 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
drummer72
Posts:2930
 | | 04/12/2008 4:14 PM |
 Alert | | This topic is totally disgusting and should be deleted from the forum. | |
OBAMA NATION! | |
|
| | joe_2007
Posts:83
| | 04/13/2008 7:05 AM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 04/10/2008 1:48 PM
joe_2007 wrote:
I'll name two. For one thing, Moinmoin. Don't add things to a quote box and make it look like the other person wrote it. That makes you look dishonest. Just put your comments and narrations outside the box. I would appreciate if you would edit that post. As for the rest of your post,  WOW I am simply stunned. I was seriously speechless that you would make such rediculous excuses and claims to support your argument.
As I said, these are shopworn retreads from over 150 years.
1. David Patten's call to serve a mission is not a prophecy. It is no different from my mission call from Ezra Taft Benson in 1994 to serve as a missionary in northern Germany. Are you seriously saying that if I had been run over by a bus between receiving my call in June and leaving for my mission in August, that would have made President Benson a "false prophet?" The will of the Lord as expressed here was for David Patten to "settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can . . . that he may perform a mission unto me next spring." Don't you feel just a little bit silly trying to force this to be a failed prophecy by Joseph Smith?
WOW. Are you honestly trying to compare a phone call or letter that you got saying, "Time for your mission", to scripture. I would think that after 150 years of retread you would have something better than that. I cannot believe that you are trying to claim that when the church 'prophet' records in official church 'scripture' that "Verily thus saith the Lord: " that something will take place", that is not a prophecy. I looked around and I did not see your "call" recorded anywhere in the 'scriptures'. To anyone not trying to pull the wool over their own eyes, it is very clear that there is a big difference and your comparison is very laim.
No? Are you willing to apply this same standard to Jesus Christ? He promised Judas Iscariot that he would sit on a throne along with the other twelve apostles to judge the world (Matthew 19:28). Has Judas forfeited this privilege through His own choices and actions? If so, how is Jesus somehow not guilty of "false prophethood," too, especially given how you insist on employing David Patten's mission call?
Again you try to compare things by leaving out the meaning of the text. Matthew 19:28 28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Will Judas follow Jesus at the time of the regeneration? No. Jesus was not talking to Judas, that is why he did not say, "All of you will rule". He said, "Those of you who do this will rule"(paraphrased). I have to go for now, but WOW, You gave me a good laugh after the initial stun wore off.  | | | |
|
| | RichTig
Posts:1191
| | 04/13/2008 7:38 AM |
Alert | Posted By drummer72 on 04/12/2008 4:14 PM
This topic is totally disgusting and should be deleted from the forum. I was just cusious as to when the Mormons disavowed Polygamy, before or after it became illegal. I for one, am for it. The govenment shouldn't have any say as to what happens between 2 or more consenting adults. I don't condone the FLDS freaks in Texas, because those girls are children and can't make an adult decisionat 13yo. If you folks want to argue whose 'imaginary freind' is better, knock yourselves out. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:296
| | 04/14/2008 11:17 AM |
Alert | joe_2007 wrote:
For one thing, Moinmoin. Don't add things to a quote box and make it look like the other person wrote it. That makes you look dishonest. Just put your comments and narrations outside the box. I would appreciate if you would edit that post.
Using brackets ( [ ] ) in quotations is a standard way of providing context, provided that what one includes in the brackets is an accurate rendering of what it represents. Rather than just quoting you as saying “I’ll name two,” I added in brackets [alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith] so that it was readily clear what “two” meant. What I added in brackets is an accurate representation of what you said and intended in the post I quoted from (i.e., you alleged that the two passages you quoted constitute false prophecies). I’m baffled as to what your concern is here. Both pages of the thread are open for everyone to see.
As for the rest of your post, WOW I am simply stunned. I was seriously speechless that you would make such ridiculous excuses and claims to support your argument . . . WOW . . . To anyone not trying to pull the wool over their own eyes, it is very clear that there is a big difference and your comparison is very lame . . . I have to go for now, but WOW, You gave me a good laugh after the initial stun wore off.
I have to wonder, though, if you’re not overdoing how “lame” my response was, and how “stunned” you were in reading it — just a little? Especially when you have failed to address any of my examples from the Bible that your assumptions and conditions do equal or more damage to.
I looked around and I did not see your "call" recorded anywhere in the 'scriptures'.
I guess this is an attempt at wit, but it’s pretty juvenile, isn’t it?
I cannot believe that you are trying to claim that when the church 'prophet' records in official church 'scripture' that "Verily thus saith the Lord: " that something will take place", that is not a prophecy.
Are you honestly trying to compare a phone call or letter that you got saying, "Time for your mission", to scripture?
Yes, inasmuch as both came from God through a prophet. While a person’s mission call can be considered as scripture to that person, Modern mission calls are especially comparable to the what you referred to (Section 114). Note the similarities between phrasing and counsel in my mission call and “the word of the Lord” to David Patten:
Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world.
Dear _____________
You are hereby called to serve as a missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You are assigned to labor in the Germany Hamburg Mission. It is anticipated that you will serve for a period of 24 months . . . [Then follows counsel and instructions] You will also be expected to devote all your time and attention to serving the Lord, leaving behind all other personal affairs. As you do these things the Lord will bless you and you will become an effective advocate and messenger of the truth . . .
Note that the quoted portions are essentially the same: both instruct the missionary to settle his affairs in order to be able to devote himself fully to the work, unencumbered by outside considerations or influences.
Note the issues with precision of language that you, as a critic, display yet again, Joe. You quote the revelation as saying "Verily thus saith the Lord . . . something will take place." As quoted above, what follows “Verily, thus saith the Lord” is quite different: “It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring . . .” As with my mission call (“devote all your time and attention to serving the Lord, leaving behind all other personal affairs”), David Patten was instructed to “settle up his business as soon as he . . . can, and make disposition of his merchandise” so that he “may” serve a mission in the spring.
I understand that you insist that since David Patten was killed at Crooked River by a Missouri mob before being able to serve his mission, this constitutes “false prophecy.” You are unable to wrest this into a prediction of any kind without changing the wording into something that isn’t there. That he didn’t end up serving the mission (for obvious reasons) doesn’t make this a “false prophecy” any more than instances today of missionaries who receive mission calls but don’t end up going somehow “falsify” the prophet who issues them. In order to gain any traction from this, you must again apply an unrealistic and unbiblical standard to Mormon prophets that you exempt Bible prophets from.
That this mission call appears in scripture doesn’t make it somehow “predictive,” even if it doesn’t “predict.” The scriptural value of this passage is found in the next verse, which critics never quote: “For verily thus saith the Lord, that inasmuch as there are those among you who deny my name, others shall be planted in their stead and receive their bishopric.” The context of David Patten’s mission call is that certain men, Patten among others, were called to replace others who had been called but who had apostatized. The section as a whole stands as a reminder to Church members that those who fall away forfeit blessings, and that those who remain true will receive blessings intended for others (like in several of Jesus’ parables). | | | |
|
| | DaybyDay
Posts:221
| | 04/18/2008 2:19 PM |
Alert | Okay, well I am not sure. But, I do believe that early LDS taught that blacks and people of color were decendents of Ham, Satan's children? And while I don't know anything about LDS priesthood, I do know that the Bible says that once you proclaim with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that you are saved you are in the priesthood, in the order of Melchizdek. This is not something that you have to be given, or attain, or achieve. It is yours because of Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
And what is this royal priesthood that Christians attain? The same the Jesus has, through the order of Melchizedek- a royal priesthood (Hebrews 7).
In re to prophecy. There is a story in the Bible about a man named Balaam (Nov 22-24). Balaam was called by the King of Moab to curse the Israelites. Balaam is not a believer. He believed the curses or blessings as long as there was some benefit to himself (probably monetary). So, the king calls Balaam to curse Israel. While in a trance, the Lord opens the Spirit to Balaam and he begins proclaiming the Word of God. Does this make Balaam a believer? No! In fact, he tried to curse Israel and it didn't work, so instead, he led them to start worshiping other gods. The fact of the matter is that this did not make Balaam a prophet, it didn't even make him a believer. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:296
| | 04/19/2008 1:25 AM |
Alert | Posted By DaybyDay on 04/18/2008 2:19 PM
Okay, well I am not sure. But, I do believe that early LDS taught that blacks and people of color were decendents of Ham, Satan's children? Careful, here! Past Mormon leaders have taught that people of color are descendants of Ham, but they have never taught that they are Satan's children. I know that you are trying to understand, and are not trying to be offensive, but I hope you can see how the "poisoning of the well" by anti-Mormon critics creeps insidiously into the understanding of people like you ("I don't know, but I seem to remember hearing something about . . ." That's the whole point of their efforts, and why we Mormons strenuously try to dispel misinformation and misrepresentations. | | | |
|
|  | DaybyDay
Posts:221
| | 04/19/2008 8:44 AM |
Alert | I didn't realize that I had actually switched over from the "true prophet" thread to this one. I mean to be responding on the other thread- So sorry. I will try to make sure that I don't do that again- LOL. However, I did respond over there, so if you are interested, read it over there. | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:161
| | 05/08/2008 10:19 AM |
Alert | Moinmoin said: I think your question represents something that many people wonder, RichTig: are Mormons grudgingly "biding their time" until they can begin practicing polygamy again? Do Mormons just pay lip service in condemning the polygamist communities of offshoot, apostate Mormon groups? While some may have different views on this, most Mormons I know do not look for the return of polygamy. My personal view is that it served its purposes (rapid raising of several strong generations, sacrifice and commitment, vastly disproportionate national and international interest in Mormonism, etc.), and will not be reinstated on earth, but this is subject to the will of God as manifested through His prophets. [end quote] Sorry to bring this up again. my question would be if mainstream Mormons still believe (and are still taught) in the idea that plural celestial marriage will be practiced in eternity, although it is only practiced (in this world) by the fundamentalist mormon church? Wasn't it taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and many of the other founding prophets that polygamy was essential for exhultation?
| | | |
|
| | love@hm
Posts:436
| | 05/08/2008 6:26 PM |
Alert | I have never heard that it is ESSENTIAL, but is is something that will be practiced by some exahalted men and women. My understanding is it is not something that will be practiced by all exahalted men - which means it would not be essential.
That's the short answer - and I don't have a long one - surprised?
| | | |
|
| | DaybyDay
Posts:221
| | 05/08/2008 7:42 PM |
Alert | Interesting...what does it mean when you say only some will practice it? | | | |
|
| | love@hm
Posts:436
| | 05/08/2008 8:52 PM |
Alert | Pretty straight forward. I do not believe everyone will. I have not personally run into information concerning who will and who won't. I'm willing to guess those who practiced on earth, will continue to do so in the Celestial Kingdom. I have heard what I consider to be rumor (it was by a member, but it wasn't backed up, so I don't know whether it is true or not - mormonlore can run pretty rampant) that ONLY those who practiced on earth will practice in the Celestial Kingdom. I do NOT believe this is completely true, because there are men who are sealed to two women now - even though they are only ever legally married to one at a time (one is lost in death type situation - not just deciding to be sealed. . . )
You will find most members do not worry about it. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:296
| | 05/09/2008 3:10 AM |
Alert | itsadryheat wrote:
Sorry to bring this up again. my question would be if mainstream Mormons still believe (and are still taught) in the idea that plural celestial marriage will be practiced in eternity, although it is only practiced (in this world) by the fundamentalist mormon church? Wasn't it taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and many of the other founding prophets that polygamy was essential for exaltation?
Hey, this is tons better than the thread attacking the Pope and the Catholic Church! 
I think that most people understand this, but Mormons don't believe that FLDS (the group in Texas) and other apostate break-off groups that practice polygamy (and there are a number of ones smaller than FLDS) today are authorized by God to do so. Mormons believe that God suspended the practice through His prophet at the time, Wilford Woodruff, and that the unauthorized practice of polygamy is tantamount to adultery.
During the polygamy era (1852-1890), around 10% of men had more than one wife; best estimates place the total # of men and women involved in church-sanctioned polygamy to be around 25%. If it was taught to be essential for exaltation, why did only around 1/4 of Mormons practice it? It was believed to be essential for the exaltation of those who were directly commanded to practice it, but this was clearly not a blanket mandatory requirement. This is not to say that it wasn't believed by most Mormons to be important, but the reality is that not everyone could or did practice it, and their status in the hereafter wasn't called into question doctrinally (individual snobbery may have been another story in individual cases, but not with support of church doctrine).
If polygamy were believed to have been necessary for exaltation (living in God's presence in the hereafter), it would have been pretty demoralizing to have been among the other 75%, wouldn't it?
As has been asked and commented on, Mormons believe that polygamy will exist in the hereafter because sealings performed on earth (in person or by proxy, if accepted by those who have died) are eternal. Righteous women whose husbands are unworthy will receive worthy husbands, spouses die and people remarry, etc.
The following remarks by Brigham Young in 1853 are representative of the consistent counsel given regarding whether polygamy is required and necessary for exaltation:
You may see hundreds of Elders who say to the sisters, "come and be sealed to me" . . . They will tell you that you will go into eternity and find yourselves without husbands, and cannot get an exaltation,—that you cannot have this, that, or the other, unless you are sealed to them. I am free, and so are you. My advice to the sisters is, Never be sealed to any man unless you wish to be. I say to you High Priests and Elders, Never from this time ask a woman to be sealed to you, unless she wants to be . . . Magnify your calling to this Church, and I will warrant you an exaltation just as good and as great as you can ask for . . . I might notice many more items pertaining to this matter; but the Elders going round telling the sisters they must be sealed to them, or they cannot get an exaltation, particularly has wounded my feelings. How ignorant such men are! This to me is like a shadow. To talk about it is sheer nonsense. Let every man and woman magnify their calling in the kingdom of God, and he will take care that we have our exaltation.
Sisters come to me and inquire what they shall do, saying, Brother A. or B. taught me so and so. They are as wild as the deer on the mountains. Their ideas and calculations are derogatory to every shade of good sound sense and to every principle of the Priesthood of heaven.
Brethren, learn to be patient and submissive to your duty and callings in life, and not be anxious to accumulate to yourselves that which, when you have obtained, you are at a loss to know what to do with. There are scores of men in this house that, if they could pile up an almost unlimited amount of gold, in a short time would not possess one dime of it. There are also scores of Elders here who, if they had five hundred women sealed to them and a thousand children, would destroy themselves and those over whom they exercise any influence. They would not know what to do with them. You want to have another wife: but do you use well the one you have got? It is a bad omen to me when a man wants another wife, and the one he has got is ready to leave him. If you cannot keep the jewel you already possess, be cautious how you take more, lest you lose them both.
Let me hear no more "You must be sealed to me, or you cannot get an exaltation." . . . I say to you, my brethren, young men, you Elders, Rise up and magnify your calling, honour the Priesthood.
(Brigham Young, April 8, 1853. Journal of Discourses 6:307-308)
| | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:296
| | 05/09/2008 3:19 AM |
Alert | I should add that being sealed in the temple to a spouse and keeping the temple covenants are required for exaltation, but this is and always has been regardless of whether a man is sealed to one or more wives.
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood, meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage;
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase. (Ramus, Illinois, May 16, 1843. Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4)
The "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" refers to the revelation that marriages performed with priesthood authority in temples (sealings) are for time and eternity (eternal), not just "until death do us part."
Maybe this is where some people get the idea that plural marriage is required for exaltation? | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:296
| | 05/09/2008 3:26 AM |
Alert | Here is a good resource for questions about FLDS polygamy (currently a hot topic in the news with the raid in El Dorado, Texas). This is a joint document by the Utah and Arizona attorneys general (Mark Shurtleff and Terry Goddard) for the media and law enforcement officers and is very fair and objective in comparing historical Mormon polygamy with the practices of modern break-off groups:
http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/polygamy/The_Primer.pdf | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:161
| | 05/09/2008 6:45 AM |
Alert | | well | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:161
| | 05/09/2008 6:52 AM |
Alert | sorry about that one.
Well, don't mainstream and fundamentalist Mormons believe in the exact same doctrine? You all use the same books correct? And from my understanding, a core belief is that God was once man, who was exalted (through the practice of polygamy) and is God. Exhultation took a long long time. And during that process (or maybe after he became God) he decided to create the world (which is where we are) and only those who practice accoding to the Book of Mormon's principles can then become a god themselves. this done through polygamy and celestial marriage, may one day be able to become a god etc... "As man is, God once was. And, as God was, many may become" Lorenzo Snow.
Moinmon you said that it was your belief that polygamy will not be reinstated on earth. So does that mean you do believe polygamy will be practiced in celestial heaven? And if you aren't practicing it here on earth, where do the wives come from? Isn't it that men are sealed to their wife/wives here on earth? | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:161
| | 05/09/2008 10:41 AM |
Alert | I've read the polygamy primer that you provided a link to. Isn't that interesting? It talks like the fundamentalist groups as a completely different "beast" from mainstream Mormonism. It reads a little bit like a manual that I might use and study if I were working for the state of Arizona in child protective services. I mean, I guess it is with a title like "The Primer: Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities." Where is the primer that is taught in Mormon churchs all over the world that talks of polygamy in heaven? It seems like you treat them like "the ugly stepsister." Please note that when i say "You" I mean the Mormon church. Like, they just thought of this all themselves and now need help to see the right way. I think they see mainstream Mormonism as a "completely different beast" who needs to see the light. But the problem is that both believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet from God and that his teaching and prophecy's were directly from God. So either he was a prophet from God and what he said was true and correct or he wasn't and what he said wasn't true and correct. It seems like you want it both ways. You (being Mormoms) seem to want Joseph Smith as your prophet, but you also want the right to reject any of his doctrines that don't fit comfortably with today's practices. Either he was what he claimed to be (a prophet) or he wasn't. I don't see how you can have it both ways. | | | |
|
| | AmyB1
Posts:502
| | 05/09/2008 10:55 AM |
Alert | What does the bible say about a women having a "Harem of husbands"? If it says its ok too then I am going start taking applications........ | |
Senior Member: amyb
1800 or so posts
joined 2/21/2007 | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:161
| | 05/09/2008 11:05 AM |
Alert | | Where in the Bible does it say this? I would like to look it up in its context. | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:161
| | 05/09/2008 11:07 AM |
Alert | | At best, having many wives was culturally tolerated, but probably not what God intended or wanted. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|