[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 22:29-30[/BIBLEDRB]
Miriam,
Let’s try again. There is more than just that one singular point, attested to, in these scriptures.
Peter was given the sealing power (bind on earth, bound in heaven); which power was employed when the saints performed baptisms for the dead.
As far as following the laws of God, His divine nature is of no significance (just as I pointed out before with relation to our eternal destination). He could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but if we followed His laws, we would still find ourselves saved in eternity. The discussion of His nature is intellectually interesting, but of little eternal significance because it does not alter His laws.
Although only the president holds the authority to exercise the necessary keys to receive new revelation pertaining to the whole church, each of his two councillors, and each member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles also hold those keys, and their office Is that of prophet, seer and revelator. Each of them approaches God and receives revelation of the truth of the president’s revelation. Then each and every member of the church has the right to approach God to receive their own personal confirmation of the validity of the revelation also.
The doctrine of polygamy has never changed: it was only ever practised at the express request of God, by individuals He knew were prepared and of the right mind, and was never compulsory. We also “believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates in obeying, honouring and sustaining the law”. The law now prohibits polygamy, so until such a time as it is again permitted (unlikely until Jesus Christ returns), God will no longer request that anyone enter into a polygamous union.
Yes, I apologised for the confusion.
The term Christ uses is ‘even as’; He does not say ‘in similar manner’. This language states the situation clearly that the way He desires His church to be one is identical to the situation in which He and His Father are one. As humans we cannot be one in being, therefore we must be one in purpose, desire and action; just as The Godhead are one in their purposes, goals and intentions.
You write that as if we are unaware of the scriptures. The fact is that we both believe the words of scripture, what we disagree over are the interpretations.
We do believe what Christ tells us, through the revelation of His Holy Spirit.
According to John this name change happened immediately when Chist first met Peter, Matthew and Luke call him Peter from the outset. I only say this becaus I had never considered this a change of name. The start of the passage already names him Simon Peter: before any change might occur.
Yes, and anything that man did in the kings name, anywhere, still had effect within the king’s court and kingdom; the king did not have to personally repeat it. Just the same, part of the keys Peter was here given was the power that whatever he did on the earth with this authority would also have power in heaven, having been performed in the name of Jesus Christ already.
You’re just here to play devils advocate to both sides, aren’t you?
Sort of, yes. And the biblical record does say ‘let us make man in our image, after our likeness’
Why?
In the creation that we are a part of, yes.
Naturally
Yes, yes, yes… Keep going…
Oops
Huh? They shall neither MARRY nor be MARRIED
NAF, we both agree, don’t we, that Jesus founded a church that would be authoritative? I think the Catholic church is the one founded by Christ, constantly and demonstrably in existence, and you think yours was founded by Christ, lost almost immediately, and restored by Joseph Smith. We both think our respective churches have the power of succession, so I’m not sure why this is such a stumbling block for you. Our church also has teachings on modern inventions not specifically in the Bible. We believe our church’s leader is preventing from teaching error in the matter of faith and morals. I’m not sure exactly how you believe your church is guided - my impression is that it’s more of a direct revelation to the present leaders. As your church has changed its position on, for example, abortion, something that to us seems like it can only be right or wrong and NOT a matter of discipline, like whether priests should be able to marry, it does seem to outsiders that not all the revelations can be directly from God unless God is remarkably undecided on right and wrong. This may be too much to bring up in a single post, but someone asked you about polygamy. I can’t think of any examples in the Bible where it is described as anything but ugly and disastrous. In the case of Solomon and Abraham, it came directly from not trusting or obeying God. But yes, it existed, as did divorce, and Jesus told us why that was allowed - because of the hardness of their hearts. God was gentle with His people there, meeting them where they were and taking them someplace better. We see Paul’s instructions about who was allowed to be leaders of the church - among other things, he had to be a husband of only one wife. It just seems like Joseph Smith, living in an era of abolished polygamy, brought back something much lower, not something Godly. I know polygamy is banned from your church today, and we can all see why. You see what polygamist colonies are like. How do you suppose it looked any less selfish or abusive in Smith’s time? Please don’t say it was only a way to protect little old widows. He wasn’t living in the wilderness with dozens of helpless widows, and who was his second wife?
Thanks, I’ve never heard of those before. I did look them up. Monolatrism does fit LDS as I understand it. And I’m glad you find most posts a discussion - it’s easy to misread attitude, esp. from someone you don’t know, in print. I assume most people have an attitude similar to my own - respect for anyone seeking to know and follow God. We all must be curious and interested in theology, or we wouldn’t be here. Naturally, we all believe our own church is right, or we’d be in another one, and so some disagreement has to come out.
Thank you! I’ll watch the posts between you and Miriam with interest for the discussion on sealing/eternal marriage.
You are correct. The name change as recorded in John 1:42 indicates that this happened after Andrew and John had seen John the Baptist point out Jesus as the Messiah and Andrew immediately got his brother to meet Jesus.
Actually. there is another possibility.
It is only illogical if you refuse to look at Church History - claiming that it is not in the Bible. Truly, I seem to recall a seagull and locust story that is repeated often as part of LDS history. This is not discounted because it is not in the Bible or the Book of Mormon.
This is truly a most literal view of the word ‘gates’ - and one that unfortunately misses the idea of a figure of speech. In this particular case we are looking at a metonymy (“Metonymy enables us to use one part or aspect of an experience to stand for some other part (or the whole) of that experience.” An example is when a young man asks the father for the daughter’s HAND in marriage - the young man wants the whole woman - not just an amputated appendage!) We are really looking at the power of Hell as symbolized by its gates. Just the opposite would be to refer to all of Heaven by calling it the ‘Pearly Gates’.
Just look around at your own history and then farther back at the LDS history. Earlier events influence later events - and no one can deny this. Courts go back to earlier decisions for a reason - history is important. The history of the Catholic Church goes back 2,000 years and begins when Christ founded it on Peter and its ‘public launch’ on that first Pentecost Sunday.
Nope. So, show me Biblically where, when he said what you quoted, he was referring to marriage? Especially since He earlier stated there would be no marriage in heaven?Hi, TexanKnight,
Only if you believe that Jesus Christ was lying…
God bless
Peter as a mortal man was not to lead the Church forever. His leadership was passed on due to apostolic succession. Our Lord said to his apostles that he “would be with them until the end of time.” This means that he would be with the leaders of his church, those who succeed the Apostles, always.
Where is the Biblical reference for this?
The whole premise of ‘sealing’ anything the way LDS use it, comes directly from the mind of Joseph Smith. It’s just one of many inventions he used to make his church more distinct from any church in Christendom. He thought it would make it sound more ‘mysterious’ and Biblical, although there are very few things in the Bible that are actually ‘sealed’. It probably comes more from the rituals of Freemasonry than the Bible.
If God is not divine, then He is not a true God. To say that it makes no difference shows a complete misunderstanding of why we worship God in the first place. If you want to worship a ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’, that’s up to you. But, I guarantee that God will not be amused by your caricature of Him. You’ll most likely be placed in the same category as anyone else that makes up their own ‘god’ (idol) to worship. He won’t care how well you followed the laws that you attribute to that version of ‘god’, even if they are somewhat similar to His Laws.
That doesn’t change my example in the least. The fact is, it could happen, tomorrow.
When Jesus returns, there will no longer be any form of marriage, because it will be the Final Judgement of all souls. No more will ever be born after that day.
God is One in Being, just as the Church is One Body of Christ. Your verbal gyrations over there being some kind of a difference in terminology, don’t mean diddly squat.
Interpretation is the key to understanding the truth of all scripture. God will judge us by our interpretation. If we’re wrong, it won’t go well for us.
No, you put your faith in the false interpretations of Joseph Smith, and not what Jesus actually meant. That’s what you’ll be judged on, no matter how well you followed those false interpretations. Knowledge of the Law, or of scripture, does not trump the Judgement of God on how closely we follow His Word (Jesus). It didn’t help the Pharisees to perfectly quote scripture, because their interpretations were still wrong, and Jesus told them exactly what they were and who they followed.
Naf623, this position has always bothered me for the following reasons. We have had laws that made slavery legal. If it were legal today, would the LDS church support it. If not, why? Abortion is legal in this country. It is the law. Do you believe in " obeying, honoring and sustaining" this law? If not, why?
