Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Calm]

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

Thank you! I was researching everything you said because such stuff really interests me and I just wasn't seeing it and was thinking it was me missing something obvious.

[halconero]

Thank you! I was researching everything you said because such stuff really interests me and I just wasn't seeing it and was thinking it was me missing something obvious.

No worries!

Okay. To sum up:

Nicene/Athanasian Creed (4th Century) - Nature of Trinity

Council of Chacledon (binding on most Trinitarians, with the exception of monothelites, nestorians, and monophysites <--- declared heretical) - Defined Christ as having two natures, human and divine.

Early Apostles Creed (according to Rufinus and Theodoret) - Divine nature is impassible (without passion) and to believe such is blasphemy. To have passion is defined as being able to suffer, or be moved upon by emotions. The Divine nature is not acted or moved upon by emotion as does not suffer.

This doctrine is most clearly stated in the later Westminster Confession of Faith.

[Calm]

Divine nature is impassible (without passion) and to believe such is blasphemy. To have passion is defined as being able to suffer, or be moved upon by emotions. The Divine nature is not acted or moved upon by emotion as does not suffer.

Which honestly has never made sense to me how they can make that work with all the commentary in the Bible about God suffering over his people, etc.

[danielwoods]

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.

And yet it states that we are free from marriage at death. "...if her husband be dead, she is free from that law."

[danielwoods]

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.

IF Adam and Eve wouldn't have sinned, they would (in theory) lived forever here on earth. Yes?

That means that this marriage still had the context of this Earth.

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.

The commandment, "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

It ends with, "they shall be one flesh." which again, has as it's context, the Earth. And it really isn't a command, but a conclusion based on the command to leave his parents and cleave to his wife.

[halconero]

IF Adam and Eve wouldn't have sinned, they would (in theory) lived forever here on earth. Yes?

That means that this marriage still had the context of this Earth.

The commandment, "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

It ends with, "they shall be one flesh." which again, has as it's context, the Earth. And it really isn't a command, but a conclusion based on the command to leave his parents and cleave to his wife.

Fun little anecdote. I once speculated that the Father and Mother referred to in this verse were our Heavenly ones. According to literalist, or even one who sees Genesis as symbolic, but believing in Adam and Eve, there was no father or mother for Adam to leave, or a place to leave from, unless latter-day saint theology is true. Then Adam did indeed leave his Father and Mother in their heavenly abode, and came to earth to find a spouse.

[Calm]

IF Adam and Eve wouldn't have sinned, they would (in theory) lived forever here on earth.

So even though it was an eternal plan of the Father's as well as they would be living in a perfect, paradisical state forever and ever just as if it were heaven, simply because the location was here on earth and not in some vague place labeled "heaven"...eternal marriage wasn't really eternal marriage? Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

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?

I agree, many Evangelicals believe that the spiritual gifts aren't for today and ended with the early church. Mostly it's the pentecostal groups that believe that the spiritual gifts are for today. And as an interesting side note, they also rely heavily on the "what you bind on earth is also bound in heaven" teaching.

[Flyonthewall]

And yet it states that we are free from marriage at death. "...if her husband be dead, she is free from that law."

Still not talking about marriage...it states right there that it is the law, and more specifically, the dominion of the law, that is the subject, not marriage.

Even with eternal marriages, if one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is free to marry again. The eternal marriage will be in effect when both are together again.

[danielwoods]

So even though it was an eternal plan of the Father's as well as they would be living in a perfect, paradisical state forever and ever just as if it were heaven, simply because the location was here on earth and not in some vague place labeled "heaven"...eternal marriage wasn't really eternal marriage?

"Eternal marriage" isn't used ever in the biblical text.

Just how long was Adam and Eve's marriage intended to last? In context, it appears that it was intended to last as long as they were on Earth.

Edited July 13, 2013 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Still not talking about marriage...it states right there that it is the law, and more specifically, the dominion of the law, that is the subject, not marriage.

Even with eternal marriages, if one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is free to marry again. The eternal marriage will be in effect when both are together again.

Right, and the dominion of the law and the marriage derived from that law are the same.

In essence your "eternal marriage" doctrine really ends up being eternal polygamy or plural marriage, in Heaven, yes?

[teddyaware]

"Eternal marriage" isn't used ever in the biblical text.

Just how long was Adam and Eve's marriage intended to last? In context, it appears that it was intended to last as long as they were on Earth.

In LDS theology, this earth will become heaven. So to the Latter-day Saints, the above point of argument loses its potency.

Edited July 13, 2013 by teddyaware

[Flyonthewall]

Right, and the dominion of the law and the marriage derived from that law are the same.

The emphasis of Romans was that the Mosaic law was no longer in effect, and a new law has been established. Marriage was never the subject.

I have already pointed out that the Levitical priesthood was a temporal authority, and the Melchizedek priesthood is a spiritual authority and is eternal.

So what the scripture is stating is the temporal law has been replaced by an eternal law. Temporary dominion has been replaced by eternal dominion.

In essence your "eternal marriage" doctrine really ends up being eternal polygamy or plural marriage, in Heaven, yes?

Not necessarily. There will be some plural marriages but not everyone will be involved in plural marriage.

[halconero]

Daniel, correct me if this has been brought up, but have you considered the context in which Christ said that people are not given in marriage in heaven?

He was talking to the Saducees, a group of Jews who did not believe in the resurrection (many believe that the Kairite Jews of today are related to them, amongst them my grandparents). Earlier you said that they must have believed in eternal marriage, for which Christ rebuked them. That is not correct.

They were trying to trap Christ.

See, Christ taught a new law of marriage, which was actually just a throwback to the days before the law of Moses. Marriage had originally been seen as a sacrament before God, but many Jews had come to treat it just a legal contract.

According to the law of Moses, if a married man died before having children, his wife would marry the man’s brother (called a levirate marriage) – and any children they bore would bear the name and lineage of the original husband. The “marriage” in this case was a legal contract establishing heritage, continuation of the husband's name – that his life would be carried on through “his” children, even though they were born from his brother.

The Sadducees “[denied] that there is any resurrection.” They were asking Jesus a question about marriage in the resurrection not because they were curious, but because they wanted to prove that there could not possibly be a resurrection at all. They laid a trap for Christ that the law of Moses required the woman to marry multiple men – but the same law forbade a woman from marrying several men while all were still living. If there was a resurrection, then the woman could not help but break the law of Moses. This implied that the very idea of a resurrection was contrary to Scripture, and so was not possible.

These weren't people coming to Christ for doctrinal counsel. They were coming to entrap him. They failed. "“they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for they cannot any more die.” What does the resurrection have to do with not being married? If you're talking about a union of flesh and soul, nada. You can be together forever with a union of souls. But if we're talking about a contractual levirate marriage it does become relevant that someone cannot die anymore. If they are alive they don't need someone else to carry on the name. Marriage as that kind of legal contract wouldn't have a place anymore. The first husband couldn't die in the resurrection so there would be no consideration of whether a wife would be given in marriage.

[danielwoods]

In LDS theology, this earth will become heaven. So to the Latter-day Saints, the above point of argument loses its potency.

Curious, 2 Peter 3:7-12 explain that the Earth and the Heaven's will be burned, and he concludes in vs. 13, "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." And John of course, in Rev. 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

Does LDS theology teach that the Earth won't be destroyed?

[danielwoods]

The emphasis of Romans was that the Mosaic law was no longer in effect, and a new law has been established. Marriage was never the subject.

I have already pointed out that the Levitical priesthood was a temporal authority, and the Melchizedek priesthood is a spiritual authority and is eternal.

So what the scripture is stating is the temporal law has been replaced by an eternal law. Temporary dominion has been replaced by eternal dominion.

The emphasis of the passage uses marriage as an analogy. It does talk about marriage, and it states very clearly that marriages end at death.

Further, I have asked where it states *anywhere* that the new marriages you are referring to (based on the Melchizedek priesthood) indicates our marriages to each other are eternal. Arguments from silence don't equal actual statements.

Not necessarily. There will be some plural marriages but not everyone will be involved in plural marriage.

Fair enough.

[halconero]

Curious, 2 Peter 3:7-12 explain that the Earth and the Heaven's will be burned, and he concludes in vs. 13, "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." And John of course, in Rev. 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

Does LDS theology teach that the Earth won't be destroyed?

Burned =/= Completely destroyed and incapable of rebirth/new growth. A forest can be burned and grow back.

Latter-day Saints believe that a baptism has two parts: Baptism by water, followed by baptism by fire (the Holy Ghost).

Many believe that the earth will have to undergo the same process. It's baptism by water at the time of Noah, and its baptism by fire at the Second Coming of Christ. This burning will be a cleansing and sanctification of the earth. The old world, sinful and imperfect, will be burned away and a new earth will be left in its place.

[danielwoods]

Daniel, correct me if this has been brought up, but have you considered the context in which Christ said that people are not given in marriage in heaven?

He was talking to the Saducees, a group of Jews who did not believe in the resurrection (many believe that the Kairite Jews of today are related to them, amongst them my grandparents). Earlier you said that they must have believed in eternal marriage, for which Christ rebuked them. That is not correct.

They were trying to trap Christ.

See, Christ taught a new law of marriage, which was actually just a throwback to the days before the law of Moses. Marriage had originally been seen as a sacrament before God, but many Jews had come to treat it just a legal contract.

According to the law of Moses, if a married man died before having children, his wife would marry the man’s brother (called a levirate marriage) – and any children they bore would bear the name and lineage of the original husband. The “marriage” in this case was a legal contract establishing heritage, continuation of the husband's name – that his life would be carried on through “his” children, even though they were born from his brother.

The Sadducees “[denied] that there is any resurrection.” They were asking Jesus a question about marriage in the resurrection not because they were curious, but because they wanted to prove that there could not possibly be a resurrection at all. They laid a trap for Christ that the law of Moses required the woman to marry multiple men – but the same law forbade a woman from marrying several men while all were still living. If there was a resurrection, then the woman could not help but break the law of Moses. This implied that the very idea of a resurrection was contrary to Scripture, and so was not possible.

These weren't people coming to Christ for doctrinal counsel. They were coming to entrap him. They failed. "“they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for they cannot any more die.” What does the resurrection have to do with not being married? If you're talking about a union of flesh and soul, nada. You can be together forever with a union of souls. But if we're talking about a contractual levirate marriage it does become relevant that someone cannot die anymore. If they are alive they don't need someone else to carry on the name. Marriage as that kind of legal contract wouldn't have a place anymore. The first husband couldn't die in the resurrection so there would be no consideration of whether a wife would be given in marriage.

Not sure if you're asking a question of just making a point. I agree, that the sole purpose of the question was to trap him. I don't understand the point you are trying to make though.

[teddyaware]

Curious, 2 Peter 3:7-12 explain that the Earth and the Heaven's will be burned, and he concludes in vs. 13, "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." And John of course, in Rev. 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

Does LDS theology teach that the Earth won't be destroyed?

The new earth will be the old earth cleansed with fervent heat, as if slain and reborn as the abode of those who will inherit celestial glory. The wickedness of the earth was destroyed once before by water but was reborn, as it were, after it was cleansed by the floods; we believe the earth will be cleansed once again, this time by consuming fire. This LDS doctrine is perfectly analogous to the resurrection of the body: the body dies but is restored in glory -- it is the same flesh, only wonderfully transformed. Edited July 13, 2013 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

Burned =/= Completely destroyed and incapable of rebirth/new growth. A forest can be burned and grow back.

Latter-day Saints believe that a baptism has two parts: Baptism by water, followed by baptism by fire (the Holy Ghost).

Many believe that the earth will have to undergo the same process. It's baptism by water at the time of Noah, and its baptism by fire at the Second Coming of Christ. This burning will be a cleansing and sanctification of the earth. The old world, sinful and imperfect, will be burned away and a new earth will be left in its place.

That's close enough, I suppose. To me, "all things new" means it will be a completely new creation. Just as we are resurrected, so to everything will be.

^{Revelation 21:4} And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

⁵ And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

[danielwoods]

The new earth will be the old earth cleansed with fervent heat, as if slain and reborn as the abode of those who will inherit celestial glory. The wickedness of the earth was destroyed once before by water but was reborn, as it were, after it was cleansed by the floods; we believe the earth will be cleansed once again, this time by consuming fire. This LDS doctrine is perfectly analogous to the resurrection of the body: the body dies but is restored in glory -- it is the same flesh, only wonderfully transformed.

Check. Dead earth. Dead body. Resurrected body/Earth.

[Flyonthewall]

The emphasis of the passage uses marriage as an analogy. It does talk about marriage, and it states very clearly that marriages end at death.

Yes it uses marriage as an analogy, but only involves the dominion of the husband over the wife, not the marriage. It does not state anywhere that marriages are not eternal. You keep saying it does, but I have not seen it.

Further, I have asked where it states *anywhere* that the new marriages you are referring to (based on the Melchizedek priesthood) indicates our marriages to each other are eternal. Arguments from silence don't equal actual statements.

It is not just new marriages, but from the beginning. The very first marriage was performed by God before the fall...that is in the scriptures. God then declared that this is the pattern, that we leave our parents and marry someone to become one with them.

There is no qualifier that marriage ends at death. In fact, death had not even entered the world when the first marriage was performed.

Then, thousands of years later, Jesus re-iterated what the pattern is, and what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. It was and is God's will that we get married, and become one - that is a fact.

God has given His authority to man on earth to perform His ordinances, this is called the Priesthood. The Levitical priesthood was given to administer the Mosaic law, but the Melchizedek priesthood pre-dated it, and was restored after it was fulfilled.

The Levitical priesthood administered in the law of carnal commandments, the Melchizedek priesthood has the power of endless life(Heb 7).

The indicators of eternal marriage in the scriptures are overwhelming. You can turn a blind eye to them all you want, but it will not change what is there.

[cdowis]

it states very clearly that marriages end at death.

Can we assume you are speaking in your role as a prophet, since it makes no such statement in our version of the Bible, "marriage ends at death". You speak as one who thinks that your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant, so we have to put your comments in that context.

Edited July 13, 2013 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

Found this on this site:http://whatthebiblesays.info/ I guess there is eternal marriage in heaven.

c/p below......

So far we have spoken of only one passage. However, there are many passages which might give us an indication of whether marriage continues after death, even if it is not in so many words. When God first created people, He made them male and female. (Genesis 1:27) He saw that what He had done was very good. (Genesis 1:31) If it is very good, why should it not continue after death? Jesus said, "They are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore, God has joined together, let no one put asunder." (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9) God Himself said, "It is not good that the man should be alone." (Genesis 2:18) "The Lord, the God of Israel, says that He hates putting away." (Malachi 2:16) If He hates putting away, why would He put away every wife and husband from each other by death?

There are many, many passages which compare the relationship between God and His people to a marriage. "Your Maker is your Husband," He says. (Isaiah 54:5) "I am married to you." (Jeremiah 3:14) "I will betroth you to Me forever." (Hosea 2:19) Our relationship with the Lord is to be a blessed, heavenly, eternal relationship. Would our union with God be compared to something which ends with death and has no part in heaven? Or is marriage also a blessed, heavenly, eternal relationship?

Often when someone's spouse dies, the survivor is comforted by the thought that eventually they will be together again in heaven, and their relationship will continue as it had before. The Bible is not clear about marriage after death. One or two passages, taken out of context, seem to say that there is no "marriage" in heaven. Many more passages hint that true marriage is an eternal covenant. The Lord said, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." (John 16:12) Could it be that among the many things the Lord has to tell us is clear knowledge about what happens to true marriages when the partners are together in heaven?

[Garden Girl]

God has given His authority to man on earth to perform His ordinances, this is called the Priesthood.

The Levitical priesthood administered in the law of carnal commandments, the Melchizedek priesthood has the power of endless life(Heb 7).

The indicators of eternal marriage in the scriptures are overwhelming. You can turn a blind eye to them all you want, but it will not change what is there.

I haven't read all of the 33 pages of this thread, and suppose that someone has previously quoted Matt 16:19... where Jesus is instructing his apostles and foretelling of his death and resurrection... and he tells Peter: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

My question would be, what was the purpose of giving the "keys" ...authority... of the kingdom of heaven,,, to bind not only on earth, but in heaven? To me this indicates an eternal binding that extends beyond earth into heaven. And by the same "key"... authority... whatever was loosed on earth under that key would be loosed in heaven.

And so, as I knelt in the temple and was "sealed" to my husband by one who has been delegated authority under these "keys," I have every faith that this sealing... or "binding"... made here on earth, also seals or binds me to my husband in heaven.

GG