Why would anyone want to be a Mormon or Jehovah Witnesses? Part 2

[lynnettejane]

Show me one verse in the NT where Jesus condems polygamy. Remember, the Jews were polygamists, and some of his own disciples would have been.

It is pure unfounded assumption to say that some of Christ’s disciples were polygamous. The new testament is specific when it teaches that bishops should be husbands of one wife, likewise deacons. Our Lord spoke of one man one woman marriage, and that even looking a a woman lustfully when married is adultery. He also states emphatically that there is no marriage nor giving in marriage after death, contrary to mormon teachings on celestial marriage. He is the definitive answer, and what he says is true. While Christ may not be recorded as condemning polygamy (let alone polyandry), it cannot reasonably be said that he, or the apostles of the early church supported it. And where is the evidence for it in Christian history that (possibly with the exception of mormonism) has propounded monogamy since the beginning, and why honest mormons found the practice deplorable. Christian marriage is one man, one woman so that they can become one flesh.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, he claimed all these unique Mormon beliefs could be shown from the NT, but he has not been able able to support this claim.

Because they are lies and a perversion of Jesus’ words and teachings. Tons of wackos have always used the Bible to justify their kooky teachings. David Koresh ring a bell?

 

[Nicea325]

Wrong! That is an idiotic comment. The Book of Mormon could be a lie. It could be from Satan. It could come from anywhere you like. The fact remains it is one of the sources of my beliefs, therefore I reference it as a source of my beliefs. You can believe what you like about the Book of Mormon, but it is utterly stupid to tell a Mormon that he should not reference it as a source of his beliefs.

So its stupid to tell somone they have been drawn into a false religion?

 

[mathonihah]

So you believe it is a sociological problem; a matter of upbringing. These verses are speaking of Israel’s joy and amazement at God’s mercy in light of the fact that they had disobeyed God and deserved judgment instead. There is nothing missing here other than it does not say what you want it to say so you must go to another gospel in order to support your position. I have no interest in reading D&C but I certainly accept the fact that you believe it. I don’t even disagree with the fact that the sins of the father can have consequences that reach through generations, through divorce, broken homes, misguided and neglectful upbringing; behavior that is repeated by children and grandchildren. But that is not the purpose of these verses. The purpose is to show the mercy of God and our lack of worthiness.

As Rebecca and I have both pointed out, it is Salvation History in a nutshell. While we deserve death for offending God, instead he offers forgiveness and mercy so that we might have eternal life. That’s the message. Those who reject this grace will suffer judgment. Those who accept this grace are saved from judgment. This Old Testament verse shows us that we have always had a loving, merciful and very patient God; He has never changed.

Sorry Steve, that didn’t make a lot of sense. Exodus 34:6-7 is quite clear. It says that God is merciful, but also just, and will not let the guilty go unpunished. The sticking point was that it goes on to say that it punishes the guilty to the “third and fourth generation,” which on the face of it appears to be an obvious injustice. you asked how I would reconcile that with LDS doctrine. When I asked you how you would reconcile it with the justice of God, you couldn’t, and instead got round it by finding a translation which alters the meaning of the verse completely—which the overwhelming majority of translations disagree with. Now that I have given you a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation, you whine, and throw in a red herring called “salvation history” which bears no relationship to the context of the discussion. Are you being serious?

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry Steve, that didn’t make a lot of sense. Exodus 34:6-7 is quite clear. It says that God is merciful, but also just, and will not let the guilty go unpunished. The sticking point was that it goes on to say that it punishes the guilty to the “third and fourth generation,” which on the face of it appears to be an obvious injustice. you asked how I would reconcile that with LDS doctrine. When I asked you how you would reconcile it with the justice of God, you couldn’t, and instead got round it by finding a translation which alters the meaning of the verse completely—which the overwhelming majority of translations disagree with. Now that I have given you a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation, you whine, and throw in a red herring called “salvation history” which bears no relationship to the context of the discussion. Are you being serious?

And who takes you serious? What do JW’s and Mormons have in common? Ever-changing teachings and false god(s).

 

[TexanKnight]

And who takes you serious? What do JW’s and Mormons have in common? Ever-changing teachings and false god(s).

and still Math is afraid to address my issues.

This is the same type of fear that caused his leader to run when things got hot and carry an illegal gun in jail, and try to leave his friends behind by jumping out a window

 

[mathonihah]

So your position is that polygamy is a good, biblical and christian practice, that was rightly introduced by the LDS leaders of the day, and which is currently no longer taught by the LDS leadership despite it being a good, biblical and christian practice?

Close. The practice of polygamy was discontinued by the LDS Church because it was declared illegal by the US government; and we believe in abiding by the law of the land. The LDS Church has never disavowed the principle itself as being unscriptural.

 

[Nicea325]

and still Math is afraid to address my issues.

This is the same type of fear that caused his leader to run when things got hot and carry an illegal gun in jail, and try to leave his friends behind by jumping out a window

Of course he is afraid. The TRUTH hurts where it counts the most:SELF- PRIDE. Just ask the Devil…he is a victim of it.

I find it so amusing about their leader and yet they still praise him as a true prophet?

 

[Nicea325]

Close. The practice of polygamy was discontinued by the LDS Church because it was declared illegal by the US government; and we believe in abiding by the law of the land. The LDS Church has never disavowed the principle itself as being unscriptural.

How convenient. So use God like a credit care when its convenient and at other times discard Him as though expired. Really convenient there Math…is that a Mormon trait or practice?

BTW: I find this amusing:

we believe in abiding by the law of the land.

So much for Joey abiding the law of the land. :clapping:

 

[mathonihah]

Clever redefinition of words there. To truly understand the words you have to first see how D&C etc. redefines them.

It doesn’t redefine them; it clarifies them. You may not regard it as such, but from our point of view the D&C is a book of scripture, just as the Bible is; and therefore it provides insight and clarification into other scriptural passages including the Bible. I think this case a is a clear illustration of that.

 

[TexanKnight]

Close. The practice of polygamy was discontinued by the LDS Church because it was declared illegal by the US government; and we believe in abiding by the law of the land. The LDS Church has never disavowed the principle itself as being unscriptural.

WRONG. Polygamy continued LONG past the date it was declared illegal. It was declared illegal in 1862.

That did not stop Mormons and their “abiding by the law of the land”. They continued. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled polygamy was not protected by the Constitution. Still, they Mormons continued. So much for “abiding by the laws of the land”.

In 1890, almost THIRTY YEARS after it was declared illegal, and 12 years after the Supreme Court declared it was not protected, a Manifesto came from Woodruff saying no NEW polygamous marriages would occur. Those existing could continue- so much for “abiding by the laws of the land”. Still, the LDS allowed new polygamous marriages. It was not till 1910, almost FIFTY years after it was declared illegal, that the LDS Church began excommunicating members for NEW marriages. The existing ones continued to exist…and those members were never ex’d.

So much for abiding by the law.

And they did not discontinue the practice because of the law…they discontinued because of the financial issues.

I do not know if Math made his comment because he just does not know his own LDS history, or if he is just being dishonest.

Either way, THIS is why we respond.

 

[bitznbitez]

Close. The practice of polygamy was discontinued by the LDS Church because it was declared illegal by the US government; and we believe in abiding by the law of the land. The LDS Church has never disavowed the principle itself as being unscriptural.

Does abiding by the law of the land include recent US revisions to Marriage ?

In any case we can all fully expect the “principle” to be restablished once the destruction of marriage in our fair country is complete.

 

[bitznbitez]

It doesn’t redefine them; it clarifies them.

Now you are redefining the word clarify.

 

[mathonihah]

For the rest of you, when you have finished your Z/M dance, let us know, and we will get into a more substantive discussion.

 

[Lochias]

For the rest of you, when you have finished your Z/M dance, let us know, and we will get into a more substantive discussion.

Lies are never substantial.

 

[Nicea325]

WRONG. Polygamy continued LONG past the date it was declared illegal. It was declared illegal in 1862.

That did not stop Mormons and their “abiding by the law of the land”. They continued. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled polygamy was not protected by the Constitution. Still, they Mormons continued. So much for “abiding by the laws of the land”.

In 1890, almost THIRTY YEARS after it was declared illegal, and 12 years after the Supreme Court declared it was not protected, a Manifesto came from Woodruff saying no NEW polygamous marriages would occur. Those existing could continue- so much for “abiding by the laws of the land”. Still, the LDS allowed new polygamous marriages. It was not till 1910, almost FIFTY years after it was declared illegal, that the LDS Church began excommunicating members for NEW marriages. The existing ones continued to exist…and those members were never ex’d.

So much for abiding by the law.

And they did not discontinue the practice because of the law…they discontinued because of the financial issues.

I do not know if Math made his comment because he just does not know his own LDS history, or if he is just being dishonest.

Either way, THIS is why we respond.

:clapping: Keep on rolling the punches Tex’s…

 

[Nicea325]

For the rest of you, when you have finished your Z/M dance, let us know, and we will get into a more substantive discussion.

Is that what you call it? Substantive discussion? I came to the conclusion it is all about you redefining scripture, history, etc,etc,etc.

 

[TheIrishman]

This is doctrine according to me (flips tie over shoulder) but if polygamy is an essential doctrine for salvation and will be practiced in Heaven. Why didn’t God give Adam Eve and Rebecca and Joane and Victoria and Jenny and Chelsea and (insist more girls name here).

The earliest recognition and ACCEPTANCE of marriage from God was between Adam and Eve. 1 Man, 1 Women. Polygamy started from the ancestors of Cain, who was in league with the Devil. Why would God approve of polygamy that stemmed from Satan? Doesn’t make sense.

 

[mathonihah]

Does abiding by the law of the land include recent US revisions to Marriage?

No it doesn’t. If you are referring to the current trend towards legalising same sex marriages, the LDS Church has been very proactive in cooperating with other Christian churches (notably the Catholic Church) in opposing such legislation. Mercifully such legislation has not forced people to conduct or practice SSM, unlike the law banning polygamy, which made the practice actually illegal.

In any case we can all fully expect the “principle” to be restablished once the destruction of marriage in our fair country is complete.

That is an interesting comment. Thank you for engaging in a serious discussion. I agree that if SSM was made legal throughout the US, it would be difficult to prevent FLDS and other polygamist groups from successfully pushing for the legalisation of polygamy. But whether the LDS Church would support such a move is not clear. I am not certain that it would.

 

[Nicea325]

This is doctrine according to me (flips tie over shoulder) but if polygamy is an essential doctrine for salvation and will be practiced in Heaven. Why didn’t God give Adam Eve and Rebecca and Joane and Victoria and Jenny and Chelsea and (insist more girls name here).

The earliest recognition and ACCEPTANCE of marriage from God was between Adam and Eve. 1 Man, 1 Women. Polygamy started from the ancestors of Cain, who was in league with the Devil. Why would God approve of polygamy that stemmed from Satan? Doesn’t make sense.

But you see that is the point. If it does not make sense, then to Mormons it does make sense: polygamy. And why? Because it is NOT from God. Remember, Mormons worship an entire different god(s)…not the true Eternal God who never changes (Heb 13:8).