy, A History by Van Wagoner. Even when material maintenance was adequate, emotional support was usually not. More experienced plural wives would counsel women new to the practice to expect little in the way of a loving relationship from their husbands, that they should give up any emotional attachment and when he came to her household to receive him as she would any other guest. (Van Wagoner, 153).

    Tell it All by Fanny Stenhouse. She relates her own unhappy story and those of her friends. There is even some reason to believe that a daughter of Brigham Young committed suicide because she was so unhappy about her husband taking more wives. She also tells the story of Orson Pratt’s cold heartedness toward his wife, Eliza, as she was dying. The book is available to read on-line.

    In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton. Story of Joseph’s wives.

    ~http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm

  18. 18 joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    CHOOSE: you questioned “Does the Bible SAY that plural marriage was acceptable or does the Bible say that plural marriage occurred?”
    GOD gave these wives. IT WAS ACCEPTABLE.
    2 Samuel 12:7-8
    “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master’s house AND YOUR MASTER’S WIVES into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I ALSO WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU MUCH MORE!”
    Verse 9 talks about the sin of killing Uriah and taking his wife. The ONLY sin here was killing Uriah and taking the wife. NOT the numerous other wives.

    As to Solomon: It was not having the wives that was the sin, it was turning to idolatry. Before that, Solomon was perfectly fine living with his WIVES.

  19. 19 joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Choose: “I think this is a difficult concept for the LDS since they have placed such a HUGE emphasis on marriage and family for exaltation.”
    we see how this has turned out for Catholic priests…. LDS believe a person should be chaste and serve the Lord. BUT it says if you have passion for someone, it is better that you marry them. There are many LDS people that I know that have never married. This is acceptable, for those that do have families, those Families are raised as best those families can in teaching the children what God would have them know

    “Joseph also did not always seek his first wife’s permission”
    I am not debating whether Joseph Smith was correct in all his dealings. That is for Him and God to decide. There are very few prophets who have done absolutely nothing wrong (Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to it, for example). Elijah is the only one I can think of right now that was taken off the earth. Obviously, Joseph Smith was not taken in this way.

    To This:
    (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4., pp. 55-57; also printed in Deseret News, Vol. 6, pp. 235-236)

    I do not know how the marriages were conducted, who was asked, who really wanted to be married. I do know that was is bound on earth is bound in heaven, was is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. If the women wanted out, if they were really unhappy, B.Y. was giving them their chance to get out of it. Pretty much what i said earlier about divorce… BUT, as Jesus said “Moses gave you the law of divorce because of the hardness of your hearts.”

  20. 20 joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    BTW: this comment is made purely to Mark, and not to the replies left here… This is either ridiculously coincidental or Mark is responding to my replies with all out new blogs… This is at LEAST the second time this has happened… getting rather strange to me..

  21. 21 Kent
    March 16, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Bereandave quote the following scripture:

    Mark 16:16
    He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    He then said, “Explain how the LDS church is a church following Jesus Christ when don’t believe what He says.”

    I will also add that the Bible says that those who don’t believe in Jesus are condemned so being damned and condemned does not mean that someone goes to a paradise that is better than anything here on earth.

    John 3:18

    18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

    I realize that Mormons would quote their scriptures that say that even unbelievers go to the so called telestial kingdom but that teaches something different than the Bible teaches, it contradicts the Bible it doesn’t bring clarity to what the Bible teaches.

    So we either believe the Bible

    OR

    We believe what the Mormon scriptures and/or what the Mormon church currently teaches.

    Yes, it is one or the other as the teachings are not the same.

  22. March 16, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    There is so much misinformation here. To address this properly would require more than a silly blog. None of the non-LDS can even understand anything that might be presented to you as fact, nor would you believe it because you pull your information from non-factual sources. Many of the marriages to Joseph Smith were not marriages but sealings. Many of them done even after his death. But you have no desire to know truth, so it’s not even worth explaining any of it.

    That being said, get over it. The Mormon church does not practice plural marriage.

  23. March 16, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    Kate

    Where do unbaptized, unrepentant, murdering unbelievers go when they die and what is the basis for your belief (cite the doctrine)?

  24. March 16, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    How does this relate to this topic?

  25. March 16, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    David, I would love to answer that question btw. Busy day, but as soon as I can, I will…

  26. 26 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Josh said, “GOD gave these wives. IT WAS ACCEPTABLE.
    2 Samuel 12:7-8
    “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master’s house AND YOUR MASTER’S WIVES into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I ALSO WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU MUCH MORE!”
    Verse 9 talks about the sin of killing Uriah and taking his wife. The ONLY sin here was killing Uriah and taking the wife. NOT the numerous other wives.

    As to Solomon: It was not having the wives that was the sin, it was turning to idolatry. Before that, Solomon was perfectly fine living with his WIVES.”

    God said: Deuteronomy 17: 16-17 “16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. ”

    It was not acceptable.

    As for 2 Samuel 12:7-8, It was customary for new kings to assume the harem of their predecessors. This in no way implies that God said it was acceptable when He had already said kings must not take many wives.

    As for Solomon, yes, the sin was turning to idolotry, but it was the wives who brought their idols and Jesus said, if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away (Matthew 5:30).

  27. 27 RLO
    March 16, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Choose;

    Josh said: “There are SEVERAL sources in the BIBLE saying multiple marriages were acceptable at a certain time, for a certain reason.”

    Choose responded: “Does the Bible SAY that plural marriage was acceptable or does the Bible say that plural marriage occurred?”

    I find this to be an extremely valid point. A descriptive does not indicate a prescriptive.

    Josh:

    Your defense of plural marriage by citing 2 Samuel 12:7-8 is dubious. It is clearly not a prescriptive statement in defense of plural marriage, but a descriptive statement, describing David’s household. And you do know it was customary for the conquering king to take possession of a vanquished king’s harem, don’t you?

    Are you really going to defend plural marriage with a single descriptive account in the face of numerous passages that explicitly speak against the practice of plural marriage? Because, if that is what you are going to do, then there is really no reason why you shouldn’t go all the way, and defend two daughters getting their father drunk and having sex with him (Genesis 19:30-38). Why not just say, “Hey, the Bible describes the account of incest, so it must be okay, right?”

    I am appalled at your line of reasoning. Tell me why – when I read what the Bible has to say regarding plural marriage, and then read what you have to say regarding plural marriage – tell me why I should not conclude that Mormonism is a patently evil, anti-Christian, morally bankrupt faith. Tell me.

  28. 28 Joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    I posted 10 other plural marriage, a website with 15 marriages, and these are alphabetical, so it doesnt cover all. I picked david because.he is the.most well known. I also defended solomon. He did no conquer his fathers.kingdom and therefore did not have right, according to you, to have multiple wives. We see that he sinned in idolatry. We do not see anywhere listed that he sinned in plural marriages… when I have more time, I will comment on the other TEN I posted.

  29. 29 shematwater
    March 16, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    I notice a whole lot of pointless attacks being thrown out against the LDS and some rather decent defenses.

    I have little time right now, so I will direct readers to this link: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Plural_Marriage. it gives a very good run down of the history of Plural Marriage in the church and shows through decent and reliable scholarship that it was not the horrible oppression that people try to make it out to be.

  30. March 16, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Question for Mormons…

    Why does God no longer want Mormons practicing plural marriage today?

  31. 31 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Josh said, “He did no conquer his fathers.kingdom and therefore did not have right, according to you, to have multiple wives.” Speaking of Solomon.

    Assuming the harem applies to your quote from 2 Samuel 12:7-8 which applies to David.

    Taking idolatrous wives caused Solomon to sin. Cause and effect. That’s how sin works. Kind of like how we are not prohibited from drinking alcohol in the Bible, but taking a drink may cause one to get drunk which can lead to sin. In either case, the kings were warned not to take “multiple” wives. You seem to keep ignoring Deuteronomy regarding this.

    Josh, Do you read my posts at all or just the parts you want to read?

  32. 32 RLO
    March 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Josh;

    1. Abdon. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    2. Abijah. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    3. Sarai. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    4. Ahab. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    5. Vashti. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    6. Ashur. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    7. Belshazzar. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    8. Caleb. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    9. David. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    10. Eliphaz. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

    Josh, no one here is denying there are descriptive accounts of plural marriages in the Bible. Just as there are descriptive accounts of incest in the Bible. And again, descriptive does not indicate prescriptive.

    Now, can you give me a “prescriptive” account of plural marriage in the Bible?

  33. 33 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    Shem said, “it gives a very good run down of the history of Plural Marriage in the church and shows through decent and reliable scholarship that it was not the horrible oppression that people try to make it out to be.”

    To this I say, “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

  34. 34 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Josh said, “I am not debating whether Joseph Smith was correct in all his dealings. That is for Him and God to decide. There are very few prophets who have done absolutely nothing wrong (Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to it, for example). Elijah is the only one I can think of right now that was taken off the earth. Obviously, Joseph Smith was not taken in this way.”

    Moses should have obeyed God and Joseph should have obeyed God:

    Jacob 2

    “22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you. 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.”

    The moral of this story: If a “prophet” tells you to do something that goes against the written Word of God, don’t believe that he is a “prophet” and follow him over the cliff.

  35. March 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    I have another question for Mormons…

    Is marriage a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom?

  36. 36 Joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Choose, you hit the nail on the head saying they both should have obeyed God. Something I want to point out is we dont have a fraction of the information of Moses’ life that we do of Joseph’s. If we had a journal of every day, would you look at Moses the same? Probably not. Do I personally agree with every action that Joseph Smith ever made? No. Does this prevent him from being a prophet of God? If it does, then Moses is also not a prophet, because I dont agree with him smacking the stone.
    More to come in a bit….

  37. March 16, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    Choose

    “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

    I half to remember that one.

  38. March 16, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    sorry – should be “have” not “half”

  39. 39 Joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    Choose: I comment from my phone on stuff that I find most pressing if and when I get time. I comment on the rest when I get home, again if and when time is available.
    RLO: I merely copied and pasted the ten, and meant to describe in more detail each later. Some of those peoples lives were not great, others were exceedingly great. To both you and choose: I am not ignoring Due., I am reading the rest of the Bible to defend this position. You day it says never let it happen, I am saying if God knows ALL AND blessed those with plural marriages, then by default the marriages are not wrong. A persons treatment of each marriage can be incorrect, but the marriage itself is not, especially in leu (sp?) of the blessings that those with plural marriages received.

  40. March 16, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Josh said: “Something else I love here is how only LDS beliefs are on trial, as I have said before. Plural marriage (which is NOT practiced any more) is constantly brought up, but I see absolutely no mention of “Christian Churches” that CURRENTLY allow GAY marriage.”

    Lumping us into one group with people that currently allow gay marriage is like lumping you in with Warren Jeffs and the FLDS. Christians have other blogs that deal with the errors of Christian Churches that currently allow gay marriage, there are blogs for Muslims, blogs for Jehovah Witnesses, blogs for Christians that teach false doctrine etc. This blog is specifically for the LDS.

  41. 41 RLO
    March 16, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Josh says: “I am saying if God knows all and blessed those with plural marriages, then by default the marriages are not wrong.

    So then by your own reasoning, if God knows all and blessed those incestuous relationships between Lot and his daughters with two children, then by default the incestuous relationships are not wrong.

    Incredible. Simply incredible.

  42. March 16, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    Josh said:

    ~”GOD gave these wives. IT WAS ACCEPTABLE.
    2 Samuel 12:7-8
    “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master’s house AND YOUR MASTER’S WIVES into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I ALSO WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU MUCH MORE!”
    Verse 9 talks about the sin of killing Uriah and taking his wife. The ONLY sin here was killing Uriah and taking the wife. NOT the numerous other wives. As to Solomon: It was not having the wives that was the sin, it was turning to idolatry. Before that, Solomon was perfectly fine living with his WIVES.”~

    You are stating above that it was acceptable for David and Solomon to have multiple wives however your own Book of Mormon states that God thought it was a whoredom and abominable…

    Jacob 2:23-24 “For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

  43. 43 choosethechrist
    March 16, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    Josh said, “Choose, you hit the nail on the head saying they both should have obeyed God. Something I want to point out is we dont have a fraction of the information of Moses’ life that we do of Joseph’s. If we had a journal of every day, would you look at Moses the same? Probably not.”

    The Bible is full of sinners who did wrong. If we are smart, we will learn from their mistakes and not do the wrong things that they did. We don’t follow people in doing wrong, we follow God in doing what God wants us to do.

    The thing is, I’m not following Moses or Joseph Smith, I’m following God.

    If the BOM was God’s word, why would Joseph Smith go against God’s word? He himself said, “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.” How is a person supposed to decide if those revelations coming from “living prophets” are from God, man, or the devil? Would it be wise to follow the revelator if that revelation was from man or the devil? Warning bells should have been going off over plural marriage, why have anything written in the scriptures at all if they are to be changed willy nilly at the whims of men? Oh yes, it’s no big deal to follow the “living prophet” over the cliff, God will forgive the transgression in that case. Seriously? That’s not Biblical. We are responsible for being led astray.

  44. 44 Joshtried
    March 16, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    I didnt say God gave the dad for incest. I said God gave the wives, and then blessed David. there are so many people that do wrong in this world and have children. While having a child is a blessing, I wouldnt say it is always the parents that are blessed from it. Sometimes the child will grow more in all ways with different parents.
    My point with David is that GOD gave him the wives.

    The bible also says women that cross dress are wrong… How many of your wives (or you if your a girl) have ever worn pants? Are you going to go to hell over a pair of pants? I really doubt it….. Some of these things were intended for their time alone. Some things are intended only for a short time. That is for God to decide. If he wants to decide on a holy war tomorrow, would you say thats wrong?

  45. 45 RLO
    March 16, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    Stay on point Josh. The Bible explicitly proscribes plural marriage in multiple places. You attempt to justify plural marriage by merely identifying examples of plural marriages in the Bible, rather than simply showing even one explicit Biblical prescription for plural marriage. How lame is that? And now you want to change the subject and talk about holy wars and pants? Get serious.

  46. March 16, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Josh

    to borrow a line from Choose

    “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

  47. 47 JBR
    March 17, 2012 at 12:58 am

    Shem says “I notice a whole lot of pointless attacks being thrown out against the LDS and some rather decent defenses”

    Funny … I see the same Mormon apologists using circular rational to justify immoral behavior which some are almost convoluted.

    Those who had multiple wives in the OT were blessed not because of… but despite of.

  48. 48 JBR
    March 17, 2012 at 1:24 am

    which some defenses are almost convoluted….. that is.

  49. 49 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 3:06 am

    so, apparently my comments no longer show up

  50. 50 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 3:07 am

    Lets try without the link………..

    JBR, how convoluted is it to believe in plural marriage when i posted a previous link with FIFTEEN men, all of whom lived in polygamist relationships.. well, here is another list for you (some are repeats of course..)
    This list comes to FORTY people in the BIBLE that GOD obviously knew about, and chose 1. to not punish for the polygamist relationship and 2. to BLESS these people.

    Prescriptive and Descriptive dont matter here. What you are trying to say is no matter how many people I list, showing God’s nonchalant attitude towards the relationship, you see it as wrong, and it therefore must be wrong. Even Abraham’s wife gave him another wife… THEN and angel came and visited the wives, not ABRAHAM, who is committing such a “vile” act.. here is the account…

    Genesis 16:9And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. 10And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

    As to something that is PRESCRIPTIVE, David’s account so wholly fits this that i am not going any further. It has already been recopied like 5x… GOD GAVE HIM WIVES… If GOD wanted him to live a monogamous relationship, WHY IN THE WORLD would he give him WIVES instead of A WIFE… If you really cant see this, then nothing else i say to you on the matter is going to make a spit of difference.

  51. 51 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 3:14 am

    so, i am no longer allowed to post links to verify what i am saying.. search for biblical polygamy, and go to the second non ad link down (what you searched for with a slash and polygamists). i think it is totally bogus that i cant post links.. but hey, whatever keeps the truth hidden, right?

  52. 52 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 3:27 am

    Echo: “Lumping us into one group with people that currently allow gay marriage is like lumping you in with Warren Jeffs and the FLDS. Christians have other blogs that deal with the errors of Christian Churches that currently allow gay marriage, there are blogs for Muslims, blogs for Jehovah Witnesses, blogs for Christians that teach false doctrine etc. This blog is specifically for the LDS.”

    I lump you into one group because this is a CHRISTIAN vs LDS debate. even people on here when defending THEIR view of Christianity do not say “this is the Lutheran view” or “this is the Baptist view” or “Evangelical view”. No distinction is made to whether someone is debating WHOLE Christianity, or SECT views. as you pointed out, this blog is directed toward LDS, not FLDS, and therefore, there is no need for me to differentiate. I call ’em like i see ’em. as a WHOLE, that being every Christian denomination in the world, you could eventually piece together a correct Gospel, which is why i feel the distinction is not made concerning different things. Like i already hit on in different threads, you do not have a consensus on “free will” and you do not have a consensus on the “Trinity”, there is also a difference for “gay marriage”, “praying to saints” and so on. So, yes, i will lump you in with Churches that accept Gay marriages, because you do not set yourself apart. I blatantly state when i am unsure of something, and when it might be my own opinion of church doctrine. i set my self apart in instances i am not sure. I give MY reasoning for a lot of things, but i openly clarify them as such. How long did it take me to pull out that LUTHERANS dont believe in free will from birth? here i am debating all day, and then LATER in the discussion – “oh, by the way this is Lutheran beliefs…” The reason i “pick on” Lutherans is that is the only religious name i have seen someone affiliate themselves with. Others may have posted their beliefs, but i have not seen/read their affiliation. Every Christian has some form or fashion of belief that others hold, even if it is non-denominational. I could sit here all day and name them all, but the point is made. you dont wanna be lumped in, then clearly separate yourself.

  53. 53 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 3:37 am

    RLO: “How lame is that? And now you want to change the subject and talk about holy wars and pants? Get serious.”
    Pants is a very serious issue, or are you saying the Bible throws in unnecessary stuff just to keep it interesting?
    Back to Deuteronomy, where the polygamy issue stems from…

    (Deuteronomy 22:5) 5 “No garb of an able-bodied man should be put upon a woman, neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman; for anybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah your God.

    Seems to me that the pants issue is even BIGGER than polygamy… lets look at the wording, shall we?
    Deut 17:17 “or his heart will be led astray”
    Deut 22:5 “something detestable to Jehovah your God.”

    So, RLO, are you saying that the Bible didnt mean that women should refrain from wearing men’s clothing??
    Show me half of the examples of wearing men’s clothing as my number of examples of polygamy, and then we will see which is the bigger issue… (BTW, i had 40… so that would mean 20 instances of women wearing men clothing…) Now, does you wife wear pants, RLO? Because as this VERY CLEARLY STATES, it is detestable to Jehovah.

  54. 54 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 3:40 am

    Choose: “If the BOM was God’s word, why would Joseph Smith go against God’s word?”
    If the Bible is the word of God, why did ANY of the apostles EVER question Jesus Christ? If Jesus was Jesus Christ HIMSELF, why did the apostles question his actions???

  55. 55 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 3:51 am

    Choose: To this “Jacob 2”
    I dont claim to be a great biblical scholar by any means. From the context though, it seems the people were using plural marriage and concubines as an excuse to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted. This is the same thing that got David and Solomon in hot water, they made excuses. They chose to do the wrong things.
    In Duet we see that one is not supposed to remarry a woman that has been taken by another man, because basically, this is just a way to openly fornicate. While i have not read any more of Jacob than what is posted here, that is what i am inferring from the passage.
    “And if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance” (Deut 24:2-4)

  56. 56 RLO
    March 17, 2012 at 3:55 am

    Okay Josh. I would agree. We are at an impasse. In spite of the numerous times scripture explicitly prohibits plural marriage, you continue to ignore all of these prohibitions in favor of the weak implication you choose to make from Nathan’s words given to David as part of a dire admonishment – words which, as has already been explained to you, are understandable in view of the custom of a conquering king to take possession of the vanquished king’s household. We are at an impasse because you would rather interpret the four precious words of your mantra, GOD GAVE HIM WIVES,” as having simply nullified all of the prohibitions scripture gives against plural marriage. It’s regrettable you choose to interpret the whole of scripture in view of those four words, rather than interpreting those four words in view of the whole of scripture. What a dismally corrupt manner of interpreting Scripture !

  57. 57 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 4:02 am

    Choose: “Kind of like how we are not prohibited from drinking alcohol in the Bible, but taking a drink may cause one to get drunk which can lead to sin. In either case, the kings were warned not to take “multiple” wives. You seem to keep ignoring Deuteronomy regarding this.”
    1. see above regarding God GIVING David the wives.. would have given more… only sinned when he killed a man..

    Josh, Do you read my posts at all or just the parts you want to read?
    2. I read 98% of the stuff posted here. I comment on the stuff i can in the time i can. As Shem said, occasionally the posts are just WAY to long (i have done this too, and even threw in a warning at the top). Seems to me (refering to #1 in this reply) that my comments arent always read either… of course, we both choose to answer that which fits our belief systems much more freely than something that goes against it, or something we dont like. I think their are problems in every “religion” and about completely abstained from them when i hit 17… Does that mean that God is wrong? no. it means man is not reading what he wrote correctly..
    There is something else that fits in here, with reading what he wrote… GOD CONFOUNDED THE LANGUAGES… we are not meant to fully understand one another since that happened, and we never will until God changes it back.. I TRY to keep this in mind when i read some of this stuff.. my words, my sentences, my thoughts.. they will never fully be described to you so that you have the same exact understanding that I do..

  58. 58 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 4:22 am

    RLO: “numerous times scripture explicitly prohibits plural marriage”
    I have seen Deuteronomy on here, and none else ( honestly, i did skip a few posts..) For my sake, why not list all the scriptures PROHIBITING plural marriage?

    How can you suggest that the Old Testament prohibited polygamy when for instance Deuteronomy 21:15 clearly states: “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons….” And also Exodus 21:10 allows a man to marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can have.

    in Matthew 22:24-28, the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman’s husband dies, and she didn’t have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not. When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband’s brother (even if he were married).

    Lets look at Early Christian Leaders positions, if we can:
    1.Augustine believed that the Bible allowed for polygamy, but only for the purpose of procreation and only if the law of the land allowed it. Augustine did not believe the Old Testament patriarchs were sinning by having multiple wives
    2.Saint Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 – March 7, 1274) was a renowned Roman Catholic priest, a theologian and philosopher. Aquinas commented in his Sentences that, under certain circumstances, polygamy was reasonable and was not inconsistent with the primary purpose of marriage
    3.Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546), the German theologian and church reformer, is considered to be the founder of Protestantism. Luther said polygamy is sometimes permissible
    4.John Calvin (July 10, 1509– May 27, 1564) was a famous French Protestant theologian during the Protestant Reformation and was a central developer of the system of Christian theology called Calvinism or Reformed theology. Unlike Luther, Calvin believed the Jews were violating God’s original design by engaging in polygamy.

  59. 59 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 4:22 am

    Here is some more fun information for you…

    It may suprise some people that God portrays Himself as a polygamist in the Bible. However, in Jeremiah 3:6-10 and 31:31-32, as well as Ezekiel 23, God does exactly that. Even though this may be simply an analogy, it seems illogical that God would portray Himself as a polygamist if polygamy were somehow a sin. According to Jeremiah 3:6-10:

    The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot.”And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.”Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.”So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees.”And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,” says the LORD(NKJV).

    Again, in Ezekiel 23:1-4, God portrays himself as a polygamist, married to two sisters, Jerusalem and Samaria, who commit adultery against him:

    The word of the LORD came again to me, saying: “Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother. They committed harlotry in Egypt, they committed harlotry in their youth; their breasts were there embraced, their virgin bosom was there pressed. Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; they were mine, and they bore sons and daughters” (NKJV).

    Jesus also describes himself as a polygamist:

    “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. …While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; …And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage:” (Matthew 25:1-2,5-6c,10a-c. Also see verses 1-13).

    Although this is only a parable, would Jesus describe Himself as a polygamist if polygamy was a sin? Therefore, if polygamy really is a sin, as many claim, then certainly God, who cannot sin, would never portray Himself as a polygamist; even if it is just an analogy.

  60. 61 RLO
    March 17, 2012 at 4:25 am

    Josh;

    Regarding Deuteronomy 22:5: Just what is men’s clothing, and just what is women’s clothing, is determined by the culture in which the clothing items are worn. No reasonable person upon seeing a woman wearing a stylish pants-suit purchased in the women’s department of Macy’s, would accuse her of wearing men’s clothing. No reasonable person upon seeing a Scottish man wearing a kilt, would accuse him of wearing women’s clothing. Your entire clothing argument is nothing more than a red-herring to distract attention away from the fact that you have no real Biblical support for your views of plural marriage.

  61. 62 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 4:25 am

    apparently, the other link i tried to post is specifically blocked for some reason, as i posted the link above with no problems… anyone know why?
    worldwideweb dot biblicalpolygamy dot com slash polygamists slash

  62. 63 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 4:29 am

    RLO:

    It is not a red herring, it is a very valid point. By saying “it came out of the women’s section”, you are simply choosing to disobey this part of God’s law, or Interpret it differently. It is very, very clear that cross dressing is not allowed. (in whatever society you are in)

  63. 64 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 4:33 am

    and no real biblical support huh? would you like me to post all FORTY people that were OBVIOUSLY married to different women? I can, but for reason of space chose not to. I posted TEN VERY CLEAR examples of polygamy being ALLOWED in the Bible. If you want more, i can post much, much more.. Where are “ALL” the times it is outright banned?
    As to Deuteronomy for your claim that polygamy is banned… i copy and paste this:
    In no way, does Deut 17:17 prohibit polygamy. It prohibited the King from marrying MANY WIVES. I wonder what is the limit to that? Certainly it doesn’t limit it to just one wife.

  64. 65 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 4:39 am

    and, just in case you missed these, i will separate them each for you:

    Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
    21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
    21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

    Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
    11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

  65. 66 RLO
    March 17, 2012 at 4:43 am

    Josh;

    Regarding Jeremiah 3:6-10, Jeremiah 31:31-32, Ezekiel 23, and Matthew 25:10-13.

    If licence for plural marriage is the only message you are able to take away from these passages, I fear there is simply no hope for you at all.

  66. 67 joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 4:46 am

    That is not all i took from them. What i do see is GOD portraying HIMSELF as a POLYGAMIST.
    IF polygamist is WRONG, WHY WOULD GOD DO THIS?

  67. 68 RLO
    March 17, 2012 at 5:02 am

    Josh says: “and no real biblical support huh? would you like me to post all FORTY people that were OBVIOUSLY married to different women?”

    How many times do you need to be told before it sinks in? Descriptive examples, whether 4 or 400, are not prescriptive. As I said before, if a mere descriptive account of plural marriage justifies plural marriage, then you must also justify the sins of Lot and his daughters described in the bible.

    We are at an impasse.

    Believe what you will, to your own peril.

  68. March 17, 2012 at 6:27 am

    JOSH said: “i think it is totally bogus that i cant post links.. but hey, whatever keeps the truth hidden, right?”

    This was explained just recently in two threads. WordPress has an automated feature that sometimes holds posts for moderation when they contain links. This feature is used to prevent Spam being automatically posted on the blog.

  69. 70 RLO
    March 17, 2012 at 6:35 am

    Thanks Echo. And just like Kate, you can see he chose put the most gracious possible construction on the situation – an erroneous allegation of “keeping the truth hidden.” Tell me, do these people even know what the commandment warning against bearing false witness is ??

  70. March 17, 2012 at 6:57 am

    JOSH said: “I lump you into one group because this is a CHRISTIAN vs LDS debate. even people on here when defending THEIR view of Christianity do not say “this is the Lutheran view” or “this is the Baptist view” or “Evangelical view”. No distinction is made to whether someone is debating WHOLE Christianity, or SECT views. as you pointed out, this blog is directed toward LDS, not FLDS, and therefore, there is no need for me to differentiate. I call ‘em like i see ‘em. as a WHOLE, that being every Christian denomination in the world, you could eventually piece together a correct Gospel, which is why i feel the distinction is not made concerning different things. Like i already hit on in different threads, you do not have a consensus on “free will” and you do not have a consensus on the “Trinity”, there is also a difference for “gay marriage”, “praying to saints” and so on. So, yes, i will lump you in with Churches that accept Gay marriages, because you do not set yourself apart. I blatantly state when i am unsure of something, and when it might be my own opinion of church doctrine. i set my self apart in instances i am not sure. I give MY reasoning for a lot of things, but i openly clarify them as such. How long did it take me to pull out that LUTHERANS dont believe in free will from birth? here i am debating all day, and then LATER in the discussion – “oh, by the way this is Lutheran beliefs…” The reason i “pick on” Lutherans is that is the only religious name i have seen someone affiliate themselves with. Others may have posted their beliefs, but i have not seen/read their affiliation. Every Christian has some form or fashion of belief that others hold, even if it is non-denominational. I could sit here all day and name them all, but the point is made. you dont wanna be lumped in, then clearly separate yourself.”

    This is a WELS Lutheran Blog. Mark is Lutheran. There are 5 WELS Lutheran posters here that I know of including Mark and myself. As for the rest, I don’t know what denomination they are; some of them might be Lutheran as well. I have given my view when I disagreed with NON Lutheran Doctrine that was brought up on this blog for all the posts that I have personally read. As you stated in your post above, you know that I have done this previously. Therefore we WELS Lutherans do indeed set ourselves apart from the rest of Christianity doctrinally speaking. We do however believe that there are true believing Christians in all denominations.

  71. March 17, 2012 at 7:13 am

    JOSH SAID:

    “To this “Jacob 2″
    I dont claim to be a great biblical scholar by any means. From the context though, it seems the people were using plural marriage and concubines as an excuse to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted. This is the same thing that got David and Solomon in hot water, they made excuses. They chose to do the wrong things.”

    From the BOM, Hard hearts led to wicked practice of desiring many wives…

    Jacob 1:15 “And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi…began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son”

    ONE wife, NO concubines…

    Jacob 2:27-29 “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.”

  72. March 17, 2012 at 7:53 am

    JOSH said: “In Duet we see that one is not supposed to remarry a woman that has been taken by another man, because basically, this is just a way to openly fornicate”

    Joseph Smith married women who had living husbands. Here is one example from an LDS Church owned website…

    http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/AF/individual_record.asp?recid=7106574&lds=0

  73. 74 JBR
    March 17, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Echo….

    From what has been revealed to us in the Bible ( and giving the benefit of the doubt of that there are 40 references to plural marriages…which I highly doubt it) that plural marriages was not the norm.

    The pastors that I have had said that when Jesus revealed :—->” ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife’ ” Mark 10:7 <—- every female reference is in the singular. Adam only had one wife in the Garden while being perfect.

    PLus every plural marriage mentioned in the Bible always is accompianed with some kind of trouble \ turmoil \ conflicts.

    There is just no scriptural basis for plural marriages and they know that that is the obvious chink in the armor

  74. 75 Joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Echo and RLO:
    It was not multiple links, and it did not go to moderation. It simply would not post the link I was trying to post. Yall are both welcome to try it, its the website above with www all spelled out. It obviously lets me post some links, as I posted on last night, but it will not let me post THIS link.. I find that a bit odd.
    Echo, thank you for the religious belief clarification. I will do my best to keep that in mind.
    RLO, we are not at an impass if you would validate whether God gave David the wives, an would have given him more, or if you think this scripture is just as erroneous as the mens clothing scripture, and that God didnt give the wives, it was just the common practice through out history, so David did lile everyone else. I take the Bible literally in this case. Therefore it is prescriptive. So which is it? Did God give them, or did David follow the crowd? How would David know that he was supposed to take these wives anyways? He began life as a sheep farmer. I umderstand he became a great commander before king, but I dont remember him all out conquerring other kings to the point of anyone taking their wives (i could be wrong, it has been a while since I read up on that..)
    RLO, I am still waiting for that list…

  75. 76 Joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    And RLO, ANY marriage has hardship, has misunderstanding. To say that hardship is the basis for nonbelief in plural marriage is to also deny monogamy, because it can be difficult. To me, you seem to want to accept the parts of the Bible that jive with your story, and reject the parts that jive with mine. What about the 2 scriptures I posted that say “IF you take another wife…….”? The Bible is completely against polygamy, yet God AND Jesus both use analogies that THEY are polygamists? That would be the most retarded thing ever, honestly… “Hey guys, dont take multiple wives, but you all are like multiple wives to me…… Wait, what just happened there..”
    There are other Christian teachers that accept polygamy, including if you look a few of my posts back, your founder Martin Luther. So, on top of not knowing what thw Bible says, you dont know where your sect of Christianity stands.. Good job.

  76. 77 Joshtried
    March 17, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Sorry, last post should have been to JBR, not RLO

  77. March 17, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    JOSH,

    Duet 21:15 “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:”

    In the above passage when it is written: “If a man have two wives” that statement doesn’t mean that God endorses a man having more than one wife any more than “If a man or woman have a plague upon the head or the beard” (Lev 13:29) means that God endorses a man having a plague, or “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son” (Duet 21:18) means that God endorses having stubborn and rebellious sons.

    Exodus 21:10-11 “ If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.”

    In the above passage when it is written: “If he marries another woman”, that statement doesn’t mean that God endorses a man marrying another woman any more than “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies” (Ex 21:20) means that God endorses a man beating his slaves to death with a rod.

    Josh you referred to Jeremiah 3:6-10, Jeremiah 31:31-32, Ezekiel 23, and Matthew 25:10-13 to support the position that you think God and Jesus portrayed themselves as polygamists.

    By your same reasoning then, God and Jesus are not only polygamist, but they are incestuous, they are homosexuals and are pedophiles because in each of those scriptures you gave, ALL of those people are not only God’s children, but there are both male and female as well as little children including BABIES in those analogies.

    In the beginning, God created ONE wife for Adam. There you have God’s design for marriage clearly laid out

    Even your Book of Mormon Agrees, I posted this once already and got no response from you…

    From the BOM, Hard hearts led to wicked practice of desiring many wives…

    Jacob 1:15 “And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi…began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son”

    ONE wife, NO concubines…

    Jacob 2:27-29 “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.”

    (Matthew 19:9) Jesus said, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries
    another woman commits adultery.” If a person isn’t to divorce his wife and marry another person, then obviously marrying another person is also adultery.

  78. 79 choosethechrist
    March 17, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    RLO said,

    “Regarding Jeremiah 3:6-10, Jeremiah 31:31-32, Ezekiel 23, and Matthew 25:10-13.”

    “If licence for plural marriage is the only message you are able to take away from these passages, I fear there is simply no hope for you at all.”

    I have to agree with this statement.

    Josh,

    I think that you should realize that attempting to use scripture that you do not understand to justify your arguments with a group of people who study and thoroughly understand Biblical scripture just makes you look a bit foolish. I can appreciate your passion and persistence, but you really should consider doing some serious Bible study.

    The verses from Jeremiah and Ezekiel have to do with Idolotry. In no way shape or form do they have anything to do with polygamy or God showing “polygamist tendancies”. The verse from Matthew is about being ready for the return of Jesus.

    Also, I think you need to get over your hang up with Christian denominations. As believers, all of us Christians are members of Christ’s Church. We all hold the same beliefs regarding who God is, who Jesus is, and how we are saved. The denomination of the church building were we choose to worship, learn, and fellowship is of no particular significance or consequence. We are unified in the Body of Christ.

  79. 80 choosethechrist
    March 17, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    There is nothing anyone could say to me to convince me that polygamy is a good idea or that it was ever a good idea and I really don’t care if people in the Bible practiced it or not. I see the problems caused from it. Marriage is difficult enough without complicating it or making it harder than it needs to be.

    With that being said, I think the real issues regarding what was wrong with Mormon polygamy are being lost in debating whether polygamy itself is right or wrong.

    The mormon polygamy issue for me is clearly tied to the whole following the “living prophet” thing even if it means being led astray especially when the “prophet” is leading against what has been defined as “scripture” or “the written Word of God”. To me this is just one among many examples of the problem with following “continued revelation”. I have an even bigger problem with church leaders teaching that God will be ok with people being led astray by the “living prophet”.

    For some reason, none of the LDS here want to address these issues. Instead we are debating whether polygamy is right or wrong and the big picture is being lost. Then again, maybe that is intentional?

  80. 81 choosethechrist
    March 17, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    Josh, if it makes you feel better, I am an Evangelical Christian and prefer to not be lumped in with any group that goes against sound Biblical teaching or the commands of God. I don’t believe in relativism, universalism, or any other ism that would go against God’s commandments or His Word:

    http://www.nae.net/church-and-faith-partners/what-is-an-evangelical:

    Evangelicals take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

    The term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning “the good news” or the “gospel.” Thus, the evangelical faith focuses on the “good news” of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.

    We are a vibrant and diverse group, including believers found in many churches, denominations and nations. Our community brings together Reformed, Holiness, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other traditions. Our core theological convictions provide unity in the midst of our diversity. The NAE Statement of Faith offers a standard for these evangelical convictions.

    Historian David Bebbington also provides a helpful summary of evangelical distinctives, identifying four primary characteristics of evangelicalism:

    Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus.

    Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts

    Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority

    Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity

    These distinctives and theological convictions define us, not political, social, or cultural trends. In fact, many evangelicals rarely use the term “evangelical” to describe themselves, focusing simply on the core convictions of the triune God, the Bible, faith, Jesus, salvation, evangelism, and discipleship.

  81. 82 choosethechrist
    March 17, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Echo has also raised other issues that have been avoided:

    Why does God no longer want Mormons practicing plural marriage today?

    Is marriage a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom?

    Even your Book of Mormon Agrees, I posted this once already and got no response from you…

    From the BOM, Hard hearts led to wicked practice of desiring many wives…

  82. 83 joshtried
    March 18, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Echo:
    From the BOM, Hard hearts led to wicked practice of desiring many wives
    David did not have a hard heart. The hardening of the heart is the bad thing here.

    As far as incest goes… (and believe me, i really dont want to have to say this, but there it is in the Bible, plain as day)… If Adam and Eve are the ONLY TWO PEOPLE on the entire face of the earth, who did their children have sex with to procreate? If we are ALL the spirit children of God, what do you call it when God inseminated Mary?

    Choose:
    As i said before, That was not the only thing i took from those scriptures. That is ONE thing i took, and now yall are upset..

    Also, I think you need to get over your hang up with Christian denominations.
    I think i dont. you say you all have the same idea who God and Jesus are, and i say that you do not. There are those who see them as separate, and those that seem them as the same. One of the bigger arguments i have seen used here is just that LDS see them as separate. Well, If we see them as separate and are wrong, then every other Christian church that sees them as separate is also wrong.

    “For some reason, none of the LDS here want to address these issues. Instead we are debating whether polygamy is right or wrong and the big picture is being lost. Then again, maybe that is intentional?”

    I was clarifying whether polygamy was Biblical or not. When something is said once or twice, people tend to discredit what is said, so i posted a link with 40 people that were polygamists in the Bible. Do i particularly want to live in polygamy right now? no, i dont. As has been pointed out, there are enough problems with ONE marriage. But another, bigger part of this is the Hard Hearted issue. If you can open your heart, and love everybody equally, the polygamy or no makes absolutely no difference. If you can not open your heart, then polygamy causes damage to egos, people, and families.

    “To me this is just one among many examples of the problem with following “continued revelation””
    Every evangelical church i have gone to (i think i sit around 4) preached the exact same thing, that God spoke to them and had a plan and a purpose for the congregation, that the church was going to move here, or do this great thing.. That God planned revival in the area. (and just to throw out there, you revive something that is DEAD..) Are you trying to limit God in his ability to “REVEAL” or “PROVIDE REVELATION” to them as well? Who “REVEALED” that Catholics were preaching erroneous stuff? To me, this is the exact same “CONTINUED REVELATION” that you have a problem with…

    “Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus.”
    Unless i am mistaken, following Jesus is work….. I know we had this discussion a while back, and i hate to beat a dead horse, but either you believe in works being necessary, or you dont.

  83. 84 joshtried
    March 18, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Why does God no longer want Mormons practicing plural marriage today?
    To be honest, i dont know, i am not God. a posted a “possible” reason. Another could be the Bible does not teach to outright go against every current law there is, even Christ said “render unto Cesaer that which is his.” (this is of course referring to taxes, but he didnt say disobey the taxes….)

    Is marriage a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom?
    I think i see where this is headed (some say Christ was married, some say he wasnt)… For that reason, i will say read the BOM and see what it says.

    Even your Book of Mormon Agrees, I posted this once already and got no response from you…

    From the BOM, Hard hearts led to wicked practice of desiring many wives…
    As i posted just above, it was the hard hearts that was wrong, as we are commanded to love one another. When we truly love one another, plural or single marriage becomes less than trivial. IF plural marriage was so detestable, then God would not have “blessed” those who practiced it, and he most certainly would not have directly given wives. The problem then, is the hard hearts, maybe even coveting you neighbors wife (which is what happened to Solomon, and to David), and not the marriages. This is my belief on this… whether it is right or not, i dont know. I am dont care to know every little piece of church history, every little mistake every person ever made. As i have posted before, if we had such a detailed account of every prophet, we would question everything that relates to believing in Christ.

  84. 85 choosethechrist
    March 18, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    Josh said, “To me this is just one among many examples of the problem with following “continued revelation””
    Every evangelical church i have gone to (i think i sit around 4) preached the exact same thing, that God spoke to them and had a plan and a purpose for the congregation, that the church was going to move here, or do this great thing.. That God planned revival in the area. (and just to throw out there, you revive something that is DEAD..) Are you trying to limit God in his ability to “REVEAL” or “PROVIDE REVELATION” to them as well? Who “REVEALED” that Catholics were preaching erroneous stuff? To me, this is the exact same “CONTINUED REVELATION” that you have a problem with…

    “Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus.”
    Unless i am mistaken, following Jesus is work….. I know we had this discussion a while back, and i hate to beat a dead horse, but either you believe in works being necessary, or you dont.”

    Josh, there is a big difference between following God’s call to plant a new church or do God’s work which does not change the gospel message of salvation and following a newly revealed false gospel from a “living prophet” that leads people from the road of salvation down the road to damnation i.e. this whole mormon polygamy thing being tied to the requirements of exaltation.

    And, there is a big difference between following or being the disciple of Jesus which occurs after we are saved and “working” for our salvation which is what mormons are taught to do. Mormons are working for exaltation. For the rest of us who are saved by grace through faith alone, our “works” are the fruit of our salvation. BIG DIFFERENCE! Mormons are earning their way, but Jesus has already paid the way.

  85. March 19, 2012 at 3:52 am

    Josh said: “From the BOM, Hard hearts led to wicked practice of desiring many wives David did not have a hard heart. The hardening of the heart is the bad thing here.”

    Read this…

    Jacob 2:24 “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

    Josh said: “If we are ALL the spirit children of God, what do you call it when God inseminated Mary?”

    Mormons have a different view on this than Christians do so you might want to question your own leaders.

    Josh said: “Is marriage a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom? I think i see where this is headed (some say Christ was married, some say he wasnt)… For that reason, i will say read the BOM and see what it says.”

    Here are some LDS quotes…

    “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266).

    “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

    Doctrine and Covenants 132 has polygamy as an everlasting covenant and all who abide NOT in that covenant will not enter glory…

    “4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”

  86. 87 joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 4:04 am

    Seriously, i am not debating works.. its on the other thread… i just wanted to point it out..

    Next: “Josh, there is a big difference between following God’s call to plant a new church or do God’s work which does not change the gospel message of salvation”
    We did not “change” the Gospel message. we corrected mistakes in that message.

    Something I do want to throw out there as an example of lifestyle choices is that of a missionary.
    Our Church calls every able bodied young man to serve a mission. I did not. Does this mean that i am not in harmony with the Church and what God would have me do? I spent a long time (roughly 3hours total) discussing this with my bishop over the course of a few months, and i also discussed it with my wife’s (then girlfriend’s) family. Not going on a mission is not going to send me to hell, but it also does not open me up for the slew of blessings associated with that..
    Marriage falls into the same realm. There are many people that do not EVER marry that are LDS. Does this mean that they are going to be “left out”? This is obviously not my decision. This is God’s to make. There is a place in the Bible for “celibate” people, for “monogamous” people, and “polygamist” people, why would this not transfer to heaven? There are things that should happen though, one of which being discussing this with you Bishop, or Stake Presidency, or whoever you need to. I am married, so i dont need to have this talk, and dont know where i would need to start..

  87. 88 joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 4:11 am

    Echo: “Josh said: “If we are ALL the spirit children of God, what do you call it when God inseminated Mary?”
    Mormons have a different view on this than Christians do so you might want to question your own leaders.

    What is the Christian view of this? Did God come to Mary? To paraphrase, i believe it was “and the spirit of God descended upon her, and she conceived”.

    To all of the JoD quotes: Note: Journal of Discourses – Many critics’ questions relate to quotations from the Journal of Discourses(JOD), which was a sixteen-page semimonthly subscription publication privately printed in Liverpool, England, in 1854-1886. It included articles written by twelve different authors who recorded the speeches, mostly in shorthand, as they were delivered from the pulpit by 55 different church leaders such as Brigham Young, John Taylor, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and others. It has never served in the past as a source for official Church teachings or scripture. It reflects the personal feelings, opinions, and speculations of the writers and/or speakers of the time. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we now have information on some of the subjects that was not yet known when the Journal of Discourses was published. Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. In the earlier days of the Restored Church, nearly all sermons were given extemporaneously, including those in the JOD. It was virtually unthinkable in nineteenth century Mormonism to give a memorized or pre-written sermon. The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit. Elder Orson Pratt noted, sometimes he – and probably other speakers – gave sermons when their “mind[s] seemed to be entirely closed up….” Recalling such an incident, Pratt remarked, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.”
    Little wonder that some things in the Journal of Discourses seem out-of-place in what we currently know of Gospel principles. It was not an official Church publication nor has it ever been a source for official Church doctrine.

  88. 89 joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 4:48 am

    so as not to seem to “skirt the questions” Here is one of the two that i can honestly say that i have not studied enough to give a great answer… I will do my best
    Jacob 2:24 “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”
    First off: There are still 38 people not commented on..
    Second: to take this literally, they were the two to whom it was abominable. To take it in context, to the people Jacob was preaching to this is also an abomination.
    Jacob 2:13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are alifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.
    To me the ENTIRE passage of Jacob 2 is speaking more like they are lusting after their neighbors wives and using the riches they have obtained to destroy the good in families…
    28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
    This was kind of touched on before, but in Deut it was abominable for one guy to marry a woman, divorce her and she remarry, she divorce the 2nd guy and go back to the first.. I dont claim to be the expert on this here, but the same can be said for drinking alcohol… The Bible clearly states that we shouldnt drink alcohol. But then Jesus creates alcohol.. The rule TO ME sounds like it is being given to keep people on a tighter leash than everyone else… Alcohol can be good for you, a glass of red wine a day is good for the heart, right? But EXCESS alcohol leads to broken homes, families, lives, hearts, bones… and so on. For the purpose of this post, i read the entire Jacob 2, but i still have not read all of the scripture around it. TO ME, it sounds like there was a lot of “gold digging” going on in the community, both male (actual digging in the ground) and female (digging through neighbors pockets…)
    Moses gave laws to his people as well that were not correct, but they kept the people “MORE” correct. 1 great example is the law of divorce. Jesus said “from the beginning this was not meant to be so”.
    IF i am correct, Jacob came before Jesus Christian chronologically. To get a little more into it:
    referring to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman’s husband dies, and she didn’t have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not. When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband’s brother (even if he were married)

    Am i right? i have no idea.. as i stated at the start of this post, and many others in this thread, i have not studied this near enough to be clarifying LDS points. I am giving the best answer that i know how to give with the limited information i have taken in on this subject throughout my life.

  89. 90 joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 4:49 am

    Just a quick side note before i comment on the second question: to the authenticity of the Bible….

    “`How can you say, “We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?’ (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

  90. 91 joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 5:22 am

    Before i start, be fore warned, this may be a bit of a tough read…

    To the second of 2 things which were asked of me.. Again i say i am not well enough studied to answer this, but i will give it my best effort:
    “4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”

    The new and everlasting covenant is NOT polygamy, it is TEMPLE SEALING. (to be bound on earth as in heaven). NOW, this does not EXCLUDE polygamy, and it does not SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE it either… the covenant is PURELY to be bound in heaven.
    POLYGAMY (as 61 below says) is justified when GOD gives the wives… IF GOD does not want to continue giving multiple wives, then that is on HIM. If man is choosing the women without God’s consent, we have this ” 59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.” so, if it is not according to God’s Law and Word, then it is sin.. As to how women were specifically picked, i dont claim to know, and i do not know who was and who was not justified. That is for them and God to decide.

    16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
    19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
    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.

  91. 92 joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 5:36 am

    This is D&C 132 continued…. to answer more the question of polygamy. This appears to contradict Jacob 2.. I am not discussing this right now, tired and want bed..
    34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. 36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. 37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

  92. 93 choosethechrist
    March 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Josh said, Just a quick side note before i comment on the second question: to the authenticity of the Bible….

    “`How can you say, “We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?’ (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

    I find it ironic that Josh would quote from Jeremiah here when we know that the problem at that time was the idolotry of the people and that the scribes and priests were involved in teaching the people falsely in that they were going along with what the people wanted to do and wanted to hear. We know that these false teachers were changing the word of God by presenting ways to the people to follow that went against God’s truth by giving the people false teachings that made them feel good and feel comfortable with what they were doing wrong and we also know that there were people who knew the word of God, people like Jeremiah and Daniel and Ezekiel, who were not fooled by the false teachers and in fact the people still chose to follow the false teachings instead of what God was telling them through Jeremiah and Ezekiel. We know that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the OT and by doing so we can be sure that they did not think the scriptures to be corrupt. In my mind, what happened in Jeremiah is a great analogy to what is happening here in mormonism. We have the Biblical Word of God which is not corrupt, but it is what God has given us. Then we have a man like Joseph Smith come along and get people to leave the Biblical Word of God for a new gospel that gives a totally different way to salvation than what God has given. Then we have people like Mark who are trying to tell the mormons that they have been led astray, but the mormons do not want to listen because they think they have the truth and they think they are saved in the truth they think they have. Things haven’t really changed so much have they. It was not the Word of God that was corrupt, it was the people who corrupted God’s word.

    The moral of Jeremiah 8:8 is do not accept other teachings, but only accept those teachings from God that can be found in Biblical scripture. Don’t heed the warnings and you may end up in Babylon or much worse.

  93. 94 choosethechrist
    March 19, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
    but the word of our God endures forever.”

  94. 95 choosethechrist
    March 19, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Jeremiah 23:26, “How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart.”

    False prophets abound, but their false prophecying and false teaching can never alter God’s inspired Word.

  95. 96 choosethechrist
    March 19, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Jeremiah 23:30-32 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. 31. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. 32. Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.

    Jeremiah 23:34-36 And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The burden of the LORD, I will even punish that man and his house. 35. Thus shall ye say every one to his neighbour, and every one to his brother, What hath the LORD answered? and, What hath the LORD spoken? 36. And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man’s word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God

    Jeremiah 7:1-3 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2. Stand in the gate of the LORD’S house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the LORD, all ye of Judah, that enter in at these gates to worship the LORD. 3. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place.

    4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these. 5. For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour;…

    9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; 10. And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? 11. Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.

    7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

    7:26-28 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers. … 28. But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.

  96. 97 joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Choose, i read through all of your posts, but wanted to comment specifically on this:
    The moral of Jeremiah 8:8 is do not accept other teachings, but only accept those teachings from God that can be found in Biblical scripture. Don’t heed the warnings and you may end up in Babylon or much worse.

    I have quote scripture just as you have for every one of my beliefs that have been questioned throughout this blog. all of my scripture has been strictly Biblical to “prove” the BoM teachings are merely clarifications. You (ironically) CHOOSE not to accept the parts that i have used to back up LDS beliefs. It seems to me that the hang up here with Christians is the “FALSE PROPHET” warning. While I commend every single Christian that takes this to heart, and that understand this is a very real and powerful thing that will happen, I stand amazed that people would not think that there was a “TRUE prophet” to be found anywhere on this earth.
    I guess that little side note was good enough though, cause it obviously struck a chord… If God is the one that decides what gets put into the Bible, and THIS scripture gets put into the Bible, should that not be enough to say that some things may have been corrupted? I never once said that the entire OT or the entire NT are corrupt. I simply said PARTS are corrupt, which is exactly what Jeremiah is trying to tell you, but you don’t want to hear it.. instead, you say ” We [the Christians] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD”

    As to the rest of Jeremiah, and this in particular “yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.”
    Well, it would seem to me that the LDS are profiting from that which the Lord has commanded us. Our Church continues to grow. We provide great service to the world in times of need. or, you can choose to think that these are all just “glittering vices”… You can continue to think that we must work out our own salvation. You can continue to think anything and everything you want about us. Just because you THINK you know what we are about, doesn’t mean that you do. When i speak and tell you what i believe, perhaps you could listen to my words, and to the intensity with which i speak about God instead of trying to twist everything i say into my somehow believing Satan above God.
    I know that i serve Jesus Christ and God in everything i do. I know that there are things that people twisted in the Bible. I know that God clarified them through a prophet. I know that prophet called people to repentance, and to living as perfect and righteous as we possibly can on this earth. I know that he didn’t say “well, it would be nice if you changed, but it is not a requirement.” He said “accept Christ and be changed.”

  97. March 19, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Josh

    ” I stand amazed that people would not think that there was a “TRUE prophet” to be found anywhere on this earth.”

    It”s not that astonishing. Tell me how these four lies can be defended.

    Lie – 1. That Bible contains errors and was corrupted:

    The truth is – “5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Proverbs 30

    “23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” 1 Peter 1:23-25.

    Lie – 2. That unrepentant, unbelieving and unbaptized sinners will experience “. . . the glory of the atelestial, which surpasses all understanding;” D&C 76:89.

    The Truth – Jesus Hmself said – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16

    Jesus also described what happens because of sin when he said –

    ” 43And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 44Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kngdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:43-48

    Lie 3 – “Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so that we can become like him.” Gospel Principles pp. 241-242.

    The Truth – Jesus Himself said – “30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Matthew 22:30.

    Lie 4 – “16 Therefore ye are justified of FAITH AND WORKS, through grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to them only who are of the law, but to them also who are of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,” Joseph Smith corruption of Romans 4:16 in the JST Bible. That this is somehow a restored gospel claiming that works is a requirement for justification.

    The Truth – “16Therefore it is of FAITH, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, Romans 4:16 KJV. “8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9. We are save by grace alone through faith alone.

    Lie 5 – “The laws of God given to mankind are embodied in the gospel plan, and the Church of Jesus Christ is made responsible for teaching these laws to the world. They are given by our Heavenly Father for only one purpose, that you who are governed by law might also be preserved by law and perfected and sanctified, or made holy by the same.” Teachings of Presidents of the Church-Harold B. Lee, page 27

    The Truth – “20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;” Romans 3:19-21. “14For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Hebrews 10:14.

  98. 99 joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    David: not alot of time, but i will comment on what i can in the time i have.

    Lie – 1. That Bible contains errors and was corrupted:
    Either Jeremiah is the truth, and the Bible contains errors, or Jeremiah is lying, and the Bible contains an error by saying it contains errors. Either way, the Bible contains AT LEAST one error.

    Lie 3 – “Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so that we can become like him.” Gospel Principles pp. 241-242. The Truth – Jesus Himself said – “30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Matthew 22:30.
    Matthew 18:18: “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
    In marriage, you “twain become one flesh” or are bound as one flesh. As Christians that is “loosed” on death, and therefore you are no longer married once you die (TIL DEATH DO YOU PART). As LDS, we are sealed for “time and all eternity”, we are “bound on earth” and are therefore “bound as one flesh” in heaven. We do not marry in heaven, nor are we given in marriage in heaven. We do this before we leave the earth.
    Just curious, but what else are you binding on earth? I personally cant think of anything that would need to be bound… so why have this statement in the Bible at all if it is not to be used to bind something?

    Lie 4 – “16 Therefore ye are justified of FAITH AND WORKS, through grace, ”
    I am sick of trying to argue works on this thread, but i am going to correct this AGAIN…
    Therefore ye are justified of faith and works, THROUGH GRACE!!!!!!!!! Faith is NOT FAITH WITHOUT WORKS. You MUST CHANGE.. that is all this passage is saying.

    Lie 5 – “The laws of God given to mankind are embodied in the gospel plan,
    Christ did not come to ABOLISH the OT LAWS, he came to FULFILL THEM. The laws are still in effect. the PAYMENT has CHANGED to one that CAN BRING US TO HEAVEN. That being Christ’s atonement. You would agree that the wage of any sin is still death, wouldn’t you?

    So, there are 4/5 off the top of my head that i have correct AGAIN for you..
    the fifth:
    Lie – 2. That unrepentant, unbelieving and unbaptized sinners will experience
    I have not studied enough to give an appropriate answer. I am not skirting this issue either, i am merely saying i need to study it to answer you properly.

  99. March 19, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Josh

    “Lie – 1. That Bible contains errors and was corrupted:
    Either Jeremiah is the truth, and the Bible contains errors, or Jeremiah is lying, and the Bible contains an error by saying it contains errors. Either way, the Bible contains AT LEAST one error.”

    What? They are both true. Joseph SMith is the liar.

    Lie 3 – “Just curious, but what else are you binding on earth? I personally cant think of anything that would need to be bound… so why have this statement in the Bible at all if it is not to be used to bind something?”

    You don’t see this because your JST Bible is a corruption of the Word as is all LDS doctrine. It’s poison and you can’t drink poison and expect it not to affect you. What is bound or loosed by the apostles are sins of others. This passage has nothing to do with marriage. This is unbelief Josh and the evidence that your false prophets have led you away from believing even what Jesus Himself says. “the two become one flesh” is talking about earthly marriage and it does not contradict Jesus’ clear teaching that people married on earth do not have those marriages continue in heaven. There is absolutely no confusion here. You have this completely wrong. The Sadducees came to Jesus one day and posed this scenario to him:

    “24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27And last of all the woman died also. 28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Matthew 22: 24-30.

    They are talking about earthly marriage Josh and Jesus says point blank people are not married in Heaven, Instead He says they shall be like the angels (notice here too, he says nothing about such people being like Gods he says they are like the angels – but of course your LDS prophets won’t let you believe that truth from Jesus either.)

    Lie 4 – “Therefore ye are justified of faith and works, THROUGH GRACE!!!!!!!!! Faith is NOT FAITH WITHOUT WORKS. You MUST CHANGE.. that is all this passage is saying.” My point is to illustrate the lie that you must do something to earn forgiveness when the truth is that faith is gift from God WITHOUT WORKS. If you must work to receive grace it is not grace and it is not the gospel of Jesus. If you are sick of arguing works what you are working so hard to reject is the free gift of grace that Jesus, suffered, died and rose for from the dead to win for you – you are rejecting everything he won for you without any help from you on the cross.

    Lie – 2. “That unrepentant, unbelieving and unbaptized sinners will experience
    I have not studied enough to give an appropriate answer. I am not skirting this issue either, i am merely saying i need to study it to answer you properly.”

    THEN STUDY AND DO IT NOW! ( And NO I am not being dramatic) You are in spiritual peril right now and YOU need to understand for YOURSELF what eternity awaits for you if you die today. So study the BIble and don’t disregard what Jesus says here. You need to understand this Josh because Jesus said very plainly is that unbelievers are damned – you will find no refuge in a Telestial, Terestial or Celestial Kingdom. If it comes between believing Jesus and believing an LDS prophet – for YOUR sake Josh –

    BELIEVE JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  100. 101 shematwater
    March 19, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Sorry, I have been gone for a few days and things seem to have raced on past me. As such I have not read all the comments on this thread, but I would like to make a few points. I will do so in a few posts, so that none are to long.

    First, Deuteronomy 17: 16-17
    “But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
    Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”
    From what I have read concerning this verse people have interpreted the phrase “multiply wives” as a prohibition of plural marriage. This, however, is not logical, given the context of this verse. With this one must also conclude that the King should not have multiple horses, nor should he have multiple gold and silver. It makes not sense.
    What this verse is really saying is that a King is not to use his power to gain these things. Multiplying gold and silver refers to heavy taxes on the people. Multiplying horses is also a tax, or an alliance in the case of Egypt. Thus multiplying wives does not refer to the basic doctrine of plural marriage, but to the sinful act of requiring wives as part of a tax or alliance; in other words, using the power of the King to force women to marry you.

    Despite what people want to believe, this verse in no way prohibits plural marriage as a practice.

  101. 102 shematwater
    March 19, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Second: Jacob 2: 30
    “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”

    There has been an awful lot posted concerning Jacob chapter two on this thread, and it is interesting that every single time people stop just short of this verse. It has not been quoted or referenced even once. Yet, without it the true meaning the chapter is lost, which has caused every non-LDS to be mislead and many have made false accusations against Joseph Smith and the LDS. Anyone who claims that the doctrine of Plural Marriage is against what the Book of Mormon teaches has ignored this verse.
    Read it again. It states directly that God has reserved the right to command men to take plural wives, for the purpose of raising up a righteous seed. However, unless that command has been given we are not to take it upon ourselves to have multiple wives.
    Thus, Joseph Smith never once went contrary to what the Book of Mormon teaches, for he did not take plural wives without a direct command from God. David and Solomon did nothing contrary to the will of God until they took wives without His approval.
    When God feels there is a need for the law of Plural Marriage to be practiced he commands and His true saints obey. But when that command is not given, or after it has been withdrawn, any who take it on themselves to take plural wives are acting contrary to His will.

  102. 103 shematwater
    March 19, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Third: The Bible’s support of plural marriage.

    As I have already explained that Deuteronomy 17: 17 is talking about a king abusing his power to gain many wives, I will now give a few references that I think are good evidence that God has never had a problem with plural marriage what practice appropriately.

    Deuteronomy 21: 15-17; Here we have a law dictating the dealings of a man in regards to the inheritance of his sons from multiple wives. We see no indication that having multiple wives was wrong, only that unjust treatment of them and their sons is.

    Deuteronomy 22: 28-29; This does not directly deal with plural marriage, but rather with the rape a woman. However, this law shows a very clear understanding that a man could, and was legally bound in this case, to have plural wives. Let us read it.
    “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
    Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
    Read this carefully and you will notice that there is no special provision made to distinguish a married man from a single man. The law, given by God through Moses, only dictates that the man, in this case, is to marry the woman. Thus, if a married man commits the act that law still requires that he marry the girl, and thus the law dictates that man have plural wives.
    This is a direct prescription for plural marriage.

    Deuteronomy 25: 5; this is dealing with the Levirite marriage, but still applies. Let us read.
    “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.”
    Again, one notices that this makes no distinction between a married or a single man. It was simply the duty of a man under the Law. Thus we again have the law dictating a specific circumstance in which the taking of plural wives was required.
    Another prescription.

    In the New Testament we do get a few admonitions from Paul to have only one wife. In Titus 1:6,and 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 he counsels bishops and deacons to have only one wife. This seems to be in contradiction to those law of the Law of Moses that dictate the requirement to have more than one wife. However, when it is understood that Roman law had outlawed the practice in most of the Empire, and that Paul was trying to keep those early saints united, it is no mystery that he would tell those who could legally have plural wives to not do so. For some to be allowed and others not to be would have caused division in the church, only making things more difficult to hold together.

    So, the Old Testament actually does prescribe plural marriage, even mandates it under certain circumstances. However, it also recognizes that at time it is not prudent to practice it.
    Thus it has the same basic doctrine as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants: Plural Marriage is to be practiced only when God authorizes it, and at any other time doing so is an abomination.

  103. 104 choosethechrist
    March 19, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Josh said, “I never once said that the entire OT or the entire NT are corrupt. I simply said PARTS are corrupt”

    Josh-
    Would you please tell us which parts are corrupt and which parts are not? I am guessing you are going to tell us that the parts that are not corrupt are the ones that have been used as LDS proof texts.

  104. 105 choosethechrist
    March 19, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    Josh said,

    “We provide great service to the world in times of need. or, you can choose to think that these are all just “glittering vices”… You can continue to think that we must work out our own salvation. You can continue to think anything and everything you want about us. Just because you THINK you know what we are about, doesn’t mean that you do. When i speak and tell you what i believe, perhaps you could listen to my words, and to the intensity with which i speak about God instead of trying to twist everything i say into my somehow believing Satan above God.”

    Unfortunately, providing great service is not what saves us. I don’t just THINK I know what you are about, I do know EXACTLY what you are about. If you think you can obtain exaltation by keeping requirements, you are following a false gospel.

    Like I have said before and Dave has also stated, we are not here to simply present, or defend our faith. We are here because LDS souls are in trouble.

  105. March 19, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    You tell us what we believe…we correct you (and prove it scripturally)…you come back and tell us again what we believe contrary to what we tell you because it conflicts with what you want to make sure others believe about us…and the circle continues. The obvious conclusion is…
    1. You will never let us end with telling you the truth about what we believe (without you restating your untrue/twisted version of what we believe.)
    2. You do not want the others to know the truth from US of what we believe.

    Bottom line is this weblog is in the business of making sure that others reading don’t go away with the truth of what we really believe, just what you want them to think we believe.

    So what is the point. My only hope is that most people reading can completely see what is really going on.

  106. 107 Joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    So, if you are not here to defend yoir faith, then you no matter how much I say your faith is wrong, it doesnt matter because I am LDS therefore I am wrong.. Is this a correct assessment of that last statement?
    Next, I am done with being on the defensive for a while. I asked for a list of ALL the scriptures that say polygamy is wrong, and I have seen no such list. The ONE scripture in Deut has been shown to not prohibit polygamy, so what else do you have? Lets see that list.

  107. 108 choosethechrist
    March 19, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    “We now understand that families, (and friendships), indeed do have the potential to be eternal, not according to the LDS formula, (i.e. because two people once upon a time knelt at an altar in a stone building and had an incantation spoken to them), but because love itself is eternal, and binds us to one another. That is a message found woven throughout the fabric of the true gospel of the New Testament.” ~ Chris Ralph

    “Bottom line is this weblog is in the business of making sure that others reading don’t go away with the truth of what we really believe, just what you want them to think we believe.” ~Kate

    Bottom line is that this weblog is in the business of making sure that others reading understand the truth of the gospel as revealed in the Bible and that people are not fooled by LDS attempts to make it look like they fit in with historical Christianity. Mormons are working for their exaltation by keeping LDS requirements and are not saved by the work of Christ on the cross alone.

    Which part do I have wrong? If Jesus is your savior, why are you keeping LDS requirements for your exaltation?

    What am I not understanding here?

  108. 109 choosethechrist
    March 19, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Josh,

    I am not here to defend my faith. My faith does not need defending. I am here to help save Mormons.

    I want you to show me where in the Bible God commanded the practice of polygamy and where in the bible God tied our salvation to marriage or the practice of polygamy.

  109. 110 Joshtried
    March 19, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    Choose, if you wish to”convert” me, then you do have to defend your beliefs. i have defended countless of LDS beliefs.. The 2 beliefs that I have seen even vaugely defended here are free will and Christ IS God, as far as the “Christian” side goes.
    If you are not even going to consider my arguements because I am LDS, and therefore wrong, then there is little to no point for me to reply to anything ever written on this blog. Maybe I will just post a very simple reply stating if you want the truth about said subject, I can be reached at…..

  110. March 20, 2012 at 12:29 am

    Choose said, “…Mormons are working for their exaltation by keeping LDS requirements and are not saved by the work of Christ on the cross alone.
    Which part do I have wrong? If Jesus is your savior, why are you keeping LDS requirements for your exaltation?
    What am I not understanding here?”

    That this is what we keep teaching, but that you refuse to hear:

    From “His Grace Is Sufficient” by Bradley R. Wilcox

    Jesus Christ “paid our debt in full. He didn’t pay it all except for a few coins. He paid it all. It is finished.”
    She said, “Right—like I don’t have to do anything?”

    “Oh no,” I said, “you have plenty to do, but it is not to fill that gap. We will all be resurrected. We will all go back to God’s presence. What is left to be determined by our obedience is what kind of body we plan on being resurrected with and how comfortable we plan to be in God’s presence and how long we plan to stay there.”

    “Christ asks us to show faith in Him, repent, make and keep covenants, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. By complying, we are not paying the demands of justice—not even the smallest part. Instead, we are showing appreciation for what Jesus Christ did by using it to live a life like His. Justice requires immediate perfection or a punishment when we fall short. Because Jesus took that punishment, He can offer us the chance for ultimate perfection (see Matt. 5:48, 3 Ne. 12:48) and help us reach that goal. He can forgive what justice never could, and He can turn to us now with His own set of requirements (see 3 Ne. 28:35).”

    And also taught here at a BYU Devotional by Dunn, Michael L. on
    January 31, 2012:

    “My brothers and sisters, we can’t work off our sins. I repeat: We cannot work off our sins. It is only through Christ’s Atonement that we can be forgiven of our sins.
    It may be true that service to God and our fellowman can bring us to a state in which we are able to exercise faith in Christ’s Atonement sufficient to be healed, primarily by making us more receptive to the Spirit and by helping those who are weak in the faith to have hope that maybe, just maybe, they might be found acceptable before the Lord.

    However, it is not our works that save us from sin. For unless these works bring us to the point where we can look to Christ and accept His Atonement by meeting the demands of repentance, they truly avail us nothing.”

    “…We should clearly understand that Christ has already suffered and paid the price for all of our sins. It is a mistaken and misleading notion to think that Christ only suffered for the sins of which we repent. Book of Mormon prophets teach that Christ’s Atonement was infinite, eternal, and all-encompassing. Christ’s Atonement covered all sin, all transgression, all wrongdoing. And because He suffered for our sins, He can come before the Father in the Day of Judgment on behalf of those who have repented of their sins to offer intercession…”

  111. March 20, 2012 at 2:56 am

    Kate

    “Book of Mormon prophets teach that Christ’s Atonement was infinite, eternal, and all-encompassing. Christ’s Atonement covered all sin, all transgression, all wrongdoing. And because He suffered for our sins, He can come before the Father in the Day of Judgment on behalf of those who have repented of their sins to offer intercession…””

    The Book of Mormon diminishes the atoning work of Jesus and denies Jesus the truth of His eternal nature as being one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit from everlasting to everlasting. You reject what Jesus Himself says about His own atoning sacrifice. “16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Jesus says you must be baptized to be saved. You don’t believe Him. He says you must believe in Him to be saved- You don’t believe that either. Even an unbaptized unbelieving, unrepentant murderer avoids damnation according to LDS teachings. You don’t believe Jesus’ saving work alone was sufficient to make you perfect before God even though Hebrews 10 says otherwise. You deny every Biblical passage that says you are saved by grace through faith without works. You insist works are a part of being made righteous before God (justification) and before you say you don’t believe that see Romans 4:16 of the JST version of the Bible and compare it to the KJV Jospeh Smith didn’t mess up. Joseph’s SMith invention of the three levels of Kingdoms and his gross distortion of Jesus’ saving work has lulled unsuspecting Mormons into a perilous false sense of security about the current state of their spiritaul condition which is dire. Unbelievers don’t go to a paradise and Jesus has been clear about the fate of unbelievers. Joseph Smith has mislead countless Mormons to distrust and be suspicious of the True Word of God – The Bible – which is the means by which God works faith in the hearts of believers.

  112. 113 joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 3:14 am

    From your bible:
    2 Corinthians 12
    2 I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven
    4How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

    You said: Joseph’s Smith invention of the three levels of Kingdoms

    Now, i dont know about you, but to ME 2Corinthians is in the New Testament. To ME, it is VERY CLEAR that there are AT LEAST THREE heavens..

    Maybe your version of the Bible has it removed, along with all the other scripture i quote that you dont agree with.

  113. 114 joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 3:20 am

    Here is more from “your bible”:

    1 Corinthians 15:
    40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

    So also is the resurrection of the dead.. differing in glories… Hmmm… Where have i heard that before

  114. March 20, 2012 at 3:25 am

    David, I stopped reading when I got to the part where you started telling me I didn’t believe what I said I believe…it is getting old…

  115. 116 joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 3:25 am

    Here is a Church leaders views on this stuff…
    “There will be a General Salvation for all in the sense in which that term is generally used, but salvation, meaning resurrection, is not exaltation” (Stephen L. Richards, Contributions of Joseph Smith, LDS tract, p.5).
    “All men are saved by grace alone without any act on their part, meaning they are resurrected” (Bruce McConkie, What Mormons Think of Christ”, LDS tract, p.28).

    And definitions:
    General salvation- in Mormon theology, the death of Christ ransoms men from the effects of the fall (Mormon Doctrine, p.62), except for a few sons of perdition who fell with Lucifer. Thus, all mankind will eventually receive general salvation because all men will be resurrected.
    Individual salvation – to obtain individual salvation, the standards set forth by the Mormon church must be met. This comes by grace plus baptism plus works.
    Exaltation – different degrees of exaltation
    Eternal life on the other hand is reserved for the elite few who qualify and are found worthy of this “honor” or “reward” and who will move on to be “exalted.” This salvation is in fact the personal “exaltation” or the fast track of the “eternal progression” process in attaining your own self-made status of godhood in order to people your own planet.
    The website this was pulled from:
    http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/definitions.html

  116. 117 joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 3:29 am

    Kate, i think i am getting to the point you are at too… I think of all people on this earth, I would know what I believe…

    David, I dont care what you think you know of LDS doctrine. When Kate or Shem or I tell you very bluntly what we believe, perhaps you should accept that.
    What i posted just above clearly lays out where works come in.. perhaps instead of telling me that i dont believe the above stuff, you will read it and UNDERSTAND where works fit in LDS BELIEFS.. or you can keep telling me you know me better than I do.. your choice.

  117. 118 joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 3:36 am

    The LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory is also seemingly consistent with a particular reading of Revelation 22:10-11, where John says (text in parenthesis added):
    10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand (final judgment).
    11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still (telestial kingdom): and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still (outer darkness): and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still (terrestrial kingdom): and he that is holy, let him be holy still (celestial kingdom).

  118. 119 joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 3:45 am

    Per wikipedia: to try and help UNDERSTAND
    In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the telestial kingdom is the lowest of what are believed to be three heavens or heavenly kingdoms. It is said by Latter-day Saints to correspond to the “glory of the stars” mentioned by the Apostle Paul in the King James Version translation of 1 Corinthians 15:41. There are no known uses of the word prior to Joseph Smith’s prophecies.
    Inhabitants
    According to the LDS scripture, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 76, those who will inhabit the telestial kingdom include those “who received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus.”It also includes “liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.”Because of their refusal to accept Jesus as their Savior, these individuals will remain in Spirit prison for 1000 years during the millennial reign of Christ. After the 1000 years, the individuals will be resurrected and receive an immortal physical body and be assigned to the telestial kingdom.
    Joseph Smith taught that individuals in the telestial kingdom will be servants of God, but “where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end”; however, they will receive the ministration of the Holy Ghost and beings from the terrestrial kingdom.[28] Despite these limitations, in LDS theology being resident in the telestial kingdom is not an unpleasant experience: “the glory of the telestial … surpasses all understanding”.
    Joseph Smith also taught that just as there are different degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom (D&C 131:1-4), there are different degrees of glory within the telestial kingdom. He stated that “as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in the telestial world.”Each person’s glory will vary depending on their works while on the earth.
    Smith and Rigdon stated “we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore”. One Latter-day Saint commentator has suggested that by implication this means that “most of the adult people who have lived from the day of Adam to the present time will go to the telestial kingdom.

  119. 120 joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 3:54 am

    From http://mormonmysticism.blogspot.com/2010/11/telestial-kingdom.html

    How do we reconcile the idea that a person must be baptized to reside in the Telestial Kingdom when we read about an innumerable (appears to be a majority) amount of souls that inherit that kingdom, when they are described as “…liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:103) On it’s face, baptism does not seem to relate to the above list of sins. The resolution comes in understanding the time-line of events.


    The majority of people who come to earth can’t even reach a telestial law while residing here. Telestial laws do not include; lying, witchcraft, adultery, whoring, or any such things. The Law of Obedience and Sacrifice exclude such things. Those who can not live the telestial law in this life, when they die, will be “…cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God…” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:106)
    This “hell” is the Spirit Prison where the wicked post mortals reside preparing for a resurrection. While there they are vessels of God’s wrath and vengeance.

 It is the authors understanding that when the vessels of wrath repent, they may leave prison and join the residents of Spirit Paradise. If they refuse (rebellion) to repent after receiving a full knowledge of essential things (revelation), they will be resurrected, but remain filthy still, and join the other Son’s of Perdition.
    They [Telestial Kingdom recipients] have no part in the first resurrection and are not redeemed from the devil and his angels until the last resurrection, because of their wicked lives and their evil deeds. Nevertheless, even these [Telestial Kingdom recipients] are heirs of salvation, but before they are redeemed and enter into their kingdom, they must repent of their sins, and receive the gospel, and bow the knee, and acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:22)

  120. 121 joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 4:05 am

    Something else that is missed here is the work LDS people do for the dead, because of our knowledge that those people will be taught the truth after they die. This means that while yes, they were murderers… and so on, IF they accept said truth after they die, and they accept the work we do for them after they die, then they can inherit the kingdom of God in similar ways.

    Would you deny that a murderer who is on death row, that asks Jesus Christ to truly be his savior, would go to heaven? Seems to me there was a guy on the cross next to Jesus that did just that.. So yes, murderers have a place in heaven

    Sin is Sin, all sin is worthy of hell.. did you catch that? ALLLLLLLL SIN IS WORTHY OF HELL. even the little white lie you told your wife this morning, is that not a lie? You are no better than a murderer. You are no better than a rapist. You are no better than a pedophile. You are not better than any person on the face of this earth. You are a sinner. period.
    THROUGH CHRIST we will be judged, and if i am not mistaken “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” It doesnt say each mansion is going to be the same..

    Where we differentiate is that those who are in hell will also receive the gospel, and have a chance to accept it. If they choose not to, they will remain outside of God’s presence, outside of heaven, and stay with Satan forever.

  121. March 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    Josh

    “Now, i dont know about you, but to ME 2Corinthians is in the New Testament. To ME, it is VERY CLEAR that there are AT LEAST THREE heavens.. ”

    The third Heaven is Heaven. The second heaven refers to the stars, planets and the physical universes (as in “stars in heaven” and the first heaven is the earthly sky.

    No Telestial
    No Terestial
    No Celestial

  122. March 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Kate

    “David, I stopped reading when I got to the part where you started telling me I didn’t believe what I said I believe…it is getting old…”

    It’s hard to face the truth I know.

    Lets test what you believe:

    So you are saying an unrepentant, unbaptized, an unbelieving murderer will not go to the Telestial Kingdom?
    You believe that Jesus’ saving work has already made you perfect to live with the Heavenly Father right now?
    You believe the standard KJV version of Romans 4:16 over the JST translation?
    And you trust the KJV Bible?

    Answer those and let’s see how far off I was.

  123. 124 choosethechrist
    March 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    http://bibtruth.com/msalv.html

    According to LDS doctrine there are two types of salvation (both of which are unbiblical). Christ’s atonement covers their first type, known as universal, or general salvation. They also call it salvation by grace, as nothing has to be done to earn it. It doesn’t even require a belief in Christ. Its main purpose is to provide for universal resurrection. But it also opens the way for their second type of salvation, known as individual salvation, whereby Mormons earn the right to forgiveness of their own personal sins through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the LDS church.

    When it comes to their teachings on salvation, we find exactly the same sort of duplicity. On the one hand they teach that Christ died for our sins and that we are saved solely because of His atonement. But on the other hand they teach that salvation is only possible through faith in Joseph Smith as God’s true prophet, through membership of their church and through obedience to their laws and ordinances. Mormonism is a religion of deception. They have developed a system of indoctrination that is second to none. And their practice of “double speak” is used in a similar manner to the way that smoke and mirrors are used by illusionists. And it is very effective.

    LDS general salvation by grace through Christ’s atonement is merely resurrection and does not include forgiveness of personal sins or eternal life. This is a travesty of what the Bible teaches and it belittles what Christ achieved for us on the cross (c/f John 3:14,15; 5:39; Romans 6:23; 1 John 5:11,13). It also flies in the face of the picture of salvation from sin provided for us in the Levitical substitutionary sacrifice under the Old Covenant (see Leviticus 4:29-41). Furthermore, it makes null and void the entire biblical record concerning salvation from personal sins through faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice that is given to us in the New Testament, and which was taught by Christ, His apostles and the primitive church

    But nowhere does the Bible teach us that the atonement only guarantees our resurrection (which the LDS refers to as immortality) or that we will have to earn the right to forgiveness of personal sins. Christ earned the forgiveness for our sins by taking our sins upon Himself and bearing the consequences for us, in our place, in His body on the cross. And His shed blood ratified the New Covenant of forgiveness of sins by grace, through faith. The Bible clearly and simply teaches that if we put our faith in Christ as our Saviour, He will forgive our sins, and will give us eternal life.

    Individual salvation can only be attained through membership of the LDS church. What this intimates is that the LDS church is the vehicle of individual salvation, not the Lord Jesus Christ. (Remember that according to the LDS, although Christ’s atonement opens the way for us to earn the right to forgiveness of person sins, it only guarantees resurrection.) Individuals who are not Mormons, including those belonging to Christian churches, will only receive unconditional or universal salvation. I.e. they will be resurrected, but will not receive forgiveness for personal sins, regardless of whether or not they have trusted in Christ for salvation. In other words, according to LDS teachings, it’s not faith in Christ that is the criteria when it comes to forgiveness of personal sins, but membership of and obedience to the laws and ordinances of their church (including full payment of tithing). They have hijacked the salvation from sin that Christ so heroically and selflessly earned on our behalf on that terrible cross at Calvary, for their own benefit.

    As it is, Mormons have no way of knowing for sure whether or not their lives will have been good enough to warrant personal salvation. This means that they are far worse off than the Israelites were under the Old Covenant, before the New Covenant of grace came into being.

    Attainment of the LDS version of eternal life is solely through works, i.e. obedience to all the laws and ordinances of the LDS church, including tithing, participation in temple ceremonies, serving the LDS church, keeping God’s commandments, living righteously until the end, and the attainment of sufficient knowledge, etc. Also included in their laws and ordinances is being married for time and eternity in an LDS temple. Without participating in eternal marriage, individuals would not be permitted to procreate in the afterlife, so the LDS maintains that this precludes them from becoming gods, which is the the same thing in their eyes, as attaining eternal life. (See Doctrine and Covenants 132:15 and 16.)

    According to LDS teaching, even if a person has put their faith utterly in Christ, has consecrated himself wholly to Him and has lived a godly, virtuous, sacrificial life serving Christ, to the point of being martyred for His sake; if he has not been baptized by the LDS, married by them in an LDS temple for time and eternity, and paid full tithes, plus all sorts of other qualifications, he cannot gain eternal life. Yet the Bible teaches that whosoever believes will in Christ have eternal life (John 3:14, 15).

    The Bible teaches that we are saved through faith in Christ and His atoning sacrifice, not through church membership. And here again the LDS is bypassing the Lord Jesus Christ, who Himself is salvation. He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6), and Christ was not a Mormon. He knew nothing of Mormonism, or its laws and ordinances. As an Old Covenant Jew, He worshipped in the courtyard of the Old Covenant Jewish temple for the simple reason that the New Covenant never came into being until it was ratified by His shed blood when He died on the cross.

    Furthermore, the Bible clearly teaches that salvation is through grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. Christ never ever told us that we would have to become members of a specific religious organization, if we were to have full salvation. If it was the case, He would have told us so. But that wasn’t God’s way of saving us then, and it isn’t His way of saving us now. Salvation is through Christ, not through a church organization. The Lord Jesus said that no one could come to the Father except through Himself personally (John 14:6), and in Acts 4:12 we read that there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.

  124. 125 choosethechrist
    March 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    “Something else that is missed here is the work LDS people do for the dead, because of our knowledge that those people will be taught the truth after they die.”

    People must accept the truth before they die.

  125. 126 choosethechrist
    March 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Joseph Smith claimed that he and Sidney Rigdon had received a revelation of the three degrees of glory in heaven on the 16th February, 1832 (History of the Church 1: 245 to 252). But the introduction of this teaching was not well received by the membership of the LDS church. At that time occultic literature was the sole source of information on different degrees in heaven, and for this reason many suspected that their revelation was rooted in the occult.

    Some were of the opinion that the degrees of glory had their origins in Emanuel Swedenborg’s book, entitled Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders. Joseph’s teachings were along the same lines as Swedenborg’s, including his use of the name “Celestial Kingdom” for the highest degree of glory.

    http://bibtruth.com/3deg.html

  126. March 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Josh

    “perhaps instead of telling me that i dont believe the above stuff, you will read it and UNDERSTAND where works fit in LDS BELIEFS.. or you can keep telling me you know me better than I do.. your choice.”

    I understand your view of where works comes in. I’m telling you it is contrary to God’s true Word in the BIble. And I care very much about you hearing the truth and hearing it often. You are not unique Josh to other Mormans, who believe wholeheatedly that works i.e. “doing all you can do” (just like Romans 4:16 of your JST says) is necessary for God’s grace. The Bible teaches that you do NOTHING to earn God’s grace because it is a free gift from Him we receive by faith ALONE and NOT by faith plus works. You simply don’t want to hear that the LDS doctrine contradicts the true gospel of Jesus. What is important is not that you care what I think. What is important is that you care what God, including Jesus Himself, says in His true and uncorruptible Word. Your etermity depends on it. It doesn’t matter to you what I think – that’s your right, but it matters to me that you hear the truth even though you don’t like what this partcular messenger has to say about it. The same goes for Kate and Shem and all the other LDS members who visit this blog.

  127. March 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Josh

    “Where we differentiate is that those who are in hell will also receive the gospel, and have a chance to accept it. If they choose not to, they will remain outside of God’s presence, outside of heaven, and stay with Satan forever.”

    There are no second chances after death. This is a lie the LDS church is leading its followers believe.

    “27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” Hebrews 9:27

  128. March 20, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Josh

    “The LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory is also seemingly consistent with a particular reading of Revelation 22:10-11, where John says (text in parenthesis added):
    10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand (final judgment). 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still (telestial kingdom): and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still (outer darkness): and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still (terrestrial kingdom): and he that is holy, let him be holy still (celestial kingdom).”

    You really must stop writting things into the Bible you wish it said. It doesn’t work that way.

  129. 130 choosethechrist
    March 20, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Mark said, “The bottom line is that when Mormonism talks about eternal life, it means something vastly different than when Christians talk about it. ”

    The Bible teaches that the ONLY way to have eternal life is through the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

    John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
    Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    I John 5:11 …God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

    I John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

    To get into heaven, you have to REPENT of your sins and BELIEVE the gospel of Jesus Christ (ref. Mark 1:15). You have to REPENT of your sins–that means turn from them and BELIEVE that Jesus died for your sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Having done these things, you will be born again and the Lord Jesus Christ will help you to walk uprightly. You will read the word and follow the teachings of Jesus. The word of God will wash your mind and your desires will actually change as you obey what you read.

    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/2_heaven.htm

    Mormonism teaches that eternal life is dependant on the LDS church and it’s requirements.

    Unless a man will adhere to the doctrine and walk in faith, accepting the truth and observing the commandments as they have been given, it will be impossible for him to receive eternal life, no matter how much he may confess with his lips that Jesus is the Christ, or believe that his Father sent him into the world for the redemption of man… So it is necessary, not merely that we believe, but that we repent, and in faith perform good works until the end; and then shall we receive the reward of the faithful and a place in the celestial kingdom of God. ~Joseph F. Smith

    COMPLETE OBEDIENCE BRINGS ETERNAL LIFE. But to be exalted one must keep the whole law … to receive the exaltation of the righteous, in other words eternal life, the commandments of the Lord must be kept in all things.

  130. March 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Ya…they stoned the prophets in old testament times too…nothing new guys. I truly feel compassion for your ignorance about what we teach. You don’t even want to try to understand. Just keep throwing stones…

  131. March 20, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Josh, re your post #88

    ..Josh said: On the Journal of Discourses: “It has never served in the past as a source for official Church teachings or scripture.”

    I grow so very tired of the LDS Church’s seemingly endless efforts to wiggle out of responsibility and accountability with this very lame excuse and believe me, it is very lame. It reminds me of the stubborn and rebellious child who when caught in a lie, does all he can to get out of taking responsibility and accountability for what he did rather than admit the truth. And what about his accomplice, the friend who did nothing to steer this young rebellious man away from his destructive behavior. I think it is high time the LDS Church took responsibility and accountability for the teachings found in LDS History. The LDS Church, back then when the Journal of Discourses was written over that span of 32 years, should have done something to stop this journal if it contained non official Church teachings or scripture. So like the proverbial bad parent that does nothing to discipline his wayward child, the LDS Church likewise did nothing over the entire span of 32 years?!.

    ..Josh said: “It reflects the personal feelings, opinions, and speculations of the writers and/or speakers of the time.”

    Here is why I don’t buy this. When you have prophets and apostles who you claim receive direct revelation from God, the words that come out of their mouths are God’s feelings and opinions and the very word of God itself. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. They receive direct revelation from God! To say that it reflects the personal feelings, opinions and speculations of the writers is absurd and it is an excuse to wiggle out of what was then presented, over the span of 32 years, as God’s word. The quotes we use are from LDS leaders.

    ..Josh said: “ Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we now have information on some of the subjects that was not yet known when the Journal of Discourses was published.”

    I don’t buy this excuse either. Mormon Prophets don’t get line upon line revelation do they?. They get direct revelation from God. They speak for God. When they speak, God has spoken. The words that come out of their mouth is scripture. If Mormon Prophets receive revelation ““line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” are they not then presenting their members with only half truths? A half truth is defined as deception.

    ..Josh said: “ Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. In the earlier days of the Restored Church, nearly all sermons were given extemporaneously, including those in the JOD. It was virtually unthinkable in nineteenth century Mormonism to give a memorized or pre-written sermon”

    SO the LDS Church at that time was fine with people having been taught false doctrine for 32 years because they endorsed the publication. This is the problem with having prophets who claim to receive direct revelation from God. The LDS prophet, if indeed he received direct revelation from God, at the time should have received direct revelation from God that this was going on so that he would have been empowered to do something about it right away so that the people would not be led astray. And isn’t this what the LDS Church also says, they say: “God will never allow the Prophet to lead you astray” The “distance and Time” argument falls flat on it’s face when you have prophets who receive direct revelation from God.

    ..Josh said: “ The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit. Elder Orson Pratt noted, sometimes he – and probably other speakers – gave sermons when their “mind[s] seemed to be entirely closed up….” Recalling such an incident, Pratt remarked, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.”
    Little wonder that some things in the Journal of Discourses seem out-of-place in what we currently know of Gospel principles.

    So God allowed them to lead people astray contrary to the LDS teaching that God would never allow them to lead people astray.

    It was not an official Church publication nor has it ever been a source for official Church doctrine.

    The first presidency back then endorsed the publication and the first presidency now doesn’t want to be held accountable for it.

    I think it is high time that the LDS Church put together something that IS and can be considered official church doctrine and teachings. Until then, a Church that doesn’t want to be held accountable is skirting their responsibilities and accountability before God and before their followers.

  132. March 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Kate

    If I’m so wrong then show me how you answer the questions:

    So you are saying an unrepentant, unbaptized, an unbelieving murderer will not go to the Telestial Kingdom?

    You believe that Jesus’ saving work has already made you perfect to live with the Heavenly Father right now?

    You believe the standard KJV version of Romans 4:16 over the JST translation?

    And you trust the KJV Bible?

  133. March 20, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Josh said: “`How can you say, “We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?’ (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

    Have you read the context? These people who handled the word of God falsely “sought after” the Sun, Moon and Stars. (verse 8:2) Sound familiar? Some of the LDS temples have those 3 symbols on them. You know that the Sun represents the Celestial Kingdom, the Moon represents the Terrestrial kingdom and the Stars represent the Tellestial kingdom.

  134. March 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    I’ll be back later to respond to more posts.

  135. 136 Joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Echo: when a prophet speaks, God has spoken..
    Just because you are a prophet doesnt mean every sylable that comes out of their mouth is God speaking. what if they tell you your shoe is untied? Is this God recognizing the untied shoe?
    As I have pointed out before, just because a prophet screws up, it does not negate them being a prophet. If so, then there would be no prophet to ever walk this earth. Lets look, yet again, at Moses. He gave unto the Jews the law of divorce. How could this be of God if Christ came and said that from the beginning, it was not to be so. therefore this is clearly not correct doctrine, and, according to you, I must disregard everything Moses has ever said.
    Unlike you, I accept the fact that a prophet is still a man. They still have their agency to choose to do exactly as God instructs, or go about what they choose. God himself has also sent lying spirits to prophets. Is this the prophets fault? Once said prophet realizes it was a lie, and then lets people know that it was a lie, is this wrong?

  136. 137 shematwater
    March 20, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    No non-lds on this thread has any understanding.

    DAVID

    Did you read anything that was posted by Kate and Josh?
    “So you are saying an unrepentant, unbaptized, an unbelieving murderer will not go to the Telestial Kingdom?”

    First of all, this is exactly what we believe. As Josh has pointed out, they will receive the opportunity to repent while they spend that thousand years in prison. If they do not they will have committed the unpardonable sin, and thus will be cast out forever. If they repent they will be admitted into the lowest heaven, with no opportunity for progressing beyond that point.
    Secondly, even being granted the Telestial glory is to be damned, for you are out of the presence of the Father and must spend eternity as a servant to the gods. They will have lost the reward they could have had, and thus they are condemned.
    You constantly question whether we believe what Christ said. Do you? As you quote Mark 16: 16 I conclude that you believe baptism to be required for salvation, as that is clearly taught in this verse. However, do you believe Christ in Matthew 12: 31 when he states “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” Note that: All manner of sin. Not some sins, but all sins, with the one exception. I believe Christ when he says that he will forgive all sins, including murder; and thus all men who do not commit that one unpardonable sin will be forgiven, and thus enter heaven.

    CHOOSE

    You also have no clue what you are talking about, but seem to prefer to spew forth the same lies and twisted reasoning that so many anti-mormon people prefer to believe than to accept the truth.

    I quote from your quote: “But on the other hand they teach that salvation is only possible through faith in Joseph Smith as God’s true prophet,”
    So, by your reasoning, we don’t really need to believe in anyone as a prophet. We teach that one must accept Joseph Smith as God’s ordained prophet, just as you teach that one must accept those of the Bible to be God’s ordained prophets. Or are you saying that a person can freely reject any of the prophets and still be saved, as long as they believe solely in Christ? Are you suggesting that believing that Paul was called of God and that his words recorded in the New Testament are the words of God is not required, as we need only believe in Christ? What if I were to reject Moses as a true prophet, or Isaiah, or Peter, or John?
    Simple put, if it is deceptive of us to say that a person must accept the prophet whom God called to be saved, than it is a deception on your part to say that we must accept any of the men in the Bible or believe anything they say.
    Of course you justify this reasoning by saying that since you don’t believe Joseph Smith was prophet than it doesn’t really apply to those that you do accept,and in this way you create a greater deception than we ever could, and deceive yourself right along with everyone else.

    ECHO

    Regarding the Journal of Discourses, I know people don’t like us actually being honest and treating these volumes in the manner that they were meant to be treated, as doing so only serves to weaken your desire to paint us in the worst possible way. However, this changes nothing as to the truth of the statements made by Josh.
    Let us do a comparison with the Apocrypha. The Catholic church has used these for years, and many protestant churches use them to teach doctrine. What would you say to a person who tried to use these books to tell you what the Christian church teaches?
    The simple fact is that the Journal of Discourses, though a great set and good for study and learning, should never be used to establish doctrine. They have not been as well preserved as the scriptures, and there are several known errors to exist in them. For example, at one time Brigham Young is quotes as say that the father of Christ “was the figure that walked in the Garden of Eden,” a phrase frequently used by people to try and support their false claims as to the idea of the Adam God doctrine (which I will not discuss at this time). However, this was later corrected by a person who was present at the time of the address. What Brigham Young actually said was “the father of Christ was the figure that walked WITH ADAM in the garden of Eden,” and thus completely changes the meaning of the passage.
    With such proof of errors in records and preservation to use the journals to establish doctrine is foolish at best.

  137. 138 shematwater
    March 20, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    One more comment

    Speaking of works and salvation, this is how things really work.

    First, as I have said before, Grace is a gift from God, given freely to all men. In truth it is given even to those who do not yet believe, and is what we call the Light of Christ, or the conscience of each person that placed in their soul to guide them to truth, for it will always recognize truth and embrace it. However, while it will guide us to truth, it cannot force us to accept it, and thus we must choose to act according to its guidance in order to actually receive.
    Also, Grace is given when a person actively seeks the truth, this time in the form of direct communication from the Holy Ghost. This is not given to us at birth, as the Light of Christ is, but is given at times when we earnestly seek truth from God, and can be given to anyone, regardless of their faith. This is what we call the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and it is what guided Martin Luther and John Calvin, as well as Christopher Columbus.

    As to salvation, it is constantly being stated by those who do not know lds doctrine that we believe we have to be obedient to earn our salvation. This is, of course, a false understanding of our doctrine. Let us use an analogy.
    A store promotes a special sale: Buy one get one free. So, we go to the store and make a purchase, and after having done so we receive another item for free.
    The rest of Christianity cries deception, because if you have to buy the first than the second one isn’t really free. However, the question is not whether you had to by the first one but whether or not the money you paid for the first one also bought you the second one.
    The answer is no. What got you the second one was the generosity of the store, and you showing up at the proper time. After all, if you show up before the sale starts than buying the first one will not gain you the second. The same is true will coming after the sale is over. It is not in buying that you gain the second, but in following the correct instructions that the store has laid out for receiving the free item.

    Salvation is the same way. Christ has declared that there are certain things we must do to receive that gift. First we must believe (come to the sale at the specified time). Then we must partake of the required ordinances (make our purchase). Then we must remain obedient to be ready to receive the free gift of salvation (staying in the store until we are given or free item).
    Those who show up to soon are like those who do all the work necessary but believe in false doctrine. They trust that Christ will save them for believing, but fail to actually trust his words. They are the ones that say “Lord, Lord, have we not [purchased at thy store]? and in [thy store have spent our money] and in [thy store have waited for the reward]” (Matthew 7: 22) They will not receive the desired gift.
    Those who come to late are those who did not properly prepare, but procrastinated the day of repentance and obedience. They come after hours and cry “saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.” (Matthew 25: 11) They too are rejected and gain not the gift.

  138. March 20, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Shem (response to post 137)

    This post is truly eye opening. I find this incredible you start your post with “No non-lds on this thread has any understanding” The very first comment you have to me in response is actually to my question to Kate when she was sounding displeased that I wasn’t saying what she really believed. Your response to my rather leading question as phrased to her was “First of all that is exactly what we believe.” Thank you for the validation!! That was exactly my point.

    Jesus does not define damnation the way you do and when I pointed this out to you (this was in the other post on the Living Prophet at #35) quoting Mark 9:43-48 when Jesus talks about the consequences of sin, you said “this is talking about those who know the truth.” You simply refuse to believe that there are real consequences for sins or for being an unbeliever during one’s life time. Mormons treat the falsity of a Telestial Kingdom as a safety net for people who die in sin to come to their senses. But Hebrews is clear. After death comes the judgment.

    “However, do you believe Christ in Matthew 12: 31 when he states “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.””

    I certainly do. But you can’t pick and choose which passages to believe, which ones to ignore and which ones to rewrite. Everyone who believes and is baptized shall be saved. But believers don’t live their lives in unrepentant sin, they live their lives for Jesus. We sin, because we are all sinners, yet we are not under the law but under grace. But that does not mean believers go around in unrepentant sin. When believers sin and they are conscious of their sin, the Lord brings them to repentance. Repentance is being truly sorry for our sins, turning from those sins, and most importantly trusting in the free forgiveness Jesus won for us on the cross. His grace, His forgiveness already won, is what keeps us going. You are the one who has no understanding of how true faith operates. Obedience to the law REALY REALY IS the RESULT of, but not a requirement for obtaining True FAITH. That gift of faith is from God, who maintains it for us and keeps us trusting in Jesus’ perfect life in our place and His victory over death on the cross for us who are wholly unworthy of the grace He has so graciously bestowed on us. True faith feels genuine sorrow over sin and wants to avoid it and live for Jesus out of love and thankfulness for what He accomplished for us.
    Repentance is not optional but it is not a “work” of obedience to the law either. “31And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. 32I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:31-33. “10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.” 2 Cor. 7: 10.
    ” 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor. 6:9-11. Note that none of these offenders enter God’s Kingdom, but note the past tense “as such were some of you.” They were not any of those offenders anymore because faith produces fruit in keeping with repentance.

  139. March 20, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    David, Just so we are clear…my non-response to you is not because what you say is correct…it’s that it serves no purpose to continue dialogue. The way I see it is no different than Satan in the Garden…you will say something correct and at the same time, incorrect…so it winds up twisted and deceptive.

  140. March 20, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    Josh said in post #89: “Moses gave laws to his people as well that were not correct, but they kept the people “MORE” correct. 1 great example is the law of divorce. Jesus said “from the beginning this was not meant to be so”.

    Moses did not give laws to his people that were not correct. I have discussed this already with Shem very recently, so I won’t be discussing it again in this thread. Moses did not command divorce, he “suffered” it because of the hardness of people’s hearts. BIG difference.

    As for your Jacob 2 explanation, it doesn’t fit…

    Did you know that the original 1854 version of the Doctrine and Covenants was also against plural marriage? This is what the original D&C said:…

    “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the CRIME of fornication, and POLYGAMY: we declare that we believe, the 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”

    That was Doctrine, that was scripture, that was God’s word. Now if we read Jacob in light of that, it is clear that Jacob supports a marriage of one wife, no concubines. If we also read Jacob with that in mind, it becomes clear that Anyone who believed in the plurality of wives would have: “sore curse on them even unto destruction”. What does that mean? Well that means apostasy doesn’t it.

    In 1876 The Mormon leaders added section 132 in which permitted the plural wives. So now the curse is upon them even unto destruction.

  141. March 20, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    Josh, re post #91

    The book of Jacob condemns David for his polygamy, Doctrine and Covenants 132: 1 contradicts the book of Jacob. God does not contradict himself.

    Of course, D&C section 132 was added by church leaders after or in 1876 and the section of D&C that condemned plural wives was removed and this is what caused the contradiction. What I see here is Mormon leaders playing Russian Roulette with what is supposed to be God’s word. Really though, it is a sign of apostasy because it is a straying away from the Bible and the BOM. I mean who has the right to manipulate or contradict God’s word?! God himself surely doesn’t contradict himself. As you and I both know, that is ridiculous. People just can’t change God’s word whenever they want to and there is a very good reason for this.

  142. March 20, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Shem, re your post# 102

    Shem said: “Second: Jacob 2: 30
    ***“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” There has been an awful lot posted concerning Jacob chapter two on this thread, and it is interesting that every single time people stop just short of this verse. It has not been quoted or referenced even once. Yet, without it the true meaning the chapter is lost, which has caused every non-LDS to be mislead and many have made false accusations against Joseph Smith and the LDS. Anyone who claims that the doctrine of Plural Marriage is against what the Book of Mormon teaches has ignored this verse.
    Read it again. It states directly that God has reserved the right to command men to take plural wives, for the purpose of raising up a righteous seed. However, unless that command has been given we are not to take it upon ourselves to have multiple wives. Thus, Joseph Smith never once went contrary to what the Book of Mormon teaches, for he did not take plural wives without a direct command from God. David and Solomon did nothing contrary to the will of God until they took wives without His approval. When God feels there is a need for the law of Plural Marriage to be practiced he commands and His true saints obey. But when that command is not given, or after it has been withdrawn, any who take it on themselves to take plural wives are acting contrary to His will.”***

    God only used one man(Adam) and one woman(Eve) in Genesis to “raise up seed”… He told THEM to have children and fill the whole earth. If God wanted to raise up seed through polygamy, there is no greater time in history than for him to have made more than one wife for Adam.

  143. March 20, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    Josh said: “Here is more from “your bible”:

    1 Corinthians 15:
    40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: So also is the resurrection of the dead.. differing in glories… Hmmm… Where have i heard that before”

    Context is everything. This is talking about our heavenly body(raised in incorruption) and our earthly body(sown in corruption). It is not talking about 3 levels of heaven.

    Context! Context! The LDS Church again plucks biblical verses out of context to support false doctrine.

  144. March 20, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Josh said: “David, I dont care what you think you know of LDS doctrine. When Kate or Shem or I tell you very bluntly what we believe, perhaps you should accept that.”

    Sorry but nobody here is going to accept your words. Your word, Kate’s word and Shem’s word isn’t official Church doctrine. It’s just your opinion of official church doctrine.

  145. 146 choosethechrist
    March 20, 2012 at 10:12 pm

    To add to what Echo has stated, “God only used one man(Adam) and one woman(Eve) in Genesis to “raise up seed”… He told THEM to have children and fill the whole earth. If God wanted to raise up seed through polygamy, there is no greater time in history than for him to have made more than one wife for Adam.”

    Seed is not “raised up” through polygamy:

    Polygamy practiced by some 19th century Mormon men had the curious effect of suppressing the overall offspring numbers of Mormon women in plural marriages, say scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions in the March 2011 issue of Evolution and Human Behavior.

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-polygamy-19th-century-mormon-wives.html

  146. March 20, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Josh said: “Echo: when a prophet speaks, God has spoken..
    Just because you are a prophet doesnt mean every sylable that comes out of their mouth is God speaking. what if they tell you your shoe is untied? Is this God recognizing the untied shoe?
    As I have pointed out before, just because a prophet screws up, it does not negate them being a prophet. If so, then there would be no prophet to ever walk this earth. Lets look, yet again, at Moses. He gave unto the Jews the law of divorce. How could this be of God if Christ came and said that from the beginning, it was not to be so. therefore this is clearly not correct doctrine, and, according to you, I must disregard everything Moses has ever said.
    Unlike you, I accept the fact that a prophet is still a man. They still have their agency to choose to do exactly as God instructs, or go about what they choose. God himself has also sent lying spirits to prophets. Is this the prophets fault? Once said prophet realizes it was a lie, and then lets people know that it was a lie, is this wrong?”

    I am not talking about an untied shoe, I am talking about doctrine. Any prophet who speaks false doctrine is a false prophet. This is the fruit that we recognize a false prophet by.

  147. 148 choosethechrist
    March 20, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    “But on the other hand they teach that salvation is only possible through faith in Joseph Smith as God’s true prophet,”

    There is “no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth…no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God” -Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190

    “If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by Joseph Smith; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him.” -1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142, Apostle George Q. Cannon

    “I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God; and there are many of them beside him. I tell you, if we get past those who have mingled with us, and know us best, and have a right to know us best, probably we can pass all other sentinels as far as it is necessary, or as far as we may desire. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, “Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;” if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again.” -Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154-155

    What does the Bible say:

    1 Timothy 2:5

    For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

    John 14:6

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

  148. 149 choosethechrist
    March 20, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    Shem said, “So, by your reasoning, we don’t really need to believe in anyone as a prophet. We teach that one must accept Joseph Smith as God’s ordained prophet, just as you teach that one must accept those of the Bible to be God’s ordained prophets. Or are you saying that a person can freely reject any of the prophets and still be saved, as long as they believe solely in Christ?”

    First of all, salvation comes from Christ alone. Salvation is not tied to a prophet or a church.

    Second of all, by my reasoning we don’t believe in anyone as a prophet who does not pass the test of being a true prophet. True prophets of God don’t give false prophecies, invent new religions or teach new ways to salvation that go against God’s word. I’m saying we freely reject Joseph Smith because he was not a true prophet of God.

  149. 150 choosethechrist
    March 20, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    Shem said, “As to salvation, it is constantly being stated by those who do not know lds doctrine that we believe we have to be obedient to earn our salvation.”

    “Point out that we will all be resurrected and receive immortality. However, we must obey Heavenly Father’s commandments to be able to receive eternal life. Heavenly Father gives us commandments because he loves us and wants us to become like him and dwell in his presence forever.”

    Lesson 23: Obedience: The First Law of Heaven Preparing for Exaltation: Teacher’s Manual, (1998), 128–35

    http://www.lds.org/manual/preparing-for-exaltation-teachers-manual/lesson-23-obedience-the-first-law-of-heaven?lang=eng

    “The true value of the sacrifice of Christ means much more than this general salvation which comes to all mankind. There is an additional salvation that God has planned for his children. This additional salvation is an individual salvation and is conditioned not only upon grace,

    but also upon obedience to gospel law.”

    Where on Earth did we get the idea that the LDS have to be obedient to earn their salvation?

  150. 151 Joshtried
    March 20, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    This thread is regarding plural marriage. As such, from this point forward I am refusing to answer ANY concern until yall answer my request for ALL these scriptures yoi claim to have specifically stating polygamy is wrong from the bible. Since you dont believe the BoM to be true, I dont allow you to use it,, because if the whole book is untrue then this statement in jacob is untrue, and polygomy is acceptable (oh snap). Therefore, you dont get to quote any other thing you see as untrue for the exact same reason. So, seeing as this confines us to the Bible, lets see ALL these scriptures you have. If you dont have any besides the one in deut speak now, of I forever hold you as a liar, and will reject everything else you say.

  151. March 20, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    Shem said: “The simple fact is that the Journal of Discourses, though a great set and good for study and learning, should never be used to establish doctrine. They have not been as well preserved as the scriptures, and there are several known errors to exist in them. For example, at one time Brigham Young is quotes as say that the father of Christ “was the figure that walked in the Garden of Eden,” a phrase frequently used by people to try and support their false claims as to the idea of the Adam God doctrine (which I will not discuss at this time). However, this was later corrected by a person who was present at the time of the address. What Brigham Young actually said was “the father of Christ was the figure that walked WITH ADAM in the garden of Eden,” and thus completely changes the meaning of the passage.
    With such proof of errors in records and preservation to use the journals to establish doctrine is foolish at best.”

    Here is what I think. The Journal of Discourses didn’t misquote Brigham Young, instead, Mormon leaders knew that was what Brigham taught but because Christians have painted them into a corner they couldn’t get out of, the leaders then do what they always do. They resort to one of many things, they use the lame excuse of: “that isn’t official doctrine or that isn’t an official church publication” or they make up a lie or do something else to cover it up. So they had to cover their tracks and lie rather than admit the truth that Brigham actually did teach that Adam was God and that it was God’s word to say so. So they covered their tracks by saying: ““the father of Christ was the figure that walked WITH ADAM in the garden of Eden,”

    However, these lying Mormon leaders KNOW that Brigham Young taught the Adam God doctrine…

    “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He is Michael the Arch-angel, the Ancient of Days! About whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do” (volume 1:50-51)

    In the Millennial Star on December 10, 1853 there was an article with the Title: “Adam, The Father and God of the Human Family” in this article this was said: “…and while the sentiment may have appeared blasphemous to the ignorant it has no doubt given rise to some serious refections with the more candid and comprehensive mind…Adam is really God! And why not?”

    On page 825 in the same volume it says this: “Adam is the God and Father of the Human Family..for our part we would much rather acknowledge Adam to be our father, than hunt for another and take up with the devil”

    On Volume 17 of the Millennial Star it says: “When speaking of Adam, be fully realized-‘He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do”

    In Volume 16 it says: “If I am told that Adam is our Father and our God, I just believe it”

    A.F. McDonald in: ‘Minutes of the School of the Prophets’ in Prova Utah said this: “I thought I would speak briefly in relation to Adam being our God…I believe what the president says on this matter”

    Geo Bywater in that same meeting rose and spoke this: “when I first heard the doctrine of Adam being our Father and God, I was favorably impressed…and hailed it as a new Revelation”

    “That Adam is our Father and God…the Prophet and Apostle Brigham Young has declared it and that it is the word of the Lord” Millennial Star page 543

    “And which was revealed to me-namely that Adam is our Father and God” …” Brigham Young, Desert news, June 14, 1873

    “Another meeting this evening, President B Young taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus and the only God to us” (On the Mormon Frontier, The Diary of Hosea Stout, University of Utah Press, 1964, Vol 2, page 435)

    “Adam is our Father and God. He is he God of the earth…He is the Father of our eldest brother Jesus Christ…the father of our Spirits” (Women in Mormondom page 179)

    “Jesus Christ is Jehovah” “Adam is his Father and our God” (Daily Journal of Abraham H Cannon, Vol. 11 page 39)

    Shem, as you can clearly see, whoever came up with:… “What Brigham Young actually said was “the father of Christ was the figure that walked WITH ADAM in the garden of Eden,” was lying to you and deceiving you.

    This is exactly why I and other Christians don’t listen to what Mormons say in the sense of trusting what they say when they attempt to defend Mormonism. It is because Mormons prove to me over and over how they all have been deceived by these lame excuses and coverup lies doled out by their leaders and how they then get Mormons to come to us to share those same lame excuses and lie’s with us.

    I suggest that Mormons might want to actually listen to what we have to say and try to understand it, instead of listening to their leaders. Very obviously all the sources I gave are not typo’s nor is the original quote found in the JOD.

    Shem, I do care about you and the fate of your soul. That is why I want you to know the truth. Please take our friendship to heart.

  152. March 20, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    Josh said: “If you dont have any besides the one in deut speak now, of I forever hold you as a liar, and will reject everything else you say.”

    The answers are scattered throughout this thread. It’s not our fault you self admitted to not reading everything. Can we hold you as a “liar” for not giving us Bible passages that show that God commanded polygamy? I guess we can forever hold you as a liar by your same faulty reasoning and reject everything else you say also.

  153. 154 choosethechrist
    March 20, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    Josh, how old are you? You sound like my 12 year old and you had better be Southern or you are not allowed to say yall. ;)

    Josh said, “This thread is regarding plural marriage. As such, from this point forward I am refusing to answer ANY concern until yall answer my request for ALL these scriptures yoi claim to have specifically stating polygamy is wrong from the bible.”

    Once again Josh, this isn’t about polygamy being right or wrong. This is about mormon polygamy, not polygamy in the Bible, and the huge problem of tying “eternal life” with marriage and polygamy AND how this is all a thorn in the side of the LDS church all because some “living prophets” decided to “reveal new prophecy” especially when the whole LDS polygamy prophecy contradicted the “most correct book on Earth”.

    Plus, I don’t recall citing any scripture from the Bible regarding polygamy except for deut.

    And, if we want to use the BOM we can and will :P

  154. March 21, 2012 at 12:27 am

    Kate

    “David, Just so we are clear…my non-response to you is not because what you say is correct…it’s that it serves no purpose to continue dialogue. The way I see it is no different than Satan in the Garden…you will say something correct and at the same time, incorrect…so it winds up twisted and deceptive.”

    To this I say:

    Romans 9:31-33

    31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 333As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

  155. March 21, 2012 at 12:49 am

    Not only is polygamy a requirement for the celestial kingdom, it is also a requirement to become a Son of God…

    “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” ~Brigham Young.

  156. March 21, 2012 at 1:13 am

    Echo said:

    “Context! Context! The LDS Church again plucks biblical verses out of context to support false doctrine.”

    AMEN!

    And if that doesn’t work they rewrite it to say something else!

    And when that doesn’t work their own written LDS doctrine is not what they really believe.

  157. March 21, 2012 at 2:02 am

    Dave said: “And if that doesn’t work they rewrite it to say something else! And when that doesn’t work their own written LDS doctrine is not what they really believe.”

    Yes or when the new doctrine paints LDS leaders into a corner, they say: “That’s not official Church doctrine” or “that was misquoted” or “That’s not a official Church publication” or they just LIE like Gordon Hinckley did on Larry King Live and then they excuse that lie by saying milk before meat. That’s no excuse to lie. I would never lie in order to withhold meat from anyone if I was asked. Or what about this book that came out called: “Mormon Doctrine” Obviously Christians painted Mormon leaders into a corner with that one so the leaders had to remove that book from publication.

    Revelation 21:8 “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and …all LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

    And in doing all of this, the LDS leaders deceive Mormons and lead these deceived Mormons to say the same things to us. So SAD and heartbreaking!!! And these same LDS leaders through their deceptive schemes lead Mormons, just like our deceived Mormon friends on this blog, to the same second death in the lake of fire and brimstone for all eternity. That’s heartbreaking to me which is why I am here. I don’t want to see that happening to any Mormons.

    The only Mormons who escape this eternal fate are those who stop judging us and instead start listening to us and examining all that we say with an open mind for a long, long time before judging us. Right now they judge us all based on false assumptions and pre conceived false notions which is the cause of them not listening to us and it is all to their own harm.

    Kate here unfortunately is a prime and easiest target for deception because she continually makes false assumptions and has pre conceived notions which are all pounded into to her brain by her Church leaders. This brainwashing leads her to continually falsely judge us without even listening to us. What a masterpiece plan that Church has. They not only deceive and lie to their members and the public, but then they go one step further and feed their members minds in such a way that they perceive us as the enemy, when we are not the enemy, in order to keep those Mormons who have been deceived in their clutches instead of losing them to the truth we bring.

  158. 159 joshtried
    March 21, 2012 at 2:23 am

    RLO said, and i Quote:
    “Okay Josh. I would agree. We are at an impasse. In spite of the numerous times scripture explicitly prohibits plural marriage”
    I still have yet to see this realized..
    I am from the south.
    I am 26, not some 12 y/o.

  159. 160 choosethechrist
    March 21, 2012 at 2:55 am

    “They not only deceive and lie to their members and the public, but then they go one step further and feed their members minds in such a way that they perceive us as the enemy, when we are not the enemy, in order to keep those Mormons who have been deceived in their clutches instead of losing them to the truth we bring.”

    Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith’s denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by “anti-Mormons” and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley’s dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine, Mormonism’s history seems replete with examples of lying. Common members see such examples as situations where lying is justified. For the Mormon, loyalty and the welfare of the church are more important than the principle of honesty, and plausible denials and deception by omission are warranted by an opportunity to have the Mormon organization seen in the best possible light. This is part of the larger package of things that lead many to describe Mormonism as a cult. “Lying for the lord” is part of Mormonism’s larger deceptive mainstreaming tactics, and conversion numbers would drastically lower if important Mormon beliefs were fully disclosed to investigators. http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

  160. 161 choosethechrist
    March 21, 2012 at 3:01 am

    Polygamy and Lying for the Lord:

  161. March 21, 2012 at 3:05 am

    Somehow we have sparked a nerve with you guys…all you are doing is showing your true colors. You whine that we are judging you, when in reality, it is you that are judging. Do you think intelligent people can’t see through this?

  162. 163 choosethechrist
    March 21, 2012 at 3:05 am

    Lifting the Veil of Polygamy

  163. March 21, 2012 at 3:09 am

    Shem said: “As to salvation, it is constantly being stated by those who do not know lds doctrine that we believe we have to be obedient to earn our salvation. This is, of course, a false understanding of our doctrine. Let us use an analogy.”

    “But we must understand that salvation is not a free gift. The offer is free indeed, through the atonement of the Savior. But its enjoyment must be EARNED, not with any halfhearted effort, but with wholesouled, undivided, concentrated application to a program of development which is called the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.”…

    ( http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/01/what-will-a-man-give?lang=eng&query=earn+salvation )

    We aren’t denying that you have been taught what you say you have been taught. That said, when we say you are earning your salvation we are using the Christian definition of what it means to earn salvation. We aren’t using the LDS definition of what it means to earn salvation. Second, when we research LDS teachings, we find one teaching to be inconsistent with other LDS teachings and even inconsistent with what Mormons say they are being taught.

    By the Christian definition of earning salvation we define it like this…Whenever there are requirements for entering the celestial kingdom; those requirements are the means of earning salvation. I can explain this more if you would like me to, just let me know or ask questions. I think it would be important for you to first understand what we mean when we say this. I remember you telling me why you don’t believe you earn your salvation in other threads in the past, and I understand all of that, but you don’t understand what we mean just yet so your explanations aren’t getting us any further ahead at this point. So if I could make a suggestion, find out what we mean and understand it thoroughly before stating that we do not know LDS Doctrine and keep all of this in mind at the same time.

  164. March 21, 2012 at 3:22 am

    Choose said: “Lying for the lord” is part of Mormonism’s larger deceptive mainstreaming tactics, and conversion numbers would drastically lower if important Mormon beliefs were fully disclosed to investigators.”

    This is the thing. How can anyone trust anything any Mormon says when “Lying for the Lord” is a standard practice in Mormonism. Chances are, in all of what they are telling us, they are possibly “lying for the Lord.” I mean…how will we ever know when they are telling us the truth or a lie. We can’t know. SO therefore we can’t trust anything they say. Now I am not saying that all Mormons lie intentionally, many Mormons have been deceived and led to believe the lies and then just spread them naturally. However, I don’t know how any Mormon can trust anything they are taught either because how will they ever know when those who are teaching them aren’t themselves lying to them.

  165. March 21, 2012 at 4:02 am

    Kate said: “Somehow we have sparked a nerve with you guys…all you are doing is showing your true colors. You whine that we are judging you, when in reality, it is you that are judging. Do you think intelligent people can’t see through this?”

    We are judging doctrine and tactics of the LDS Church. We don’t judge on a whim or a feeling like you do Kate. Intelligent people know those things can lead them astray and away from the truth because feelings and whims are not always accurate. Intelligent people know that false assumptions and pre conceived notions are foolish things to judge by. Intelligent people aren’t convinced by those kinds of arguments but see right through them. Judging should be based on the facts alone, that’s what intelligent people do.

    We do all that we do in order to rescue Mormons from Mormonism so that they will enjoy eternal life together with us. A church that “lies for the Lord” is the devil’s church. Jesus called Satan the Father of lies. And all liars and their followers go to the lake of fire and brimstone for eternity. You can find that fact in the book of Revelation. It is this fate that we want to rescue you and all Mormons from. That is a very loving thing to do.

    Honestly, I think intelligent people will examine the facts we have presented here for themselves and make up their own minds based on that. Unintelligent people refuse to examine both sides with an open mind and open ears.
    As you can see, the LDS Church takes intelligent people such as yourself and turns them into unintelligent people. It’s called: “Mind control”

  166. March 21, 2012 at 4:14 am

    “As you can see, the LDS Church takes intelligent people such as yourself and turns them into unintelligent people. It’s called: “Mind control””

    You have been given intelligent examples, answers, interpretations, etc. Yet, you ignore them and continually spew the same twisted lies about our doctrine, then claim that we ignore scriptures that tell us we are wrong. Actually, that is exactly what you do…we have shown you over and over again.

    The only “mind control” that is happening is the “mind games” you are playing with people who are unsure of what we believe…trying to make them believe the lies you are telling.

  167. March 21, 2012 at 4:34 am

    Kate said: “You have been given intelligent examples, answers, interpretations, etc. Yet, you ignore them”

    We ignore nothing. This is a false assumption you are making. Another way that Mormonism controls your mind.
    You want us to take what you say at face value as official Mormon Doctrine. However what you say is not official Mormon Doctrine. It is just your “opinion” of official Mormon Doctrine. Your opinions can be wrong. We are entitled to our own opinion of official Mormon Doctrine as well and our opinions could be closer to true Mormon Doctrine than your own opinion. I do feel that all our efforts fall on deaf ears though. I pointed out in a post to Shem that the LDS Church did indeed teach that Adam is God. Shem posted a comment showing someone in the Mormon Church trying to cover that up with a lie. Have you ignored that? Have you ignored everything else we have said? Are you even listening? I doubt it because Mormonism controls your mind.

    Kate said: ” The only “mind control” that is happening is the “mind games” you are playing with people who are unsure of what we believe…trying to make them believe the lies you are telling.”

    We have shown time and again how Mormonism is the one guilty of lies. It isn’t our fault that you won’t take the time to truly listen and examine what we say with an open mind. Your deaf ears will cost you your soul one day. And the truly sad part about that is you have the power to open your ears but you won’t. And that’s because Mormonism controls your mind.

  168. 169 joshtried
    March 21, 2012 at 4:42 am

    Echo: Thanks for this.
    Sorry but nobody here is going to accept your words. Your word, Kate’s word and Shem’s word

    That is exactly what i thought. Nice to see it written out though

    no matter how much we PROVE anything, you will refuse to listen… because “you have enough bible”. Anytime an LDS person brings a legitimate argument to the table, you start back at square one, creating a thread with so much information, no one will ever read through it all. Mark has helped this along wonderfully, replying to threads with completely new threads about how the truth revealed in one is not really truth, here is my reason why. You are “so busy” Mark, yet you happen to keep up to date on all of this stuff.
    To the rest of you “Christians”, if you believe any of the 5 or 6 problems with Christianity i have listed, you are not believing the word of God. It is that simple. As for me, i am going to stick to my guns, there is no list of scripture denying polygamy. there is ONE scripture for ONE person. One person tried to say they were spread through this.. I have only seen Deuteronomy used (and Jacob, which you dont believe existed at all, because JS made it up… Thats like saying Dante’s Inferno says polygamy is wrong coming from your mouths) While we dont practice polygamy, you try to deny that God has EVER allowed it, when there are FORTY instances of it being allowed IN THE BIBLE.

    In any case, i remit my remarks to the following from here out, unless anyone really wants me to return.
    If you want the truth as best i know it, i can be contacted @ williams.joshuajames@yahoo.com
    This is not an invite to send me anything other than questions. If you do, i will block you. I am not going to receive any kind of anti anything mail. This is for those truly wishing to understand Doctrine.

  169. March 21, 2012 at 5:12 am

    Josh said: “Echo: Thanks for this.
    Sorry but nobody here is going to accept your words. Your word, Kate’s word and Shem’s word. That is exactly what i thought. Nice to see it written out though”

    You left off the most important thing I said. I said: “Sorry but nobody here is going to accept your words. Your word, Kate’s word and Shem’s word isn’t official Church doctrine. It’s just your opinion of official church doctrine.”

    When we give you LDS quotes you respond with: “That’s just an opinion, that isn’t official Church doctrine” So I say the same thing to you about your words. If your going to say that about LDS quotes, why can’t I say that about your words too? Your words aren’t official LDS doctrine either. Mormons say that when the Adam God doctrine was taught that it isn’t official church doctrine. So if I can’t believe what Brigham Young said or some other LDS person said in a publication, why are your words any different? How do you think we feel when we are continually hit with: “”That’s just an opinion, that isn’t official Church doctrine”? Maybe now you will understand how we feel when we give you LDS quotes. Maybe now you will see how lame that excuse really is now that it has turned on you like a curse.

    If you want to find the list of biblical quotes against polygamy, you will have to read everyone’s posts.

    Josh said: “While we dont practice polygamy, you try to deny that God has EVER allowed it, when there are FORTY instances of it being allowed IN THE BIBLE.”

    If you read the whole thread you will know what we deny and what we don’t deny. The facts are all written there. You admitted earlier that you didn’t read all the posts. The BIBLE is filled to overflowing with sins and sinners. Your statement proves nothing. Still waiting for you to show me where God commands polygamy in the Bible.

    Josh said: “you start back at square one, creating a thread with so much information, no one will ever read through it all.”

    I agree that the threads are too large with too many topics going on at once, everyone is to blame for this and you are no exception. You have introduced new topics that called for a response just by your mentioning it and so has Shem. Christians have done the same. I think if people aren’t willing to read all the posts in a thread, they should stay out of the conversation entirely. People should also try not to change the topic but I know this is difficult to do and sometimes it is relevant to do so. Also, some people post way too much information at once. Less words can say a lot more.

  170. March 21, 2012 at 5:31 am

    Josh, by the way, we do want you to stay. You are always welcome here. ( I mean that sincerely and in all good will)

  171. March 21, 2012 at 5:53 am

    Josh said: “In any case, i remit my remarks to the following from here out, unless anyone really wants me to return.
    If you want the truth as best i know it, i can be contacted @ williams.joshuajames@yahoo.com
    This is not an invite to send me anything other than questions. If you do, i will block you. I am not going to receive any kind of anti anything mail. This is for those truly wishing to understand Doctrine.”

    Do you think folks should listen to you in emails when your words aren’t official LDS doctrine? Aren’t you asking them to go against “that” official LDS Doctrine? Right off the bat do you want to teach them to defy LDS doctrine?

    I invite everyone to email me privately as well. I welcome you to send me anything you want to, not just questions. I won’t ever block you no matter what. I will receive any anti mail you want to send me because I believe God has given you the right and the freedom to examine and test everything so that you won’t be deceived. So I welcome everything. You can email me at…

    echo.mountain@yahoo.ca

    Subject line: “Marks blog”

    .

  172. March 21, 2012 at 6:13 am

    “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” ~Brigham Young.

    It is so sad to think that the LDS have to believe that the Apostle Paul, after all that he did for the Lord, after all that he suffered, cannot go to the celestial kingdom to become a God or cannot become a Son of God simply because he never got married.

  173. 174 RLO
    March 21, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Josh asked in post #58:

    RLO: “numerous times scripture explicitly prohibits plural marriage” (redacted from RLO’s post #56)
    I have seen Deuteronomy on here, and none else (Honestly, I did skip a few posts.) For my sake, why not list all the scriptures PROHIBITING plural marriage?

    Josh, from post #75: (ten hours later, impatiently)

    “ . . . RLO, I am still waiting for that list . . . “

    Josh posted, at #151:

    “This thread is regarding plural marriage. As such, from this point forward I am refusing to answer ANY concern until all of you answer my request for ALL these scriptures you claim to have specifically stating polygamy is wrong from the Bible. Since you don’t believe the Book of Mormon to be true, I don’t allow you to use it because if the whole book is untrue then this statement in Jacob is untrue, and polygamy is acceptable (oh snap). Therefore, you don’t get to quote any other thing you see as untrue for the exact same reason. So, seeing as this confines us to the Bible, let’s see ALL these scriptures you have. If you don’t have any besides the one in Deuteronomy speak now, or I forever hold you as a liar, and will reject everything else you say.”

    Josh posted, at #159:

    RLO said, and I Quote:

    “Okay Josh. I would agree. We are at an impasse. In spite of the numerous times scripture explicitly prohibits plural marriage (redacted from RLO’s post #56)

    I still have yet to see this realized…”

    Yet, before any of these posts, from post #32 I asked of Josh:

    “Josh, no one here is denying there are descriptive accounts of plural marriages in the Bible. Just as there are descriptive accounts of incest in the Bible. And again, descriptive does not indicate prescriptive.

    Now, can you give me a “prescriptive” account of plural marriage in the Bible?”

    No definitive answer was given. So, as anyone can see, Josh, while insisting upon answers to his own questions, demands much less of himself when it comes to answering the questions of others. For this reason, I choose not to waste my time providing a list of all the passages. Josh is already well aware of them. What good would a list do? The problem isn’t a lack of a list. The problem is a lack of reverence to God’s Word. But, so that Josh is not left empty handed:

    “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’ ” Genesis 2:18

    Notice, not “. . .helpers. . .” but rather, “. . .helper. . .”

    “Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.” Genesis 2:22

    Notice, not “. . .women. . .” but rather, “. . .woman. . .”

    “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24

    Notice, not “. . .wives. . .” but rather, “. . .wife. . .”

    Who is incapable of seeing God’s will for marriage from His prototype?

    For believers, no further amount of explanation from God is needed. For unbelievers, no further amount of explanation from God, no matter how much He were to give, would be sufficient.

    Again, the warning from post #68 stands. “Believe what you will, to your own peril.”

  174. 175 RLO
    March 21, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Josh said in post #151:

    “. . . Since you don’t believe the Book of Mormon to be true, I don’t allow you to use it because if the whole book is untrue then this statement in Jacob is untrue, and polygamy is acceptable (oh snap). Therefore, you don’t get to quote any other thing you see as untrue for the exact same reason . . .”

    Josh;

    First, you don’t get to dictate what anyone else can or cannot use, based on whether they subscribe to it or not. Secondly, I wouldn’t cite Jacob from the Book of Mormon for the purpose of revealing polygamy for what it is. Rather, I would cite Jacob from the Book of Mormon for the purpose of revealing Mormons for what they are. That is, a people who do not abide by their own scripture, and a people who don’t like having others remind them of it.

  175. 176 Kent
    March 21, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Doctrine and Covenants 132:32-35, 37

    32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
    33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
    34 God acommanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
    35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

    37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

    It seems that to Mormons the most important thing they can do is to have children so that the spirit children can have bodies to come into and even if they disobey God, they can still be given the highest honor because children resulted from it. Just as it was backwards from what God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge so death, sin, disease, and all the misery in the world came from this one act, it was backwards for Abraham to disobey God and have a child with Hagar.

    Sarah, and Abraham also, were not obeying God when Abraham had a child, Ishmael, with Hagar. In fact, since Ishmael the oldest son was not given the inheritance of the land of Israel, there have been conflicts to this day between the descendants of Isaac, the Jews, and the descendants of Ishmael, the Arabs. So we are to believe that Abraham is now a god and not an angel because he didn’t have faith and wait to have the child God had promised with his wife Sarah?

    Personally I am not married and I don’t have children and may never be married so I guess I can never be a god but I don’t want to be a god and that is fine by me.

    But I already know I have eternal life in the mansions where God is because I believe in the only savior of all of mankind, Jesus Christ. So that is all I really need anyway.

  176. 177 Kent
    March 21, 2012 at 11:03 am

    Doctrine and Covenants 132:32

    32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

    So we are to believe that it really is the works of law, that saves us instead of God’s grace?

    Contrast that with the following passages:

    Romans 10:9-13

    9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”[

  177. March 21, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    I know we’re supposed to be on the subject of plural marriages here but I wanted to give a quick and clear example of the lies of LDS doctrine directly contract Jesus Himself. Kent included in his excerpt from D&C 132:37 –

    “they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.”

    LDS teaching that they, that is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are all gods right now. That is not “my interpretation” that is not me “twisting” anything. That is what it says that is what LDS members believe to be true. This, however is what Jesus says about what we are like in Heaven after the resurrection:

    “24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” Mark 12:24-26

    So again to the LDS members on this blog. Abraham, Isaas and Jacob, according to Jesus, are not gods, and the LDS claim that they have “entered exaltation” and “ARE NOT ANGELS BUT ARE GODS” (and lets be clear this is a DIERCT refutation of Jesus’ own words) is an out and out lie. Further, it is an indefensible lie. Why? Because Jesus is talking about the physical resurrection of the dead which has not happened yet. He says they are like the angels in Heaven. Therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can’t possibly be gods now and then get demoted to being angels after the resurrection. D&C 132:37 is an undeniable, irreconcilable and blatant refutation of Jesus’ own direct teachings about Heaven.

  178. 179 Kent
    March 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    bereandave said,

    I know we’re supposed to be on the subject of plural marriages here but I wanted to give a quick and clear example of the lies of LDS doctrine directly contract Jesus Himself. Kent included in his excerpt from D&C 132:37 –

    “they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.”

    LDS teaching that they, that is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are all gods right now. That is not “my interpretation” that is not me “twisting” anything. That is what it says that is what LDS members believe to be true. This, however is what Jesus says about what we are like in Heaven after the resurrection:

    “24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” Mark 12:24-26

    So again to the LDS members on this blog. Abraham, Isaas and Jacob, according to Jesus, are not gods, and the LDS claim that they have “entered exaltation” and “ARE NOT ANGELS BUT ARE GODS” (and lets be clear this is a DIERCT refutation of Jesus’ own words) is an out and out lie. Further, it is an indefensible lie. Why? Because Jesus is talking about the physical resurrection of the dead which has not happened yet. He says they are like the angels in Heaven. Therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can’t possibly be gods now and then get demoted to being angels after the resurrection. D&C 132:37 is an undeniable, irreconcilable and blatant refutation of Jesus’ own direct teachings about Heaven.”

    Actually this is on the topic of plural marriage as the thing mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 132 was talking about that Abraham was obeying God when he fathered a child by Hagar instead of his wife Sarah. So even if he could become a god by obeying God, it wouldn’t be by disobeying Him by not having faith and having a child by Hagar instead of waiting to have a child by Sarah his wife.

  179. 180 shematwater
    March 21, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Again, no time to read everything, and no real desire to either. Just skimming.

    First, it is still evident that no one hear (speaking of non-LDS) understands LDS doctrine. It is also growing ever clearer that they really don’t want to, but prefer to twist our doctrine to mean what they desire it to mean so that they can continue to disbelieve.

    I will make a few comments, primarily for the readers, as I have no hope that anyone here is even listening to a word I, or any other LDS member, is saying.

    First, Echo has mentioned that in 1854 section 132 was not part of the Doctrine and Covenants, but that another statement was, which I do not quote here. I would like to clarify things for those who don’t know the full history of the LDS scripture.
    In 1854 what is now section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants was published as part of the Pearl of Great Price. This section was first reveal to Joseph Smith in early 1831, but was known to only a few members until the 1840’s, when the practice was instituted among the church. It was first published in the Pearl of Great Price as part of the selections of the writings of Joseph Smith. In 1876 it was added to the Doctrine and Covenants as it fit more appropriately with that volume. As such it was taken out of the Pearl of Great Price to avoid repetitious printing.
    As to the part that Echo quotes in condemning Plural Marriage, this is part of a statement written and printed in the 1830’s in answer to certain accusations made against the church in Missouri. At that time Plural Marriage was not yet instituted, and as such the position of the church was that a man should have one wife, and a woman one husband. When the Lord issued the command for plural marriage this then became the position of the church regarding the marriage relationship. It in no way contradicts sections 132 and is in perfect harmony with Jacob 2: 30, in which God reserves the right to command such unions.

    Now, the statement that if God was going to reserve this right he would have done so in the time of Adam is merely an attempt to dictate policy to God and thus needs no answer. It is God’s right to command and revoke, and it is our duty to follow his lead. Anyone who questions his lead will soon fall from the faith and loose their reward.

    Second, in my comment explaining the existence of errors in the Journal of Discourses Choose puts forth the opinion that the change I cited was not actually an error, but was changed to hide the true meaning. Now, Choose is welcome to believe any lie that suits her fancy. I have no control over that. However, her argument is based on one belief: We are wrong and so everything we say must be twisted to hide this fact. She cannot actually believe of any honestly in the LDS church, which taints anything she says concerning it.

    Since it has been mentioned, I would like to clarify the doctrine of Adam being God.
    You will first note that the God was worship is Elohim, the Head of the Gods, as declared by Joseph Smith. Not once does Brigham Young claim that Adam is Elohim, but clearly, as is seen in the very quotes Choose’s gives, relates him to Michael the archangel. As such, simply from this we know that Brigham Young never intended us to believe Adam was the God we worship or the Father of Christ.
    Now, you may recall the quote I referenced as to the Father of Christ being the figure that walked in the Garden. This is used to say that he taught Adam was that Father. Of course the error I mentioned clarifies the whole point, but even without that it must be admitted by all those who have ever read the Bible that God the Father walked with Adam in the Garden. Thus we know of at least two figures that walked in the Garden (Adam and God). To say that this phrase refers to Adam and cannot refer to God is absurd.
    Thirdly, let me explain the phrase that Adam is our father and our god. Take the first part: He is our Father. Is this true? Of course it is, as he is the first of all men, and thus we are all descended from him. He is the Father of the human family. What of the second: He is our God. Is this true? In a sense, for he is the grand head of our family and will rule as such on this earth in the eternities. He will do so under the direction of Christ, who will rule all the planets that have been created by His Father and will stand as the Head of the Gods in our generation. Adam, however, will be the god that is ruler, or president of those who live on this earth. So, Adam is our Father, and our God, but he is not our Heavenly Father, or the God that we worship. He is a great man and we revere him for the role that he plays in the plans of our Heavenly Father, but no one ever intended us to worship Adam.

    Lastly, speaking of works and grace and all that, people still want to claim that believing we must obey to attain exaltation means that we believe we earn that reward. This is not true. Let me try a different analogy, as it seems people either don’t understand my previous one, or just ignored it.
    A father buys a car for his son, and tell his son that as soon as he has acquired his drivers license he will be permitted to drive it. So, is the car a gift, or does the son have to earn it by getting his license?
    This is what the LDS believe. It is a gift, given to all men, but it is up to us to learn how to use it. Expanding the analogy let us say that this father had three sons and gave each a car and told them they had seven years to get their license.
    The first son decides to sneak in and take it for a joy ride, disregarding his father’s words, and crashes it.
    The second sits in the car and admires the craftsmanship and quality. He invites friends over to look at it and feel it, bragging that his father has bought it for him. However, time passes and the seven years expire, and he has not yet obtained a drivers license.
    The third accepts his father’s gift, and then goes to work training and studying, and eventually receives his license.
    Which of these three will be able to use the car that their father has given to them.
    (For related stories, see Matthew 25).

  180. March 22, 2012 at 1:50 am

    Shem said: “First, it is still evident that no one hear (speaking of non-LDS) understands LDS doctrine. It is also growing ever clearer that they really don’t want to, but prefer to twist our doctrine to mean what they desire it to mean so that they can continue to disbelieve.”

    Everyone here understands LDS doctrine. We just don’t agree with your opinion of LDS doctrine. Your opinion of LDS doctrine does not necessarily reflect official LDS Doctrine. Your opinions aren’t official LDS doctrine. Likewise we have our own opinion of LDS doctrine that we are entitled to as well. Just because we disagree with you, that doesn’t mean we can’t hear or understand or that we are twisting LDS Doctrine. You in fact could be twisting official LDS doctrine (Not intentionally of course). I always desire to listen to what you have to say and to learn what you personally believe, but I don’t always agree with what you say nor do I believe your opinion is always in line with official LDS Doctrine.

    On the Adam God doctrine.

    Shem said: “What of the second: He is our God. Is this true? In a sense, for he is the grand head of our family and will rule as such on this earth in the eternities. He will do so under the direction of Christ, who will rule all the planets that have been created by His Father and will stand as the Head of the Gods in our generation. Adam, however, will be the god that is ruler, or president of those who live on this earth. So, Adam is our Father, and our God, but he is not our Heavenly Father, or the God that we worship. He is a great man and we revere him for the role that he plays in the plans of our Heavenly Father, but no one ever intended us to worship Adam.”

    Shem, YOUR CHURCH is making you look more and more foolish and YOUR CHURCH is making “YOU” look like a liar and a complete idiot. How can you fix this? Stop believing your CHURCH. Don’t be angry with ME, be angry with YOUR CHURCH. It is YOUR CHURH that makes you look like a complete idiot, not me. I am trying to rescue you from this because I think you have much more value and worth than your church thinks you have and I don’t think you are an idiot at all. Obviously they don’t mind at all making you look like a complete idiot. They just “USE” you to cover their deceptive tracks, lie’s and false teachings. And they “USE” you for your 10% Tithe!! Jesus nor the true church would ever do that to you! Watch and see for yourself. And remember, I do care about you and consider you a friend which is why I have to tell you the truth even if it hurts. You need to get into the TRUE Church of God…

    More quotes…

    “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a CELESTIAL BODY,…He HELPED TO MAKE AND ORGANIZE this WORLD. He is MICHAEL the ARCH-ANGEL. …Eloheim, Yahovah, and MICHAEL these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the DIETY, as Father, Son and Holy Ghost:” (JOD Vol 1:50-51)

    Great opposition arose which wouldn’t have happened if what you Shem were told to believe was really true…

    “The members were puzzled, even alarmed by this SHOCKING NEW CONCEPT. It was contrary to much that they had accepted as truth all their lives” (M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, Aug 1953, pg12)

    Joseph Lee Robinson in his journal and autobiography stated that he feared that the Apostle Orson Pratt would apostatize because of his opposition to the Adam-God Doctrine

    “Adam and Eve were the natural Father and Mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives, tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brothers and sisters, and that Adam was God our ETERNAL FATHER.” (Brigham Young, 6th attend conference)

    “ The mass of the Mormon people do not believe in the ADAM-DIETY, but of them all, one only, Orson Pratt has dared to make public protest against that doctrine” (The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint Scripture and Theology, page 38)

    Shem said: “but no one ever intended us to worship Adam”

    “Adam is our God – The GOD WE WORSHIP” (Apostle Lyman, Minutes of the School of the Prophets, Provo Utah)

    More quotes…

    “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which GOD REVEALLED TO ME-namely that Adam is our Father and God…Our Father Adam helped to MAKE THIS EARTH… Who is he? He is MICHAEL. .. He was the first man on earth and it’s FRAMER AND MAKER… Then he said: “I want my children who are in the Spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, IN A MORTAL STATE, I was faithful, I RECEIVED MY CROWN AND EXALTATION” (Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 14, 1873)

    “Adam NOT CREATED OF THE DUST OF THIS EARTH.” “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it WITH A CELESTIAL BODY…He HELPED TO MAKE AND ORGANIZE THIS WORLD” (JOD Vol 1, page 50)

    “You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. THIS I DO NOT BELIEVE…I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PORTION OF THE BIBLE” (Brigham Young Vol 2 page 6)

    “Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who BROUGHT THE ANIMALS AND THE SEEDS FROM OTHER PLANETS TO THIS WORLD”( JOD Vol 3, page 319)

    “Adam was our Father and God, and Eve, his partner, the Mother of a world-BOTH IN A MORTAL SENSE AND CELESTIAL SENSE” (John D Lee, Journal)

    “[Adam] said: “I want my Children who are in the spirit world to come and live here…I want my children that were born to me in the Spirit world” (Brigham Young)

    Shem said: “Young never intended us to believe Adam was the God we worship or the Father of Christ.”

    Adam was indeed considered the FATHER OF CHRIST…

    “Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Savior) who is the heir of the family is FATHER ADAMS FIRST BEGOTTEN IN THE SPIRIT WORLD” (Journal of L. John Nuttall, Vol 1, pp 18-21)

  181. 182 choosethechrist
    March 22, 2012 at 1:50 am

    Shem said, “speaking of works and grace and all that, people still want to claim that believing we must obey to attain exaltation means that we believe we earn that reward. This is not true.”

    Mormon exaltation is grace+works and Mormons are the ones doing the work. Doing the work requires obedience and the reward (exaltation) comes from being obedient in doing the work.

  182. March 22, 2012 at 3:07 am

    We keep skirting around this issue. Adam couldn’t possibly be a god anymore than Abraham, or Isaac or Jacob or anyone else for the very same reasons I explained on post 178. How do we know this. Because Jesus has already described what resurrected beings are like and it is not gods. (That of course does not even take into account the mutliple passages in Isaiah such as 44:6 and 44:8 and elsewhere where the Bible is clear)

    “24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

    “Shem said, “speaking of works and grace and all that, people still want to claim that believing we must obey to attain exaltation means that we believe we earn that reward. This is not true.””

    Shem – really we all know better than this. Its all about works and earning worthiness. Telling us this is not true is a pointless statement to make. We all know where works plays in to the LDS notion of “faith” and “grace”

  183. March 22, 2012 at 3:32 am

    “Shem – really we all know better than this. Its all about works and earning worthiness. Telling us this is not true is a pointless statement to make. We all know where works plays in to the LDS notion of “faith” and “grace””

    I guess if you keep repeating this over and over again, you must think it will be true…but it’s not. You again, are wrong and deceiving others.

  184. 185 Kent
    March 22, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Shem said, “speaking of works and grace and all that, people still want to claim that believing we must obey to attain exaltation means that we believe we earn that reward. This is not true.”

    Well then you don’t believe your own scriptures that say you must do the works of Abraham, enter into God’s law, and you will be saved. It also says isaac and Jacob did as they were commanded so they entered into their exaltation. Sounds like earning it to me.

    I find it ironic that Abraham especially, in the D and C anyway, was being obediant to God when he fathered a child by Hagar instead of his wife Sarah, and that is why he now has his exaltation as a god for having as many children as possible, with both Hagar and Sarah.

    Well the Bible teaches just the opposite that the children of Hagar are of the flesh, not the spirit, so Abraham was actually being disobedient to God by not having faith and waiting for the child that God promised to him and Sarah. (see passages from Galatians 4 below)

    Doctrine and Covenants 132:32-37

    32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

    33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

    34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

    35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, acommanded it.

    36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

    37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

    Galatians 4:21-31

    21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:

    “Rejoice, O barren,
    You who do not bear!
    Break forth and shout,
    You who are not in labor!
    For the desolate has many more children
    Than she who has a husband.”
    28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

  185. 186 Kent
    March 22, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Shem said, “speaking of works and grace and all that, people still want to claim that believing we must obey to attain exaltation means that we believe we earn that reward. This is not true.”

    But if you didn’t work for it you wouldn’t get it so isn’t that really earning it?

    D and C 132:32

    32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

    I think the conflict between how we, non Mormons, see Mormon beliefs and how Mormons view what they believe is that we are going by what Mormon scripture says while Mormons seem to be going by their perception of what they are doing. They see obeying isn’t working for it hence earning it, and we see being required to do work, as in doing the works of Abraham, as having to earn it.

  186. 187 choosethechrist
    March 22, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Kate said, “I guess if you keep repeating this over and over again, you must think it will be true…but it’s not. You again, are wrong and deceiving others.”

    The Conditional Atonement

    But the sacrifice which pays the debt and frees us from the results of our own spiritual death, though it comes to us through the grace and goodness of God, is not unconditional. ~Gerald Lund

    Here Mr. Lund is referring to the ordinances, and requirements for salvation, according to Mormonism. Paul tells us in Romans 11:6, when you add works to grace, grace is no longer grace.

    http://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/04/salvation-by-grace-or-by-works?lang=eng

    If a gift comes with conditions it’s not exactly free, can you then really call it a gift? When you make grace conditional by adding requirements to it you are saying Jesus died in vain.

    By attaching requirements to grace it’s no longer is grace, but the law. Mormons would have you believe faith is something you have to do, rather than a work God is doing in you

    Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

  187. 188 shematwater
    March 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    This will be my last post on this thread, as it is evident no one is paying attention.

    ECHO: I have frequently posted comments and doctrine taught by the General Authorities of my church, and you have ignored them. I have explained their meaning, sometimes using even more quotes, and you have ignored this. I do not teach my opinion without stating that it is my opinion, and so all your claims to not believing my opinion are merely your way of dismissing the true doctrine that I have explained so that you can continue to believe the false concepts that you have regarding us.

    One last comment on works, as it is clear that no one is listening.

    Works do not earn us salvation. That is a gift from God; as is eternal life. Neither one can ever be earned by anyone of us. However, like every gift, the giver has complete autonomy as to who he gives it to.
    For example, a scholarship is a financial gift that an organization gives to a person. It requires nothing on the part on the part of the recipient. However, each organization chooses to give it only to a person who meets selected criteria. This is frequently things beyond the persons control, such race, age, and even natural hair color. To receive the reward the person must first know that it is being offered, and then petition the organization for it. Once they have received the award they must enter into a contract on how they will use it, or they will loose it. At no time in this process does the recipient do anything to acquire the award, except making themselves known as desiring it. It is after the award is given that something is required to keep it.
    The same thing is true of grace, salvation, and works. Grace is our scholarship, and is thus a gift awarded to all the children of men. Through the preaching of the word we are made aware of it, and through sincere prayer we make our petition known in desiring it. God than grants us salvation, but requires that we enter into a covenant (baptism) to do as he has commanded or he will take it away.
    Note the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. All of them were given talents (grace), but only two did that which they should and increased them. The one that did nothing had what was given to him taken away and given to another.

    Now, this is the third analogy I have given trying to get it through to people what the LDS doctrine truly is. Please actually listen this time instead blinding yourselves to the truth.

    NOTE: Me and my wife are going to be sealed this Saturday.

  188. March 22, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Shem

    “NOTE: Me and my wife are going to be sealed this Saturday.”

    “Jesus says in Mark 12:24-25 “24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

    Still telling youself you believe everything he says?

  189. 190 joshtried
    March 22, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Shem, congratluations on the temple sealing. Hope you both enjoy it

  190. March 22, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Josh

    Demonstrating unbelief in what Jesus teaches is hardly anything to congratulate anyone about.

  191. March 22, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Shem said: “ECHO: I have frequently posted comments and doctrine taught by the General Authorities of my church, and you have ignored them.”

    With all due respect to you peronally Shem, I don’t ignore anything you say, your opinion of LDS Doctrine and quotes from authorities do matter to me. We just don’t blindly submit to everything that is said. Your General Authorities sometimes contradict each other and themselves. Please be patient with us as we attempt to show you these things or sort them out for ourselves.

  192. March 22, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    Shem…Congratulations!!!!! I am so happy for you!

  193. 194 choosethechrist
    March 22, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    Shem I pray with all my heart that you will someday come to understand this:

    “We now understand that families, (and friendships), indeed do have the potential to be eternal, not according to the LDS formula, (i.e. because two people once upon a time knelt at an altar in a stone building and had an incantation spoken to them), but because love itself is eternal, and binds us to one another. That is a message found woven throughout the fabric of the true gospel of the New Testament. Failure to understand that this kind of eternal reward is freely available to all followers of Christ, enslaves many LDS who fear they will lose their families by turning away from their temple covenants.” ~ Chris Ralph


Comments are currently closed.

March 2012
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 182,191 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 998 other followers


%d bloggers like this: