Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[tagriffy]

I have no problem thinking like a Protestant when the Protestant has the right idea, and I'm the one who said "The members of the church should not be considered to be above the scriptures" which seems to agree with what you're saying about how "No individual is above the Scriptures". (presuming you're talking about an individual in the Church).

In the end it will be God who will make the final decision, and his Church will consist of the people who will then agree with him.

The Church is "whoseoever repenteth and cometh unto me ... whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church" (D&C 10:67-68). God doesn't hold us accountable to things that have not been accepted by common consent. Else whence the revelations that have not been canonized?

[Ahab]

The Church is "whoseoever repenteth and cometh unto me ... whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church" (D&C 10:67-68).

It helps to understand what he meant when he referred to coming unto him.

God doesn't hold us accountable to things that have not been accepted by common consent. Else whence the revelations that have not been canonized?

I see the Church kinda like a club. We have people in top positions within the club who make rules and policies and establish standards for the whole club but only when the majority vote in favor and with those who were opposed still being able to remain in the club. Truth is still truth whether or not people agree on the truth, though, so even if people don't vote in favor of the truth they can't change what is true and it doesn't take a vote to determine what the truth is, anyway.

[Flyonthewall]

You stated, "The command for polygamy was not simply for polygamy's sake, there was purpose behind it, whether it be a test of faith or/and to raise up seed unto HIS church/nation.

How did Jesus feel about people that could not accept new revelation over prior revelation because it contradicted?"

And you think that Jesus would feel that these people who wouldn't accept polygamy (a practice God never commanded ever!), are to be equated with the Pharisees and those who killed the prophets? Wow.

Replace polygamy, with any command of God. Do you think those that killed the prophets accepted the new revelation or message of those prophets?

If God commanded you to practice polygamy, and you did not, where does that put your relationship with God? Don't touch the ark...Uzzah did and was worthy of death.

When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, did that contradict a previous command? Then when God commanded Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac, what if Abraham chose not to spare Isaac because it contradicted a previous revelation?

God gave the Law to Moses and in that law was what is known as a Levirite marriage. If two brothers are married, one dies leaving no children, the command to the remaining brother is to marry a second wife... or are you saying God did not command that? That is a command to practice polygamy.

When you say "a practice God never commanded ever!", are you saying you have been privy to ALL God's words to ALL his prophets? Or are you saying that it is not in the Bible so it didn't happen?

Abraham and Jacob are two foundational prophets of God's religion, practiced polygamy...if it was against God's command, why wasn't Abraham made aware of it? It seems like it would be a good time, and a good person to make it known to BEFORE God covenants with him.

[Vance]

No where did I read that it says that Christ said to preach unto the Jews only.

Sometimes I wonder if you evangelical types actually study the NT.

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. . . . . .

Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. . . . . . Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Vance

[danielwoods]

Replace polygamy, with any command of God. Do you think those that killed the prophets accepted the new revelation or message of those prophets?

If God commanded you to practice polygamy, and you did not, where does that put your relationship with God? Don't touch the ark...Uzzah did and was worthy of death.

When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, did that contradict a previous command? Then when God commanded Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac, what if Abraham chose not to spare Isaac because it contradicted a previous revelation?

God gave the Law to Moses and in that law was what is known as a Levirite marriage. If two brothers are married, one dies leaving no children, the command to the remaining brother is to marry a second wife... or are you saying God did not command that? That is a command to practice polygamy.

When you say "a practice God never commanded ever!", are you saying you have been privy to ALL God's words to ALL his prophets? Or are you saying that it is not in the Bible so it didn't happen?

Abraham and Jacob are two foundational prophets of God's religion, practiced polygamy...if it was against God's command, why wasn't Abraham made aware of it? It seems like it would be a good time, and a good person to make it known to BEFORE God covenants with him.

As far as contradicting previous revelations. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac did that contradict a previous command? Not that I know of.

When God provided a Lamb for sacrifice, did that contradict God's previous command? I suppose it did. However, it wasn't like a rule of law that was laid down, and then changed a year later. The command to sacrifice his son, was only for him, no one else.

Did God say to Moses, "practice polygamy!" no, clearly he did not. It appears to me, that your goal is to defend the position of Joseph Smith's claimed revelations, and it appears that you will stretch the interpretation (of this passage) to defend him, it only demonstrates that we end up disagreeing based on different interpretive principles which yours seem to stem from Joseph Smith. My interpretive goal is to read each passage as it was originally intended by the author.

Abraham and Jacob practiced polygamy, and yet God never commanded them to practice polygamy, and you think that because God works within the cultures of people, that all of those practices are right and ideal? Not at all. God created his ideal situation in the Garden. No need to wonder about that.

[danielwoods]

Sometimes I wonder if you evangelical types actually study the NT.

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. . . . . .

Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. . . . . . Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Hmm... and then he said go into all the world.

[Calm]

you think that because God works within the cultures of people, that all of those practices are right and ideal?

By commanding the Levirate law of marriage that included polygamy when the brother was already married, he did more than just work with the culture of polygamy, he added conditions that increased the occurrence of it.

[USU78]

By commanding the Levirate law of marriage that included polygamy when the brother was already married, he did more than just work with the culture of polygamy, he added conditions that increased the occurrence of it.

But did so in a most humane way, ensuring that widows weren't marginalized, but rather embraced within the mainstream of human society with a husband providing material support during his lifetime . . . and, after his death should he predecease her, by her son by the late husband's brother.

Such is the social underpinning of the Onan incident and why it was so very horrifying that Onan would refuse to be husband to and support his dead brother's widow. Selfish git.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hmm... and then he said go into all the world.

Pooned. This is not an argument that you have offered up. Jesus specifically said to preach to the Jews. Later revelation contradticted that as I have shown. They were to go into all the world to gather his sheep. Those sheep were originally understood to be the house of Isreal or the Jews. And even if I grant you your interpretation which I don't, Christ would have contradicted him self

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:.

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. . . . . .

He is very specific that it was only the Jews that were to be preached to. You can't have your Johnny Cake and eat it too.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Storm Rider]

Hmm... and then he said go into all the world.

PI see this is a pretty pointless conversation, but I will throw my two mites in. First, Daniel are you saying that Jesus did not command the Apostles to only preach to the Jews? Please, just an simple answer yes or no. BTW, your statement was you never heard Jesus command such, so the polite thing to say is, "I forgot", "I never read that", or "I was really focusing on another period in time". Second, After Jesus' ministry he commanded the Apostles to go into all the world; did he contradict himself or just change his mind? Is God allowed to do this or should we pick and choose when to listen and when to ignore him? In closing, if anything this conversation should demonstrate that no one should get on a high horse about their understanding of scripture. It is just too easy to demonstrate, as this conversation has, that no one has a clear picture of God's commands and teachings about all things at all times. The facts are that Jesus did say he only came to the Jews in more than one place in the Bible. Further, he then said to go into all the world. God chose to speak only to the Jews and then he sent his Apostles into the world. There is not conflict, but there is a different emphasis given the times. There is a time and place for all things; his prophets have periodically practiced polygamy; that is a fact and cannot be denied by anyone that has read the Bible. Yes or No? This is not something to argue about, but it is a worthwhile discussion. When God says do it, we do it; when he doesn't, we don't. His people used to sacrifice the firstborn of their flocks and now we don't. These are not conflicts so much as God trying to lead his people in righteousness. Stop dancing around facts and quit playing loose with what is clearly evident in scripture.

[danielwoods]

Pooned. This is not an argument that you have offered up. Jesus specifically said to preach to the Jews. Later revelation contradticted that as I have shown. They were to go into all the world to gather his sheep. Those sheep were originally understood to be the house of Isreal or the Jews. And even if I grant you your interpretation which I don't, Christ would have contradicted him self

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:.

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. . . . . .

He is very specific that it was only the Jews that were to be preached to. You can't have your Johnny Cake and eat it too.

If you wish to make debate points and then claim the win. Be my guest. I'm not playing.

However, if you wish to have a conversation.

What you said, was:

"Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 19 June 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

I am specifically talking about what Jesus said and later revelation given to Peter directly contradicts what Christ said.

Christ said to preach unto the Jews only. And Peter was shown"

Then I said, "No where did I read that it says that Christ said to preach unto the Jews only."

In that context, you are claiming that by Acts 10, Jesus had only told them to preach to the Jews only. This is false. The great commission had occurred before Acts 10.

As for the argument that my statement is false, my statement was in reference to the context of the whole message of Christ to the disciples, not just their training exercise, because even the Samaritan woman argued that the dogs eat the table scraps and she was ministered to. So, if your contention is correct that Jesus said to only go to the Jews, then he himself violated his own mission.

Since some people here appear to be more interested in scoring debate points, I should have said, "No where did I read that it says that Christ said to preach unto the Jews only, as if that was his and our only mission."

[Vance]

Hmm... and then he said go into all the world.

That was a later revelation to Peter specifically contradicting the revelation from Jesus personally. Your argument has just been rendered baseless.

[Vance]

If you wish to make debate points and then claim the win. Be my guest. I'm not playing.

However, if you wish to have a conversation.

What you said, was:

"Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 19 June 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

I am specifically talking about what Jesus said and later revelation given to Peter directly contradicts what Christ said.

Christ said to preach unto the Jews only. And Peter was shown"

Then I said, "No where did I read that it says that Christ said to preach unto the Jews only."

In that context, you are claiming that by Acts 10, Jesus had only told them to preach to the Jews only. This is false. The great commission had occurred before Acts 10.

As for the argument that my statement is false, my statement was in reference to the context of the whole message of Christ to the disciples, not just their training exercise, because even the Samaritan woman argued that the dogs eat the table scraps and she was ministered to. So, if your contention is correct that Jesus said to only go to the Jews, then he himself violated his own mission.

Since some people here appear to be more interested in scoring debate points, I should have said, "No where did I read that it says that Christ said to preach unto the Jews only, as if that was his and our only mission."

Again, you fall head long into absurdity.

Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Vance

[Storm Rider]

I am getting the distinct impression that this is a topic that is woefully over Daniel's head. Scripture needs to be taken in context always and you need to take the whole of scripture. Daniel, you are committing the problem that all of us do from time to time and that is taking a few scriptures and building your house of doctrine while ignoring the rest of the Bible. Take your time and get to know the Bible fully and entirely before taking a stand on an idea that is simply not feasible if you understand all of scripture. This does not mean you are "wrong", but it does mean you don't quite yet have a grasp of a great deal of scripture. Too many of us read scripture looking only for those verses that support our current thinking; too few of us read scripture from a position of seeking truth. I believe that when we take on a seeking attitude when reading scripture the Holy Spirit more easily unfolds the truths of the scripture to us. We learn to see a much greater picture and we will acquire questions that will be answered with further study and prayerful contemplation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you wish to make debate points and then claim the win. Be my guest. I'm not playing.

However, if you wish to have a conversation.

What you said, was:

"Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 19 June 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

I am specifically talking about what Jesus said and later revelation given to Peter directly contradicts what Christ said.

Christ said to preach unto the Jews only. And Peter was shown"

Then I said, "No where did I read that it says that Christ said to preach unto the Jews only."

In that context, you are claiming that by Acts 10, Jesus had only told them to preach to the Jews only. This is false. The great commission had occurred before Acts 10.

As for the argument that my statement is false, my statement was in reference to the context of the whole message of Christ to the disciples, not just their training exercise, because even the Samaritan woman argued that the dogs eat the table scraps and she was ministered to. So, if your contention is correct that Jesus said to only go to the Jews, then he himself violated his own mission.

Since some people here appear to be more interested in scoring debate points, I should have said, "No where did I read that it says that Christ said to preach unto the Jews only, as if that was his and our only mission."

Ugh. You had specifically stated that you would only believe new scripture if it did not contradict old scripture. Remember? This is the central point I am trying to show you. That we can show dozens of examples were new scripture was directly contradicted by old. I gave one example. Several others have given other great examples. You clearly are not grasping what we are talking about. In fact you seem to be making my point by stating "The great commission had occurred before Acts 10." Why the need for this "new" revelation? This great commission directly contradicts what Christ taught when he we here on earth. That is the the gospel go unto the House of Isreal. The issue here is that new scritpure contradicting old scripture is not a reason to disregard new scripture.

So lets bring this a back in to perspective. You reject JS solely because you think that JS practicing polygamy is a "contradiction" of old scripture. I go on to show your double standard with this regard and you don't even grasp the double standard. Furhter more we have even shown examples of polygamy being practiced and sanctioned by God in the Bible. And you brush it aside. I would read what stormrider has written. He is 100% correct. I have even been wrong about some of my interpretation because I thought I knew it all.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again, you fall head long into absurdity.

Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

You know these verses could even be used for the Priesthood ban (not as justification). If course this we would be a derail.

But you are once again that the gospel was to be for the Jews only while Christ was on the earth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That was a later revelation to Peter specifically contradicting the revelation from Jesus personally. Your argument has just been rendered baseless.

In fact I would say he made my point. Which is exactly what I did say. And I really hate to use that phrase.

[danielwoods]

Ugh. You had specifically stated that you would only believe new scripture if it did not contradict old scripture. Remember? This is the central point I am trying to show you. That we can show dozens of examples were new scripture was directly contradicted by old. I gave one example. Several others have given other great examples. You clearly are not grasping what we are talking about. In fact you seem to be making my point by stating "The great commission had occurred before Acts 10." Why the need for this "new" revelation? This great commission directly contradicts what Christ taught when he we here on earth. That is the the gospel go unto the House of Isreal. The issue here is that new scritpure contradicting old scripture is not a reason to disregard new scripture.

So lets bring this a back in to perspective. You reject JS solely because you think that JS practicing polygamy is a "contradiction" of old scripture. I go on to show your double standard with this regard and you don't even grasp the double standard. Furhter more we have even shown examples of polygamy being practiced and sanctioned by God in the Bible. And you brush it aside. I would read what stormrider has written. He is 100% correct. I have even been wrong about some of my interpretation because I thought I knew it all.

OK, so now you are saying that Jesus contradicted himself, first teaching that the disciples were only to go to the Jews, as you stated, "that the gospel was to be for the Jews only while Christ was on the earth."

If that is true, then why did Christ heal the (non-Jewish) woman's daughter? And why did he tell her she has great faith?

Matt 15:^{28 "}Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."

He must have contradicted himself here, according to you?

I would argue that Jesus came for the Lost sheep of Israel first, as salvation is from the Jews. But, God so loved the Whole World, that he gave his only son. And in that Jewish context we now are able to understand how we needed salvation and are saved.

You say, "You reject JS solely because you think that JS practicing polygamy is a "contradiction" of old scripture...."

No. I reject JS based on every point where he disagrees with orthodoxy. On points where he copies and agrees with orthodoxy, I agree with him. Polygamy is just one example. Divination is the one mentioned in the OP, but there are many others.

[Flyonthewall]

As far as contradicting previous revelations. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac did that contradict a previous command? Not that I know of.

When God provided a Lamb for sacrifice, did that contradict God's previous command? I suppose it did. However, it wasn't like a rule of law that was laid down, and then changed a year later. The command to sacrifice his son, was only for him, no one else.

Do not think of it as God providing a lamb, because Abraham was not going to sacrifice Isaac simply because there was no lamb. The command was to sacrifice Isaac. The next command was to not lay a hand on him... it was an absolute contradiction.

Does it matter how many people the command was given? Whether it be to an individual or a nation or the world, those to whom it is given must make a choice to obey it or not, no matter how greivious it may seem.

Did God say to Moses, "practice polygamy!" no, clearly he did not. It appears to me, that your goal is to defend the position of Joseph Smith's claimed revelations, and it appears that you will stretch the interpretation (of this passage) to defend him, it only demonstrates that we end up disagreeing based on different interpretive principles which yours seem to stem from Joseph Smith. My interpretive goal is to read each passage as it was originally intended by the author.

Did God tell Moses not to practice polygamy? No, He did not. He gave a law that would require polygamy at times. My goal is to defend obedience to God's commands as He commands them. My interpretive principles are founded in scripture, and that includes the Bible. The Scribes and Pharisees did not believe Jesus was a prophet, or the Son of God, because He did not fit their interpretation of prophecy. Jesus' words contradicted the local leaders' traditional view of how things are, so the rejected Him.

Abraham and Jacob practiced polygamy, and yet God never commanded them to practice polygamy, and you think that because God works within the cultures of people, that all of those practices are right and ideal? Not at all. God created his ideal situation in the Garden. No need to wonder about that.

Did He work within the culture of Sodom? Gomorrah? Jericho? Babylon? God never commanded them to practice polygamy...as far as you know. God had plenty of opportunity to end Abraham's polygamy and teach him correct principals... did that happen? No. God said nothing about polygamy being wrong, in fact, it was God that told Hagar to go back to the polygamous marriage and submit to Sarah. Abraham was set apart from all other nations, and was to become a nation of his own. Don't you think it was an opportune time to set Abraham right with correct principles? To establish rules for right and wrong? Why wasn't polygamy stamped out then and there? Another opportunity was when the House of Israel left Egypt. Instead of stamping out polygamy at the outset, He actually gave a law that required it.

[danielwoods]

Do not think of it as God providing a lamb, because Abraham was not going to sacrifice Isaac simply because there was no lamb. The command was to sacrifice Isaac. The next command was to not lay a hand on him... it was an absolute contradiction.

Does it matter how many people the command was given? Whether it be to an individual or a nation or the world, those to whom it is given must make a choice to obey it or not, no matter how greivious it may seem.

Did God tell Moses not to practice polygamy? No, He did not. He gave a law that would require polygamy at times. My goal is to defend obedience to God's commands as He commands them. My interpretive principles are founded in scripture, and that includes the Bible. The Scribes and Pharisees did not believe Jesus was a prophet, or the Son of God, because He did not fit their interpretation of prophecy. Jesus' words contradicted the local leaders' traditional view of how things are, so the rejected Him.

Did He work within the culture of Sodom? Gomorrah? Jericho? Babylon? God never commanded them to practice polygamy...as far as you know. God had plenty of opportunity to end Abraham's polygamy and teach him correct principals... did that happen? No. God said nothing about polygamy being wrong, in fact, it was God that told Hagar to go back to the polygamous marriage and submit to Sarah. Abraham was set apart from all other nations, and was to become a nation of his own. Don't you think it was an opportune time to set Abraham right with correct principles? To establish rules for right and wrong? Why wasn't polygamy stamped out then and there? Another opportunity was when the House of Israel left Egypt. Instead of stamping out polygamy at the outset, He actually gave a law that required it.

The point of God's test was to make sure that Abraham didn't love Isaac more than himself. Making the purpose of the command not contradictory, once the test was over.

Of course the whole church in the beginning was made up of Jews, some who were Pharisees (such as Paul). The principles of interpretation are different for LDS and Non-LDS. If they were the same, we'd reach the same conclusions.

Let's take this example. Did God command Polygamy in the Levirate law of marriage? Is the word polygamy used? How many wives were allowed?

It appears that the LDS interpret this passage to mean that God commanded polygamy, yet nothing is really said about it. So, what is the purpose of interpreting this passage in this way? Why stretch the passage to include what isn't there?

You claim that your goal is to "defend obedience to God's commands as He commands them." And yet God didn't command polygamy in the sense that JS practiced and taught. And further you argue from silence, that since God didn't condemn the practice, it must have been OK with God. There are a great many things we could argue from silence, but I don't think it's wise to assume that God approves of them. Your argument from silence, ignores the pattern God established at creation.

I have no disagreement with obedience to God's commands, it's establishing what exactly those are that is the question.

You asked, "Did He work within the culture of Sodom? Gomorrah? Jericho? Babylon?" Indeed he did.

[Tacenda]

I agree that God did not command polygamy. I believe in some of the cases they committed adultery, and God allowed them free agency. And Isaac didn't even live polygamy and should be eliminated from D&C 132 as being one that lived it.

[Flyonthewall]

The point of God's test was to make sure that Abraham didn't love Isaac more than himself. Making the purpose of the command not contradictory, once the test was over.

But Abraham did not know that until after he was willing to follow through on God's command.

Of course the whole church in the beginning was made up of Jews, some who were Pharisees (such as Paul). The principles of interpretation are different for LDS and Non-LDS. If they were the same, we'd reach the same conclusions.

Perhaps I do not know what you mean when you say "principles of interpretation". Our principles are: God commands, we obey. Is yours different? What is different is we believe God speaks through prophets, as is His pattern all through the scriptures. And of course, also a pattern in the scriptures, not everyone will believe in the prophets sent by God.

Let's take this example. Did God command Polygamy in the Levirate law of marriage? Is the word polygamy used? How many wives were allowed?

You tell me...how many wives is the limit on the Levirite marriage? Was there a limit put on it? God commanded marriages that included plural marriages.

It appears that the LDS interpret this passage to mean that God commanded polygamy, yet nothing is really said about it. So, what is the purpose of interpreting this passage in this way? Why stretch the passage to include what isn't there?

You claim that your goal is to "defend obedience to God's commands as He commands them." And yet God didn't command polygamy in the sense that JS practiced and taught. And further you argue from silence, that since God didn't condemn the practice, it must have been OK with God. There are a great many things we could argue from silence, but I don't think it's wise to assume that God approves of them. Your argument from silence, ignores the pattern God established at creation.

I have no disagreement with obedience to God's commands, it's establishing what exactly those are that is the question.

You bring up the pattern God established at creation...and then there is a question on exactly what God's commands are...Tell me, what was the pattern that God established in communicating his commands? (Luke 1:70, Amos 3:7). My argument is not from silence because we have a prophet that has made known the commands of God for our day. Polygamy, otherwise known as plural marriage, is only allowable when God commands it, otherwise it is a sin. The scriptures we have are very clear on it.

Again with the pattern...not everyone will recognize or believe a prophet.

You asked, "Did He work within the culture of Sodom? Gomorrah? Jericho? Babylon?" Indeed he did.

Tell me then, what cultural behaviors did God incorporate into his rules from these cities? He didn't. he destroyed them. Babylon is held up as an example of disobedience and unrighteousness.

[Calm]

The point of God's test was to make sure that Abraham didn't love Isaac more than himself.

Why would God need that from Abraham?

[tagriffy]

Why would God need that from Abraham?

The obvious answer is that he didn't know.

[Calm]

The obvious answer is that he didn't know.

But why would God need to have Abraham love him more than his own son to the point of testing him in that way? I have my own answers but they are based on the LDS paradigm. I am curious as to why a nonLDS Christian thinks God needs to test people in that way (and I highly doubt that dw thinks that God didn't know...though maybe you mean Abraham).