• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

LDS beliefs and the Bible

There are so many quotes and ideas in one post that it makes it difficult to nail down a point. Let me focus on one idea, that of continuing revelation. Let's ignore polygamy for this round. I haven't ignored it in other posts, but have expressed my view.

Here's what I hear you saying:

You reject continuing revelation on the basis that God will never reveal a new principle of the gospel or give his people new direction on what they should or should not do, because that would constitute "another gospel" or a "revision of the Holy Spirit". You believe this to be the case, regardless of what the revelation is about. There's no need to examine the revelation and its content, since if it's new information or even further clarification on the Bible, it's "another gospel". You believe that Paul's warning concerning another gospel means that there will be no future prophets, because no matter what a prophet could say, if it's in addition to the Bible, it must be "another gospel".

If that is what you believe, then yes, I believe that is your opinion.

I believe that the gospel of "no further revelation" is not the gospel that is taught in the Bible. Therefore to teach that the scripture canon is closed is to teach "another gospel".

Also, the apostles being sent "last" does not mean that they are the final messengers from God, it simply means that they are the last ones who have come so far or the latest to come.

Before we conclude polygamy consider this:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

According to the Word of God... his own and her own is singular. This does not say that the man owns his wife either. It says they own each other. Also it says this is the only way to avoid fornication: they should have themselves to each other; man and wife.

It's not interpretation- it's simply reading a sentence.

If you're not justifying God in your argument then you are justifying man, institutions, theories, and lies. To justify God is to speak the truth of the matter, even at the detriment of your own belief.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
John 12:48

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.



THE WORDS THAT YOU REJECTED WILL JUDGE YOU IN THE LAST DAY.


YOU HAVE REJECTED:


1 TIM 3:2
MAT 19:9,6
1 GAL 1:8
1 COR 4:6,9
ROMANS 1:29,32:(


Psalm 111:10

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

What's the point of all this scripture? Do you think just throwing scripture at someone is going to get them to become a Christian? :rolleyes:

FEAR THE LORD SOLA'LOR! FEAR THE LORD!:(

Really now?

We should be scared of our God?

You see, fear also has another meaning

fear = respect.
 

silvermoon383

Well-Known Member
I don't suppose there's any way we can have this thread closed is there? All it seems to be is an attempt at bashing Mormons.

Not to mention I think it could pose a health hazard (brain anurisms aren't very good for the body in my understanding).

Oh, and USS_bigd? Does your piano only have 1 key or something?
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
Before we conclude polygamy consider this:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

According to the Word of God... his own and her own is singular. This does not say that the man owns his wife either. It says they own each other. Also it says this is the only way to avoid fornication: they should have themselves to each other; man and wife.

It's not interpretation- it's simply reading a sentence.

If you're not justifying God in your argument then you are justifying man, institutions, theories, and lies. To justify God is to speak the truth of the matter, even at the detriment of your own belief.

I adhere strictly to that practice and believe it applies to all of us today. Again, I belleve there was a revelatory exception in the early days of our church, but no more.
 
I adhere strictly to that practice and believe it applies to all of us today. Again, I belleve there was a revelatory exception in the early days of our church, but no more.

Do you understand though, that you claim to have scripture that makes commandment of the issue of polygamy to the exclusion of members of the body of believers.

God makes no commandment concerning it, therefore, the commandment considered the Word of God by Mormons is not God's Word... it's the doctrine of man being taught for commandment.

"...teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me."
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
God makes no commandment concerning it, therefore, the commandment considered the Word of God by Mormons is not God's Word... it's the doctrine of man being taught for commandment.
And that is simply a matter of opinion. I'm of a different opinion. I believe that a God that is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow would not suddenly decide to stop talking to His children.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
Do you understand though, that you claim to have scripture that makes commandment of the issue of polygamy to the exclusion of members of the body of believers.

God makes no commandment concerning it, therefore, the commandment considered the Word of God by Mormons is not God's Word... it's the doctrine of man being taught for commandment.

"...teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me."

It's very clear to me that you don't accept the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants as part of God's word. I do, however. That's the difference between me and you. I don't think we're going to resolve that difference of firm faith conviction any time soon. Do you?
 

uss_bigd

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Sola'lor
No I'mnot inserting my owninterpretation. I'm simply stating that it doesn't not mention anything about polygamy. It would be a flawed arguement to say that just because it doesn't mention it, it condemns it.



Originally Posted by Sola'lor
Agreed. It (polygamy) would mean that it is open to be accepted or rejected at any given time.


Mr Sola'lor as you can see is contradicting himself.

he said: It would be a flawed arguement to say that just because it(the bible) doesn't mention it(polygamy), it condemns (therefore so is acceptance) it.

He said it is a flawed argument to interpret Mat 19:9 rejects polygamy

(Mat 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.")


he also said: It (polygamy) would mean that it is open to be accepted or rejected at any given time.


Now he says it is open to acceptance and rejection.:biglaugh:





 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
You have presented verse after verse out of context.
So why would anyone be surprised that you do the same with the thread?
 

FFH

Veteran Member
Rachel and Leah...need I say more about legitimate God ordained polygamy in the Bible ???

Are not Jacob's (Israel's) ten sons and one daughter a product of multiple wives and concubines ???

Of course, and in no way did Jacob sin by doing this, according to the Bible.

The Book of Mormon states that we should only take ONE wife, UNLESS the Lord commands otherwise, right now he's commanding OTHERWISE.

Currently we should ONLY take one wife, as TRUE Latter-day Saints.

It may surprise most to read this statement found in our own scriptures.

Jacob 2: 27, 30 (Book of Mormn)
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Doctrine and Covenants 49: 16 (LDS scripture)
Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

PLEASE CLICK ON LINKS AND READ VERSES IN CONTEXT.
 

Sola'lor

LDSUJC
[/color]
[/color]



Mr Sola'lor as you can see is contradicting himself.

he said: It would be a flawed arguement to say that just because it(the bible) doesn't mention it(polygamy), it condemns (therefore so is acceptance) it.

He said it is a flawed argument to interpret Mat 19:9 rejects polygamy

(Mat 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.")


he also said: It (polygamy) would mean that it is open to be accepted or rejected at any given time.


Now he says it is open to acceptance and rejection.:biglaugh:

Huh? :confused:
 

uss_bigd

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Sola'lor
Ummmm. Of course not. Joseph Smith didn't get the revelation to practice polygamy by reading the NT. He got it by revelation from Christ himself.
so, the accpetance of polygamy in your church was not based on the bible, specifically the NT during the time Christ dwelt among us. yes or no?
 

Starfish

Please no sarcasm
I don't think non-LDS understand what LDS believe about revelation. Some of the posts in this thread demonstrate my point.

I want to try something and see if it helps Christians on RF to understand what we believe. (Actually I should only speak for myself and what I believe). I'm not asking that you agree and accept. I just want you to get to a better level of understanding.

Suppose that you are living in the area of the Holy Land shortly after the resuurection of Christ. Suppose you never met him in person. Suppose that you hear Paul preaching, you feel a witness of the Holy Spirit that what he says is true. You become a Christian. Paul is alive. Peter is alive. Others who saw the resurrected Lord are alive. You don't have a Bible, but you have the Old Testament. You also have some epistles which you read and enjoy. The canon of scripture is growing. The authors of the scriptures are alive and well and continue to produce writings which will later be canonized. You, as a Christian, do not consider the canon of scripture to be closed nor do you expect it to close. You are living in the midst of living witnesses of Christ who continue to receive and teach his word by revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus has already been born, lived, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven. You never met him. He left behind living witnesses who represent him and can speak authoritatively concerning his divinity and resurrection. You gain strength in your own spritual witness as you hear them testify with conviction of what they saw and heard and felt.

Imagine yourself in that place and time. How do you see Peter, James, John, and Paul and the others? How do you interact with and accept their epistles, which are not yet canonized? Do they ever make personal statements, which you disgaree with? Do you assume some of what they say, in certain circumstances, may be personal opinion only and not revealed doctrine? How do you reconcile this? Are you accepting that they are less than perfect? Are you accepting that more of the word of God will yet be revealed from them? Are you excited and anxious for more? Do you feel like they should stop writing any more epistles, because the ones you have, you feel are sufficient?

As an LDS, I see myself as living in such a time. While its 2008, I see the same New Testament Church, if you will, in action and in existence in the LDS church. I see living prophets walking the earth. I get council and advice, sometimes opinions, and sometimes revelations through them. The canon is still growing. I'm excited and hope to receive more truth. I see a vibrant, Holy Ghost filled, church of God.

in a nutsheel, what I'm trying to say is that my perspective on continuing revelation, living prophets, and an open scriptural canon, is the same perspective which I believe you would have if you were alive in the days immediatley after the resurrection of Christ.

Well written and easy to follow. Thank you Scott.
 

uss_bigd

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sola'lor
Ummmm. Of course not. Joseph Smith didn't get the revelation to practice polygamy by reading the NT. He got it by revelation from Christ himself.



so, the accpetance of polygamy in your church was not based on the bible, specifically the NT during the time Christ dwelt among us. yes or no?

can somebody answer this question please?
 

Starfish

Please no sarcasm
This is where it began:
Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132: (Please ignore the underscoring.)

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
 

uss_bigd

Well-Known Member
This is where it began:
Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132: (Please ignore the underscoring.)

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.


i am not looking for an exlaination sir,

please answer me "yes" or "no"

the acceptance of polygamy by the LDS was not based on the bible specifically on the nt.

yes or no is sufficient sir. please?
 

Starfish

Please no sarcasm
i am not looking for an exlaination sir,

please answer me "yes" or "no"

the acceptance of polygamy by the LDS was not based on the bible specifically on the nt.

yes or no is sufficient sir. please?
Your question is worded in a way that makes it a little difficult to understand. So please excuse me if I am not answering you.

As you see in the quote from the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph was inquiring about various Old Testament prophets. So I'd say that the subject came up because of the Old Testament, not the NT. I'm not aware of any polygamy in the NT. So I'd say the answer would be no.
 

uss_bigd

Well-Known Member
Your question is worded in a way that makes it a little difficult to understand. So please excuse me if I am not answering you.

As you see in the quote from the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph was inquiring about various Old Testament prophets. So I'd say that the subject came up because of the Old Testament, not the NT. I'm not aware of any polygamy in the NT. So I'd say the answer would be no.


let us base it on sola'lors conclusion ok? if that's ok with you?

Originally Posted by Sola'lor
Ummmm. Of course not. Joseph Smith didn't get the revelation to practice polygamy by reading the NT. He got it by revelation from Christ himself.

Does this mean the practice of polygamy was not based on the NT of the bible? yes or no?
therefore sole based on "christ's personal revelation to Joseph smith" not on the NT? yes or no?
 
Top