Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Damien the Leper]

I’d be interested to know how a Bible-only believer interprets Ezekiel 37:15-17. What is the Stick of Joseph, if not The Book of Mormon

עץ ets, used in Ezk. is defined as such: wood, tree or stick

ספר cepher, used in Isa. 30:8 is defined as such: scroll or book

These terms do not appear to be used interchangably or as non-literal literary devices. The Ezekiel passage is null.

[Calm]

The keys for permission to practice polygamy was not designed for nonLDS.

That assumes there is only one reason and one way to practice polygyny through plural marriage in God' view. I would disagree and point to levirate marriages as well as Nathan's comments about how God viewed David's polygyny.

[Calm]

The result was similar, not the same. The goal was continuing the name of the deceased, not polygamy. Compare it to any polygamist situation, and it's quite different. The key is God didn't say, "I command you to enter into polygamy."

Logically then it would seem that you believe it is possible that God might give a command that resulted in polygyny due to that being the only way it could be accomplished.

For example, if after a war there was a ratio of 10 women to one man and this was a nation of God fearing, righteous individuals who had only defended themselves and had survived the war through God's help. In order to continue the family name or line as in levirate marriage or even just have the nation capable of continuing to survive as a people, in your view it seems God might command the men to marry the women according to their means to take care of each other so that not only would the woman not be alone and have the chance to have children which is another commandment of God, but could do so and remain chaste and pure. And since divorce is frowned down upon by God as well as abandoning of one's family, this could not be accomplished through the serial polygamy that often takes place in modern times.

Do you see that as a possible future commandment of God?

Edited June 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Jesus has nothing but loving compassion for us. That is how he feels.

CFR please that "loving compassion" is all that Christ feels for us. That he has never had and never will have another feeling towards us. Not challenging here, just want to understand your POV better. Edited June 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I have missed those verses that condemn him and Isaac and Jacob. They all had multiple wives. Non of them were ever once condemned for it.

Not Isaac...at least none that we are aware of.

Solomon was condemned, IIRC, for multiplying foreign, nonbelieving spouses that led him away from God. David was condemned for murdering Uriah in order to acquire his wife....so not condemned for polygyny itself, but for how they went about it.

Edited June 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

Hi teddyaware.

With respect, that is NOT "what they all say". It is not even what most non-LDS Christians say. Inerrant authority does not derive from the Bible, but from God. St. Paul says very plainly, "Despise not prophesying," and while Catholics contend that subsequent revelation is subject to the Apostolic deposit, we also insist that God still speaks to us from heaven with timely messages that never contradict what the Apostles taught. As a Catholic I will only admit that no true prophet would overturn Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. I would never admit that prophecy is ended. Authentic prophecy has continued non-stop for 2,000 years and in fact, vivid and remarkable 19th and 20th Century prophecies, if I know myself well, are significant if not essential graces that confirm my faith in the Holy Catholic Church.

3DOP

Hallelujah! I love it when you post, Rory. I love the sweet and warming orthodoxy you speak of.

[danielwoods]

I am sorry but were did Jesus specifically condemn polygamy? Also God did command it in Leviticus. Even the Jews tried to trip Jesus up with that law. Were, if a brother marry and die then the other brother baiscally marries the dead brothers wife and cares for her. You may remember the question asked of Jesus. Which of the 7 will be married to her?

I simply disagree with your assessment of plural marriage. Abraham was married to several women. Were did God condemn him? I have missed those verses that condemn him and Isaac and Jacob. They all had multiple wives. Non of them were ever once condemned for it.

I didn't say God condemned anyone for it. I said he never commanded it, God always works within the culture we are in, however, his ideal is what he created. The passage you are speaking about isn't a command to do polygamy, but to continue the deceased brothers line.

[danielwoods]

Were did God condemn such actions? If it is so wrong as you think it is why can you not point me to a single scripture that condemns those that entered into such a practice? Such as Abraham?

God always works within our cultural context. The key question isn't where did God condemn such actions, the key question is what is God's command? What is his ideal situation? If it was a plurality of wives, then he would have created Adam and Eve and Stephanie, and Mary, and...

But, he didn't. He created them male and female in the beginning. That's it. That is his ideal.

[Tacenda]

It doesn't speak about Kolob, but it most certainly speaks about becoming as god, being like god, and being gods. Frankly some of the biblical scriptures have some of the more explicit verses about our nature being in par with God.

No offense, Tacenda....but that's not much of an excuse. You assume many of us had that. But we all grew up in different households. My own family never had FHE (we tried, 2-3 times), they never could do family scripture study, we very rarely prayed as a whole, gospel discussion was at a minimum, many of my brothers have scriptures that still look new after 6+ years, the priesthood was almost never exercised in our household (knew nigh unto nothing about it until I went on a mish), and my family is still to this day not sealed. In fact my immediate family usually has to be diagrammed for people to understand it. And my household was quite often not peaceful....far from it. What I know about the gospel came the hard (and satisfying) way: I actively pursued it...I craved it...and I still do.

Knowledge is a choice made by patient study and humility. You don't need to satisfy consistent feedback on a thread. It is very worthwhile to take the time and study it out, begin to build a greater repertoire of understanding, and allow that knowledge to build you into something stronger. The great power of knowledge and the gospel is that it doesn't matter when or where you start....but when you do it will bless you and make all experiences for your good.....including what you currently see as a weakness.

Don't know if you read the comments section....but if you haven't, I would....it's a perfect example of how various people can read the same thing and reach very different conclusions.

With luv,

BD

I did read some of the comments, but have forgotten them already.

About the scriptures, I'm pretty lame, maybe if they had a bible on CD with commentary, that would help since I don't understand the majority. I'll check on it, but then we have the problem of having differing interpretations, which is what this thread is all about.

[danielwoods]

Logically then it would seem that you believe it is possible that God might give a command that resulted in polygyny due to that being the only way it could be accomplished.

For example, if after a war there was a ratio of 10 women to one man and this was a nation of God fearing, righteous individuals who had only defended themselves and had survived the war through God's help. In order to continue the family name or line as in levirate marriage or even just have the nation capable of continuing to survive as a people, in your view it seems God might command the men to marry the women according to their means to take care of each other so that not only would the woman not be alone and have the chance to have children which is another commandment of God, but could do so and remain chaste and pure. And since divorce is frowned down upon by God as well as abandoning of one's family, this could not be accomplished through the serial polygamy that often takes place in modern times.

Do you see that as a possible future commandment of God?

Any hypothetical can create a situation where the answer is what a person is seeking. Not sure I disagree or agree with your hypothetical. In the OT times the levirate marriage was practiced. Does this apply to the new covenant? I don't see that it does. So, I guess my answer is no.

Why do I say that? Well, in the book of Acts we read that they essentially set up a commune where the widows and poor were given the help they needed, not through any levirate marriage, but through the ministry of the church as a whole. Further, I don't see the focus on ones linage being as important as it was in the OT times.

[Calm]

Further, I don't see the focus on ones linage being as important as it was in the OT times.

So you would deprive 90% of the women of having children as well as most of the existing children of having a father present because you believe that God won't command polygyny even though he commanded levirate marriage which makes use of polygyny to achieve obedience and even though God gave women as well as men the commandment to multiple and replenish the earth.

I don't usually indulge in hypotheticals, but they are useful in determining what someone's priorities are....

In this case it seems that you are okay with ignoring some commandments of God as long as polygyny can be avoided as well.

Edited June 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

CFR please that "loving compassion" is all that Christ feels for us. That he has never had and never will have another feeling towards us. Not challenging here, just want to understand your POV better.

What did Christ do for us? He died. He gave his all. His life for our lives. His feeling for us, and his drive to give his life for ours was loving compassion. That is my view.

Who is the accuser of the brethren? Who is it that accuses us before the father (in Job)? Not Jesus. There is only one who accuses.

Now, what will Jesus feel toward those who don't come to him? Loving compassion followed by sadness.

[Calm]

What did Christ do for us? He died. He gave his all. His life for our lives. His feeling for us, and his drive to give his life for ours was loving compassion. That is my view.

Who is the accuser of the brethren? Who is it that accuses us before the father (in Job)? Not Jesus. There is only one who accuses.

Now, what will Jesus feel toward those who don't come to him? Loving compassion followed by sadness.

So when the scriptures speak of the Lord's wrath, they are misrepresentations? (obviously not in your view), so how do you reconcile the contradiction that Christ only feels loving compassion for us when the scriptures are full of other emotional expressions by God? Edited June 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Who is the accuser of the brethren? Who is it that accuses us before the father (in Job)? Not Jesus. There is only one who accuses.

How is the below not an accusation?:

John 9:39 ¶And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

[danielwoods]

So you would deprive 90% of the women of having children as well as most of the existing children of having a father present because you believe that God won't command polygyny even though he commanded levirate marriage which makes use of polygyny to achieve obedience and even though God gave women as well as men the commandment to multiple and replenish the earth.

I don't usually indulge in hypotheticals, but they are useful in determining what someone's priorities are....

In this case it seems that you are okay with ignoring some commandments of God as long as polygyny can be avoided as well.

God doesn't command things today in the sense that this is the OT, and Moses is still around. We are under a new covenant. Emanuel, God is with man. We all have access to the throne of grace. There is no longer any need for a prophet to tell us what the commands of God are. God is inside us all now, and speaks to us all directly.

In the extreme hypothetical that you describe, would the people of God do what God wants? Of course they would. Would God think that the only answer was polygamy? I don't think so. I think the situation in Acts demonstrates that there are many answers to the difficulty. As Jesus said, who is my father and mother, except those who do my will. There are many fathers and mothers for kids without those. That is the purpose of the Church, to help those in need.

[Calm]

God doesn't command things today in the sense that this is the OT, and Moses is still around. We are under a new covenant.

Is the command to multiply and replenish the earth no longer in force in your view?

[Ahab]

So when the scriptures speak of the Lord's wrath, they are misrepresentations? (obviously not in your view), so how do you reconcile the contradiction that Christ only feels loving compassion for us when the scriptures are full of other emotional expressions by God?

Loving compassion isn't always expressed by being sweet and forgiving. A mother who is upset at her child for doing something bad is still being motivated by loving compassion when she tries to get that child to stop doing whatever bad thing that child is doing. Thus, when our Lord comes down here to cleanse the planet by fire he will still be motivated by loving compassion even while he is angry and adamant about stopping our bad behavior. Otherwise he either just wouldn't care or he would have hatred in his heart for those who were doing bad things. He hates sin, but he always loves the person who sins.

[danielwoods]

So when the scriptures speak of the Lord's wrath, they are misrepresentations? (obviously not in your view), so how do you reconcile the contradiction that Christ only feels loving compassion for us when the scriptures are full of other emotional expressions by God?

The context is about today, where the quote I was responding to said, "How did Jesus feel about people that could not accept new revelation over prior revelation because it contradicted?"

The Lords wrath is poured out as a judgement on those who reject him, in the future.

The statement above is one that seems to mix the future judgement with today, which seems to be a "motivating by fear" type of mentality.

[danielwoods]

How is the below not an accusation?:

Making a righteous judgement is not an accusation, but the most compassionate thing one can do with a Pharisee.

Is the command to multiply and replenish the earth no longer in force in your view?

Not at all. It's wrapped up in the DNA of all living things.

[Vance]

What if there wasn't any apostasy,

Then you would be Catholic. The fact that you are not Catholic is prima facie evidence that you believe that there was an apostasy.

. . . and Jesus was still building his Church,

Since Jesus is not here he can NOT be building His Church without revelation. So, if you reject this latter revelation then you also reject the possibility that HE is the one building His church. This is true whether or not you are LDS.

. . . just like he promised he would to Peter?

There is some debate about what Jesus actually promised Peter.

[Vance]

I am sorry but were did Jesus specifically condemn polygamy? Also God did command it in Leviticus. Even the Jews tried to trip Jesus up with that law. Were, if a brother marry and die then the other brother baiscally marries the dead brothers wife and cares for her. You may remember the question asked of Jesus. Which of the 7 will be married to her?

I simply disagree with your assessment of plural marriage. Abraham was married to several women. Were did God condemn him? I have missed those verses that condemn him and Isaac and Jacob. They all had multiple wives. Non of them were ever once condemned for it.

Neither was David condemned for multiple wives. Even while God was condemning him for his adultery God stated that He would have give David even more wives had he asked for them. This certainly implies that the multiple wives David already had have been given to him by GOD. 7 2 Sam 12:7¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel , I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom , and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things .

Edited June 19, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

1 Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. Pretty obvious that God commanded David to have more than one wife.

[BlueDreams]

Changed my mind

Edited June 19, 2013 by BlueDreams

[tagriffy]

IF, it could be established that Jesus was actually commanding polygamy, then yes. However, that wouldn't ever happen. Why am I so certain of that? Because it's never been commanded. God has always based marriage on one man and one woman. All the commands have that context. Even the 10th commandment states don't covet thy neighbors wife (singular).

"[O]r male or female slave [singular], or ox [singular], or donkey [singular]" (Exodus 20:17). Is it assumed in these instances the neighbor only has one slave, ox, or donkey?

[Vance]

God doesn't command things today in the sense that this is the OT, and Moses is still around. We are under a new covenant. Emanuel, God is with man. We all have access to the throne of grace. There is no longer any need for a prophet to tell us what the commands of God are. God is inside us all now, and speaks to us all directly.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying we don't need prophets because (basically) we ALL are already prophets ("God is inside us all now, and speaks to us all directly").