P
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
JPaul1953,
Students of history know that the Council of Nicea was not held because Constantine saw the wonderful unity in the church and thought it would be nice to get everyone together and celebrate their unity. Of course those keeping the doctrines they wanted to keep would “own” the New Testament teachings in a way they could justify every belief they had. But that does not make the beliefs pure, although the New Testament is a true book with pure teachings. They are there for those who read, seek, pray as they are taught to pray by Christ and John, and receive the absolutely pure guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I have no idea what your last paragraph means, but there were other arrivals into the Americas than by the family of Lehi and the Mulekites, and some of those other arrivals could have been descendants of Israel, so if that is what you meant then that’s OK by me.
Jesus is already the God of this planet and of many other earths. He has a unique role as Alpha and Omega, the Firstborn in the Spirit. Whether He married or not will not change the uniqueness of His role.
Moses was married, and one can assume that John and Paul were married men. Those who have chosen not to follow God’s plan as presented to Adam and Eve, “They twain shall be one flesh,” with the woman as an “help meet” for the man, have consequences from that deliberate choice if that is what they chose to do. Adam and Eve received commandments about their marriage, and that established the pattern as Jesus noted in His teaching on the subject.
Christ does the knocking on the door of those who desire to sup with Him. The opening of the door is done by each individual making the choice to open the door.
Respectfully also. Thanks for expressing your views.
J
jpaul1953
Guest
ParkerD,
Your comment that John and Paul had wives is unsubstantiated.I still don’t know where the bible speaks of Moses being married. Jesus now being an exception to your laws…Convenient. Part of the reason the Church holds to celibacy is because St Paul stated that it is easier to be like him and spend time with God than being married with children and doing the same…It’s much easier to be close to God unmarried as Paul states.
The devil is the ruler of this earth if you believe in the Scriptures, not Jesus. And what are the names of these planets that each of the past hierarchy of the Church now rule as the planet’s god.
Again, explain to me where the apostacy occurred since Christ never said the 12 apostles must be continually replaced.
And, if you’re the congregation that has kept Apostolic succession, where’s the list
of the replaced apostles since the day of Christ. The Church does list the Vicars of Christ from Peter until today.as Jesus showed his intention to be.
Back to the American Indian being the transient Jews of Eurasia, now you say your congregation no longer teaches it. What about the Old Covenant Tablets that Joseph Smith found. Where are they and where in Scriptures does it speak of a new prophet after Christ who gets it all straightened out for us confused Christians
And, the big question how did the god of the earth come from a mere man or being in the first place. What planet did the god of this earth come from. You must know since you teach it. Please advise
I’m asking questions and you choose which to answer. If you don’t have the answer just say I’ll find out and get back to you. Please don’t say you don’t know what I mean because you do. Now you stated the NT as not being pure. Well how about telling me where the pure truth is. Your belief system is totally alienated from Christianity by your own statements. You do not believe in the Jesus Chritianity speaks of.
As people I believe the Mormons to be very upstanding followers of God’s desire to help and love people, so I believe you are on the path of salvation. But, as a congregation, your teachings are basically ‘off the charts’
You are the one claiming APOSTACY with speculation as your proof. Do better than this because you’re not getting anywhere with true followers of Jesus Christ.
As I’ve said your congregation appears very caring to other human beings, which Love is greater than Faith and Hope.
Respectfully,
jpaul1953
R
rinnie
Guest
Hi Parker, as usual I always admire your patience and respect you show to others on this site. Hope you had a wonderful holiday.
Got a question for you, I noticed back in the thread you commented on marriage. Something about how it will be the same in heaven as here. Can you explain that to me. Thanks. Not sure what you meant.
Got a question for you, I noticed back in the thread you commented on marriage. Something about how it will be the same in heaven as here. Can you explain that to me. Thanks. Not sure what you meant.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The condition that required our salvation is universal. All have sinned and fall short. Christ died for all. There is/was no requirement of God to do this for us.There are conditions to the ultimate blessings Christ offers. Complying with the conditions brings the blessings, and there is no uncertainty about it. If an analogy of a “divine vending machine” (although mundane) works for someone in the context of those verses describing cause and effect relationships, then that is one way to look at it.
We sin and God gives us Salvation. This is not a vending machine. This is unconditional love love.
“Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24). Salvation is a gift that can be received by each one to the extent of his free consent and voluntary co-operation [with God].
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rinnie,
Thanks so much for your brightness of spirit. I also hope your holiday season and New Year have been and are wonderful, with much joy and peace.
The LDS belief in the eternal covenant of marriage, when bound on earth and in heaven, means that a husband and wife will have a perfected relationship in a continuing marriage when they are resurrected. The purposes of that relationship will have many ramifications, but particularly the concept of completeness and wholeness that comes about through the relationship of marriage–why Adam was given Eve as an “help meet” without whom he was incomplete and without whom God’s creation was incomplete. A man and a woman in a covenant relationship with God and Christ at the center and with knowledge that the two of them are equal partners in the marriage, build each other in a way that they simply cannot do or experience by themselves, and that will continue in the eternities to come for those who have so chosen. This is not to say others won’t have joyful, loving relationships, but the trust that God bestows on a married couple who have proven themselves worthy to be trusted with the process of bringing forth and nurturing spirits just beginning the same process we are engaged in going through, is a level of trust that is more than the trust of abiding in loving relationships with everyone in heaven.
I hope your two children are married, and that they have wonderful marriages and bring you much happiness and joy with grandchildren as a part of all that.
P
ParkerD
Guest
JPaul1953,
I think it will be easier to answer your post in segments, so here goes:
You could look up Exodus 2:21-22 about Moses’ marriage to Zipporah, also Exodus 18:1. (Jethro was Moses’ father-in-law.)
Paul (Saul) was a devout Jew and a follower of the law and the traditions of the Jews, which certainly included marriage when of age to be married. I agree that if one wants to conclude that John was not married because he never wrote that he was, then one could do that, but it seems to me that John among all the apostles was the greatest teacher about love, and that such knowledge did not just “come” to him without the experience of close personal relationships that would logically have included marriage and family. Just because the apostles didn’t write about their families, does not mean they didn’t have families. They could have been both apostles and fathers with a wife and with children. When Paul wrote that bishops should be married, it is logical to conclude that he was writing about that out of personal experience so that he could write it with conviction.
As RebeccaJ once noted, Jesus knew that His life was going to be cut short, and also knew that His Father made Him a completely unique Person on earth. It would seem unlikely that He would have placed a woman and children in a situation of being without a husband and father because He knew His life mission included being the great and last sacrifice at an early adult age, though others have concluded that He would have set the example by being married, particularly since He taught of the importance of marriage and that “God hath joined together.” Since He did know His life was going to be abruptly cut short, He would have had every reason to not marry in mortality and could still receive marriage in heaven because He had particular reason to delay marriage.
B
banarick
Guest
B
banarick
Guest
J
jpaul1953
Guest
ParkerD,
This is all speculative with no basis other than the opinion of you and/or your church. You just take the road of omission when asked to answer questions I pose to you
If your desire is to just spread your beliefs with no concrete base, that’s fine. You should be called a deflector. Your faith is unsubstantiated. All answers are opinions.
I’ll not waste any of either of our times responding to you. Your should have been a politician
May God bless.
jpaul1953
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Banarick,
Sorry for breaking in here. The LDS believe Adam is Michael, the Archangel, and the Ancient of Days. So, the LDS understanding of Michael the Acrhangel is completely different from Catholic and Protestant understandings.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, Banarick,
In the interest of my limited time, I’m going to briefly answer your questions in the order they were asked. Thanks, by the way, for asking for God to bless me–I appreciate that.
(1) Moses was indeed a prophet who had a great mission and who saw God in a more direct way than nearly any other prophet.
(2) For the seed of Cain, dark skin was a sign to others to essentially “leave them alone.” In the Book of Mormon, dark skin at a specific point in time (the 500’s BC) was a sign to others to “leave them alone.” After that, there came a time when there was no such instruction and there was intermarriage and there were many righteous Lamanites and unrighteous Nephites, and the whole “dark skin” thing was a thing of the past. That is how it is today. Some people choose to live in the past. I don’t. Leprosy was a sign specific to certain cases in the Old Testament. I think the most important story about leprosy is the story of Namaan and its application to all humble believers.
(3) I suppose that my reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the universe differs from yours in major ways. If you’re asking how it could be possible that God the Father can have been a Man, then I will point out that Jesus Christ is Man of Holiness. Jesus followed His Father in all things.
(4 and 5) Most of the changes dealing with the Bible and its “plain and precious” truths have to do with how it has been understood doctrinally, in my opinion, although there have certainly been losses of words and losses of meanings in translation. But the words of Isaiah are nearly completely without loss or changes, it appears to me although there are a few changes arising from translation errors even in the wonderful book of Isaiah.
(6) Consultation with a physician is a major component of what you cited, and since I don’t have a great deal of trust for the medical world in general, and I don’t know anyone who has come down on the side of going ahead with a doctor’s advice to have an abortion due to reasons of the mother’s or baby’s health, but know several families where they had their baby against the counsel and advice of a doctor, I don’t guess I have the experience that provides a valid basis for answering your question on that subject. I do believe strongly in the Proclamation on the Family, and think the world will be a happier and healthier place as its guidance is followed, by anyone who follows those teachings about families.
(7) I think sound moral theology finds the root problems in society and seeks to change the root problems. Abortion is generally a symptom, not a root problem. The root problem has to do partly with governments having abdicated their role as a protector of the freedom of the unborn but mostly with men having abdicated their role to be the protector, provider, and righteous leader of families in the societies of the world. Change this last element and help young women and women learn to trust that the men in their life will assume their role with complete fidelity, and abortion rates will decrease dramatically. No woman’s natural inclination is to have an abortion. This world is unfortunately a very confused place for many, many women–such a tragedy of our times.
(8) Yes, absolutely. (9) Yes, absolutely.
P
ParkerD
Guest
JPaul1953 or other readers,
I think I should go ahead and answer your questions since you had them on your mind. Thanks for the comment about “very caring to other human beings,” by the way.
(1) Paul’s comment about “I would that all men were even as I myself” (1 Corinthians 7:7) is spoken “not of commandment” and is certainly not applicable to bishops, since he wrote specifically that bishops should be married. As one reads the entire epistle of 1 Corinthians and particularly 1 Corinthians 7, one sees that Paul is responding to several doctrinal problems among the saints in Corinth, which was a city of Greece and thus members of the church were converts.
One of the doctrinal problems that had come up was that some among them believed “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” That belief is so contrary to God’s commandment to Adam and Eve and to Jesus’ teachings, that I’m surprised Paul didn’t teach with more directness using Christ’s teachings on the subject, but Paul writes about situations where either the husband or the wife has left the marriage, and particularly if they were unbelievers–that they should stay pure but if that means they need to re-marry, they should do so (v. 28). Paul evidently was either a widower or his wife had left him–and that is why he suggested that “all men were even as I myself” and that “unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I” meaning that they not marry again since he thinks marriage brings a lot of cares of the world. It sounds like Paul had had difficulties in his earlier marriage–but why in the world anyone would think he was saying every man and woman in the world should not marry in order to serve the Lord and be like him, is obviously askew in their thinking since that would mean God’s plan for the world would be completely destroyed in that families would cease to exist.
Paul also wrote his real teaching on the subject of marriage: “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:11)
(2) The devil claims to be the ruler of this world, but Christ (the Word) created this world and “all things were made by Him”. The devil tries to deceive continuously, so of course he claims to be the ruler of this world, and boasts that he is.
(3) Apostles were replaced under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which Christ had promised the apostles and believers would receive. When the Holy Spirit was gradually lost among the members, the apostles did not receive the guidance from the Holy Spirit to replace those apostles who were killed. But never, never was there a teaching that the bishops were to replace the apostles, and your notion that bishops replaced the duty of the apostles while John was still alive, is obviously askew. Peter never wrote that the bishops would replace him as the leaders of the church, and Peter emphasized that Christ is the chief cornerstone of the Church.
(4) John wrote about another angel bringing the everlasting gospel to the earth (Revelation 14:6). Ezekiel had written about a “stick of Joseph”. (Ezekiel 37) But that is only for those looking for those things–others will scoff at the idea that God had a plan that included another testifying record for the benefit of the world.
(5) God and Christ organized this Universe from outside of it, so the idea of a “name” for where they lived makes not the slightest difference for understanding Creation.
I’ve already written about pure truth coming through the Holy Spirit, by means of prayer and scripture study and living by all of the commandments of God.
Peace to all.
R
rinnie
Guest
Hi Parker you are always a joy to talk to. My daughter got married last year and they are wanting to have kids later in the year:extrahappy: Can’t wait. Now my Son, Well… He needs alot of prayers and alot of growing up to go, The girls he brings homeRinnie,
Thanks so much for your brightness of spirit. I also hope your holiday season and New Year have been and are wonderful, with much joy and peace.
The LDS belief in the eternal covenant of marriage, when bound on earth and in heaven, means that a husband and wife will have a perfected relationship in a continuing marriage when they are resurrected. The purposes of that relationship will have many ramifications, but particularly the concept of completeness and wholeness that comes about through the relationship of marriage–why Adam was given Eve as an “help meet” without whom he was incomplete and without whom God’s creation was incomplete. A man and a woman in a covenant relationship with God and Christ at the center and with knowledge that the two of them are equal partners in the marriage, build each other in a way that they simply cannot do or experience by themselves, and that will continue in the eternities to come for those who have so chosen. This is not to say others won’t have joyful, loving relationships, but the trust that God bestows on a married couple who have proven themselves worthy to be trusted with the process of bringing forth and nurturing spirits just beginning the same process we are engaged in going through, is a level of trust that is more than the trust of abiding in loving relationships with everyone in heaven.
I hope your two children are married, and that they have wonderful marriages and bring you much happiness and joy with grandchildren as a part of all that.
But he is 23 and acts 18. But for now, my daughter is ready, so as soon as God gives the go! Now if I can ask pray for my son. He needs to be led back to the straight and narrow.Now Parker about marriage. I love what you are saying but it goes against scripture.
Now in scripture the Sadducees asked Christ about the brother who married the other brothers wife after he died (Mark12 and Luke 20). I am sure you know the scripture, Well Christ said You are wrong because you know neither scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.
How do you tie that scripture into your belief and teachings of your church?
P
ParkerD
Guest
'Happy to greet you this morning, Rinnie,Hi Parker you are always a joy to talk to. My daughter got married last year and they are wanting to have kids later in the year:extrahappy: Can’t wait. Now my Son, Well… He needs alot of prayers and alot of growing up to go, The girls he brings home
Now Parker about marriage. I love what you are saying but it goes against scripture.
Now in scripture the Sadducees asked Christ about the brother who married the other brothers wife after he died (Mark12 and Luke 20). I am sure you know the scripture, Well Christ said You are wrong because you know neither scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.
How do you tie that scripture into your belief and teachings of your church?
That will be wonderful for your daughter to be blessed with a baby soon, so I join with you in hoping for that blessing in your family. I hope your son chooses well–such an important choice in life!
You will recall that the Sadducees didn’t believe Christ was the Savior nor did they believe in the resurrection at all, so when Christ spoke of “they” when referring back to the question by the Sadducees about the hypothetical seven brothers, he was talking about the resurrection of unbelievers not the resurrection of believers, so his teaching about their status in the resurrection of not having marriage and not being given in marriage since their marriages to the woman would have been for this earth life only, has nothing to do with a general teaching about every marriage ever done by the authority of the priesthood of God. It has to do only with unbelievers like the Sadducees and their hypothetical brothers.
A confusion arises because of the pronoun “they”, but that pronoun is understood to refer back to a subject in order to be used in a language with clarity. One needs to identify the subject whenever a pronoun such as “they” is used. You could diagram the paragraph like in an English class, to figure out what the subject was for the verb “marry” in this case, in the sentence where “they” was used by the translator. (I underlined the word “they” that I am suggesting you analyze to really figure out what the understood subject was. Christ was answering a specific question, and gave a specific answer. That is how He answered these kinds of “trick” questions.)
Have a wonderful day, Rinnie.
R
rinnie
Guest
Hi Parker thanks for explaining that to me. According to the teaching of John Paul this teaching seems to end on a sour note. Why? Because we know neither the scriptures or the power of God. If we did we would rejoice in these words, Christs statement is not a devaluation of marriage, it points out the ultimate purpose and meaning of this wonderful sacrament. Marriage in this lfe is meant to foreshadow heaven where for all eternity we will celebrate the marriage of the Lamb Rev 19:7, the marriage of Christ and his church. This is the deepest desire of the human heart to live in eternal bliss of communion with God himself. As wonderful as mariage and marriage intimacy can be in this life it is only a sign and foretaste of a sacrament of whats to come. Earthly marriage is simply a prep for heavenly marriage.
Its like the sacraments, it prepares us for heaven. There are no sacraments in heaven, Not because they are done away with, simply because they have come to frution. We will no longer need the sacraments to teach us the way we will already be in heaven.
When the sedducees didn’t believe in the resurection . they tried to corner Jesus to deny the resurrection of the dead. This teaching was not only for the unbelievers but bleievers alike. We call this the communion of Saints this will be the final realizatio of the unity of the human race. Those who are united will be redeemed to the holy city of God the bride the wife of the lamb.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rinnie,
Anyone who wishes to categorize themselves with the Sadducees and their hypothetical brothers, is certainly free to do that and to receive the kind of resurrection the Saviior talked about for them in particular. Choice and its blessings and responsibilities are great gifts from God. The important thing is to choose carefully and well, with understanding of what our opportunities are. Eternal marriage is an opportunity, not a constraint to be lifted from us unless we want it to be lifted from us. But it would need to have been done by the authority that binds in heaven in order to have been bound in heaven in the first place.
Peace and good day to all.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Parker,
Thank you for taking the time to answer. This weekend was busy for me: the kids had basketball games, I had to bake some cookies for some Mormon visitors, I had to do some work. On that note, I’ll also say, I am getting ready to head into a 7 week job that will restrict much responses beyond the next few days.
Topic B – Joint Heirs
When I read the scriptures for joint-heirs, it is a little different interpretation. First I believe we are joint heirs to the suffering inflicted by this world. We will never be free from the shackles of this life until it ends. There is no way I can read Romans 8 and interpret it as: You live in sin. Jesus redeemed you. The Spirit is in you. You are dead to this world. You are equal to Jesus in heaven. Your suffering here gives glory to God.
That interpretation is, well, out of place. It is more likely joint-heirs to Christ is an equal position of being hated, equal position to persecuted, equal position to being protected, equal position as being under His watch-care.
As to the tree analogy. I do love the analogy but it falls amazingly short. So short, I am surprised you use it. Yes, trees bare trees. God created the trees. God did not create little gods. Sure we can use John 10:34, or Psalms 82. We can call ourselves children of God and we will one day be among the heavenly hosts but the “gods” of John 10 and Psalms 82 do no equal a Godhead. There is but one. We have our limitations. We cannot exceed those limitations.
Moreover, by thinking that you will be a god, you endanger yourself. Arrogance seeps in, “One day, I’ll be a god!” I say, “One say, I’ll be with God.” I don’t care about titles. I don’t care about position. I can be in charge of sweeping the street after God’s daily ticker-tape parade and I’ll be thrilled because I’ll be there with him.
Topic C – The Witness
As I said to my young visitors (and their elder guest). In John 5:31, Jesus lays the groundwork to answering some tough physical and spiritual witnessing. The Jews had their law and it was what ruled the people. Without going into a huge law comparison, everyone in the US knows they do not have to testify against themselves in a criminal court. You can plead the 5th and that is that. Jesus knew the law of his day and that law required a second witness. (The humor in the whole thing is the presumption a person will lie to save himself. Jesus was not trying to “save” himself.) So, Jesus lays out the groundwork for his testimony. (we can go into the testimony at a later point). Jesus says, “I’ll provide the human witness (as required) and that witness is John.” But Jesus also provided the witness of God and the scripture.
With that said, I mention it because what was Jesus doing by offering this testimony? He was laying the groundwork for changing God’s children’s faith. He was moving them from Judaism to Christianity. He was adding to the scripture (as a living testimony). To do so, we see hundreds of verses singing in chorus that Jesus is Christ. If we are going to have a shift away from his established faith, I’d expect he’d do it in a similar fashion with a similar expectation for witnesses.
I only expect that. The problem is, I do not see an earthly witness for Joseph Smith. (And I’ll tell you exactly what I told my Mormon guests, That part doesn’t matter to me. Jesus discounts John almost immediately. John provided the necessary earthly testimony. I’ll take you as a witness. By the way, this is one of the reason the Mormons are pretty big on providing your testimony… to fulfill this requirement). So. Where does God testify to the Mormon Scripture? Where does the Bible testify to the Mormon scripture? As in, can you, without the aid of BoM, provide scriptural guidance to Joseph Smith? Are there things in the Bible that conflict with the BoM? The amazing thing is, Jesus could use ONLY the Old Testament to prove himself. Once he and the word are accepted as truth, there is no need for further ratification. So you should be able to use ONLY the Bible to prove the doctrine shift, Joseph Smith, and the BoM (and associated books). If I find one… ONE spot where it is in conflict, with the Bible being superior because it is providing the witness, than that is that. Personally, I need to only look as far as Joseph Smith. He said God the Father presented Himself and Jesus to Joseph. Jesus is the one who said, “No one has seen the Father.” I’d think he would know. Well how did Moses see God? How did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Because they were seeing Christ. So, Joseph’s testimony of seeing the Father and the Son is one of the clearest examples of a violation of the scripture. The testimony is false.
(I think I saw your Topic A response somewhere, I’ll read that and respond as well).
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yes, I said this.
No, this is you making stuff up again. Please don’t ascribe such nonsense to me again, for any reason.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Ok. Although I partially addressed it in my last post I’ll just touch on a few basic notes.
The “seeing” God, not “seeing” God is not new to the faith as you can probably guess. I’d rather believe Christ when he says no one has seen the Father to mean it. Which must leave an alternate explaination as to whom did these folks see? As answered, it was Jesus. It is simple. The number one problem people have a timeline issue. They get all frustrated with how could Jesus appear to Abraham and not yet been born. Upon Christ’s resurrection, he was no longer burdened with our timeline. In a moments time, he can be anywhere on the timeline. But if he says, no one has seen the Father… I’d take him at his word.
Honestly, I keep expecting the standard Mormon response to change. I keep expecting the response, “Well when Jesus said this it was the truth, but to give Joseph the necessary weight and authority God presented himself.” That is a much harder position to fight against. (Well, not really harder to fight against but that argument would take into account the “seeing and not seeing” issed to be more in line to Christianity.)
- Status