Latter-day Saints

[KBC1963]

I would like to also put forth that joseph smith never obeyed the rules as he wrote them in the D & C and here are some of the proveable things that I can state without problem:

In May 1844, Joseph Smith preached a sermon in Nauvoo:
[William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.... A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now [William Law] has charged me with adultery....I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. - (History of the Church 6:410-411)

But the truth was:

By May, 1844, Joseph Smith had "married" over thirty women, after secretly instructing them that he had received a revelation from God commanding him to practice "celestial marriage" (polygamy). The revelation now is canonized as scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 132. The marriage ("sealing") ceremonies were performed in secret, with one of Smith's church colleagues officiating. About one-third of the women had legal husbands still living. Most of the women stated later that their relatiionship to the prophet involved sexual intercourse. Since none of these marriages were legal under the civil laws in effect at the time, all these relationships were adulterous.
For details, see Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City 1998.


It was not until 1843 that Emma was informed about the doctrine. By that time Joseph had married over twenty women, including women and girls who had been living in the Smith home as boarders or wards Eliza Snow, Emily Partridge, Elizabeth Partridge.
For details, see Mormon Enigma: [Biography of] Emma Hale Smith, by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, New York, 1984, chapters 7 and 8.
The revelation under authority of which Joseph Smith married these women, clearly requires the consent of the first wife:

...if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent... then is he justified... (D&C 132:61)
Not only did Smith not have Emma's consent, he did not even inform her of most of them.


It should also be noted that lying was the thing to do if you were a mormon;

In the official Mormon periodical Times and Seasons, dated March 15, 1844, (Vol.5, No.6, p.474) Hyrum Smith wrote:

To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting: Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to-day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here, and any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about.

At the time he wrote this, Hyrum Smith had married at least five wives polygamously, most within the previous year (he was converted to the secret polygamy doctrine in 1843). His polygamous wives were Mercy R. Fielding, Catherine Phillips, Lydia Dibble, Louisa Sanger, a woman named Perry and another woman named Derbot. (listed in D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power [Vol. 1], Salt Lake City 1994, pp. 583-584)

and it just keeps getting better......

In a public debate with Protestant ministers at Boulogne-sur-Mer, France, in 1850, John Taylor (then an apostle, later to become the third president of the church), said:
We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore... I shall content myself to reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330, .... "we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband." (Three Nights' Public Discussion..., published by John Taylor, Liverpool 1850, photocopy in Sharon Banister, For Any Latter-day Saint, Fort Worth 1988, p. 289)

At the time of this discussion however, John Taylor was married to eleven wives in addition to his first (legal) wife: Elizabeth Kaighin, Jane Ballantyne, Anna Ballantyne, Mary A. Oakley, Mary A. Utley, Mary Ramsbottom, Sarah Thornton, Lydia Dibble (Hyrum Smith's polygamous widow), Ann Hughlings, Sophia Whittaker, and Harriet Whittaker. He had also been married to Mercy R. Fielding Smith (Hyrum Smith's widow), but the marriage had ended in divorce. (listed in D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power [Vol. 1], Salt Lake City 1994, p. 597)

 

[David Jones]

KBC1963, I'm not going to respond to 3 pages of concerns. I am a very busy person and I do not have that much time. I will answer all of your concerns, but ONLY ONE QUESTION AT A TIME. This is a forum. We are supposed to have a DISCUSSION. Not a book writing contest. It's obvious that you've simply been copying and pasting anti-Mormon literature from other websites into this forum. Be a little more creative than that. From now on, I will only answer ONE QUESTION AT A TIME. Otherwise, I will simply ignore you (KBC1963) and answer others' concerns. Thanks.

 

[David Jones]

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.

Thank you for your respectful comments - they are nice to hear, especially in this forum. Everything you said is true except I would argue with this statement: "they are Mormons and not Christians". I have never been to a Sunday meeting where I have not heard about Jesus Christ. The name of our church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". By definition, a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. By definition, we are Christians; followers of Christ. Many people say that we worship a different Jesus Christ than other Christians. This is false. We worship the same Jesus Christ that is found in the Bible. I think people should have the right to say who they follow and what they believe. We follow Jesus Christ; we are Christians.

 

[KBC1963]

ummmm I thought I was responding to Dan so I guess if you don't want to answer then that would be fine.
and for your info whether my posts are cut and paste or typed you still can't come up with anything that can answer the evidence, would you prefer that I go to where each of the evidences are in person then have it scanned in and sent as an attachment instead? I knew when I posted here that only those items that you guyz think you have an answer for would be the ones that get any reply and thats why I said I was only posting 5% of what I have on hand, I have been studying the foundations of almost every religion for over 25 years so I have volumes that are local on my computer and some is cut and paste but much is hand typed.
but in any event you don't need to reply at all because i'm positive you will not change your point of view even if Joseph Smith came to you face to face and told you it was all a lie, you would just say that he had fallen away.

 

[David Jones]

for your info whether my posts are cut and paste or typed you still can't come up with anything that can answer the evidence

I (and Dan) have been responding to the "evidence" and I will continue to do so. However, since I don't have "volumes" on my computer (like you do) to copy and paste from, I will only answer one concern at a time. I have written all of my responses by hand and will continue to do so. Let's just try to keep it down to one issue or piece of "evidence" at a time, okay? Thanks.

but in any event you don't need to reply at all because i'm positive you will not change your point of view even if Joseph Smith came to you face to face and told you it was all a lie, you would just say that he had fallen away.

So, would you be converted if Joseph Smith came to you face to face and told you that it was all true?

If people want to find out truth, they should NOT listen to people like me and you. They should pray to God (assuming, of course, they have faith in God). God, through the Holy Ghost, will show them the truth.

 

[dan]

I don't appreciate your attempts to intimidate me with your rhetoric; and I really don't appreciate you telling me how to interpret my scriptures.

What's the "New and Everlasting Covenant" (of which it speaks in D&C 132)?


As far as Jacob 2:30, you're interpreting it wrong. What does the word "otherwise" mean? It means that an exception is being made. Don't do this; "for if I want to, I'll command my people, but OTHERWISE listen to what this says." He's not refering to being chaste, and you know nothing of the Book of Mormon except what other bigots breastfeed you. Learn something for yourself and please don't tell me what I believe.

If you want me to respond to other stuff, you address me as I do you; point by point. I will not respond to this spiritual masturbation that you call a discussion. Do not flood me with your hatred, and (I repeat) do not tell me what I believe or how to interpret my scriptures; I know them better than you know yourself.

 

[KBC1963]

I had not intended to intimidate anyone dan, maybe it is just the way i'm conveying but its not my intent.
David and Dan I shall deal with one subject alone as you wish.

I will try to deal with the interpretation of the scriptures from the book of mormon first and we shall see what comes of that before going on to another item, ok?

As far as Jacob 2:30, you're interpreting it wrong. What does the word "otherwise" mean? It means that an exception is being made. Don't do this; "for if I want to, I'll command my people, but OTHERWISE listen to what this says." He's not refering to being chaste, and you know nothing of the Book of Mormon except what other bigots breastfeed you. Learn something for yourself and please don't tell me what I believe.

You may better describe me as zealous rather than bigotted as anything that I interpret to corrupt GOD's way I try to address quickly.

Ok lets examine Jacob 23-30 a bit closer if you will.


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.

[He begins by saying that the people have comitted gross crimes by doing as David and solomon had done by having more than one wife and further says it is a whoredom]

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

[Here he reconfirms the subject is plural wives and gives the act a new description "abominable". I will put here the meaning of abominable and gross.

Abominable
1) unequivocally detestable; "something hated without equal"

gross
5) conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible]


[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.

[Here he continues the original thought by saying that this is the reason why he led his people away from jerusalem so that he could make them righteous and keep them from doing the same again.]

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

[and without doubt he confirms that he won't let his people to do those things again]

[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;

[and to make very sure he is understood he spells it out that it will be one man and one woman]


[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.

[Here he wants people to know what he does like which is Chastity and does another confirmation of the same descriptors to ensure that he is not missunderstood about this subject]

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

[now this whole time he has been beating into thier heads what he hates and how it is evil and he states to what extent he shall ensure that it isn't done again.]

[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.

Now here is the crux for 7 verses he lets you know just what he hates,and he gives you 1 verse telling you what he loves and so now we need to determine which of the 2 things GOD will change his mind about when he needs to raise up seed.

1 plural wives) I question why he would change his mind about how much he hates this abomination and allow it to happen again after beating it into their heads that it is wrong and totally disgusting it is in his view, I would also question why the almighty would ever command anyone to commit an abomination, since he is almighty i'm sure he could raise seed in a way that is holy and lawfull. to say that GOD would change his mind about an evil act would be saying he is changeable according to the whim of the day, The GOD of my bible says that he does not change so it would be reprehensable for me to think that it could possibly mean this when it is equally possible to see it this way:

2 chastity) Now to me this could be understood that if a woman obeys his commandment to be chaste then she can't raise up seed right?
so he could command that the women stop being chaste "which he loves" and do a lawfull thing by raising up seed. right?

So it seems to me that my view falls more in line with what GOD would love and also keeps anyone from comitting any sins, so why would you want to see it the other way?. I believe it is unthinkable that GOD would have any part in doing any evil thing.

 

[dan]

Now here is the crux for 7 verses he lets you know just what he hates,and he gives you 1 verse telling you what he loves and so now we need to determine which of the 2 things GOD will change his mind about when he needs to raise up seed.

Tell me, then, what is the commandment that they may have to obey in the future, but not necessarily now? Why is it in direct contrast to what He commands them in the rest of Jacob 2?

 

[KBC1963]

Tell me, then, what is the commandment that they may have to obey in the future, but not necessarily now? Why is it in direct contrast to what He commands them in the rest of Jacob 2?

Well I don't see it saying anything about what the exact wording of the command will be do you? I would however be sure by the amout of verses against plural wives that it wouldn't be that. Unless you have a verse that shows what this later command might be, then anything you would say would be of private interpretation

Now as for the contrasting, I don't see anything contrasting in the rest of Jacob 2, it would be nice if you would show the exact items you are refering to so that anyone reading this will be able to judge the evidence as well.

I will add the last verses of Jacob 2 and see what possible contrast against what I have written in the last post could be there.

[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

in this one we see a continuation of the negativeness of plural wives.

[32] And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

and once again he states that he won't let this continue the way it has, just like verse 26.

[33] For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

and once again he states that he won't let this continue the way it has, just like verse 26.


[34] And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

another recomfimation they wern't supposed to do what they were doing.

[35] Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

and lastly we see that their actions as to plural wives has caused harm to their families.

So from what I have seen here it would take a miracle to see these verses contrasting with Jacob 2 23-30, so again I say that to interpret
jacob 2, 23-35 to say that its ok to have plural wives is incorrect.

I see the following verses to be saying directly that it is offensive to GOD to have plural wives and not wanted:

Jacob 2, 23,24,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,34,35

Imagine if you will that you are a child and your parents tell you over and over again not to do something and they take all the time to impress upon you how bad it is and how much they hate it, now how often have they changed their minds about something like that and later told you to do it and that its ok?
If you hate something in life how often do you change over and like it?

My GOD does not change, what he hates is what he has always hated and what he will always hate and for him to say it would be ok to have plural wives after reading Jacob 2 23-35 would be about equal to him saying that it would be ok for you to worship other god's as long as you were doing it to raise up seed. I will also show below that the bible which was written by inspiration of the GOD that mormonism professes to follow also sides with me on this issue

Ge 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ge 7:13
In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

Mt 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mt 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mt 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

1Co 7:1
¶ Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Co 7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1Co 7:38
So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

1Ti 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

1Ti 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


Thought I might point out also that GOD never told abraham to take another wife, there is only one place that talks about how abraham got the second wife:

Ge 16:2
And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

I also understand that in no way shape or form will anyone be married when we go to heaven as CHRIST said;

Mr 12:24
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
Mr 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

[dan]

Well I don't see it saying anything about what the exact wording of the command will be do you? I would however be sure by the amout of verses against plural wives that it wouldn't be that. Unless you have a verse that shows what this later command might be, then anything you would say would be of private interpretation.

The commandment will have to be contradicting the prior verses. It's not too hard to figure out what that commandment might be. When you come up with a better answer than that I may listen; but for now my interpretation holds more water.

because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

in this one we see a continuation of the negativeness of plural wives.

This is a renouncing of the wickedness of various husbands; it has nothing to do with plural marriages, and it certainly has nothing to do with a forthcoming commandment that they now live opposed to.

and lastly we see that their actions as to plural wives has caused harm to their families.

This action is referring to the bad examples that parents set for their children. It also refers to a multitude of different things, not specifically polygamy.

I also understand that in no way shape or form will anyone be married when we go to heaven as CHRIST said;

Mr 12:24
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
Mr 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

You're absolutely right; there will be no marrying in heaven. That's what the church has always taught.

 

[KBC1963]

The commandment will have to be contradicting the prior verses. It's not too hard to figure out what that commandment might be. When you come up with a better answer than that I may listen; but for now my interpretation holds more water.

I agree that they are to obey unless otherwise commanded, but you can't prove that it is dealing only with the law of plural wives he may only be talking about one of the 2 things that he spoke about, it is not unreasonable for me to assume that he may only mean chastity. If we interpret it your way then he would also command that there be no women being chaste as well. so then as I have said you have chosen your own private interpretation which as I have shown by all the scriptures posted from the Bible is in direct contradiction to them.
You still can't explain why it would say all those things in the Bible if it wasn't meant for us to obey them, and I defy you to show me where GOD commanded them in the old testament to take multiple wives in the first place. (keep in mind the BOM was written by joseph smith and before we can accept anything he says he must be tested by the test of a prophet) so there are many obstacles for you to overcome before your theory can hold anymore water than mine seeing as how I have a majority of scriptures to back me up.

This is a renouncing of the wickedness of various husbands; it has nothing to do with plural marriages, and it certainly has nothing to do with a forthcoming commandment that they now live opposed to.

This action is referring to the bad examples that parents set for their children. It also refers to a multitude of different things, not specifically polygamy.

Both of your statements here are what you are interpreting into the verses there is nothing in that whole section that speaks about any other thing than the plural wives problem so for you to read in any other things then you are doing so with no scriptural backup.

You're absolutely right; there will be no marrying in heaven. That's what the church has always taught.

Let me make sure you understand what I am saying " there will be no-one in a state of marriage in heaven", I do understand the mormon play on words thing and to most anyone other than a mormon that verse tells the tale for our future, there will be no one married in heaven. Getting married on earth is merely a shadow (earthly ritual resembling the heavenly)of when CHRIST's church will be married to him as is spoken of in many scriptures.

So as near as I can tell you have not brought anything in the way of real proof to the table on this argument, which leads me to believe that you posted this forum not to prove right and wrong but rather to catch the unwary persons who may be duped into following mormonism just as you were, by a blind belief in whatever you have been taught which is too bad because everyone you catch is possibly never going to learn the truth, however I have faith in GOD to bring those he has called into the fold no matter what is done to thwart that.

 

[dan]

it is not unreasonable for me to assume that he may only mean chastity.

So you think that God would give a commandment to have sex before marriage before He would re-institute polygamy?

(keep in mind the BOM was written by joseph smith and before we can accept anything he says he must be tested by the test of a prophet)

It says by their fruits we shall know them. What are the fruits of Joseph Smith? The Book of Mormon is the most obvious one; so a test of the merit of the Book of Mormon would (Biblically) be the first test to be given. Let us establish the veracity of this book as a revelation from God. I will start tonight with only one issue: chiasmus. Chiasmus is present in the Book of Mormon just as frequently as in the Bible; and it is known to be a purely oriental habit that was not even known to the western world until well after the publication of the Book of Mormon. How do you explain it's existence in the Book of Mormon?

Let me make sure you understand what I am saying " there will be no-one in a state of marriage in heaven"

That's not Biblical, it's an inference. The Bible only says that the action of being married and being given in marriage will not take place. How do you justify extending a reference to include the state of being married?

 

[KBC1963]

So you think that God would give a commandment to have sex before marriage before He would re-institute polygamy?

Nope didn't say that at all, meant that he could command that they marry and have children rather than being chaste, which would be the most obvious idea there.

That's not Biblical, it's an inference. The Bible only says that the action of being married and being given in marriage will not take place. How do you justify extending a reference to include the state of being married?

Mt 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mt 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Ro 7:2
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Ro 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

I believe that CHRIST stated it quite well that there won't be an marriage state in heaven, because he was answering about if the wife who had lawfully been married to seven husbands then who would she be married to in heaven, his reply is plain for most to understand that there is no state of marrige in heaven otherwise he would have explained who's wife she was since they were all legally binding and lawfull marriages according to GOD's law and that intent is echoed in Romans.

I will start tonight with only one issue: chiasmus. Chiasmus is present in the Book of Mormon just as frequently as in the Bible

Hmmm a big word lets see what it means:

Chiasmus

1) inversion in the second of two parallel phrases
See Also: rhetorical_device

inversion

5) the reversal of the normal order of words
See Also: rhetorical_device

rhetorical device

1) a use of language that creates a literary effect
(but often without regard for literal significance)

Well I'm not sure what we will find out here other than we can prove or disprove that joseph smith reversed the normal order of words in the second of two parallel phrases to create a literary effect.
I hope you can see where this doesn't appear to be a subject that is hard to prove, since he had the bible as a reference to create verses that sounded similar without the exact wording.

Jer 23:30
Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.

but ok I we shall debate the merits of the BOM but I should say that we should look at more than just whether or not there are verses that say nearly the same meanings because when we test a prophet we should look.....

De 18:22
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Isa 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2Co 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

[dan]

Nope didn't say that at all, meant that he could command that they marry and have children rather than being chaste

God has never, nor will He ever command anyone to live a completely chaste life. It goes against everything that is good and wholesome. Go ahead and bring up the Nazerites, but that was an oath that one brought upon himself, and it was only for a short period of time. There is only one person that may have been a Nazerite for life, and that was John the Baptist; and we know he had a special mission. When it refers to the chastity of women it means up until marriage.

I hope you can see where this doesn't appear to be a subject that is hard to prove, since he had the bible as a reference to create verses that sounded similar without the exact wording.

I suggest you study Chiasmus again, because it's not as simple as you think. The greatest scholars in the world didn't know what Chiasmus was until well after the publication of the Book of Mormon, and the verses containing Chiasmus in no way resemble any passages from the Bible. Chiasmus was a poetic way to present a series of ideas of transcending importance. The central idea was repeated immediately with the descending ideas repeated at spaced intervals. Observe (from the Book of Mormon):

10 And now it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not take upon him the name(A) of Christ must be called(B) by some other name; therefore he findeth himself on the left(C) hand of God.

11 And I would that ye should remember(D) also, that this is the name that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out(E), except it be through transgression(F): therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress(F), that the name be not blotted out(E) of your hearts.

12 I say unto you, I would that ye should remember(D) to retain the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left(C) hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called(B), and also, the name(A) by which He shall call you.

OFten the most important principles use the same words, but in contrasting connotations, as in this example. Try to reconcile this with the fact that it was written by a seventeen year old farm boy with no education. The greatest scholars in the world could not have done this at that time. Prove (and I do mean prove, not argue or postulate weak theories) me wrong.

 

[dan]

This is a very simple example of Chiasmus, by the way. If you like I can point out entire chapters that are written in very complex forms of Chiasmus (as well as chapters written in simple Chiasmus). There are also examples of four and eight part construction in the Book of Mormon, but I'll leave it at this until you come up with an answer.

 

[KBC1963]

God has never, nor will He ever command anyone to live a completely chaste life. It goes against everything that is good and wholesome.

Hmm it appears from the following verses that we do indeed worship a different GOD, because my GOD through inspiration makes me to believe it is better to remain a virgin or unmarried if you have the will to do so.

1Co 7:8
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

1Co 7:9
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1Co 7:27
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

1Co 7:37
Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

1Co 7:38
So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

and why would my GOD wish this to be so? let us see...

2Co 11:2
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.


I would like to note that in each point of discussion that I have assertions about that I have brought scriptures directly backing up what I say and you on the other hand either deny or dismiss it with out so much as a scripture to back up anything you say which seems to me that a belief based not on scripture is also not based on my GOD, so I would suggest that if you do in fact have anything to back up your assertions other than just your word or the word of other men outside the scriptures then you should put them here otherwise your battle is lost before it begins.

 

[KBC1963]

Often the most important principles use the same words, but in contrasting connotations, as in this example. Try to reconcile this with the fact that it was written by a seventeen year old farm boy with no education. The greatest scholars in the world could not have done this at that time. Prove (and I do mean prove, not argue or postulate weak theories) me wrong.

I have done a quick study of chiasmus and it seems that I have dealt with this before, but it was called rhyming sentence structure from what I remember, but in any event you want me to....

Try to reconcile this with the fact that it was written by a seventeen year old farm boy with no education. The greatest scholars in the world could not have done this at that time.

so I will start with that, was there truley no one that could match that type of literary style in joseph smith's time? let us look.....

Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) is a giant in literary history. His 1755 Dictionary of the English Language was the first comprehensive dictionary of any language ever published. A voluminous writer himself, Johnson is known to the world primarily through the book of another man, Scottish writer James Boswell. In 1791, Boswell published the most famous biography ever written, The Life of Samuel Johnson. Boswell's Life minutely detailed conversations with Johnson, revealing his verbal facility, trenchant wit, storehouse of knowledge, and remarkable conversational abilities. For two centuries, The Life of Samuel Johnson has been so popular that the words we most associate with Johnson come from the biography and not his own works. No man has ever had a deeper love of language than Samuel Johnson, so it's not surprising to discover that chiasmus shows up frequently in his conversations as well as in his written works.

Now I know you will say that Dr. Samuel Johnson was a learned man and so he was, however this is only here to show that indeed chiasmus was a known thing but the people that are cited below were unlearned and yet seemed to be able to use chiasmus quite well.....


Walt Whitman (1819-1892)
Born on Long Island, New York, Walt Whitman was a part-time carpenter and man of the people, whose brilliant, innovative work expressed the country's democratic spirit. Whitman was largely self-taught; he left school at the age of 11 to go to work, missing the sort of traditional education that made most American authors respectful imitators of the English. His Leaves of Grass (1855), which he rewrote and revised throughout his life, contains "Song of Myself," the most stunningly original poem ever written by an American.

Margaret Fuller (1810-1850)
Margaret Fuller, an outstanding essayist, was born and raised in Cambridge, Massachusetts. From a modest financial background, she was educated at home by her father (women were not allowed to attend Harvard) and became a child prodigy in the classics and modern literatures. Her special passion was German Romantic literature, especially Goethe, whom she translated.

Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
Dickinson was not widely read, but knew the Bible, the works of William Shakespeare, and works of classical mythology in great depth. These were her true teachers, for Dickinson was certainly the most solitary literary figure of her time. That this shy, withdrawn, village woman, almost unpublished and unknown, created some of the greatest American poetry of the 19th century has fascinated the public since the 1950s, when her poetry was rediscovered. A nonconformist, like Thoreau she often reversed meanings of words and phrases and used paradox to great effect. Dickinson's 1,775 poems continue to intrigue critics, who often disagree about them. Some stress her mystical side, some her sensitivity to nature; many note her odd, exotic appeal. One modern critic, R.P. Blackmur, comments that Dickinson's poetry sometimes feels as if "a cat came at us speaking English." Her clean, clear, chiseled poems are some of the most fascinating and challenging in American literature.

So your arguement that no one could have done it is not set in stone and
Since chiasmus occurs in many languages its use in the Book of Mormon does not prove either its Semitic origin or that it is a style peculiar to inspired ancient scripture. In fact, many nursery rhymes have this same type of structure like Hickory Dickory Dock.

I will also bring forth some of the information I have found by other people:

The Book of Mormon Authorship has made a prima facie case for the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. It fails, however, to respond to scholarly criticism in some crucial areas. For example, since Welch first published his study on chiasmus in 1969, it has been discovered that chiasmus also appears in the Doctrine and Covenants (see, for example, 88:34-38; 93:18-38; 132:19-26, 29-36), the Pearl of Great Price (Book of Abraham 3:16-19; 22-28 ), and other isolated nineteenth-century works. Thus, Welch's major premise that chiasmus is exclusively an ancient literary device is false. Indeed, the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon may be evidence of Joseph Smith's own literary style and genius. Perhaps Welch could have strengthened his premise by demonstrating that the parallel members in the Book of Mormon consist of Semitic word pairs, the basis of ancient Hebrew poetry. Without such a demonstration, both Welch's and Reynold's arguments from chiasmus are weak.

Here is another voice on the subject:

First, this poetic style has always been in the Bible. Whether anyone had a name for it or not is beside the point; the style was present for Joseph Smith to imitate.

Second, the Doctrine and Covenants has examples of the same pattern. Since Joseph Smith dictated the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it is not claimed that they were translations of ancient writings, obviously this pattern was part of Smith’s style. The Pearl of Great Price and Joseph's diary exhibit similar patterns.

In the Oct. 1989 Ensign article, "Hebrew literary Patterns in the Book of Mormon," there is mention of a book on Hebrew poetry, dated 1787, which discusses the poetic style of parallelisms. The term "chiasmus" is never used, but this book clearly shows that Hebrew poetic styles were recognized and studied even before Joseph Smith's time.


Now even if all the previous information was not present the fact that the style is unique does not guarantee that it could not be inspired by satan so basing the legitamacy of the BOM on a unique style is not the method of approval condoned by my GOD since he has ordered us to determine truth using the bible as the standard and I have proven time and again by scripture that the BOM does not reflect the bible in intent but merely try's to mimic the style in order to convince people that the new ideas that are brought with it are authentic.

So how about we debate whether joseph smith was truly a prophet of GOD
or do you not have any leverage to prove that.

 

[dan]

because my GOD through inspiration makes me to believe it is better to remain a virgin or unmarried if you have the will to do so.

That's Paul telling people that it's better for them to save marriage until after their missionary journeys rather than leave a wife home while they left to fulfill their duties to God. It is not better to stay a virgin your whole life. The power of procreation is God's most sacred gift to us; He does not hand it out and then tell you to not use it. If we worship a different god then maybe your god needs to quit parading around like the God of the Bible.

So your arguement that no one could have done it is not set in stone.

Are you trying to say that Joseph Smith was as intelligent a man at seventeen as Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson and Samuel Johnson? Did they write a book comparable to the Book of Mormon? There is only one man in the history of the world that has written a book that covers as much time, space and as large a group of characters as the Book fo Mormon: J.R.R. Tolkien. The difference is the Tolkien spent 35 years planning and writing his book. Joseph Smith wrote it in 60 days. Again, even the greatest scholars in the world could not have done what he did, much less include such mastery of Hebrew literary styles.

If you want to cut and paste all the live long day that's fine, but I thought I was debating with you, not with a gambit of books and websites. I want to hear what you know about the subject, not what you can look up in twenty seconds at Google and automatically believe because it supports your theories.

 

[KBC1963]

because my GOD through inspiration makes me to believe it is better to remain a virgin or unmarried if you have the will to do so.


That's Paul telling people that it's better for them to save marriage until after their missionary journeys rather than leave a wife home while they left to fulfill their duties to God. It is not better to stay a virgin your whole life. The power of procreation is God's most sacred gift to us; He does not hand it out and then tell you to not use it. If we worship a different god then maybe your god needs to quit parading around like the God of the Bible.

So you read 1 corinthians and you believe all those instructions he was giving was for all those going on missionary journeys? how come you didnt put any scriptures to back up your statement like I do? why do you only deny with no back up? if there is any evidence to prove your side why don't you show me here? I don't care if you cut and paste just show me some proof how can you possibly win an argument with no proof?

Well in any event for those who may read this post I will show my proof as I am not afraid to backup anything I say and then they can go read it and judge for themselves whether I speak the truth or not.

1Co 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:


1Co 2:1
¶ And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

1Co 3:1
¶ And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5
¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

1Co 4:14
¶ I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
1Co 4:15
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1Co 4:16
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1Co 4:17
¶ For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

1Co 5:1
¶ It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

1Co 6:1
¶ Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
1Co 6:5
I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

1Co 6:7
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
1Co 6:8
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

1Co 7:1
¶ Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Co 7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1Co 9:1
¶ Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
1Co 9:2
If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

1Co 11:1
¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
1Co 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

1Co 11:17
¶ Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
1Co 11:18
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it

1Co 12:2
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

1Co 12:27
¶ Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular

1Co 12:29
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
1Co 12:30
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

1Co 16:10
¶ Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do.

1Co 16:15
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
1Co 16:16
That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

How can your Interpretation of these scriptures be so skewed so as not to see that the letter to the corinthians is not to those going out teaching but to those that have recently been converted with teachings for how they are to live and grow in thier understandings of CHRIST and GOD? you don't even come with scriptures to back your side only accusation and denial, just as satan accused Job with no proof, But it isn't totally a waste because others that read this forum will realize by the way you reply that your religion can't possibly be based on the one and only GOD because you would have plenty of back-up then.

 

[KBC1963]

If you want to cut and paste all the live long day that's fine, but I thought I was debating with you, not with a gambit of books and websites. I want to hear what you know about the subject, not what you can look up in twenty seconds at Google and automatically believe because it supports your theories.

It seems by your method of debate that you would pick a subject that I have little knowledge of and ask me prove the opposite of it, how do you hope to prove anything by that? how about we take a subject you know nothing about and you disprove me? would that be fair?
How do you learn about subjects does it come to you in a dream? or do you do research on it? and if so how do you do it? does your understanding or proofs come from the work of other men? or do you do every bit of research about a subject yourself with no outside influences?

Now as for the subject of chiasmus if you want to base uniquenes as a proof of GOD given then what have you to say about Edgar Cayce who not only wrote many volumes of books but also cured thousands of people of sickness and all of it while he was asleep!!!!!!!!!!!! How many people did joseph smith heal? There is literally a library's worth of material written by Edgar, why aren't you following him if your basis is uniqueness?


Once again I will say this on the subject of chiasmus: It doesn't matter if there is chiasmus in the BOM, that is not the measure we are supposed to use to prove if something is from GOD or not, because satan can just as easily influence a person to be able to do those things, so whether joseph smith had the intelligence to do it himself or whether he was influenced by satan to be able to write as he did proves nothing, in GOD's eyes 99% right and 1% wrong is still WRONG.


Now I defy you to show me how to prove if something is of GOD or not, and provide support for your supposition.