Jump to content

InCognitus

Members
  • Content Count

    692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by InCognitus

  1. Someone Coming to Get You When You Die? The first thing that popped into my crazy head when I saw the name of this thread is that scene from Monte Python and the Holy Grail: "Bring out your dead!" Maybe that's the "someone".
  2. My position is that the Bible and other scripture have always been intended to function under the direction of a prophet of God, and the word of the Lord through the prophet determines what is applicable in any given time and place. And in this day and age polygamy is not practiced as part of the same long established marriage covenant as it was given originally. But with regard to Bible history, it's not just the fact that polygamy is in the Bible, but that it was practiced by righteous prophets of God like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Gideon, and it was even condoned and supported by God as
  3. You have my condolences for the loss of Kirk. I know how pets can be part of the family, and in this case for Spock's family as well.
  4. Conclusion: Justification of an a-priori position. (I did read it). Please read the link I included in my prior post. Think about what the article is saying here: "God definitely did not condone polygamy in 2 Samuel 12:8. In fact when you read the next few verses (2 Samuel 12:9–12), you see that instead of David receiving “even more” blessings, he had forfeited some of those and instead would be punished for his adultery and for the murder of Uriah with public humiliation, divisions, and war within his own household." How does the latter part of the statement justify the reassertion
  5. This sounds more like trying to justify a prior assumed position than to read it for what it says (from the article): If God didn't intend condone or support plural wives, then why did he implicate himself in the deal? Edit: A lot more has been said on this topic here.
  6. CFR on the bold, thank you! I've been down this road before, and there is no evidence of it, besides saying one must marry their brother's wife if he dies. Problem is they don't prove that the brother that marries the deceased brother's wife has another wife. This is all off topic, but I had 2 Samuel 12:7-8 in mind, the prophet Nathan speaking to David the words of the LORD: The LORD says he "gave" the wives to David. Condoned and supported plural marriage right there.
  7. I didn't write the Bible, but that is how marriage functions in the Bible (with and without polygamy). People often don't like the polygamy part so they try to get around it by using arguments like you did to justify their ideas.
  8. That's the common argument that Bible believers tout out against polygamy using Genesis 2 even though the Bible shows polygamous marriages condoned (and even supported) by God happening under that same foundation. There's no pretzel twist in the concept that the covenant of marriage is always between a man and a woman, even in a polygamous marriage. That's simply how it works. In a polygamous marriage a woman doesn't marry the other wives, the woman marries the man and the man marries the woman. It's not that difficult, it's not forced, it's the same form of marriage. The Family Proclamat
  9. I just read the The Family Proclamation trying to get your point, and honestly, I don't see anything in the form of marriage described there that would disqualify polygamy. What did you have in mind?
  10. I thanked you for posting this talk in the other thread, and on Friday I took my road trip and had a chance to listen to it (I was saving it for my trip and didn't want to spoil it by reading it beforehand). What did you think of the talk? I thought it was a powerful message. Can you please explain your statement, "One church web site has something different"? How do you see that link saying something different? Your link is to the Guide to the Scriptures, which basically just gives a list of references, and the quote "Ye are gods, children of the most High, Psalm 82:6." is just a
  11. Could you give some possible reasons why some Bible translators might use an uppercase G in verses like Exodus 7:1? I’d like to have a better understanding of why this capitalization issue is so important to you, and your thoughts on that will help me understand your views. I’ve given you an explanation for Alma 12:31 (see here, here, and here). If you are still not sure as to why it read differently previously, could you please at least enlighten me on how my prior explanation(s) didn’t help and why you keep bringing it up? Why do you think Doctrine and Covenants 132 shou
  12. Calm posted an article from the Catholic News Agency on this story in the Social forum (here), and in the article she posted, the publisher is quoted as saying: That's how the publisher viewed it. So the painting can be viewed as a "strong traditional Christian image", which it is even from a Latter-day Saints point of view (but it's not some generic "book" in our case).
  13. Thank you, Kevin. That works! Here's a December 2018 archive of the site: https://web.archive.org/web/20181220195842/http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/
  14. Did you happen to save his website address? I wonder if it was captured on the Internet Archive site (the "Wayback Machine", here: https://archive.org/web/) His site sounds interesting.
  15. Sorry for the diversion, but your post reminds me of a photo that was linked to one of the comments on Daniel McClellan's blog. Take note of the list of those who "[LOVE] THE DEVIL", lower right corner: "Sport's Nuts" [sic]. The comment someone made in response to this photo was, "Wow. What I can’t figure out is why everything is in the possessive form on that banner, “Catholic’s, Mormon’s”. Does that just mean that anything belonging to us is going to hell?" The so called "Christian" idea of "hell" is so misunderstood and misrepresented, it's no wonder that people are giv
  16. That's a good article. I noticed that the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls has been updated to include information on the forgeries. The wiki article gives the history and itemizes the types of scrolls that were discovered in 1946, 1947, and 1956. Those scrolls have been carbon dated and tested and are ancient. But then the article gets into past ownership of those scrolls, current ownership, ownership disputes, and copyright disputes, and it says, "Since 2002, forgeries of alleged Dead Sea Scrolls have appeared on black markets". So it's the well known discovery and s
  17. I've always understood the language concept in that verse the same way as I do Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." But that was the angel speaking in that verse delivering the words of Jesus in the first person, because just a few verses earlier (verses 7-9), the angel reprimands John for worshiping him right after speaking in the first person for another statement from Jesus ("Behold, I come quickly"). So the angel speaks the words of Jesus i
  18. And, Joseph taught that we should all be doing the same thing. This is one of my favorite quotes from him:
  19. I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for bringing this speech to my attention. It looks like something I would enjoy. Now I have something else to listen to on my trip road trip next week. (But sadly, I won't be able to hear if Elder Callister is using an uppercase or lower case "G" in the talk).
  20. My question about relevancy was about the content of the letter and how that is relevant to the book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, or the revelations, not about the authority of the letter itself. How or why would that letter be relevant? Which statements matter, and which ones don't? I was wondering when you'd bring up my screen name, since "InCognitus" is probably the epitome of anonymity (but that's not really why I use it these days). I believe an argument should stand or fall on its own merit regardless of who makes the statement. And it's quite obvious that us
  21. Yes, as I read the Green Mountain Boys letter and his statements to the Times and Seasons. So are you now completely backing away from your claim about apologists trying to change the meaning of "translation" with regard to the book of Abraham and are instead limiting this only to the Green Mountain Boys letter and statements in the Times and Seasons? Look at exactly what you said: You were throwing everything into the same pot and claiming that only you know what translation really means, even for the book of Abraham. Are you just trying to muddy the waters?
  22. I'm not sure that this will help your perspective on this or not, but the Book of Mormon explains that this "hell" isn't a punishment that God inflicts upon the disobedient, but it is caused by the consciousness of guilt of the individual when they are brought to stand before God. In Mormon 9:1–5 it says that unbelievers would be far more miserable dwelling in the presence of God than they would by dwelling with people of their own kind: So God will let people will dwell in the place where they are the most comfortable. And that doesn't sound like an angry and unloving God to me.
  23. Here's the link: Daniel C. Peterson:  Ye Are Gods:  Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witness to the Divine Nature of Humankind And this article by Daniel O. McClellan (who visits these boards) is also relevant: Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition.
  24. Come on now, Bob. Forget about the whole apologetic thing for a moment and consider these facts. Webster's Dictionary, 1828, "Translate": The definition of "translate" as we generally use it today (to interpret; to render into another language) is way down the totem pole in the word meaning definition according to this 1828 dictionary. Can you honestly say that Joseph Smith had your personal understanding of the word "translate" in mind every time he used that word in the 1828-1844 time period? The heading from Section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which appeare
  25. Not to mention entire chapters quoted (compare Isaiah 36 to 2 Kings 18, Isaiah 37 to 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 38 to 2 Kings 20:12-19, Isaiah 39 to 2 Kings 20:12-19, Jeremiah 52:4-34 to 2 Kings 25), but those are the history narrative chapters.
×
×
  • Create New...