Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,150 Excellent

About InCognitus

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

683 profile views
  1. It seems to me that they said something early, for anyone that is a member of the church at least. They saw it coming:
  2. No? Well that's OK, it was probably over your head anyway . 🤣 But in Mike's case, that joke was totally beneath him.
  3. It's the diversion tactic he uses when his case is failing. I've observed this process from prior discussions with him.
  4. I don't believe God ever reversed the land covenant either. Do you think anything I said suggests such a thing? What does this have to do with the topic?
  5. The other important piece of context, if we assume the source is accurate, is what it says at the very beginning of the account: "Prest. J. Smith read 11th Ch 2nd Corinthians." 2nd Corinthians chapter 11 is where Paul is boasting: "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also". (2 Cor 11:17-18) He is trying to parallel some of the things that Paul said in that chapter.
  6. You forgot one (at least): type 2. not resurrected a. spirit only, never had a mortal body b. spirit presently combined with a mortal body c. spirit presently separated from a mortal body, dead d. spirit presently combined with a translated body Or maybe c and d should be switched.
  7. First of all, I never said that these verses referred to the "church collectively" or the "leadership of the church as a whole." I said that I believe that these verses are directed at members of the church. You then insisted that this was impossible and that the world was being addressed instead. As for whether or not these verses refer to the church collectively and the leadership of the church as a whole, this is not impossible, either. If you read the prophecies about the last days in the scriptures, the state of the house of Israel just prior to the Lord's return is
  8. There is no question that some members of the church today have broken their covenants. That is obviously the case. And if the only thing you are trying to say is that verses 13 to 16 could apply to some members of the church at that time or now or in the future, then I might agree. But it is impossible for the language of verses 13 to 16 to be referring to the church collectively, or to the leadership of the church as a whole, because the verses that follow provide the solution to the problems described in verses 13-16, and this is apparent from the transitional word “wherefore” at the beg
  9. I think this was addressed by this section of the quote from the Hales' web site: "[S]tatements made between 1852 and 1890, when plural marriage was treated as a commandment, can be easily quoted out of context to create the appearance that church leaders taught that all men in the celestial kingdom would be polygamists." If you live during a time when a specific commandment is given and you choose to disobey the commandment, you won't receive the highest degree of exaltation no matter what commandment that may be. Notice that the Smoot hearing document is ambiguous. Celes
  10. This is the preface to the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Lord is introducing the purpose for the restoration, not pronouncing judgement against the church he is still in the process of organizing (at the time of giving the revelation). I don't agree that these specific verses are speaking to members of the church for several reasons. First, the section sets the audience in verses 1 and 2: Second, the part that I bolded above in your quote from verses 15 and 16 of section 1 is the same kind of language as in Isaiah 24:5. "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereo
  11. I've encountered this exact same idea with someone I know who is an Anabaptist. He and I engaged in many interesting conversations about the LDS church and its teachings, and about Christian beliefs in general when we both discovered we had a common interest in the writings of the early Christian Fathers. But one of the BIG points of contention he had against Latter-day Saint beliefs was over our high regard for marriage. In his view, marriage is good, but singleness and devotion to the Lord is better. He, of course, pointed to some of the common arguments used to promote celibacy with ver
  12. Well that is what many prophets and apostles stated. You can't be surprised that viewing it as a higher law still lingers in the Church. I have high respect for the research on this topic done by Brian and Laura Harris Hales, they are extremely thorough. In the frequently asked questions on their website, they provide the following: Later in the same essay, it addresses this question: I think context is the key to any proper interpretation of this practice
  13. Obviously Lehi had dealings in the "city of Jerusalem", and it was the "city of Jerusalem" that was prophesied that it would be destroyed (1 Nephi 1:4). But he left from "the land of Jerusalem" which could have included the city of Jerusalem or any of the surrounding areas.
  14. It was all the land of their forefathers, even of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, forefathers that had no tribe: "And [God] loveth those who will have him to be their God. Behold, he loved our fathers, and he covenanted with them, yea, even Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and he remembered the covenants which he had made" (1 Nephi 17:40) But you seem to be thinking about this from a 21st century point of view. As I mentioned several times before, 2 Chronicles 15:9-10 gives us an account of members of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh leaving the nation of Israel and gathering in Jerusalem.
  • Create New...