Abrahamic - Mormons

[NoName]

Here's something. But it isn't the BoM and the Bible. It's the BoM and the teachings of the church. I thought I would bring it up because this thread isn't getting much air time, but if you don't want to debate it, that's fine. The BoM (which is "another testament of Jesus Christ") specifically speaks against polygamy (Jacob 2:27), yet the early "church of Christ" allowed it.

 

[jonny]

Here's something. But it isn't the BoM and the Bible. It's the BoM and the teachings of the church. I thought I would bring it up because this thread isn't getting much air time, but if you don't want to debate it, that's fine. The BoM (which is "another testament of Jesus Christ") specifically speaks against polygamy (Jacob 2:27), yet the early "church of Christ" allowed it.

There have been times when polygamy has been allowed by God, and times when it hasn't. Polygamy was put into the LDS church because of revelation and it was removed because of revelation. The Nephites never had a revelation allowing Polygamy and the Lord was making it clear that they were not to have more than one wife. It's the same in the church today - if someone has more than one wife they are excommunicated.

I was going to recommend that you start another thread, but you could argue that this verse contradicts the Bible, which does not necessarily teach against polygamy.

 

[Aqualung]

True. While I am greatful that someone would actually answer this thread, I'll have to go with jonny on this one.

Except now that jonny edited his post I don't make much sense at all! :biglaugh: Okay, I guess let's just continue with this as it is.

 

[jonny]

True. While I am greatful that someone would actually answer this thread, I'll have to go with jonny on this one.

Except now that jonny edited his post I don't make much sense at all! :biglaugh: Okay, I guess let's just continue with this as it is.

I figured we might as well make the thread useful.

 

[Aqualung]

I figured we might as well make the thread useful.

Yeah. It's always a pitty when a thread goes to waste. But you'll have to do this one; I still don't know a lot on church history.

 

[FFH]

Hey I got a question. I want ot change my pic but cant seem to use any of my pics because they dont fit into the 100 x 100 pixel pic box. I want to change my name and I read that this can be done if I have a certain amount of coins. I dont see the coins anywhere.

 

[Aqualung]

to look at your coins, go to the main page, and then click on your name under where it says who's online. I think that's the only way to do it. I just always find pictures that are small enough, because I can never shrink them good enough.

 

[Pah]

Hey I got a question. I want ot change my pic but cant seem to use any of my pics because they dont fit into the 100 x 100 pixel pic box. I want to change my name and I read that this can be done if I have a certain amount of coins. I dont see the coins anywhere.

Site Feedback is the better place for this question. You have "coins: 244.00" and that's from your public profile. You can directly access your coin total in the store

 

[Katzpur]

Here's something. But it isn't the BoM and the Bible. It's the BoM and the teachings of the church. I thought I would bring it up because this thread isn't getting much air time, but if you don't want to debate it, that's fine. The BoM (which is "another testament of Jesus Christ") specifically speaks against polygamy (Jacob 2:27), yet the early "church of Christ" allowed it.

Read on, NoName. Verse 30 specifically states that there are times when the Lord may authorize plural marriage, but that unless He commands otherwise, they shall practice monogamy.

 

[jonny]

Hey I got a question. I want ot change my pic but cant seem to use any of my pics because they dont fit into the 100 x 100 pixel pic box. I want to change my name and I read that this can be done if I have a certain amount of coins. I dont see the coins anywhere.

I think this is the most meaningful post on the thread so far (other than NoName's of course). :woohoo:

 

[NoName]

Read on, NoName. Verse 30 specifically states that there are times when the Lord may authorize plural marriage, but that unless He commands otherwise, they shall practice monogamy.

Touché. Mormons are seriously the hardest people to debate! (maybe because they're right! ) Okay, let me try to dig up a "real" claim. It's hard, though, with all that completely untrue anti-mormon stuff floating around.

 

[NoName]

The BoM specifically has Jesus Christ saying, on several occasions, "I am the Father." He's not just saying, "I and my father are one." This seems to jive more with trinitarian doctrines than with the "Godhead" doctrine of the Latter Day Saints.

 

[Katzpur]

The BoM specifically has Jesus Christ saying, on several occasions, "I am the Father." He's not just saying, "I and my father are one." This seems to jive more with trinitarian doctrines than with the "Godhead" doctrine of the Latter Day Saints.

You're good! No doubt about it!

Yup, you're right. Most notable of these passages is the one in Ether 3:14, which states, "I am the Father and the Son." There is no lack of evidence that we believe Jesus Christ to be "the Son," but here our own scriptures state that He is also the Father! Jesus is sometimes called "Father" because of His role as the Creator, under His Father's direction. (See Ephesians 3:9 for the Biblical reference to this doctrine.) Because of His creative role, the Book of Mormon refers to Him in several places as "the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning."

He is also known as "Father" because, through His Atonement, He is directly responsible for our spiritual "rebirth." As the author of salvation, His role is as a Father figure to those who are "born again" in Him. He is the Father of mankind in that respect.

He is occasionally called "Father" because God (the Father) gave Him (Christ) everything He (the Father) has and this includes His titles. As the Doctrine and Covenants explains it, He says, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one -- the Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world."

Ball's in your court.

 

[jonny]

Consider this scripture:
Mosiah 5:7
And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called children of Christ, his sones, and his daughters; for behold this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and daughters.

 

[NoName]

Ball's in your court.

Why does the ball seem to spend so much time in my court?

 

[SoyLeche]

Why does the ball seem to spend so much time in my court?

Katz is good. I'm glad she's on my team.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is many years since I read the Book of Mormon and as far as I remember it was Quite unlike the Bible, and the only point of contact with it, seemed to take things from Jesus death till he rose again.

Now I would not argue with this, I t is not some thing I believe, but it is not necessary for my faith to disbelieve it either.
That is true of most of the Mormon beliefs I have heard about.

This is why I said in another post, I see the LDS as more of a suffix to Christianity, than in competition with it.

I think the main reason most will not Join the debate, is that like me they have very littlt knowledge of the BOM.
The antagnosism to mormons seems to be, in inverse proportion to their understanding of it.

Terry___________________
Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land

 

[spacemonkey]

http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml this is the story of the BoM from a LDS website. Tell me if you belive it after reading it.

 

[Aqualung]

http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml this is the story of the BoM from a LDS website. Tell me if you belive it after reading it.

That's not an LDS website. Having the word lds in the title doesn't mean it's LDS.

 

[SoyLeche]

http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml this is the story of the BoM from a LDS website. Tell me if you belive it after reading it.

Did you look at the website? Katz is better at this sort of thing, but I think the site you are referring to as an LDS site is more accurately described as an anti-LDS site.