Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Flyonthewall]

Right, and an argument from silence cuts both ways. Just as it doesn't mean "our marriages do not last beyond death." It also means the opposite, which means an argument from silence is irrelevant. Which is why I have focused on what the Revelation actually says, not what it doesn't say.

As for Romans 7, the argument is made that we died to the law of moses (vs. 4 & 6), and are therefore released from that law, or dominion if you want to put it that way. It doesn't say that the Law of Moses died. Then it makes this point, which is relevant to this discussion, it states that, "if her husband be dead, she is free from that law." (v. 3) Which indicates that the Law of Moses doesn't reach beyond our death. And then makes an interesting point, "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."

Notice, that not only does it state that the Mosaic law ends at our death, it also points out that we should be married to Christ.

And in the context of this sermon, being married to Christ is being subject to His law, walking not after the flesh, but after the spirit(Rom 8 )

Notice that it doesn't use the word "eternal" or "forever" or anything like that. The context is here on Earth. Again, an argument from silence can mean anything you want it to mean. We could say with equal validity that it is for a thousand years, or a million years, because they have an equal amount of evidence as your claim.

You seem to be stuck that the specific words "eternal" or "forever" are not used.

The word "Trinity" is found no where in the scriptures either but I bet you have no problem believing in the "Trinity".

God married Adam and Eve before the fall and announced than man and woman would be one. If marriage was only to last until our death, then why did God marry Adam & Eve before death entered the world? Because marriage was meant to last forever. Christ repeated God's proclamation after the fall, because mortality changed nothing, marriage was meant to last forever.

It surely seems that you are trying to put asunder that which God has joined together.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Flyonthewall

[danielwoods]

And a living prophet was needed to set them straight so as to teach them what their scriptures really meant. Without a living prophet to guide them, they were lost. You said, "The only thing that doesn't change is God's word." I say the only thing that did not change through all of Biblical history is that the body of scripture was being almost constantly enlarged and added to; and there isn't a time throughout all of Biblical history when the Lord's people didn't have both scripture and living prophets at the same time. Your idea of a church being true with scripture only but not living prophets is a new idea found nowhere in the Bible. None of the New Testament period people could have understood the meaning of the Old Testament without living prophets to open the eyes of their understanding to know its truths. Why do you not understand that the whole of Mark 7 proves contemporaneous revelation was needed in order for the truth of the scriptures to be established and falsehood overthrown? Without living prophets and continuing revelation, the Jews of that time would have been left in darkness -- their scriptures weren't enough. Think about it...

Two points. One Jesus didn't say anything that was "revelation" as in, anything new. What he said was they abandoned the meaning of the text and changed it. If anything they claimed authority to speak for God, but were not doing it correctly at all, because what they taught disagreed with what already revealed in the Word of God they had. They were called out on their hypocrisy.

Two, you are continuing to ignore my final point, that being that all believers now, are prophets. We all have the same access to the Spirit. Your statements are coming from an OT understanding of the situation. It's quite different now that all believers have the same exact access to the throne of grace.

Edited July 11, 2013 by danielwoods

[Tacenda]

Daniel, the last two sentences of the above post is definitely something to think about.

[danielwoods]

And in the context of this sermon, being married to Christ is being subject to His law, walking not after the flesh, but after the spirit(Rom 8 )

You seem to be stuck that the specific words "eternal" or "forever" are not used.

The word "Trinity" is found no where in the scriptures either but I bet you have no problem believing in the "Trinity".

God married Adam and Eve before the fall and announced than man and woman would be one. If marriage was only to last until our death, then why did God marry Adam & Eve before death entered the world? Because marriage was meant to last forever. Christ repeated God's proclamation after the fall, because mortality changed nothing, marriage was meant to last forever.

It surely seems that you are trying to put asunder that which God has joined together.

Nope. Simply not interested in reading into the text what isn't there. When there's no mention of marriage lasting forever (or what ever phrase you wish to think is there), then I have to conclude it's not there. Then in light of further revelation, from both Paul and John, it seems clear that our marriages are only meant for here on this earth.

What is interesting is your final statement to me. It is in the exact same sense that it was said to those in the beginning. The context is here on earth. The message is for those who live, on the earth. "Don't break up what God has put together (on Earth)". After Death, we have no control of the situation, only God does.

[danielwoods]

Daniel, the last two sentences of the above post is definitely something to think about.

Indeed. It is radical and exciting at the same time.

[teddyaware]

Two points. One Jesus didn't say anything that was "revelation" as in, anything new. What he said was they abandoned the meaning of the text and changed it. If anything they claimed authority to speak for God, but were not doing it correctly at all, because what they taught disagreed with what already revealed in the Word of God they had. They were called out on their hypocrisy.

Two, you are continuing to ignore my final point, that being that all believers now, are prophets. We all have the same access to the Spirit. Your statements are coming from an OT understanding of the situation. It's quite different now that all believers have the same exact access to the throne of grace.

For the Latter-day Saints, the concept that God wants all of His children to be prophets is not a new or radical idea. This principle is drummed into our heads on a regular basis. Personal revelation and each member being a prophet in his or her own right is one of the key principles of Mormonism. Now here again we have solid evidence your ideas and LDS ideas are closer than you might think. But I must say I'm surprised Tacenda reacted to your thoughts as if she'd never before heard that every member should be a prophet in their own right. Perhaps she was just being friendly and complimentary.

Daniel, as per your statement that in Mark 7 that Jesus did not speak by "revelation, as in anything new" (your own words), Since you are a prophet, as you assert, and since, apparently, you believe a prophet is only speaking as a prophet when he reveals something "new," when was the last time you received a "revelation, as in anything new?" I would very much enjoy learning of your last revelation of something new, if you feel comfortable sharing it with me.

I ask the above question respectfully, as I believe you believe you really are a prophet; and since the Latter-day Saints believe in the same principle, I wouldn't want to poke fun at you over it. But you should know the Latter-day Saints do not believe a prophet is speaking as a prophet only when he is revealing something new. We believe a prophet can receive revelation from God communicating to said prophet that he needs to reemphasize something the Lord's people already know. This is why Mark 7 is New Testament scripture that was added to the preexisting canon of Hebrew scripture -- the Saviour was commanded of the Father in that situation to teach the people something of which they should have already been aware, but ignored or forgot.

Jesus spoke nothing new in particular to those wayward Jews spoken of in Mark 7, but what He did teach them was the mind and the will of God nonetheless; words of inspiration from above designed to awaken them to the fact that they did not understand the very scriptures they claimed to have mastered. These ancient Jews needed a prophet -- in this case the Lord Himself -- to discover, hopefully, that they were misinterpreting the very scriptures the claimed to revere.

Not all revelation is something new. In fact, many of the revelations of the prophets recorded in the Holy Scriptures are inspired reiterations of what the people of God should have already known to be true. If revelation is comprised only of inspired teachings or declarations that are new, our Bible would shrink to a small fraction of its present size. Think about it...

Edited July 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[Vance]

Never mind

Edited July 11, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

Looks like you went to a lot of work compiling that. Wow.

However, I said, "Only problem is that God's physicality isn't described, ever."

Notice that your quotes don't describe his physical nature. In other words, what color of hair does he have? How long is his hair, and does he have a beard? How tall is he? How many fingers on his hands? What sort of clothes does he wear? Where does he live, what does he eat? Does he walk with a limp? Does he wear shoes? Does he bleed, and if so is it red?

No details of God's physicality is ever described.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[danielwoods]

For the Latter-day Saints, the concept that God wants all of His children to be prophets is not a new or radical idea. This principle is drummed into our heads on a regular basis. Personal revelation and each member being a prophet in his or her own right is one of the key principles of Mormonism. Now here again we have solid evidence your ideas and LDS ideas are closer than you might think. But I must say I'm surprised Tacenda reacted to your thoughts as if she'd never before heard that every member should be a prophet in their own right. Perhaps she was just being friendly and complimentary.

Daniel, as per your statement that in Mark 7 that Jesus did not speak by "revelation, as in anything new" (your own words), Since you are a prophet, as you assert, and since, apparently, you believe a prophet is only speaking as a prophet when he reveals something "new," when was the last time you received a "revelation, as in anything new?" I would very much enjoy learning of your last revelation of something new, if you feel comfortable sharing it with me.

I ask the above question respectfully, as I believe you believe you really are a prophet; and since the Latter-day Saints believe in the same principle, I wouldn't want to poke fun at you over it. But you should know the Latter-day Saints do not believe a prophet is speaking as a prophet only when he is revealing something new. We believe a prophet can receive revelation from God communicating to said prophet that he needs to reemphasize something the Lord's people already know. This is why Mark 7 is New Testament scripture that was added to the preexisting canon of Hebrew scripture -- the Saviour was commanded of the Father in that situation to teach the people something of which they should have already been aware, but ignored or forgot.

Jesus spoke nothing new in particular to those wayward Jews spoken of in Mark 7, but what He did teach them was the mind and the will of God nonetheless; words of inspiration from above designed to awaken them to the fact that they did not understand the very scriptures they claimed to have mastered. These ancient Jews needed a prophet -- in this case the Lord Himself -- to discover, hopefully, that they were misinterpreting the very scriptures the claimed to revere.

Not all revelation is something new. In fact, many of the revelations of the prophets recorded in the Holy Scriptures are inspired reiterations of what the people of God should have already known to be true. If revelation is comprised only of inspired teachings or declarations that are new, our Bible would shrink to a small fraction of its present size. Think about it...

I agree that prophets and teachers can and do reiterate what should already be known or practiced.

I'm not comfortable sharing anything personal, thanks though.

[Flyonthewall]

Nope. Simply not interested in reading into the text what isn't there. When there's no mention of marriage lasting forever (or what ever phrase you wish to think is there), then I have to conclude it's not there. Then in light of further revelation, from both Paul and John, it seems clear that our marriages are only meant for here on this earth.

For not wanting to read anything into the text that is not there, you sure do it frequently. Paul and John say nothing of marriages ending with our mortal lives, yet you read that into their statements.

What is interesting is your final statement to me. It is in the exact same sense that it was said to those in the beginning. The context is here on earth. The message is for those who live, on the earth. "Don't break up what God has put together (on Earth)". After Death, we have no control of the situation, only God does.

You have the context incorrect. The context I use this in is that God has set up the institution of marriage from the creation of the world, and joined two perfect people to be as one throughout the eternities as there is never any time limit specified, and you are doing your darnedest to break up what God has joined together.

Try as you might, you will not succeed.

[Calm]

What is interesting is your final statement to me. It is in the exact same sense that it was said to those in the beginning. The context is here on earth. The message is for those who live, on the earth. "Don't break up what God has put together (on Earth)". After Death, we have no control of the situation, only God does.

Except it was said to Adam and Eve in the Garden before the Fall, which would imply that it was meant to last forever to me if one believes the Fall, while known by God, was not part of what he had set up as the perfect abode but purely a result of man's sin. Adam and Eve would never had died if they hadn't sin and thus their marriage would have been eternal. Unless you don't think God really meant it when he commanded them not to eat of the tree because then they would die.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

After Death, we have no control of the situation, only God does.

Agreed (though now that I think of it, we are probably defining "control" in a different way so I may not agree after all), which is why we follow his commandments. And remember, that there was no "after Death" when marriage was first instituted by God in the Garden. That was his "control" in the Garden.

PS: if this specific point has been made before and you've addressed it, just point me to the post. I have not read the entire thread because much of it seemed like repetition...but of course that means I probably missed a lot of stuff that wasn't repeated. I did see one reference to the "one flesh" commandment, but whether teddy meant it in the same way or not, you did not appear to address the implication of the command being given in the Garden when there was no death present and if they had been obedient to God's commandments, never would have been and thus would have had an eternal marriage and not one that ended at death.

Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

I agree that prophets and teachers can and do reiterate what should already be known or practiced.

I'm not comfortable sharing anything personal, thanks though.

So from your response, I presume you do believe you are a prophet because it would seem you have personally received at least one revelation you want to keep to yourself, But this brings up a couple of important questions...

For as long as I can remember, Evangelicals have been boldly and even gladly proclaiming prophets, revelation and prophecy came to an end with the Book of Revelation. So this causes me to wonder if your belief in living prophets and continuous revelation is a unique position to hold within the Evangelical community, or do all Evangelicals believe in living prophets and continuous revelation as you do?

As to the second question, I'm wondering if the head minister at the Evangelical church you attend would agree with you that prophets and revelation did not come to an end with the writing of the Book of Revelation?

P.S. I was worrying you didn't believe much of the Bible was inspired of God by revelation because much of its doctrines and teachings had already been taught previously in the Old Testament. It's good to know you don't actually believe just because something has been taught before, that doesn't mean the same principles and doctrines can't be taught anew at a later date as revelation from God. After all, the whole of the Bible is the word of God (i.e. a divine revelation), isn't it?

Edited July 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

PS: if this specific point has been made before and you've addressed it, just point me to the post. I have not read the entire thread because much of it seemed like repetition...but of course that means I probably missed a lot of stuff that wasn't repeated. I did see one reference to the "one flesh" commandment, but whether teddy meant it in the same way or not, you did not appear to address the implication of the command being given in the Garden when there was no death present and if they had been obedient to God's commandments, never would have been and thus would have had an eternal marriage and not one that ended at death.

What would seem likely to happen in a church where everyone, according to Daniel, becomes The Prophet, and not just a prophet, is that each member in such a church can make the scriptures mean pretty much anything they want then to mean. Without divinely authorized presiding Apostles and Prophets at the helm of the Church, who are able to prevent every member from being "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine," as modeled by the New Testament Church, scripture interpretation becomes a sort of theological free for all, where whatever principles or doctrines one does not like can be cast aside without a moment's hesitation because said principles and doctrines simply don't "feel right" or "tickle one's fancy."

To the Latter-day Saints, the truth that Adam and Eve's marriage by God (who joined them together as one flesh by His power and authority in the Garden of Eden), which would have lasted forever if not for the fall, becomes extremely compelling and powerfully logical because our Church's presiding Apostles and Prophets already teach as a verity the principle of eternal marriage. But to a self described "presiding prophet," in a church where every member is a presiding prophet, if one doesn't believe in the principle of eternal marriage, the compelling logic of Adam's and Eve's marriage continuing forever if not for the fall has zero impact on the logical processes of one's mind.

You would think a powerful light would go off in an Evangelical's mind once it's brought to his attention that when God said it was not good for Adam to be alone (even though he was already existing in a glorious, sinless, paradisiacal state in the immediate and perfect loving presence of God) His inspired solution for this less than perfect state of affairs was to create a female counterpart named Eve, whom God gave to Adam to be his eternal companion and co-creator. Yes, you'd think that a powerful light of dawning would ignite within our Evangelical friend's mind once the truth that Adam needed an eternal female companion in order to find true happiness, even though Adam was already enjoying the perfect love and eternal companionship of God.

But such powerful, logical scriptural evidence has no impact whatsoever. Why? because when every member of a given church is a presiding prophet, you can pick and choose whatever it is you like or dislike by way of doctrine, without ever having to worry about their doctrinal preference bubble being burst by living prophets like Peter or Paul, who's divine commission in their day was to 'perfect the saints, perform the work of the ministry, and edify the body of Christ, until all the members of Christ's Church come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:'

To further illustrate my point, Vance submitted the following to Daniel to demonstrate that man is created in the actual physical image of God:

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures. Gen. 1: 27 God created man in his own image. Gen. 5: 1 God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. Gen. 9: 6 in the image of God made he man. Gen. 18: 33 Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing. Gen. 32: 30 I have seen God face to face. Ex. 24: 10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet. Ex. 31: 18 (Deut. 9: 10) written with the finger of God. Ex. 33: 11 Lord spake unto Moses face to face. Ex. 33: 23 thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not. Num. 12: 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth. Matt. 3: 17 a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son. Matt. 4: 4 every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matt. 17: 5 a voice out of the cloud. John 14: 9 he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Acts 7: 56 the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Rom. 8: 29 predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. 2 Cor. 4: 4 Christ, who is the image of God. Philip. 2: 6 who, being in the form of God. Philip. 3: 21 our vile body . . . fashioned like unto his glorious body. Col. 1: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God. Heb. 1: 3 the express image of his person. James 3: 9 men which are made after the similitude of God. 1 Jn. 3: 2 when he shall appear, we shall be like him. Rev. 22: 4 they shall see his face."

... but even after all of the above scriptural references, Daniel's terse reply was, "Only problem is that God's physicality isn't described, ever." For a Latter-day saint, Vance's list of scriptural references becomes an avalanche of confirming Biblical evidence that our presiding Apostles and Prophets are correct when they assert God the Father (and Jesus Christ, who is God) looks in form like a man.

When one is their own presiding prophet, every doctrine and teaching of the Bible becomes fluid and malleable; you are free to chose what you like or don't like without any external controlling authority. The members of the New Testament Church had no such license, for there were select presiding living Prophets who were still around to clarify what they meant, teach what prophets past actually meant, and set doctrinally wayward members straight when they went astray. Daniel's version of a church does not at all fit the New Testament model, but that doesn't matter as he's his own prophet and the scriptures can mean whatever he wants them to mean, When there is no presiding prophetic apostolic authority, as there was in the New Testament Church, anything goes. Yet I perceive Daniel is a good guy, and I'm pretty sure we'd get along famously, as long as we stayed off the subject of religion...

Edited July 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

Teddyaware, after reading your post, it seems the LDS are picking and choosing what they want from the bible. It says there is no given marriage in heaven. But it doesn't say in the bible that we won't be with our loved ones, now that could be a fallousy. Also, when our single sisters in our church are told that they will get the opportunity to "marry" in the afterlife and have children, that is picking and throwing out that scripture verse coming straight from Jesus, no middle man or prophet.

Why when our religion or doctrine doesn't quite fit in with the bible do we then say, well, the bible wasn't translated correctly. That's interesting to me, especially when I grew up with the notion that the BoM was word for word off the plates, to now JS with no plates in sight while translating. And even seeing the words in the hat, and making sure each word is precise to the newest edition now having over 4, 000 corrections. Why do we not say as far as translated correctly with the BoM?

Why or how could JS create such a doubt in the minds of the LDS people that what they are reading in the bible could be wrong, isn't that so wrong? More wrong then anything he could have ever done like, say, polygamy, if that is concluded to be wrong or never doctrine. That's the fallousy, making the bible less than.

Why do members that fall away quite often become athiests? Have they more developed a relationship with the church verses God/Jesus? And hold the bible in less esteem, since it may not be correct or translated correctly? Which by the way, no LDS prophet, save JS has translated the bible correctly. And we don't even use his translation. Ok, how about LDS scholars show where the bible wasn't translated correctly, anything would be nice. Rather than take the whole thing and make it so vague. That the LDS reader will question it.

Though I do believe some men in the bible who've claimed it, may not have had that prophesy. Therefore I'm cherry picking also. But I still stand by my statement above. And it may come across to some that I've totally lost any testimony in the church having truth, I still hold to it that we do, just like so many religions.

[Calm]

scripture verse coming straight from Jesus, no middle man or prophet.

So Jesus was the one who wrote down the verses himself and translated them for us into English even? Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

Teddyaware, after reading your post, it seems the LDS are picking and choosing what they want from the bible. It says there is no given marriage in heaven. But it doesn't say in the bible that we won't be with our loved ones, now that could be a fallousy. Also, when our single sisters in our church are told that they will get the opportunity to "marry" in the afterlife and have children, that is picking and throwing out that scripture verse coming straight from Jesus, no middle man or prophet.

Why when our religion or doctrine doesn't quite fit in with the bible do we then say, well, the bible wasn't translated correctly. That's interesting to me, especially when I grew up with the notion that the BoM was word for word off the plates, to now JS with no plates in sight while translating. And even seeing the words in the hat, and making sure each word is precise to the newest edition now having over 4, 000 corrections. Why do we not say as far as translated correctly with the BoM?

Why or how could JS create such a doubt in the minds of the LDS people that what they are reading in the bible could be wrong, isn't that so wrong? More wrong then anything he could have ever done like, say, polygamy, if that is concluded to be wrong or never doctrine. That's the fallousy, making the bible less than.

Why do members that fall away quite often become athiests? Have they more developed a relationship with the church verses God/Jesus? And hold the bible in less esteem, since it may not be correct or translated correctly? Which by the way, no LDS prophet, save JS has translated the bible correctly. And we don't even use his translation. Ok, how about LDS scholars show where the bible wasn't translated correctly, anything would be nice. Rather than take the whole thing and make it so vague. That the LDS reader will question it.

Though I do believe some men in the bible who've claimed it, may not have had that prophesy. Therefore I'm cherry picking also. But I still stand by my statement above. And it may come across to some that I've totally lost any testimony in the church having truth, I still hold to it that we do, just like so many religions.

Just like the folks of Bible times, we have living prophets who can help us navigate our way through what can seem to be a confusing maze. Your opportunity is to gain a testimony of the living prophets and become a prophetess in your own right, under the living prophet's authority, and come to know the truth as one such as I knows it; or you can follow in Daniel's path -- the choice is yours to make. By the way, do you not find the eternal marriage of Adam and Eve, as a divinely ordained pattern for salvation and happiness, at all compelling? Off to work... Edited July 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

Teddyaware, after reading your post, it seems the LDS are picking and choosing what they want from the bible. It says there is no given marriage in heaven. But it doesn't say in the bible that we won't be with our loved ones, now that could be a fallousy. Also, when our single sisters in our church are told that they will get the opportunity to "marry" in the afterlife and have children, that is picking and throwing out that scripture verse coming straight from Jesus, no middle man or prophet.

We accept the teachings of Christ == >>the "marrying" will happen here on earth, in a temple, as a sealing ceremony. As Christ taught, it will not happen "in heaven".

Why when our religion or doctrine doesn't quite fit in with the bible do we then say, well, the bible wasn't translated correctly.

You really ought to study LDS doctrine before posting in an LDS forum. Sadly, this has nothing to do with the Bible translation but your lack of knowledge of our doctrines.

That's interesting to me, especially when I grew up with the notion that the BoM was word for word off the plates, to now JS with no plates in sight while translating. And even seeing the words in the hat, and making sure each word is precise to the newest edition now having over 4, 000 corrections. Why do we not say as far as translated correctly with the BoM?

Why or how could JS create such a doubt in the minds of the LDS people that what they are reading in the bible could be wrong, isn't that so wrong? More wrong then anything he could have ever done like, say, polygamy, if that is concluded to be wrong or never doctrine. That's the fallousy, making the bible less than.

Why do members that fall away quite often become athiests? Have they more developed a relationship with the church verses God/Jesus? And hold the bible in less esteem, since it may not be correct or translated correctly? Which by the way, no LDS prophet, save JS has translated the bible correctly. And we don't even use his translation. Ok, how about LDS scholars show where the bible wasn't translated correctly, anything would be nice. Rather than take the whole thing and make it so vague. That the LDS reader will question it.

Though I do believe some men in the bible who've claimed it, may not have had that prophesy. Therefore I'm cherry picking also. But I still stand by my statement above. And it may come across to some that I've totally lost any testimony in the church having truth, I still hold to it that we do, just like so many religions.

I agree that ignorance is really a sad state of affairs.

[Vance]

Teddyaware, after reading your post, it seems the LDS are picking and choosing what they want from the bible. It says there is no given marriage in heaven.

What that means is that no (additional) marriages will be performed in heaven. Therefore, all marriages must be performed on earth before the end of the millennium.

Also, when our single sisters in our church are told that they will get the opportunity to "marry" in the afterlife and have children, that is picking and throwing out that scripture verse coming straight from Jesus, no middle man or prophet.

"our single sisters" will be joined/sealed to a worthy man, of their mutual consent, sometime BEFORE the end of the millennium. "(H)av(ing) children" may not be referring to mortal children but rather spirit children in heaven. There is much about this that hasn't been revealed yet.

Why when our religion or doctrine doesn't quite fit in with the bible do we then say, well, the bible wasn't translated correctly.

Our doctrine fits the Bible just fine when the Bible and our doctrine are correctly understood. Any apparent discrepancy is due to a lack of understanding of some kind. On some rare occasions it is due to mistranslation/transmission of the original intent.

[Tacenda]

What that means is that no (additional) marriages will be performed in heaven. Therefore, all marriages must be performed on earth before the end of the millennium. "our single sisters" will be joined/sealed to a worthy man, of their mutual consent, sometime BEFORE the end of the millennium. "(H)av(ing) children" may not be referring to mortal children but rather spirit children in heaven. There is much about this that hasn't been revealed yet.

Our doctrine fits the Bible just fine when the Bible and our doctrine are correctly understood. Any apparent discrepancy is due to a lack of understanding of some kind. On some rare occasions it is due to mistranslation/transmission of the original intent.

Ok, now I'm remembering it correctly, it is in the millennium that single sisters can be married and possibly have children. I had forgotten. You'd never know I've been a member of this church for over 40 yrs.

[halconero]

I'm going to venture to say he is going to say an emphatic YES! And also, that Adam & Eve would have proceated in Eden. And that HF is spirit and took on a body of flesh to save them, but can't wait for Daniel to explain it much better.

1. So eternal marriage existed in the Garden of Eden, Tacenda?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. "And that HF is spirit and took on a body of flesh to save them..."

You've just expressed Patripassianism! The belief that God the Father was incarnate and suffered on the cross. From the standpoint of the doctrine of the Trinity—one Divine Being existing in three Persons—patripassianism was considered heretical by the early Christian Church because it denies the distinct personhood of the Members of the Trinity. In this vein patripassianism asserts that God the Father—rather than God the Son—became incarnate and suffered on the Cross for humanity's redemption.

This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. Christ was two natures in one being, divine and human. The divine nature is incapable of suffering. It was Jesus the man who suffered on the cross, not Christ the God.

You have been declared anathema (accursed!) by the Nicene Creed! Congrats.

[Calm]

This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy.

While classical, is this theory required by the Nicene Creed? There doesn't seem to be anything in the Creed indicating that God cannot suffer and that it was only Jesus the Man who did. In fact it says the Lord Jesus Christ suffered.

And the anathema of the Creed doesn't refer to it either:

[but those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

http://en.wikipedia....ne_Creed_of_325

I have no clue about such things, just asking, but isn't heresy different than an anathema?

The early church considered patripassianism to be heresy.

http://en.wikipedia....Patripassianism

Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[halconero]

While classical, is this theory required by the Nicene Creed? There doesn't seem to be anything in the Creed indicating that God cannot suffer and that it was only Jesus the Man who did. In fact it says the Lord Jesus Christ suffered.

It is. The Nicene Creed dictates that God is without passions. The etymology of the word "passion" means "suffering" or "passive." It does not mean that God is without emotion, but that he is not "moved" by it. He does things out of his divine will, but not because he felt something. That is the significance by divine apathy. Not that God is loveless, but that his actions are not moved upon by love.

I was not clear when I said that it was only Jesus the Man who suffered. According to the Council of Chalcedon, God the Son has two natures in one person: divine and human. They are distinct natures, not mixed. Jesus Christ suffered because of his human nature, not because of his divine (which is without passion). Where I did mix up is that some Trinitarian Christians (monophysites and monothelites) do not believe in the "one person, two natures" belief, but instead subscribe to the belief that Christ had one nature (divine, not human).

And the anathema of the Creed doesn't refer to it either:

http://en.wikipedia....ne_Creed_of_325

I have no clue about such things, just asking, but isn't heresy different than an anathema?

Anathema was the punishment for heresy. It became known as excommunication and pronounced on several people, such as Nestorius (for preaching that the two natures of Christ were so distinct that it was actually two persons in one body). Anathema became a common punishment for heresy following the Synod of Elvira (which predated Nicea).

Edited July 12, 2013 by halconero

[Calm]

Where is it that the Nicene Creed says God is without passion?

[halconero]

Where is it that the Nicene Creed says God is without passion?

Whoops! You got me. I confused three different creeds there. I apologize that was my mistake. It is the Westminster Confession of Faith that uses the specific phrase "without...passion."

The belief in divine impassibility is not a new one though, and was articulated by several church fathers, and stated in the Apostles Creed of Antiquity. At the time of the Nicene and Athanasian Creed the first line stated that God was invisibili et impassibilisi (invisible and impassible). Theodoret, involved with several of the eucinemical councils at the time said that to "wild and blasphemous are they who ascribe passion to the divine nature."

Thank you for making me check my sources. The above was written on the fly and it caused me to goof up.

[halconero]

What I will say though is that the second part of the original post to Tacenda was written in jest, more than anything, not a firm declaration of her being anathema according to 4th century bishops and excommunicated by antiqued versions (the apostles creed of modern times does not include the original "impassibility of God," though such is still a doctrine of most Trinitarian schools of thought) of old creeds.

My more serious question was the one before it. The belief that if the Garden of Eden was the ideal-heavenly state, wherein Adam and Eve were married and would remain such eternally, and that Christ's mission was to restore humanity to such a state, that ALL things, include eternal marriage, would be a part of such state?