 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
RichTig
Posts:1076
 | | 04/03/2008 9:38 AM |
 Alert | If you are going to follow a false prophet, it might as well be a horny one. | | | |
|
| | missPolitick
Posts:606
| | 04/03/2008 10:57 AM |
Alert | | I think polygamy would be kinda cool. Think of how much more free time you could have and how it could spice things up if u didn't have a jealousy problem! | |
Despite All My Rage I Am Still Just A Rat In A Cage | |
|
| | RichTig
Posts:1076
| | 04/03/2008 12:41 PM |
Alert | It would be nice to have a couple of extra-wives around. We could fire the maid and the landscape service. | | | |
|
| | missPolitick
Posts:606
| | 04/03/2008 5:41 PM |
Alert | That's what I'm saying. Plenty of slaves to do my work. I would be the hot one in charge and they would be the needy, ugly ones. Everyone wins. | |
Despite All My Rage I Am Still Just A Rat In A Cage | |
|
| | RichTig
Posts:1076
| | 04/03/2008 5:45 PM |
Alert | You could even make the others have a job or 2. | | | |
|
| | missPolitick
Posts:606
| | 04/03/2008 8:19 PM |
Alert | | Actually, I would prefer to be the wife who goes to work. I love my job and it pays well. They can babysit. | |
Despite All My Rage I Am Still Just A Rat In A Cage | |
|
|  | delby
Posts:0
| | 04/03/2008 10:16 PM |
Alert | | Speakin' of multi-tasking! | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:248
| | 04/04/2008 9:32 AM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 04/03/2008 9:08 AM How about the command in the New Testament Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. This should be another wake up call for the Mormons they are following a horny disillusional false prophet. Very disappointing, EEE. I thought you were classier than this. I respect that you strongly disagree with LDS theology, but throwing out epithets such as "horny" or "delusional" is beneath you (or should be). I’m glad you blew the dust off of this old canard (i.e., that the New Testament contains a "command" against polygamy). It’s one that Brigham Young, et. al. answered frequently. Its use raises a couple of questions, though . . . 1) If your interpretation of this verse is correct, would you agree that this verse indicates that polygyny (plural wives) existed to an extent sufficient enough to warrant addressing it? 2) To what extent do you believe polygamy existed among Jews in New Testament times (e.g., Levirate marriage, etc.)? 3) Are you aware that the Eastern Orthodox churches use this verse as a proof-text in support of their priests being married (as opposed to Roman Catholic priests, who may not be married)? They interpret it to say that a bishop must be married ("the husband of one wife;" husband of a wife — in other words, married). You are reading the word only into the verse, and it’s not there in the manuscripts. I think it’s clear that Paul is advocating that bishops should be married (for obvious reasons, given their responsibilities for relating to and helping people with struggles), not that they should be married to "only" one wife. The New Testament text does not address polygamy, one way or another. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:248
| | 04/04/2008 9:39 AM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 04/03/2008 9:08 AM God didn't reveal to Joseph Smith that having more than one wife was ok and then less than a hundred years later reavel to another person that polygamy should stop. This is the crux of the matter, not just in this case, but with the whole topic of revelation and prophets in general. Yet again, you and people like you demonstrate that you would not have accepted God’s prophets or Jesus had you lived in those days. Biblical prophets do not match up to your assumptions and expectations of prophets, and you would have joined the vast majority of people who rejected them as false prophets. What goes through your mind when you read the Bible? Especially when you fail to apply the same impossible standard to Jesus and biblical prophets that you hold Joseph Smith to? Does this cause any cognitive dissonance or mental stress? 1. Recall Jesus’ clear command not to take the gospel to the Gentiles, which He Himself "changed" and made an exception for, and which He later rescinded fully through revelation to His prophet and president, Peter. Your only response to this when I clearly laid this out in another thread was to make up something out of whole cloth which is not in the New Testament ("he said not to preach to them ‘while they were on their way.’ " What other way does one preach to people except while "on the way?" and then not to comment or respond further, but to let this drop. One can find other instances of Jesus Himself "changing" commands. For instance, He "commanded [the apostles] that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse" (Mark 6:8, Luke 10:4), but He later "changed" this: "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Where’s the outrage!  2. What do you do with the rest of the Bible? "Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. (1 Samuel 2:30) "And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people." (1 Kings 20:42) What do you do with the instances where Moses talks God out of His decrees and commands? 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:9-14) 11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them? 12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they. 13 And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them 14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. 15 Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, 16 Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. 17 And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my LORD be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, 18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. 19 Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now. 20 And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word: 21 But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. 22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; 23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it: 24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it. (Numbers 14:11-24) Doesn’t this go directly against your insistence that God may never deviate a whit from anything He has instituted or decreed? 3. The underlying principle with these difficulties is spelled out in a revelation given through the prophet Joseph Smith: "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord" (Doctrine and Covenants 56:4). This are clear examples of this in the Bible, but people like you wring their hands in horror at examples in modern times of God making changes in policies and practices. The fact is that God makes adjustments according to the needs of His children and their circumstances, and He sometimes revokes and remands previously enacted policies and practices. | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:305
| | 04/04/2008 1:38 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 04/04/2008 9:32 AM Very disappointing, EEE. I thought you were classier than this. I respect that you strongly disagree with LDS theology, but throwing out epithets such as "horny" or "delusional" is beneath you (or should be). I didn't describe all Mormons as such. It's evident Joseph Smith was a Horny and Delustional man. It's recorded even his mother said he had a wild imagination. And for one to start a religion with polygamy suggest he was horny. Perhaps another word could be used, but that's probably the most accurate. 1) If your interpretation of this verse is correct, would you agree that this verse indicates that polygyny (plural wives) existed to an extent sufficient enough to warrant addressing it? 2) To what extent do you believe polygamy existed among Jews in New Testament times (e.g., Levirate marriage, etc.)? I don't deny Polygamy existed but there was never a revelation or command from God that said to have it, rather the opposite. Since God created Adam and Eve God said: Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife(SINGULAR not Wives), and they shall become one flesh. 3) Are you aware that the Eastern Orthodox churches use this verse as a proof-text in support of their priests being married (as opposed to Roman Catholic priests, who may not be married)? They interpret it to say that a bishop must be married ("the husband of one wife;" husband of a wife — in other words, married). You are reading the word only into the verse, and it’s not there in the manuscripts. I think it’s clear that Paul is advocating that bishops should be married (for obvious reasons, given their responsibilities for relating to and helping people with struggles), not that they should be married to "only" one wife. LOL, who used the word only? I referenced that verse because it uses the numeral ONE before the noun wife. Plain as day moinmoin, plain as day. The New Testament text does not address polygamy, one way or another. Ok the word polygamy or addressing having many wives at the same time was not discussed however you can't deny(at least you shouldn't) that Paul used the word ONE before wife. Man should have ONE wife. It's interesting how Mormons twist the bible to fit their "revelations", instead of trying to filter their revelations through the Bible. | |
"...Sunday morning, in America, is the greatest hour of idolatry in the whole week. Why? Because most people, who are even worshipping God, are worshipping a God they don't know."---Paul Washer. | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:305
| | 04/04/2008 2:34 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 04/04/2008 9:39 AM This is the crux of the matter, not just in this case, but with the whole topic of revelation and prophets in general. Yet again, you and people like you demonstrate that you would not have accepted God’s prophets or Jesus had you lived in those days. Biblical prophets do not match up to your assumptions and expectations of prophets, and you would have joined the vast majority of people who rejected them as false prophets. Ok moinmoin. If it was the Father's Will, I would have accepted Christ back then. What goes through your mind when you read the Bible? Especially when you fail to apply the same impossible standard to Jesus and biblical prophets that you hold Joseph Smith to? Does this cause any cognitive dissonance or mental stress? Mental Stress, LOL…….No. Joseph Smith is far from Jesus. The Old Testament prophesied the events of Jesus. If one was familiar with the Torah, they should have recognized the coming Messiah. However since Salvation is of the Lord’s Will and not Man’s Will it’s understandable why they denied the coming Messiah. The Bible doesn't have any prophesy for the events of Jospesh Smith. You would think Revelations would have been a good place to put it wouldn’t you? Reading into the text that Ezekiel 37 references to the BOM is eisegesis at it’s best. 1. Recall Jesus’ clear command not to take the gospel to the Gentiles, which He Himself "changed" and made an exception for, and which He later rescinded fully through revelation to His prophet and president, Peter. Your only response to this when I clearly laid this out in another thread was to make up something out of whole cloth which is not in the New Testament ("he said not to preach to them ‘while they were on their way.’ " What other way does one preach to people except while "on the way?" and then not to comment or respond further, but to let this drop. It's pretty easy for a Mormon to add words to God's word, isn't moinmoin? Jesus never said do not take the gospel to the Gentiles. How about we quote Jesus: Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. No where in the script does Jesus give a command to his Apostles to not share the Gospel with the Gentiles. This is a clear command to the Apostles that they should travel to the covenant people. One can find other instances of Jesus Himself "changing" commands. For instance, He "commanded [the apostles] that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse" (Mark 6:8, Luke 10:4), but He later "changed" this: "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Apparently you, like the apostles, mistakenly took Jesus’ words as literal. When Christ sent them out before, he had sovereigntly arranged for their needs to be met. Henceforth they were to use normal means to provide for their own support and protection. The money bag, knapsack, and sword were figurative expressions for such means( the sword being emblematic of protection, not aggression). Terrible example moinmoin, terrible. I expect better from you. Where’s the outrage! Only outrage is when Mormons rip the Bible out of context. 2. What do you do with the rest of the Bible? "Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. (1 Samuel 2:30) "And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people." (1 Kings 20:42) What do you do with the instances where Moses talks God out of His decrees and commands? 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:9-14) 11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them? 12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they. 13 And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them 14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. 15 Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, 16 Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. 17 And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my LORD be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, 18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. 19 Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now. 20 And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word: 21 But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. 22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; 23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it: 24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it. (Numbers 14:11-24) Doesn’t this go directly against your insistence that God may never deviate a whit from anything He has instituted or decreed? You incorrectly assume as you read into the text, that man's will caused God to change his mind here, When if fact it was the soverign will of God for the events to take place the way they did. Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. You would have to say the bible is in error if you were consistent in your beliefs. Mal 3:6 is clear that God doesn't change. 3. The underlying principle with these difficulties is spelled out in a revelation given through the prophet Joseph Smith: "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord" (Doctrine and Covenants 56:4). This are clear examples of this in the Bible, but people like you wring their hands in horror at examples in modern times of God making changes in policies and practices. The fact is that God makes adjustments according to the needs of His children and their circumstances, and He sometimes revokes and remands previously enacted policies and practices. Again I quote myself: " You incorrectly assume as you read into the text, that man's will caused God to change his mind here, When if fact it was the soverign will of God for the events to take place the way they did. Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. You would have to say the bible is in error if you were consistent in your beliefs. Mal 3:6 is clear that God doesn't change." | |
"...Sunday morning, in America, is the greatest hour of idolatry in the whole week. Why? Because most people, who are even worshipping God, are worshipping a God they don't know."---Paul Washer. | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:248
| | 04/04/2008 3:48 PM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 04/04/2008 1:38 PM Posted By moinmoin on 04/04/2008 9:32 AM Very disappointing, EEE. I thought you were classier than this. I respect that you strongly disagree with LDS theology, but throwing out epithets such as "horny" or "delusional" is beneath you (or should be). I didn't describe all Mormons as such. It's evident Joseph Smith was a Horny and Delustional man. It's recorded even his mother said he had a wild imagination. And for one to start a religion with polygamy suggest he was horny. Perhaps another word could be used, but that's probably the most accurate. 1. It's telling that critics of polygamy can't conceive of any motivation other than sexual appetite for its practice. This fails to account for the actual men who practiced it and how it was practiced. 2. Where does Lucy Mack Smith say "he had a wild imagination?" Chapter and verse, please. I know what you're referring to, but I want you to take responsibility for your precision with language, especially given how you react to my treatment of Bible passages. "He had a wild imagination" is not an accurate representation of what Lucy said or its context, especially when hwat you are trying to use it for is considered. Can you provide the actual quotation? 3. You do realize that Joseph didn't "start" Mormonism with polygamy (precision with language, again!), right? This inaccuracy strikes me as being driven by your desire to portray Joseph Smith as much as possible as a sex-crazed maniac. I don't deny Polygamy existed but there was never a revelation or command from God that said to have it, rather the opposite. Since God created Adam and Eve God said: Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife(SINGULAR not Wives), and they shall become one flesh. In certain instances it was absolutely commanded (Levirate marriage, for instance). In other places, it is clear that God approved of the practice. Nathan the prophet, whom "the LORD sent . . . unto David," said: "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." (2 Samuel 12:7-8). Later, we are told that "David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (1 Kings 15:5), so the common claim that God allowed but didn't approve of David's polygamy falls short ("the matter" being David's adultery and murder, which naturally was a serious sin). As to your reference to Genesis, why did God obviously sanction and command polygamy, then? Why did He allow polygamy to play such a prominent role in the ancestry of Jesus and Israel? This verse would have to refer to a singular wife, as there were no other wives to be had!  LOL, who used the word only? I referenced that verse because it uses the numeral ONE before the noun wife. Plain as day moinmoin, plain as day. You interpret and insist on the reading having the meaning of "only" one wife, although it doesn't say "only." My point was that use of the word "one" may well be the same as the indefinite article in English (a or an), which can mean either one or refer to a singular subject or object. "The husband of one wife" could well mean "husband of a wife (i.e., married)," and this is the interpretation used by the Eastern Orthodox churches to justify their married priesthood. Are you really claiming that Paul was specifically addressing the possibility of polygamous clergy? Or, was he saying that bishops should be married? It's interesting how Mormons twist the bible to fit their "revelations", instead of trying to filter their revelations through the Bible. Who does the most twisting would be up to each individual reader. From my vantage point, you do a lot more twisting than we do. But then, we have the benefit of our "revelations" to confirm and clarify the meaning of the Bible. | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:305
| | 04/04/2008 5:11 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 04/04/2008 3:48 PM 2. Where does Lucy Mack Smith say "he had a wild imagination?" Chapter and verse, please. I know what you're referring to, but I want you to take responsibility for your precision with language, especially given how you react to my treatment of Bible passages. "He had a wild imagination" is not an accurate representation of what Lucy said or its context, especially when hwat you are trying to use it for is considered. Can you provide the actual quotation? Excuse me for summarizing for what she implied: ""During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and their animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." History of Joseph Smith by his Mother, 1954 edition, p. 83)" Of course to further the case that Smith was a false prophet with a vivid imagination, I'm sure you're more familiar with his claim of Men who lived on the moon. The best part is Brigham Young proving his false prophethood as well: "Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271) 3. You do realize that Joseph didn't "start" Mormonism with polygamy (precision with language, again!), right? This inaccuracy strikes me as being driven by your desire to portray Joseph Smith as much as possible as a sex-crazed maniac. You are right with in Ten years of having his vision with angel moroni he had a revelation from God that polygamy was ok.
In certain instances it was absolutely commanded (Levirate marriage, for instance). In other places, it is clear that God approved of the practice. Nathan the prophet, whom "the LORD sent . . . unto David," said: "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." (2 Samuel 12:7-8). Later, we are told that "David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (1 Kings 15:5), so the common claim that God allowed but didn't approve of David's polygamy falls short ("the matter" being David's adultery and murder, which naturally was a serious sin). Still no evidence of a command. What God allows doesn't prove it was a command from God. As to your reference to Genesis, why did God obviously sanction and command polygamy, then? Why did He allow polygamy to play such a prominent role in the ancestry of Jesus and Israel? This verse would have to refer to a singular wife, as there were no other wives to be had! Right!  Let's see what Moses writes here: Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
You interpret and insist on the reading having the meaning of "only" one wife, although it doesn't say "only." My point was that use of the word "one" may well be the same as the indefinite article in English (a or an), which can mean either one or refer to a singular subject or object. "The husband of one wife" could well mean "husband of a wife (i.e., married)," and this is the interpretation used by the Eastern Orthodox churches to justify their married priesthood. Are you really claiming that Paul was specifically addressing the possibility of polygamous clergy? Or, was he saying that bishops should be married? Sorry moinmoin, there is no case you can set up that would work for polygamy when looking at the greek used by paul for this verse(Titus 1:6) as well as 1 tim 3:2 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; The greek literally means in both verses "a one-woman man". You can argue as many do today, "Does that mean, I can remarry as long as I am with women?" Some argue Yes, some No. But in NO way is Polygamy Ok. Clear as Day. Sorry to disappoint you. | |
"...Sunday morning, in America, is the greatest hour of idolatry in the whole week. Why? Because most people, who are even worshipping God, are worshipping a God they don't know."---Paul Washer. | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:248
| | 04/04/2008 11:17 PM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 04/04/2008 2:34 PM The Old Testament prophesied the events of Jesus. If one was familiar with the Torah, they should have recognized the coming Messiah. But most did not, especially those who were steeped in the law and the prophets. Our time is no different; as Matthew reports, "And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." (Matthew 13:57). People past, present, and future are much more comfortable with prophets who are safely relegated to the distant past. The Bible doesn't have any prophesy for the events of Jospesh Smith. You would think Revelations would have been a good place to put it wouldn’t you? Reading into the text that Ezekiel 37 references to the BOM is eisegesis at it’s best. Well, you have John, who "saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" (Revelation 14:6). You have Isaiah seeing "the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." (Isaiah 29:11-14). You have Malachi’s testimony that God "will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:5-6). You have Isaiah prophesying "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem" (Isaiah 2:2-3). These are good for starters. They clearly refer to events and circumstances of the Restoration, and carry with them power and testimony for the elect. Jesus never said do not take the gospel to the Gentiles. How about we quote Jesus: Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. No where in the script does Jesus give a command to his Apostles to not share the Gospel with the Gentiles. This is a clear command to the Apostles that they should travel to the covenant people. As I said, we’ve been down this road before. In your thread on the change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon, I quoted what you have here from Matthew 10:5-6 and added: Jesus Himself, when asked by a Greek (Syro-phoenician )woman to heal her daughter, followed this same policy, first by ignoring her ("But he answered her not a word" , then by telling her "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24), and then by telling her "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs" (Matthew 15:26). Only when she replied that even "the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table" did Jesus . . . heal her . . . Jesus’ command not to preach the gospel to the Gentiles was so persistent and pervasive (as well His commands should be), it took a direct revelation to the president of the Church (president = one who presides), Peter, to change the policy and allow the gospel to go to the Gentiles (Acts 10). You replied to this: "God didn't forbid the disciples to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans if they encountered them on the way, but they were to take the message first to the covenant people, in the regions nearby." Your claim that "Nowhere in the script does Jesus give a command to his Apostles to not share the Gospel with the Gentiles. This is a clear command to the Apostles that they should travel to the covenant people" isn’t borne out by Jesus’ and His apostles’ actions. Why did they act this way, and why did it take the dramatic revelation to Peter and the angel and Cornelius to change this policy in the early Church? Apparently you, like the apostles, mistakenly took Jesus’ words as literal. When Christ sent them out before, he had sovereigntly arranged for their needs to be met. Henceforth they were to use normal means to provide for their own support and protection. The money bag, knapsack, and sword were figurative expressions for such means( the sword being emblematic of protection, not aggression). Terrible example moinmoin, terrible. I expect better from you. If I mistook Jesus' words as being literal like the apostles, I’m in good company, then, huh? Are you seriously suggesting that when Jesus "commanded [the apostles] that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse," this wasn't to be taken literally? Or that His later injunction to bring such things has some mysterious allegorical meaning? And you express outrage when "Mormons rip the Bible out of context?" And you reply that "it’s pretty easy for a Mormon to add words to God’s word?" You incorrectly assume as you read into the text, that man's will caused God to change his mind here, When if fact it was the soverign will of God for the events to take place the way they did. Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. You would have to say the bible is in error if you were consistent in your beliefs. Mal 3:6 is clear that God doesn't change. God changing policies and commandments to adjust to man’s agency and changing circumstances doesn’t mean that God changes, it means that God is able to fulfill His work while not encroaching upon man’s agency. I realize that TULIP Calvinists don’t believe in man’s moral agency, but you do realize that many non-Mormon Christians reject Calvinism as well, right? That is, many Christians throughout the years find true moral agency to be taught in the Bible. Five-point Calvinism is by no means self-evident or beyond dispute in the Bible. Look at how you are forced to deal with passages that clearly say things that are antithetical to your Calivinism (e.g., the passages cited where God changed because of man's choices). You are forced to say, "Well, that's what it says, but God is sovereign, all-powerful, and all-knowing, so it all had to have worked out exactly as He first intended, complete with the initial commands and the adjusted ones." | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:248
| | 04/04/2008 11:50 PM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 04/04/2008 5:11 PM Excuse me for summarizing for what she implied: ""During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and their animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." History of Joseph Smith by his Mother, 1954 edition, p. 83)" This is false witness, EEE. Lucy Mack Smith wasn't talking at all about her son having "a wild imagination," she was relating his recitals to his family of what he had learned through conversing with resurrected prophets from this hemisphere. You are trying to muster this into service to insinuate that his family kind of knew he was prone to tall tales ("wild imagination". What she "implies" here, as you say, is in the eye of the beholder. Of course to further the case that Smith was a false prophet with a vivid imagination, I'm sure you're more familiar with his claim of Men who lived on the moon. The best part is Brigham Young proving his false prophethood as well:"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271)
Precision of language, again. Anything and everything one may have said becomes a "claim" to you. I won't embarass you by asking you to provide the source for Joseph Smith's alleged "moon men" statement (hint: it's extremely late --- like the late 19th century --- and not first-hand by any means). For the sake of argument, I'll concede that Joseph and Brigham believed that the moon or sun were inhabited. So what? This shows that your standard of a prophet requires all prophets thoughts, opinions, views, etc. to be fully up to date with current scientific knowledge. A true prophet, according to you, may have no thoughts, opinions, views, etc. of his own; he must be a mindless, will-less automaton, a human fax machine, a puppet. He may not have personal views or believe anything about the natural world that later generations will discount. To you, any view expressed not in lock-step with modern scientific knowledge by Joseph or Brigham proves their "false prophethood," because God would never allow them to believe or entertain any thoughts that we now know to be wrong (such as life on the moon, which was not such a strange thought back then). Are you aware of the cosmology represented in the Bible? As far as I'm concerned, if Moses or Isaiah believed the world to be flat or the sky to be supported by pillars or waters to be restrained by the sky (the windows of heaven), that has nothing to do with the question of whether God spoke through them as prophets. I don't believe that "true prophethood" means that God body-snatches men and uses them as empty vessels. Right! Let's see what Moses writes here: Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. There is a world of difference between having plural wives and "multiplying wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (as happened tragically with Solomon). Isn't there? Especially when Moses was a polygamist? In addition to his wife Zipporah, daughter of Jethro, priest of Midian, he married an Ethiopian woman, and this caused criticism from Aaron and Miriam (Numbers 12:1). Are you saying that Moses disobeyed his own commandment concerning polygamy? Sorry moinmoin, there is no case you can set up that would work for polygamy when looking at the greek used by paul for this verse(Titus 1:6) as well as 1 tim 3:2 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; The greek literally means in both verses "a one-woman man". You can argue as many do today, "Does that mean, I can remarry as long as I am with women?" Some argue Yes, some No. But in NO way is Polygamy Ok. Clear as Day. Sorry to disappoint you. Oh, I'll find some way to soldier on!  Even if one concedes that Paul is prohibiting plural marriages for bishops, this raises other questions. Is he saying this would be all right for men other than bishops? As you say, he doesn't come out and condemn it. It's important to remember that Mormonism isn't based on proof-texts from the Bible; it's based on what the Bible is based on: revelation. The principle at the center of the polygamy question is spelled out in the Book of Mormon. After prohibiting the practice among the people, the prophet Jacob stated: "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 (i.e., the proscription against polygamy)" (Jacob 2:30) This is the current state of affairs as well. For about fifty years, God commanded polygamy, but since 1890, has commanded that it be discontinued. It's practice, as in past eras, is regulated by God and at His command, just as its discontinuance is. So, I wouldn't be so disappointed after all. God can give different requirements at different times, but our day is governed by God's current prophets and apostles. | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:305
| | 04/05/2008 10:13 AM |
Alert | Well, you have John, who "saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" (Revelation 14:6). Are you saying this is Angel Moroni? Do Mormons believe this verse to believe this is the prophecy of when Angel Moroni reveals the gospel to Joseph Smith? If so, the next verse would debunk that false claim: Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 1) “Saying with a Loud voice” - it’s funny how only Joseph Smith heard this Loud voice when it is intended for the World 2) Nothing says this is a different Gospel from the one the Apostles taught. 3) “Give glory to him” – I just make reference to this from our past conversation where you make the unbiblical error of saying God already has all the glory and here we see a clear example where we are to give him glory. Giving Glory to God is our reason for even existing. You provided no scriptural proof for your argument. 4) Who are the other 2 Angels in that passage according to Mormons? 5) If I told you I received a vision and God reveled to me more revelations, what makes you not believe me? How do you filter the good from the trash. I use the Bible, what do you use? I already know your answer, and here is my response: Jeremiah 17:9
You have Isaiah seeing "the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." (Isaiah 29:11-14). What is your point here? I am not going to try and keep guessing when what I type might be in vain and totally off point. You have Malachi’s testimony that God "will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:5-6). I’m sorry, you are going to have to help me. I don’t see how this verse proves your point. You need to explain the verses you post to help your claim, I’m not Mormon. J Are you saying Elijah is Joseph Smith or Moroni? You have Isaiah prophesying "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem" (Isaiah 2:2-3). Again, I don’t see what you are referring to. You want to make the claim that I would deny Jesus when the Old Testament made CLEAR prophecies for me to recognize him. Where is the clear prophecy to validate Joseph Smith as the Prophet to restore the true Gospel? Did Joseph Smith perform Wonders and Miracles like Jesus as his Apostles in the Bible to validate his claim? Pulling out a section here and there that are totally out of context if you read the whole passage, surely doesn’t give a hint that we need to keep a look out for Joseph Smith. You replied to this: "God didn't forbid the disciples to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans if they encountered them on the way, but they were to take the message first to the covenant people, in the regions nearby." Your claim that "Nowhere in the script does Jesus give a command to his Apostles to not share the Gospel with the Gentiles. This is a clear command to the Apostles that they should travel to the covenant people" isn’t borne out by Jesus’ and His apostles’ actions. Why did they act this way, and why did it take the dramatic revelation to Peter and the angel and Cornelius to change this policy in the early Church?
John 4 Jesus Witnesses to the Samaritan woman and then once she believed, she told others, some more believed. After the other Samaritans heard her testimony, they came to Jesus and then he witnessed to them and they believed. Case Closed. Gospel was even for the Gentiles before Acts 10. Please moinmoin, stop ripping the Bible apart to fit your views. If I mistook Jesus' words as being literal like the apostles, I’m in good company, then, huh?  Are you seriously suggesting that when Jesus "commanded [the apostles] that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse," this wasn't to be taken literally? Or that His later injunction to bring such things has some mysterious allegorical meaning? And you express outrage when "Mormons rip the Bible out of context?" And you reply that "it’s pretty easy for a Mormon to add words to God’s word?" Jesus had many spiritual examples including the above that were not understood. Remember the fig tree? Remember the parables? God changing policies and commandments to adjust to man’s agency and changing circumstances doesn’t mean that God changes, it means that God is able to fulfill His work while not encroaching upon man’s agency. I realize that TULIP Calvinists don’t believe in man’s moral agency, but you do realize that many non-Mormon Christians reject Calvinism as well, right? That is, many Christians throughout the years find true moral agency to be taught in the Bible. Five-point Calvinism is by no means self-evident or beyond dispute in the Bible. Look at how you are forced to deal with passages that clearly say things that are antithetical to your Calivinism (e.g., the passages cited where God changed because of man's choices). You are forced to say, "Well, that's what it says, but God is sovereign, all-powerful, and all-knowing, so it all had to have worked out exactly as He first intended, complete with the initial commands and the adjusted ones." I understand your frustrations trying to debate a Calvinist as your cookie cutter responses that might have stumped Arminians you’ve debated in the past don’t work on me. At least you are better then this Mormon debating a Calvinist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVr50cgApPI&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b
| |
"...Sunday morning, in America, is the greatest hour of idolatry in the whole week. Why? Because most people, who are even worshipping God, are worshipping a God they don't know."---Paul Washer. | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:248
| | 04/05/2008 12:12 PM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 04/05/2008 10:13 AM
Are you saying this is Angel Moroni? Do Mormons believe this verse to believe this is the prophecy of when Angel Moroni reveals the gospel to Joseph Smith?
Yes.
If so, the next verse would debunk that false claim:
Rev 14:7Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
1) “Saying with a Loud voice” - it’s funny how only Joseph Smith heard this Loud voice when it is intended for the World
What has been the fruit of the prophet Joseph Smith? The taking of the fulness of the gospel to the world. As you know, all people see figurative and literal things in Revelation; we differ on which is which, of course.
Do you agree that actual ministering of angels is described here? Or is this just figurative?
2) Nothing says this is a different Gospel from the one the Apostles taught.
I agree. Of course, we don't see the fulness of the gospel as "a different Gospel," we see it as the fulness. We have a full mirror, restored to the earth after the original one was shattered. Sectarian Christianity has gathered what pieces it could and tried to reconstitute the mirror.
4) Who are the other 2 Angels in that passage according to Mormons?
I don't know. But last I checked, Babylon hasn't fallen yet. I'd wager that that angel hasn't come yet!
5) If I told you I received a vision and God reveled to me more revelations, what makes you not believe me? How do you filter the good from the trash. I use the Bible, what do you use? I already know your answer, and here is my response: Jeremiah 17:9
The promptings and confirmation of the Holy Ghost. This is another unique aspect of Mormonism; much of non-Mormon Christianity frantically insists that we can't trust our feelings. This is the secret to Mormonism's growth and strength: we teach people to ask God for answer and to trust that He can give them. And the answers are clear in comparison to our experience; we can discern between true answers and our own inclinations, wants, etc.
Is Paul unreliable when he tells us about the "fruit of the spirit" (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance"? You're welcome to not trust your thoughts and feelings and impressions, but I know through experience that that's how God can talk to us if we're open.
What is your point here? I am not going to try and keep guessing when what I type might be in vain and totally off point.
This section from Isaiah 29 is exactly what happened when Joseph Smith sent Martin Harris to Charles Anthon at Columbia and Samuel Mitchell at Rutgers for professional opinions on a sample of the characters. Harris wanted to believe, but had some concerns, so Joseph Smith sent him. According to Harris,
"He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.
"He then said to me, 'Let me see that certificate.' I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, 'I cannot read a sealed book.' I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation."
Harris then mortgaged his farm to provide the $3,000 necessary to print the first edition of the Book of Mormon (as the publisher didn't think that he would be paid through sales of the book).
I’m sorry, you are going to have to help me. I don’t see how this verse proves your point. You need to explain the verses you post to help your claim, I’m not Mormon. J Are you saying Elijah is Joseph Smith or Moroni?
Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as a resurrected angel in the Kirtland temple in 1836 and gave Joseph the priesthood keys of sealing generations to each other in temples. I have met many non-Mormons who have felt this "spirit of Elijah" spurring them on to geneological research ("the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers shall turn to their children")
Again, I don’t see what you are referring to. You want to make the claim that I would deny Jesus when the Old Testament made CLEAR prophecies for me to recognize him. Where is the clear prophecy to validate Joseph Smith as the Prophet to restore the true Gospel? Did Joseph Smith perform Wonders and Miracles like Jesus as his Apostles in the Bible to validate his claim?
This one referred to the temple of the Lord being built "in the top of the mountains" in the latte |
|
|
|
|
|
|