1. 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!

Latter-day Saints

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by dan, Jun 16, 2004.

  1. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    I've found through my years of exposure to the religious scene that there are many misconceptions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The world is full of false notions and misguided precepts about this church. I happen to be extremely familiar with their religion, and would be happy to answer or respond to any questions/comments/accusations about them.
     
  2. KBC1963

    KBC1963 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Agnostic / Intelligent Design
    They believe that GOD was a man before he became GOD.
     
  3. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
  4. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
  5. KBC1963

    KBC1963 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Agnostic / Intelligent Design
    and what?

    anyone that has read the bible knows that GOD is spirit and not flesh and that he was never a man;

    Nu 23:19
    God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

    Joh 4:24
    God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    if you wish to believe in that religion you are truly degrading GOD and I would say that you can't get much closer to a satanic belief than that.
     
  6. David Jones

    David Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Ratings:
    +1
    First of all, the verses that were used to disprove the Latter-day Saints' understanding of the nature of God are ambiguous and frequently misinterpreted. I have commented on each of them:

    Numbers 23:19
    God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

    Most Bible scholars will tell you that the term "son of man" in the Old Testament usually just means "man"; this case is no exception. Either way, however, Latter-day Saints do not believe that God is a man nor do they believe that He is currently the son of man. We do believe that God was a man, though, and that he experienced mortal life just as we are experiencing it now. We believe that God is and forever will be an exalted being, the sole creator of our existence.

    John 4:24
    God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    Yes, God is a Spirit because he has a spirit. We believe that God also has a body; not a body like ours, but an exalted body. We were created in his image, but our bodies are not perfected and exalted like His.

    Now I would like to respond to one other concern. Many people think it is blasphemous to believe that man can become like God. But I would ask those people to consider this analogy: Think of a father (an earthly father) who loves his children. What does that father want for his children? If he loves them, he would want the best for them. That father would want them to attain everything that he has been able to attain. Likewise, our Father in Heaven wants us to have everything that He has, too. Why? Because He loves us. To say that God doesn't love his children is, in my opinion, more blasphemous than saying that God was once like man. God sent His son so that we might be redeemed from the Fall and from our sins; that we might return to live with our Heavenly Father for eternity.

    I support religious discussion; in fact, I recently started a website for religious discussion called BibleBash.com (bash meaning celebration). I would, however, encourage everyone to pray to Heavenly Father and ask Him for spiritual guidance.

    - David Jones
     
  7. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    Those are very kind words, and I imagine all the Latter-day Saints praise you for your charity and Christlike love, but those scriptures are taken about as far out of context as you can get.

    In the original Greek (from which you get the book of John) there does not exist the preposition "a," as in "a spirit." I could translate that scripture "God is spirit," and there does not exist a linguist in the wolrd that could tell me I was wrong. Now, I point you to another scripture in John where Christ is talking to Nicodemus and I ask you a question: are you born of the Spirit? If you are then you are contradicting your argument, because Christ tells Nicodemus, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," so I can be spirit (as can you and God) and have a body. Remarkable what happens when you study the scriptures free of the shackles and chains of bigotry. Also, God not being a man says nothing as to His capacity to have a body. My dog is also not a man, but it has a body.

    Next concern?
     
  8. David Jones

    David Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Ratings:
    +1
    I do believe that God has a physical body, but I do not believe Christ's teachings to Nicodemus had anything to do with the nature of God (for readers who are not familiar with the story of Nicodemus, I have provided it below my comments).

    When Christ spoke to Nicodemus, He was not trying to teach him about the nature of God; Christ was trying to teach Nicodemus how to understand spiritual concepts. The entire verse states: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Basically, Christ was telling Nicodemus that spiritual knowledge cannot come by way of the flesh; it must come by way of the Spirit. Nicodemus apparently understood secular things very well, but he struggled with spiritual concepts. This is why Christ felt the need to teach this concept to Nicodemus. Christ's intentions are evident a few verses later: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

    John 3:1-12 (King James Version)
    There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
     
  9. David Jones

    David Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Ratings:
    +1
    Here is a list of Biblical references that support the Latter-day Saints' belief concerning the corporeal nature of God. I would encourage readers to look some of these scriptures up and view them in their context. Many of these verses refer to parts of God's physical body such as His face, hand, mouth, foot, etc. Latter-day Saints generally consider these references to be literal as opposed to figurative. Other verses are much more direct, such as Philippians 3:21 which states: "our vile body . . . fashioned like unto his glorious body." In my opinion, these scriptures are sufficient evidence supporting the corporeal nature of God, but I would again suggest that readers take their questions to God in private prayer. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (James 1:5)

    Gen. 1:27 - God created man in his own image.
    Gen. 5:1 - God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.
    Gen. 9:6 - in the image of God made he man.
    Gen. 18:33 - Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing.
    Gen. 32:30 - I have seen God face to face.
    Ex. 24:10 - they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet.
    Ex. 31:18 - (Deut. 9: 10) written with the finger of God.
    Ex. 33:11 - Lord spake unto Moses face to face.
    Ex. 33:23 - thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not.
    Num. 12:8 - With him will I speak mouth to mouth.
    Matt. 3:17 - a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son.
    Matt. 4:4 - every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
    Matt. 17:5 - a voice out of the cloud.
    Luke 24:39 - for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
    John 14:9 - he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.
    Acts 7:56 - the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
    Rom. 8:29 - predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.
    2 Cor. 4:4 - Christ, who is the image of God.
    Philip. 2:6 - who, being in the form of God.
    Philip. 3:21 - our vile body . . . fashioned like unto his glorious body.
    Col. 1:15 - Who is the image of the invisible God.
    Heb. 1:3 - the express image of his person.
    James 3:9 - men which are made after the similitude of God.
    1 Jn. 3:2 - when he shall appear, we shall be like him.
    Rev. 22:4 - they shall see his face.
     
  10. KBC1963

    KBC1963 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Agnostic / Intelligent Design
    There are many ways to disprove that the god of mormonism is not truly the GOD of christianity, the GOD that I worship does not make mistakes and is not afraid of any earthly government.
    mormonism is one of the easiest of all pagan religions to disprove since its foundation was only in the mind of joseph smith "the scryer", and without much trouble I could make a list of mormon problems that can't really be overcome, but I will give you a few to try anyway.

    1) the book of mormon has had a multitude of changes since it was dreamed up, not only what are called text corrections but entire verse changes that changed the meanings. and this is touted as the most correct book on earth. (riiiiiiigggghhhhtt)

    2)Joseph Smith claimed that he could translate egyptian artifacts, he said the Book of Abraham facsimile no. 2 was "A FACSIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM". This claim is still displayed above the facsimile to this day in the Pearl of Great Price. But can this be true? Is the facsimile really from the Book of Abraham?
    The Book of Abraham facsimile no. 2 has nothing to do with Abraham at all. Egyptologists have identified facsimile no. 2 as a hypocephalus. A hypocephalus is an Egyptian magic amulet that is placed under the head of the deceased mummy to keep the body warm and it is without doubt that in our enlightened age that all of his translations were merely a dream coming from the same place as the book of mormon.

    3) most of his prophecies never came true and we are told in the BIBLE to test the people and if what they say doesn't come true then he didn't send them so what do you do with your prophet?, as usual there are always those that will follow what a man teaches because it sounds good to them, but you aren't obeying the GOD of the bible if you do.

    4) and now without breaking a sweat I will bring on one of the most destructive of problems for mormonism "THE PLURALITY OF WIVES" problem.
    The command to engage in plural marriage is still included in modern editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Section 132:4 declares: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

    if you follow mormonism and don't obey this then you never get to heaven anyway so why follow mormonism? I have heard many mormons say its no longer binding but I say that GOD doesnt make errors and according to most of LDS's early prophets polygamy is considered essential for exaltation!, and to top it off this revelation didn't even jive with the book of mormon itself;

    We find no reference within its pages that polygamy was practiced with God's permission. In fact, Jacob 2:27 reads, "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."

    One of the funniest things i,ve run across in past months is this information about the polygamy twist;


    A lengthy revelation on marriage for eternity and on the plurality of wives, dictated by Joseph Smith on July 12, 1843, was published following this announcement (D&C 132)." No doubt this practice came as quite a surprise to many of the converts who came to Utah from Europe. As far as they knew, polygamy was merely a vicious rumor propounded by enemies of the church. Why should they think otherwise? After all, the idea that Mormons were practicing polygamy was denied outright in the European edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, D&C section CIX:4, which had been printed in Liverpool, England in 1866, read: "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." Bear in mind that this denial was a part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876 -- 24 years after polygamy became an official LDS doctrine!
    and to top that off The same year that the above-mentioned Liverpool edition came out in 1866, Brigham Young preached, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses (JOD) 11:269).

    and as time went on there was just piles of LDS prophets that supported the revelation;

    On October 12, 1856, Heber C. Kimball (first counselor to Brigham Young) declared, "You might as well deny 'Mormonism,' and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives." (JOD 5:203).

    In 1866, Brigham Young forcefully stated, "We are told that if we would give up polygamy--which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven and it is God and the world for it--but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them." Later in the sermon President Young asked, "Will the Latter-day Saints do this? No" (JOD 11:239).

    That same year, John Taylor, Mormonism's future third president, accused those who opposed polygamy within the LDS Church as "apostates." He said: "Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God...When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom" (JOD 11:221).

    In 1869 Wilford Woodruff, Mormonism's future fourth president, taught, "If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).

    Even as late as 1879, Joseph F. Smith was insisting that plural marriage was essential for LDS exaltation. Speaking at the funeral of William Clayton, Mormonism's future sixth president, stated, "This doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become god..." (JOD 21:9).

    During a message given in 1880, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said, "...if plurality of marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinances, and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true." (JOD 21:296).

    Brigham Young said "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be dammed..." (Journal of Discourses 3:266).

    but in the end The signing of the Manifesto was certainly a major blow to the "prophetic insight" of Mormonism's leaders. Perhaps Woodruff forgot that it was he himself who said his church would continue to practice polygamy"come life or come death." In light of the numerous statements made by several LDS leaders, it is difficult to take seriously Woodruff's claim that he acted according to the will of God. To do so would be to admit God has a very short memory, or that the previous comments from LDS leaders were outside of the will of God.

    So there is just 5% of the things I could bring to disprove mormonism as christian or real for that matter. I know there is no arguement you can bring that will justify following mormonism since if you don't obey the revelations of joseph smith then you deny the very foundation that began mormonism.
     
  11. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    1) Care to mention these changes?

    2) The texts we have are a small fraction of what Joseph Smith had, and they do not include the portions he spoke of as containing the Book of Abraham. It is also a well known fact that Egyptians rarely put facsimiles next to the texts they accompanied. It is also a well known fact that a papyri was recently unearthed that contains a facsimile that represents a scene from the Book of Abraham and mentions Abraham in the text.

    3) And just what were these prophecies?

    4) This one is just stupid:

    You really must know nothing about the Latter-day Saints. This refers to mariage, mnot polygamy. Read the freaking texts, don't just take what other bigots like yourself breastfeed you as truth.

    Again, read the texts. Verse thirty talks about how God will institute polygamy if He needs to raise up seed to Himself, but otherwise everyone must obey those commands. You're a really pathetic anti-Mormon. Most do a much better job than this. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is really the "easiest of all pagan religions to disprove," then you just must not be very good at it, because you do a horrible job.
     
  12. KBC1963

    KBC1963 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Agnostic / Intelligent Design
    That is the expected type of answer I knew was coming and i'm ok with that, you go right ahead and believe what a man has taught you and I will go on with what GOD has taught me. as for your text qestions it will take just a day or so for me to gather the required information and then I will post here again but i'm sure that you will wipe them all away with one excuse or another but oh well as long as I do my part I will have a clean concience.

    2) The texts we have are a small fraction of what Joseph Smith had, and they do not include the portions he spoke of as containing the Book of Abraham. It is also a well known fact that Egyptians rarely put facsimiles next to the texts they accompanied. It is also a well known fact that a papyri was recently unearthed that contains a facsimile that represents a scene from the Book of Abraham and mentions Abraham in the text.

    answer this did Joseph translate those papri or not and and have they been subsequently retranslated and don't say anything about abraham at all? un less of course you might be saying that the egyptologist translation is incorect, that must be it .

    You really must know nothing about the Latter-day Saints. This refers to mariage, not polygamy. Read the freaking texts, don't just take what other bigots like yourself breastfeed you as truth.

    So in your opinion polygamy and plural wives is not the same thing hmmm
    so having 3 wives at the same time is ok right? or does plural have a new meaning as well? maybe the saints should publish a dictionary with the real meanings of words because apparently I went to the wrong schools all my life.

    WEBSTERS DICTIONARY
    po·lyg·a·my
    Pronunciation: -mE
    Function: noun
    1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time.
    2 : the state of being polygamous

    I will not further dispute this subject as I have posted a multitude of verses directly from doctrine and covenants that say in plain english what I mean and you just wipe them all away and say none of them mean what it says so I won't futher waste my time with it except for the following follow up.

    I love the way you guys can just read into things whatever fits when needed:

    [Verse thirty talks about how God will institute polygamy if He needs to raise up seed to Himself, but otherwise everyone must obey those commands]

    Well here is verse 30;

    [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.

    So somewhere in that verse it says polygamy right uhhh which word means that ? and if he needs to raise up seed why can't it be done just between a man and wife? In my bible it says he can make his people out of stones so I don't see that verse as giving you the go ahead to have many wives. Actually if you look further back from verse 30 you will also get a few more that back up my view:

    [23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

    [24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

    [25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

    [26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

    [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;

    HERE IS THE KEY TO VERSE THIRTY;

    [28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

    WEBSTERS DICTIONARY
    chas·ti·ty
    Pronunciation: 'chas-t&-tE
    Function: noun
    1 : the quality or state of being chaste : abstention from all sexual intercourse.

    HE WOULD PREFER THEY REMAIN CHASTE UNLESS HE COMMANDS OTHERWISE.

    [29] Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

    [30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people (not to remain chaste); otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

    So the more correct way of looking at this set of verses is that he prefers them to be single since you can't be chaste and married, so if he needs to have seed raised up then the unmarried should marry but only according to his commandment
    "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife"
     
  13. David Jones

    David Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Ratings:
    +1
    You have a knack for complicating fairly simple concepts. Here is my simple explanation of plural marriage.

    Question:
    Why did the Lord command the early Saints to engage in plural marriage?

    Answer:
    To understand this concept, one must read Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon: "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." This scripture basically states the following: The Lord prefers that His children engage in singular marriage, unless He wants to raise up His seed (a righteous generation of children), in which case he will command His people accordingly.

    In the Old Testament, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as others, were all commanded to take more than one wife. Why? To raise up seed unto the Lord. In the early days of the Church, several men were commanded to marry more than one woman. Why? For the same reason as in Old Testament times: because the Lord wanted to raise up His seed.

    In order to submit to the law of the land, the Church ended the practice of plural marriage (October 6th, 1890). By the time plural marriage was outlawed (by the law of the land), however, its purpose had been fulfilled; the Lord had raised up His seed. If the Saints had not practiced plural marriage, the population of the Church would not be nearly as large as it is today (approximately 12 million members worldwide).
     
  14. David Jones

    David Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Ratings:
    +1
    Question:
    Before 1890, some men in the Church had more than one wife, but no women had more than one husband. Why would God only allow men to engage in plural marriage?

    Answer:
    Again, the Lord's purpose for plural marriage is to raise up seed unto Him (Jacob 2:30). The Lord would not command a woman to marry more than one husband because it would not serve the Lord's purpose for plural marriage. See my last post for more information.
     
  15. quick

    quick Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Ratings:
    +0
    Christians believe revelation ended with the Biblical authors; Mormons believe in a latter day revelation (as opposed to inspiration) that is in addition to the Bible. That is a very, very major difference and problem for Mormonism.

    There are a number of doctrinal differences as well, but the Mormons as a practical matter are great neighbors. So long as they make it clear they are Mormons and not Christians, I don't have a problem with them, practically. I do not think, however, they are saved, and when they come to my house, I witness to them.
     
  16. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    The papyri that we have today are not from those translated into the Book of Abraham.

    Will you please show me where,in my copy of Doctrine and Covenants,it says, "This next verse does not refer to marriage as do the previous all the way to the beginning of the chapter, it refers to polygamy, even though that concept will not be introduced into this text for another twenty verses."


    This is stupid. I am holding in my hand a copy of D&C, and the first half of section 132 talks about monogomous marriage, pure and simple, and that's where your quote comes from. If you would like to whip out your copy and show me how it's different I'll listen, but backing out because you have no leg to stand on is about the most cowardly thing I could imagine you doing right now. Let me get one thing straight for you: I never denied that polygamy was practiced, but there is no where in our scripture that says it must be lived by everyone. If you want to show me in my scriptures where it says that I'll listen.

    He raises up seed through plygamy because there are more women than men, men can reproduce more quickly than women, many men were killed by different things, and many other reasons. It's the same reason He did it in the Old Testament: His people were weak and He wanted them strong. Polygamy is the most efficient way to do this. Don't tell me how to interpret my scriptures, and don't isolate obscure scriptures to force your own inferences upon them.

    You have yet to provide a convincing argument, you're just dancing around making statements that you can't back up.
     
  17. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    It is a problem only if you agree with the idea that revelation ends with the Bible. How do Christians (and you) validate that theory?
     
  18. KBC1963

    KBC1963 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Agnostic / Intelligent Design
    [2) The texts we have are a small fraction of what Joseph Smith had, and they do not include the portions he spoke of as containing the Book of Abraham. It is also a well known fact that Egyptians rarely put facsimiles next to the texts they accompanied. It is also a well known fact that a papyri was recently unearthed that contains a facsimile that represents a scene from the Book of Abraham and mentions Abraham in the text. ]

    The information provided comes mostly from LDS history so whether you include their history or not doesn't matter to me but I judge Joseph Smith by all the written history pertaining to him.

    [The papyri that we have today are not from those translated into the Book of Abraham. ]

    Not according to your own LDS Church-owned Deseret
    News

    In July of 1835, an Irishman named Michael Chandler brought an exhibit of four Egyptian mummies and papyri to Kirtland Ohio, then the home of the Mormons. The papyri contained Egyptian hieroglyphics. In 1835 hieroglyphics were unreadable.
    As Prophet and Seer of the Church, Joseph Smith was given permission to look at the papyri scrolls in the exhibit and to everyone's shock, revealed that "one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (History of the Church, Vol. 2: 236. July 1835). The Church bought the exhibit for $2400. Joseph finished the translation of the Book of Abraham some time later, but the book of Joseph was never translated. The papyri were lost soon afterwards and thought to have been destroyed in a fire in Chicago in 1871.

    Then in 1966 the papyri were rediscovered in one of the vault rooms of the New York’s metropolitan Museum of Art. The Deseret News of Salt Lake City on Nov. 27, 1967 acknowledged the rediscovery of the papyri. On the back of the papyri were "drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area."There could be no doubt that this was the original document from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham.

    Joseph Smith copied three drawings from the Egyptian scrolls, labeled them Facsimile No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, and incorporated them into the Book of Abraham with explanations of what they were. Egyptologists have viewed the drawings and found Joseph Smith's interpretation of them to be wrong. But, the Mormons, in defense of the sacred book, maintained that the Facsimiles alone were not sufficient to prove that Joseph Smith was erring in his translating abilities. With the rediscovery of the papyri, not only were there the same drawings in the scrolls, but so was the text from which Joseph Smith made his translation. It was now possible to absolutely determine the accuracy of Smith's translating abilities.

    Joseph Smith said that Facsimile No. 1 was of a bird as the "Angel of the Lord" with "Abraham fastened upon an altar," "being offered up as a sacrifice by a false priest. The pots under the altar were various gods "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Pharaoh," etc.
    In reality, this is "an embalming scene showing the deceased lying on a lion-couch."
    In the original papyri, this drawing is attached to hieroglyphics (See figure A, http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm ) from which Joseph derived the beginning of the book of Abraham which begins with the words, "In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence"(1:1). In reality, the hieroglyphics translate as, "Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons -- and likewise Osiris Hor, justified, born to Tikhebyt, justified -- after his arms have been placed on his heart and the Breathing permit (which [Isis] made and has writing on its inside and outside) has been wrapped in royal linen and placed under his left arm near his heart; the rest of the mummy-bandages should be wrapped over it. The man for whom this book was copied will breath forever and ever as the bas of the gods do."
    "It is the opening portion of an Egyptian Shait en Sensen, or Book of Breathings . . . a late funerary text that grew out of the earlier and more complex Book of the Dead." "This particular scroll was prepared (as determined by handwriting, spelling, content, etc.) sometime during the late Ptolemaic or early Roman period (circa 50 B.C. to A.D. 50)."

    As is explained by Joseph Smith and included in the Pearl of Great Price, the second drawing contains different scenes which Joseph Smith interpreted. They vary: "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." "Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides." "God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority." "...this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key..."
    But again scholarship disagrees with Joseph’s rendition. "It is actually a rather common funerary amulet termed a hypocephalus, so-called because it was placed under (hypo) a mummy’s head (cephalus). Its purpose was to magically keep the deceased warm and to protect the body from desecration by grave robbers."

    According to Smith, this drawing shows "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood...King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head...Signifies Abraham in Egypt...Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince..."
    But this is not what the Egyptologists say is the meaning of the Facsimile No. 3 is. Instead, it shows, "the deceased being led before Osiris, god of the dead, and behind the enthroned Osiris stands his wife Isis."


    It is a normal thing for me to encounter those that will deny evidences no matter what it is and I have no doubt that everything I call as evidence you will find some excuse to get around but it is plain to see by your own churches history and written documents made by or for LDS that what I say is true it must have been a real blow to the LDS when after the papyri were rediscovered that all evidences proved joseph wrong, which then means that they have to do their best to cover up the error or else the religion would lose its foundation, too bad so much was written about the incident at the time and much of it by LDS.
     
  19. KBC1963

    KBC1963 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Agnostic / Intelligent Design
    It seems that this arguement is getting a little strung out so I will pull it back together.

    I originally stated:

    That without breaking a sweat I will bring on one of the most destructive of problems for mormonism "THE PLURALITY OF WIVES" problem.

    The command to engage in plural marriage is still included in modern editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Section 132:4 declares: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."


    To which you replied:

    This one is just stupid

    You really must know nothing about the Latter-day Saints. This refers to marriage, not polygamy. Read the freaking texts, don't just take what other bigots like yourself breastfeed you as truth.

    Will you please show me where,in my copy of Doctrine and Covenants,it says, "This next verse does not refer to marriage as do the previous all the way to the beginning of the chapter, it refers to polygamy, even though that concept will not be introduced into this text for another twenty verses."

    This is stupid. I am holding in my hand a copy of D&C, and the first half of section 132 talks about monogomous marriage, pure and simple, and that's where your quote comes from. If you would like to whip out your copy and show me how it's different I'll listen, but backing out because you have no leg to stand on is about the most cowardly thing I could imagine you doing right now. Let me get one thing straight for you: I never denied that polygamy was practiced, but there is no where in our scripture that says it must be lived by everyone. If you want to show me in my scriptures where it says that I'll listen.



    Ok then let us look again, at verse 1 that is just before verse 4


    THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS - SECTION 132
    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.

    Did you read that you "must obey"

    4) For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

    It says here that the lord is giving a "justification" (for those mentioned) of their having many wives and concubines in verse 1, then in verse 2 he is told to obey that law that he is explaining etc....
    so I will once again give the current definition of what it means to have more than one wife.

    WEBSTERS DICTIONARY
    po·lyg·a·my
    1) marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time.
    2) the state of being polygamous

    So I am justified in saying that the command to be polygamous begins with THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS - SECTION 132 - 1 and in between ramblings it continues through the whole section:

    THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS - SECTION 132
    38 ) David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

    39 ) David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the ckeys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

    61 ) And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

    62 ) And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

    65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.


    So I am correct in saying that;
    The command to engage in plural marriage is still included in modern editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, here is a few words from a church leader as well:

    Joseph F. Smith, the sixth president of the church, emphasized the doctrinal necessity of practicing polygamy ("plural marriage"):

    Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I know that it is false. ... Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. ... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. (Journal of Discourses 20:28-31.)







    and your interpretation of the book of mormon as I showed earlier is flawed and I will put that here again so that you can show me how you get polygamy out of these verses:


    [23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

    [24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

    [25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

    [26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

    [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;

    HERE IS THE KEY TO VERSE THIRTY;

    [28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

    WEBSTERS DICTIONARY
    chas·ti·ty
    Pronunciation: 'chas-t&-tE
    Function: noun
    1 : the quality or state of being chaste : abstention from all sexual intercourse.

    HE WOULD PREFER THEY REMAIN CHASTE UNLESS HE COMMANDS OTHERWISE.

    [29] Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

    [30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people (not to remain chaste); otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

    So the more correct way of looking at this set of verses is that he prefers them to be single since you can't be chaste and married, so if he needs to have seed raised up then the unmarried should marry but only according to his commandment .
    "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife"
     
  20. KBC1963

    KBC1963 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Agnostic / Intelligent Design
    I have also noted that you gave no response to this part of my post which is the support evidences to my last post so I will post them in a separate message here to ensure that you see it.

    On October 12, 1856, Heber C. Kimball (first counselor to Brigham Young) declared, "You might as well deny 'Mormonism,' and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives." (JOD 5:203).

    In 1866, Brigham Young forcefully stated, "We are told that if we would give up polygamy--which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven and it is God and the world for it--but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them." Later in the sermon President Young asked, "Will the Latter-day Saints do this? No" (JOD 11:239).

    That same year, John Taylor, Mormonism's future third president, accused those who opposed polygamy within the LDS Church as "apostates." He said: "Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God...When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom" (JOD 11:221).

    In 1869 Wilford Woodruff, Mormonism's future fourth president, taught, "If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).

    Even as late as 1879, Joseph F. Smith was insisting that plural marriage was essential for LDS exaltation. Speaking at the funeral of William Clayton, Mormonism's future sixth president, stated, "This doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become god..." (JOD 21:9).

    During a message given in 1880, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said, "...if plurality of marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinances, and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true." (JOD 21:296).

    Brigham Young said "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be dammed..." (Journal of Discourses 3:266).

    but in the end The signing of the Manifesto was certainly a major blow to the "prophetic insight" of Mormonism's leaders. Perhaps Woodruff forgot that it was he himself who said his church would continue to practice polygamy"come life or come death." In light of the numerous statements made by several LDS leaders, it is difficult to take seriously Woodruff's claim that he acted according to the will of God. To do so would be to admit God has a very short memory, or that the previous comments from LDS leaders were outside of the will of God

    It was in direct accordance with U.S. government pressure that polygamy was stopped by mormons and the so called order by god to stop was just their way of squeezing out of an impossible situation.
     
Loading...