 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
hastings1066
Posts:653
 | | 05/09/2008 4:33 PM |
 Alert | Posted By AmyB1 on 05/09/2008 10:55 AM 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........ I remember from my cultural anthropology classes that there have been societies in which women had plural husbands. This occurred in times and places when it took the work of more than one man to feed a family. This had the additional benefit of keeping the population down in areas with limited resources. As I remember it was the practice of brothers or cousins to mate with the same woman. Female infanticide would also be practiced. I do not think that you would like that situation. 
| | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:238
| | 05/10/2008 2:51 PM |
Alert | An example of this is in certain places in Nepal, where polyandry is practiced to prevent inherited property to sons from being massively divided over generations. By having all brothers marry the same woman, the land remains consolidated under one house.
Establishing paternity is difficult to impossible under institutional polyandry, which has a bearing on us in our (patriarchal) Judeo-Christian Western society. While there is never doubt as to who one's mother is under either polygyny or polyandry, there is a lot of confusion as to who one's father is under institutional polyandry. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:238
| | 05/10/2008 3:02 PM |
Alert | itsadryheat wrote:
Well, don't mainstream and fundamentalist Mormons believe in the exact same doctrine? You all use the same books correct?
It’s not even close to “the exact same doctrine.” There are many essential doctrinal differences. And mainstream Mormonism and fundamentalist Mormonism don’t use the “same books,” either, other than probably the Bible and Book of Mormon. There are big differences between acceptance and use of the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, temple ceremonies, etc. There are probably big differences between the two regarding interpretation of the Bible and Book of Mormon. How many different doctrinal branches are there within Protestant Christianity alone, although Protestant Christianity uses and accepts the same Bible?
And from my understanding, a core belief is that God was once man, who was exalted (through the practice of polygamy) and is God
You are ascribing something to mainstream Mormon belief that is not there, and wasn’t there (see the quotation from Brigham Young on page 2 of this thread). Although we believe that God has commanded certain people to practice plural marriage under priesthood direction, no one has claimed that exaltation is attained through the practice of polygamy.
It is also unclear within Mormon thought as to the extent to which God was once a man. For example, Joseph Smith taught that God the Father had been a Savior just like Jesus Christ is ours, but details are lacking on this, and most on this is speculation and not binding upon people to believe and be considered orthodox Mormons.
And only those who practice according 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.
A gentle correction on the above. The Book of Mormon isn’t our source for doctrines on exaltation, celestial marriage, etc.; those are derived from the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and modern prophets. The Book of Mormon itself focuses on the atonement of Jesus Christ (including resurrection), faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, and living righteously (the first principles and ordinances of the gospel).
Again, you ascribe an insistence on exaltation coming “through polygamy” that isn’t warranted. All we can say for certain according to accepted official doctrine is that celestial marriage is required (see section 131:1-4 quoted on page 2 of this thread). The inordinate focus on and obsession over polygamy is one distinguishing feature between mainstream and fundamentalist Mormonism.
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?
This is really quite simple. Belief in celestial marriage (marriage for time and all eternity) coupled with authorized polygamous sealings on earth will result in polygamy in the hereafter (a man who marries multiple wives on earth, for example). Sometimes women are sealed today to a man on earth whose wife has died, so he is sealed to both women, and these relationships will continue in the hereafter because they were sealed together with proper priesthood authority.
If I do not keep my covenants and am prevented from dwelling in the presence of God in the hereafter, and my wife keeps her covenants and is worthy of the celestial kingdom, she will be sealed to a worthy man. My failure to keep my covenants will not be able to harm her if she is otherwise worthy. It is conceivable that this will result in men having multiple wives in the hereafter who did not have them on earth. This belief of mine is not a “required” belief;” other Mormons may have different views on this. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:238
| | 05/10/2008 3:14 PM |
Alert | itsadryheat wrote:
Where is the primer that is taught in Mormon churches all over the world that talks of polygamy in heaven?
Although there is speculation among individuals, polygamy in heaven is really not a major, or even a minor, consideration with us. Sorry I can’t point you to any sort of “primer” on this! 
Section 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants spells out that we must be properly sealed to a husband or wife to be able to reach the highest level of the celestial kingdom. Section 132 is the major revelation dealing with celestial marriage, including plural marriage, where authorized.
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.
Fundamentalist offshoots of the mainstream LDS Church undoubtedly see the mainstream Church as an apostate one that “needs to see the light.” Not unlike how Catholic and Protestant Christianity often see each other, right?
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.
You seem to be oblivious to the record of God’s dealings with Israel in the Bible. Does the fact that we no longer practice animal sacrifice or ritual circumcision mean that Moses wasn’t a prophet of God? We actually have subsets of Christianity that focus on issues like this (Seventh-day Adventists insist that the Sabbath wasn’t changed with Christ’s ministry, and that it should be on Saturday instead of Sunday, for example). Many, many times in the Bible, God institutes policies and practices that He later suspends or replaces, according to circumstances and His plan and will.
Where do we Mormons “want the right to reject any of his doctrines that don't fit comfortably with today's practices?” We believe that God instituted authorized plural marriage from the 1830s to 1890, and we believe just as firmly that He suspended its practice by revelation to His prophet. This is no rejection of any of Joseph Smith’s doctrines, including celestial (and sometimes plural) marriage. It simply reflects our belief that God continues at all times to lead His church, which leads to changes in policies and practices at different times.
You seem to be arguing that God is physically not capable of commanding a practice and prohibiting it at a later time. Can’t God do what He wants? Isn’t the real question whether or not what happened at either time was God’s will?
| | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:130
| | 05/10/2008 3:39 PM |
Alert | Where did God say that polygamy was a requirement for anything, exhultation or otherwise? Use the Bible please, not the book of Mormon or the doctrine of covenants. I think you might be hard pressed to find a verse in which this was a God given command.
No, I don't know, I don't think Catholic and Protestants, or Christian groups view each other as apostates (if I am using your definition correctly). We may practice things differently, but overall, we all believe that God is the Father, always was, is and will be, Jesus is God's Son. That does not change.
When God commanded the people to practice animal sacrifices etc...that was becuase there was a blood requirement for forgivness of sins. It was a way of atonement for the person who needed to go before God. The reason why we do not practice this anymore, and this is no longer a requirement, is because of Jesus Christ. Who, shed his blood on the cross for our sins. So, we no longer have to engage in blood sacrifice or rituals of that sort. Jesus, being the Son of God, took the place of that for us. If not for Jesus, those of us who believe in God, would probably still be offering animal sacrifices for forgiveness and atonement.
The Bible says that it [Bible] is the complete testiment of the Lord and that we do not need any further documents, books etc...for that.
I know that growing up, Mormons never used to call themselves Christians. At least the ones met. This seems to be a new phenomenon. Like, someone would say I am a Catholic, or I am a Baptist...but Mormons would never say I am a Christian. Which is what you all do now. Just because the name Jesus Christ is in the title, doesn't make it so. I believe that Christian churchs and Mormons have very very different definitions of who God is, who Jesus is, Who the Holy Spirit is.
God is not physical. He is spiritual. I think he did make changes i.e. animal sacrifices and rites in the OT to Jesus Christ...no more animal sacrfices/rituals in the New Testament. I think God was clear that The Bible is all we need to know for our salvation. He never said Oh here is Jesus for your salvation...but wait, let me change that. Using the Bible, where in Scripture has God gave a word and then changed his mind? I absolutely believe that God continues to lead his church. 100%. But, I believe he leads it through the Bible (which has been proven accurate historically and anthropoloigcally)-is anthropoligcally a word?- LOL. | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:130
| | 05/10/2008 3:46 PM |
Alert |
It’s not even close to “the exact same doctrine.” There are many essential doctrinal differences. And mainstream Mormonism and fundamentalist Mormonism don’t use the “same books,” either, other than probably the Bible and Book of Mormon. There are big differences between acceptance and use of the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, temple ceremonies, etc. There are probably big differences between the two regarding interpretation of the Bible and Book of Mormon. How many different doctrinal branches are there within Protestant Christianity alone, although Protestant Christianity uses and accepts the same Bible? Really? I can go into my Mormon neighbors houses and probably find copies of all of these books right on their shelves. Whether you read out of them everyday, I don't know. But, these are core books of your religion right?
And from my understanding, a core belief is that God was once man, who was exalted (through the practice of polygamy) and is God
Hmmm, I thought that it was a common belief that God was once a man who become God because of the things he did. I know that as a Christian, we don't believe that God was once a man. Why do we need to be saved by a man? Man is flawed. If God was once a man, this does not equal to what the Bible says. The bible says God was always God. God is Alpha and Omega, the beginning at the end. It is also unclear within Mormon thought as to the extent to which God was once a man. For example, Joseph Smith taught that God the Father had been a Savior just like Jesus Christ is ours, but details are lacking on this, and most on this is speculation and not binding upon people to believe and be considered orthodox Mormons.[quote/] This is not unclear to Christians. God is God. He was not once a man. Joseph Smith also taught that Jesus was not born of a virgin birth. Whereas Christians believe this because it says so in the Bible.
A gentle correction on the above. The Book of Mormon isn’t our source for doctrines on exaltation, celestial marriage, etc.; those are derived from the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and modern prophets. The Book of Mormon itself focuses on the atonement of Jesus Christ (including resurrection), faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, and living righteously (the first principles and ordinances of the gospel).[quote/] Yes, I am sorry. I knew this. I just got a little carried away~~~~~ | | | |
|
|  | itsadryheat
Posts:130
| | 05/10/2008 3:48 PM |
Alert | | MM, thanks for entering into this discussion. I would hope that others would weigh in too. Its very interesting to me. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:238
| | 05/12/2008 6:57 AM |
Alert | I agree! A fun and interesting discussion.
itsadryheat wrote:
I think you might be hard pressed to find a verse in which polygamy was a God given command.
Does the Law of Moses count as “a God-given command?” 
The Law of Moses required it in specific instances, and large-scale polygamy among Israel is indisputable given population statistics in the Old Testament. I refer you to my lengthy post on page one of this thread (near the bottom), which actually didn’t mention Levirate marriage, another Law of Moses requirement. This required men whose brothers died to marry their sisters-in-law and “raise up seed” in their brothers’ names (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)
When God commanded the people to practice animal sacrifices etc. . . that was because there was a blood requirement for forgiveness of sins. It was a way of atonement for the person who needed to go before God. The reason why we do not practice this anymore, and this is no longer a requirement, is because of Jesus Christ. Who, shed his blood on the cross for our sins. So, we no longer have to engage in blood sacrifice or rituals of that sort. Jesus, being the Son of God, took the place of that for us. If not for Jesus, those of us who believe in God, would probably still be offering animal sacrifices for forgiveness and atonement.
We’re in complete agreement on this! God has very good reasons for suspending, discontinuing, or replacing certain practices that He previously required. That’s what Mormons believe He did with authorized plural marriage in 1890 . . .
It may interest you to know that a prophet in the Book of Mormon explained things exactly as you did above. Animal sacrifice from the days of Adam looked forward to the great eternal and last sacrifice. Writing around 74 B.C., the prophet Amulek taught:
(Alma 34:13-14) 13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.
The resurrected Christ, when he visited peoples in the Western Hemisphere, emphasized that His atonement ushered in a “higher law” of sacrifice:
(3 Nephi 9:19-20) And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.
20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost,
As you note, the authorized doing away or replacement of practices and policies of God in former times does not negate the central realities of the gospel. The question is always, not “Was there a change?”, but “Was the change the will of God?”
The Bible says that it [Bible] is the complete testament of the Lord and that we do not need any further documents, books etc...for that.
Where does the Bible say that? Keep in mind that “the Bible” did not exist at the time any passage you may cite (such as Revelation 22:18-19) was written. “The Bible” is read into the text by modern-day Bible inerrantists.
I know that growing up, Mormons never used to call themselves Christians. At least the ones I met. This seems to be a new phenomenon. Like, someone would say I am a Catholic, or I am a Baptist...but Mormons would never say I am a Christian. Which is what you all do now.
Mormons have always considered themselves Christian, and until comparatively recently, non-Mormons generally acknowledged that Mormons fit under the “Christian” heading. Here is a survey of statements that demonstrate this from the 1830s to the present:
http://tinyurl.com/6774a6
In the 1980s, evangelical Protestantism, primarily led by the Southern Baptist Convention, began a campaign to brand Mormons as “not Christian” in response to alarming numbers of their members being baptized into the LDS Church. During the Romney campaign, I was surprised to see an admission along these lines from Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention (note: the link to a yahoo news article via Reuters is no longer active; I tried. This is copied from a post of mine at the end of November):
As reported in Reuters last week, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention “regard[s the LDS Church] as a competitor that is winning — or poaching — converts from among the evangelical flock.” According to Dr. Richard Land of the SBC, “There are now more Mormons that used to be Southern Baptist than any other denomination . . . As a consequence, Southern Baptists and other evangelicals have taught their people what Mormons believe . . . to inoculate them against those Mormon missionaries.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071121/pl_nm/usa_politics_romney_dc_1
I’ll have to take Dr. Land’s word for this. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t keep records on the denominations that converts belonged to prior to baptism, and it’s hard for me to see how he could possibly know that “there are now more Mormons that used to be Southern Baptists than any other denomination.”
Part of the fallout from this attempt to marginalize Mormons as “non-Christians” has been a marked increase in people doggedly referring to themselves as “Christians” (as opposed to Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.). This trend has led to Mormons and others not automatically referring to themselves as “Christians,” even thought they consider themselves to be Christians, because they feel a need to not be swallowed up into this relatively new, collective “Christian” identity. I have personally participated in something close to the following dialogue with increasing frequency over the last few years, leading me to wonder just where these “talking points” originated and how they became so effectively transmitted:
Jimmy: Moinmoin, are you a Mormon?
Moinmoin: Yes, I am. What religion are you?
Jimmy: I’m Christian.
Moinmoin: Well, we’re Christians, too. What church to you go to?
Jimmy: I go to Trinity Lutheran. Mormons are Christian? That’s not what I’ve heard.
Moinmoin: We believe in Jesus Christ. What does “Christian” mean to you? So, you’re Lutheran?
Jimmy: No, I’m Christian.
Moinmoin: Yes, I think we’ve established that. How about you, George, you’re Catholic, aren’t you?
George: Yes.
Jimmy: Catholics aren’t Christian.
Moinmoin: Sure they are. They believe that Jesus Christ died and atoned for us.
While I’m used to the subtle, underlying “Mormons aren’t Christian” in day-to-day interactions, I have noticed almost identical attempts to marginalize Catholics along the same lines, as simulated above.
God is not physical. He is spiritual.
Can you clarify what this means and point to Bible passages that clearly lay out what the difference between “physical” and “spiritual” is? Hint: your world-view here is not “biblical;” it is based on tradition and assumption.
[God] never said, Oh here is Jesus for your salvation...but wait, let me change that. Using the Bible, where in Scripture has God given a word and then changed his mind?
Where to start?
— 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 . . .
14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people (Exodus 32:9-11, 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.
[Moses begs God not to do this . . .]
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 (Numbers 14:11-20)
— “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” (1 Samuel 2:30; this is where God reversed a previous decree that the house of Eli would serve in their priestly offices forever)
— “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. How did a man get let go whom God had appointed to utter destruction?)
— “1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD . . .
4 And Jonah began to enter into the city . . . and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them . . .
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”
(Jonah 3:1-5, 10).
— 1 Then [Jesus] called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. (Luke 9:1-3, Mark 6:7-9)
36And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 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. (Luke 22:36-37).
Again, none of these changes recorded in the Bible negated God’s plan to save His children. And neither have changes, such as the discontinuance of polygamy in Mormonism in 1890, or the Vatican II changes within Roman Catholicism. It’s comforting for me to know that God allows His children free will and moral agency, and that He is all-powerful enough to adjust to the circumstances and conditions that His children bring about on earth because of their choices.
| | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:238
| | 05/12/2008 7:04 AM |
Alert | itsadryheat wrote:
Really? I can go into my Mormon neighbors houses and probably find copies of all of these books right on their shelves. Whether you read out of them everyday, I don't know. But, these are core books of your religion right?
Yes, the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price “are core books of [the mainstream Mormon] religion,” as you say. We call these the “Standard Works,” and they are the primary repository of official doctrine.
And that was my point. Fundamentalist offshoots do not use our Doctrine and Covenants; they either have their own with revelations foreign to mainstream Mormonism, or they use the 1833 Book of Commandments or something like that. They probably don’t use our version of the Pearl of Great Price, either. While they share a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, there are huge, fundamental doctrinal and practical differences between mainstream Mormonism and fundamentalist Mormonism, even extending to the “core books.”
Hmmm, I thought that it was a common belief that God was once a man who become God because of the things he did.
Delete “because of the things he did” and you would more accurately reflect Mormon belief. As I’ve said before, we don’t know details about what God’s life on an earth entailed. The common non-Mormon representation is that we believe God was some “Joe six-pack,” a regular guy, before climbing the corporate ladder, and I don’t think this is a common view at all among Mormons. Remember, Joseph Smith taught that God had been a Savior, like Jesus Christ in our world.
I know that as a Christian, we don't believe that God was once a man.
But you believe that Jesus is God, right? Was Jesus a man? Not “just” a man, not “a regular guy,” but Jesus took upon Himself the experience of mortality, right? Doesn’t your religious tradition make much of Jesus being “fully God and fully man?” For the sake of argument, would it be inaccurate to say on a later world with Jehovah/Jesus’s created spirit children that “God was once a man?”
Joseph Smith also taught that Jesus was not born of a virgin birth.
This is completely incorrect. Joseph Smith never said anything like this. What anti-Mormon critics bring up, and which you apparently have in mind, are a couple of statements by Brigham Young that emphasize the literalness of Jesus being the “only begotten Son of the Father.” In the nineteenth century, there was only one way to beget (father) children, and critics delight in the “scandal” of Brigham’s statements. But Brigham Young was still insistent that Mary was a virgin, having not “known” man. Non-Mormon Christianity doesn’t consider Mary to have not been a virgin even though she clearly conceived a child by divine means; they just have never speculated on the mechanics behind how God accomplished this. Of course, in our day, with our crude instruments and techniques, it is completely possible for a woman to conceive without sexual intercourse (e.g., in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, etc.). It wouldn’t have been a problem for God.
Question for you, though: How many chromosomes did Jesus have? He had to have had 46, right? Did He get 23 from His mother and 23 from His Father, just like you and I did? | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:130
| | 05/12/2008 9:23 AM |
Alert | Me: Why did I know that you would cite the Israelites as people who God said one thing but then changed his mind about what he was to do. Why did he change his mind? Because they repented. Gosh, wouldn't it be awful if everything I did was immediately judged? Would there be anyone left. Thankfully, the Lord "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
Exodus 34:5-7.
There been some problems regarding that Baptist convention that you referred to? Many Christian church do not attend that convention nor give validity to it because of some things that have come out of it. I don't think that if you went to the average Calvary Chapel or Christian/protestant church and asked the senior pastor if they thought that Mormons were Christians that you would get a positive answer. It would seem that the LDS church as recently adopted the stance of calling themselves Christians as a means to bring more converts. To me, it is part of the deception. The LDS church and the Chrsitian churchs do not believe in the same God, Jesus or Holy Spirit. Yes, Jesus became a man. But, he was fully God too. God was never a man. God was always God. Even if Brigham Young speculated to the contrary, LDS still count him as one of their great prophets and teachers. I have yet to hear one Christian church even speculate that God was once a man or that the virgin birth did not occur.
Moinmoin: But you believe that Jesus is God, right? Was Jesus a man? Not “just” a man, not “a regular guy,” but Jesus took upon Himself the experience of mortality, right? Doesn’t your religious tradition make much of Jesus being “fully God and fully man?” For the sake of argument, would it be inaccurate to say on a later world with Jehovah/Jesus’s created spirit children that “God was once a man?”
No, It is not accurate to say on a later world that Jesus created spirit children. Where in the Bible does it say that God created another world? It states in the beginning God created the heaven's and the earth. No where does it state that he created another world. God is not ambiguous or unclear. On the contrary, he is quite clear on a great many things. If God has once been a man, exhulted through polygamy, creating a new world, he would have said just that. This would be proven in the text, as the Bible as been proven already.
Moinmoin: Question for you, though: How many chromosomes did Jesus have? He had to have had 46, right? Did He get 23 from His mother and 23 from His Father, just like you and I did?
Is this your proof that the virgin birth did not happen? That is could not have happened becuase Jesus had the correct number of chromosomes?
Moinmoin: Non-Mormon Christianity doesn’t consider Mary to have not been a virgin even though she clearly conceived a child by divine means; they just have never speculated on the mechanics behind how God accomplished this. [quote/]
I can tell you how God accomplished this, Matthew 1: 18 says, This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Moinmoin: Delete “because of the things he did” and you would more accurately reflect Mormon belief. As I’ve said before, we don’t know details about what God’s life on an earth entailed. The common non-Mormon representation is that we believe God was some “Joe six-pack,” a regular guy, before climbing the corporate ladder, and I don’t think this is a common view at all among Mormons. Remember, Joseph Smith taught that God had been a Savior, like Jesus Christ in our world.
No, I don't think that non-Mormons believe that you believe that God was "Joe six pack." But, that fact that you believe that he was a man at all is precisely a point that we differ. The Bible does not say that God wa sa man, a Joe six pack, or a Tom Cruise figure. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be saved by someone who was a man, who had to work out their own salvation before he could offer it to me. How do I know that he got it right? Isnt' it better to be saved, by Grace, through the Alpha and Omega- the beginning and the end? To me, there is no question. Man is flawed. Which is why we cannot save ourselves. No matter how hard we try to hit the bullseye, we will never hit it every time. Ephesians 2:8 says 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— and 2 Timothy 1:9 says 9who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.
| | | |
|
| | DaybyDay
Posts:199
| | 05/12/2008 7:21 PM |
Alert | I also would add that God's changing his mind about Israel wasn't arbitrary. It was part of His plan to get them to rely on Him Next, I would add that if pluraly marriage was so important to our "exhultation" then I don't think God would have changed it...saying that it was okay for one time and not okay for another. The Bible has consistently given only one way to salvation- Jesus Christ only. | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:130
| | 05/12/2008 7:24 PM |
Alert | | I am sorry about my post. I was trying to quote...and it came out a mess. I don't see how I can edit it, so I hope that interested readers are able to decipher it. -sorry | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:130
| | 05/12/2008 7:30 PM |
Alert | | There, that might be better -LOL | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:238
| | 05/13/2008 4:19 AM |
Alert | Why did I know that you would cite the Israelites as people who God said one thing to but then changed his mind about what he was to do?
Well, since you insisted that I only use the Bible, I’d say that the chances of my examples having to do with Israelites was pretty high!
Why did he change his mind? Because they repented. Gosh, wouldn't it be awful if everything I did was immediately judged? Would there be anyone left?
Exactly! I agree 100%. We agree that God changes His approach or requirements of His people at times according to their choices, righteousness, etc. But you don’t seem to allow this principle to be at work with respect to changes in policy and practice in Mormon history. Isn’t that a double standard?
I don't think that if you went to the average Calvary Chapel or Christian/protestant church and asked the senior pastor if they thought that Mormons were Christians that you would get a positive answer.
I’m sure you’re right! How much of this is out of a sincere belief that Mormons truly aren’t Christian, though, and how much of this is due to pastors wanting to poison the well for their flocks by way of inoculation?
It would seem that the LDS church as recently adopted the stance of calling themselves Christians as a means to bring more converts.
Did you go to that link I posted? Mormons have consistently referred to themselves as Christians since the founding of the Church, and non-Mormons have consistently considered Mormonism to fit under the umbrella of Christianity until relatively recent times. Mormons have become increasingly vocal about their Christianity in proportionate response to non-Mormon attempts to marginalize and isolate them.
Yes, Jesus became a man. But, he was fully God too. God was never a man.
Jesus was! Fully God, fully man. And when Jesus creates worlds and peoples them with His spirit children, it will be accurate to say their God was once a man, without detracting one iota from His Godhood.
Where in the Bible does it say that God created another world? It states in the beginning God created the heaven's and the earth. No where does it state that he created another world.
“In the beginning” of what? Your assumption that this is the beginning of absolutely everything is tradition and assumption, nothing more. This can just as easily be read to be the account of the beginning of our world. In fact, the actual wording is “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
And, you do believe that God created other worlds. The solar system? Galaxies? The rest of the universe? God created those, didn’t He?
Moinmoin: Question for you, though: How many chromosomes did Jesus have? He had to have had 46, right? Did He get 23 from His mother and 23 from His Father, just like you and I did?
Itsadryheat: Is this your proof that the virgin birth did not happen? That is could not have happened because Jesus had the correct number of chromosomes?
Let me be clear: I believe in the virgin birth. Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. I have never said that the virgin birth didn’t happen. You brought up the allegation that Mormons somehow deny the virgin birth. My point here is that part of Jesus being “fully man” involved Him having 46 chromosomes, just like all of us. And being “the Only Begotten Son of the Father” entails Him inheriting 23 chromosomes from His Father. Being “fully man and fully God,” He had the ability to die but the ability to take up His life again and be resurrected, and this opened up the resurrection to all of us.
I detect a certain uneasiness for you with the question of whether half of His chromosomes were from His Father, and my point is that His genetic inheritance in no way contradicts the virgin birth. We today have means of bringing about conception without sexual intercourse, and the virgin birth was brought about in some way we don’t know through the Holy Ghost, as you have said. This wouldn’t have been a problem for God.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to be saved by someone who was a man, who had to work out their own salvation before he could offer it to me. How do I know that he got it right?
And yet, you have no problem accepting salvation from “someone who was a man” who, though without sin, had to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15) and “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). If the Father was a Savior in the same sense as Jesus is ours, we can have full confidence and trust in Him, can't we? Don't we have full faith and confidence in Jesus Christ? | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:238
| | 05/13/2008 4:39 AM |
Alert | Posted By DaybyDay on 05/12/2008 7:21 PM I also would add that God's changing his mind about Israel wasn't arbitrary. It was part of His plan to get them to rely on Him I agree; God doesn't do things arbitrarily. And yet, critics of Mormonism refuse to allow God this same flexibility in Mormon history. God can intend to take Israel into the promised land, decide to whipe them out, and then determine to let them wander for 40 years in the wilderness, and that's fine. But God can command the Mormons to build a temple in Jackson County, Missouri, and when it doesn't happen because of enemies and failures on the part of Mormons, these same critics are relentless and immovable in insisting that God's prophet was a false prophet. This is a double standard. Next, I would add that if plural marriage was so important to our "exaltation" then I don't think God would have changed it...saying that it was okay for one time and not okay for another. The Bible has consistently given only one way to salvation- Jesus Christ only. Again, it was never required for everyone's exaltation; Mormon scriptures are clear that celestial (eternal marriage) is (which today is monogamous). But how would changes in marriage policy have been a deviation from the "one way to salvation --- Jesus Christ only?" Mormons' worship of Jesus Christ and commitment to the essentail principles of the gospel remain unchanging, even if and when God changes certain policies. | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:130
| | 05/13/2008 9:07 AM |
Alert | Well, since you insisted that I only use the Bible,
I insisted on this because the Bible is the only book that has been proven historically factual.
I’m sure you’re right! How much of this is out of a sincere belief that Mormons truly aren’t Christian, though, and how much of this is due to pastors wanting to poison the well for their flocks by way of inoculation?
No, I think it is out of fact for the reasons that have been already explained as to why Christians do not believe that LDS are Christians. For reasons related to who God is, who Jesus is, the Holy spirit...the Trinity to name a few.
"In the beginning” of what? Your assumption that this is the beginning of absolutely everything is tradition and assumption, nothing more. This can just as easily be read to be the account of the beginning of our world. In fact, the actual wording is “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Genesis 1:1-3 says, "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
If you go to Biblegateway.com you will find many many translations of the Bible, including the Old King James which is what you use. Many of the newer translations state He created the heavens and the earth . Which would say to me that God created all that he was going to create at that time, including the stars, solar systems and planets. It says he created THE EARTH, not "earths" or "one of the earths" but THE EARTH, which to me means- one. You are correct, the Old King James version says "heaven." I don't know that changes things. The heaven or heavens is the same...solar systems, stars, planets. What doesn't change between the translation is that it says heaven (or heavens) and THE EARTH. THE earth- One.
I detect a certain uneasiness for you with the question of whether half of His chromosomes were from His Father, and my point is that His genetic inheritance in no way contradicts the virgin birth. We today have means of bringing about conception without sexual intercourse, and the virgin birth was brought about in some way we don’t know through the Holy Ghost, as you have said. This wouldn’t have been a problem for God.
I am not uneasy about this question. I don't know the answer to it. If Jesus did not have the correct number of chromosomes, I would think there would be some sort of birth defect. Which, obviously, there wasn't. But because an answer is not known doesn't mean that we can think just ascribe what we think happened according to what is known here on earth. When the Bible has talked about sexual intercourse between married people, it has usually said something like "so and so knew his wife and they begat so and so." In this case, the Bible says Matthew 1:18, "she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. " It doesn't say that they were kissing and then she was pregant or rubbing up against each other and then she was pregnant...which I think is what you imply when you say that there are other ways to get pregnant other than sexual intercourse. Sure, you could talk about invitro fertilization, but the technology was not around then was it? That would have made no sense. No the Bible is clear about how Mary became pregnant with Jesus.
“increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52
In this verse, Jesus has gone back to the temple to talk and listen and learn from the teachers there. His parents have been frantically looking around for their son, a boy of probably 12 or 13. The teachers in the temple were suprised at the depth of Jesus knowledge in areas that many men probably did not understand. Why didn't they understand it? Because the prophecy had not been fulfilled yet re: Messiah. Luke 2:47 says, "And all who haerd Him were astonished at His understanding and answers." So, when I read the verse that you quoted that he [Jesus] increased wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man I read that Jesus was still a boy. Even though He was God's son. He already knew the answers but he still had to listen, respond and answer.
When I look up this verse in my Life Application study Bible, it says," The Bible does not record any events of the next 18 years of Jesus' life, but Jesus undoubtedly was learning and maturing...The normal routines of daily life gave Jesus a solid understanding of the Judean people."
| | | |
|
| | qwerty
Posts:91
| | 05/13/2008 10:28 AM |
Alert | I have to chime in here because I think you keep missing moinmoin's point on the virgin birth, itsadryheat.
itsadryheat said:
It doesn't say that they were kissing and then she was pregant or rubbing up against each other and then she was pregnant...which I think is what you imply when you say that there are other ways to get pregnant other than sexual intercourse. Sure, you could talk about invitro fertilization, but the technology was not around then was it? That would have made no sense. No the Bible is clear about how Mary became pregnant with Jesus.
Where in moinmoin's comments did he imply kissing or anything physical? The original accusation was against Brigham Young and how his comment about the immaculate conception implies that something sexual was involved. Moinmoin has offered explanations as to how Brigham Young's comment can be accurate WITHOUT implying that something sexual was involved. We are really discussiing things that, like you said, are not clearly defined in the Bible, nor are they clearly spelled out in Mormon doctrine. Concerning your comment about technology, I don't see how that has anything to do with getting pregnant without intercourse. Christ raised people from the dead and healed physical ailments without the use of technology. Couldn't God make someone pregnant without the use of technology or something sexual? Moinmoin's comment about invetro I think was simply implying that man has ways of making women pregnant without intercourse, so of course God could do something similiar. Just my two cents. | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:130
| | 05/13/2008 10:51 AM |
Alert | I'm not missing the point. The Bible clearly says that this was a virgin birth. Its hard to be a virgin if there is sex involved. I think current trends, adn things that have been going on in our current world, have shown that even non-intercourse encounters does not make one a virgin anymore. I don't understand your argument. Yes, God did make her pregnant. The bible says she was with child through the Holy Spirit. Who do LDS believe the Holy Spirit is? To Christians, the Holy Spirit is not a physical being...but spiritual. So if Mary were to become pregnant through the Holy Spirit, this would be a spiritual encounter.
Maybe I misread the comment about virgin birth. I was getting an impression that there was something else being implied in the statement about chromosomes etc...So, I have re-read the statement.
His chromosomes were from His Father, and my point is that His genetic inheritance in no way contradicts the virgin birth.
So what is your point in making this statement? Either we believe God is God, or he isn't. Are we trying to humanize God by talking about chromosomes? Are we trying to apply scientific explanation to the maker of heaven and earth? Good luck! II Cor 5:7 says for we walk by faith, not by sight-
Christ raised people from the dead and healed physical ailments without the use of technology. Couldn't God make someone pregnant without the use of technology or something sexual? Just my two cents.
Of course He did. That is exactly my point. I didn't bring up the chromosome conversation. Why mention chromosomes if you aren't trying to apply a scientific explanation to a Godly, spiritual occurence? | | | |
|
| | love@hm
Posts:409
| | 05/13/2008 2:58 PM |
Alert | Didn't make sense - consider it deleted  | | | |
|
| | qwerty
Posts:91
| | 05/14/2008 12:26 PM |
Alert | Its hard to be a virgin if there is sex involved.
I still don't think we are on the same page here. I am NOT saying that sex was involved and I'm not sure why you keep implying that.
I think current trends, adn things that have been going on in our current world, have shown that even non-intercourse encounters does not make one a virgin anymore.
Do you consider a process like invetro sexual and would make a woman a non-virgin? A process like invetro has nothing to do with sex and God is very capable of mimicking such a process as He is all powerful. That's where the chromosome part comes in to play. I believe that Christ was very literally the Son of God, both Spiritually and Physically. I know you disagree with that but the point is that Brigham Young's comment does not automatically imply that sex was involved. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|