Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Calm]

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.

If I understand Daniel, he believes that the earthly bindings are only reflective of what has already been bound in heaven, not that what is done on earth has any effect on what is done in heaven. I hope he corrects me if I have misread him.

[Flyonthewall]

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

Yes, it has been brought up, and on page 20, post #400 is his response to it.

One of his observations to the keys being given to the Apostles is that Man cannot bind God so therefore man can only bind on earth what has already been bound in heaven by God.

In essence, our interpretation is simply "inconceivable"(ala Inigo Montoya)

[Garden Girl]

Yes, it has been brought up, and on page 20, post #400 is his response to it.

One of his observations to the keys being given to the Apostles is that Man cannot bind God so therefore man can only bind on earth what has already been bound in heaven by God.

In essence, our interpretation is simply "inconceivable"(ala Inigo Montoya)

Well of course, I find his interpretation illogical, based on what Christ is giving to and telling Peter... the ability and authority to "bind on earth" and, hence, such would be bound "in heaven." There would be no purpose of giving Peter, or even mentioning, the keys of binding in heaven if his authority was only to bind on the earth... and by the same token, the "loosing."

GG

[danielwoods]

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.

You've not seen where it states that marriage is eternal either. What is seen is the context of all these statements are on earth.

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.

You state, "The indicators of eternal marriage in the scriptures are overwhelming."

If this were the case, then we'd see it mentioned somewhere, right? At least once right? Overwhelming! Let's see, is it mentioned in Heb. 7? Nope. I will be waiting to see where the Scriptures are that mention eternal marriage.

[danielwoods]

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.

You don't have Romans 7?

I said a couple days ago:

"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."

[danielwoods]

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?

Not surprised, there are probably many evangelicals that believe this. Notice however that the poster of that page didn't believe in eternal families. What is interesting is his/her equating the marriage to a relationship that is unique. In essence, I don't think we understand how strong all of our interrelationships will be in Heaven, with sin removed. In essence, the closeness we feel within the marriage relationship is but a taste of what it will be like between all of us. Thinking that if there's no eternal marriage, means that it will be so sad, is just the opposite of what I'm trying to say.

The passage where the Saducees questioned Jesus:

Luke 20:³⁴ And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

³⁵ But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

³⁶ Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Notice a couple things. They asked him, "whose wife of them is she?" He didn't say, "Oh yeah, the first dude!" Nope. Not any of them will be married to her. Second, instead he emphasized, that "The children of this world marry and are given in marriage" as contrast to the world to come, where they "neither marry, nor are given in marriage." Which is equated to "neither can they die anymore: for they are equal unto the angels."

So, if we are to say that our marriages continue to Heaven, by extension that would have to mean that Angels are also married, since we will be equal to them.

[cdowis]

You don't have Romans 7?

I said a couple days ago:

"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."

Thanks for your inerrant interpretation. It does not interpret that way to me. If course marriage, without the temple covenant, ends at death, but Peter was given the keys to the kingdom to seal in heaven what was sealed in heaven.

Of course, your prophetic interpretation also disagrees so we have to juxtapose your claim to prophecy to that of the living prophets who hold those priesthood keys today.

There is nothing really to discuss except your claim to prophecy and inerrant interpretation. There is no point in a discussion based on the principles of the Pharasees and the scribes -- and the latter day theologians and scholars. Christ and His chosen prophets already settled that issue for me.

[danielwoods]

Well of course, I find his interpretation illogical, based on what Christ is giving to and telling Peter... the ability and authority to "bind on earth" and, hence, such would be bound "in heaven." There would be no purpose of giving Peter, or even mentioning, the keys of binding in heaven if his authority was only to bind on the earth... and by the same token, the "loosing."

GG

Right. It would be illogical, unless the passage mentioned was mistranslated, as I pointed out. It doesn't actually say that Peter can bind anything in Heaven. Rather, that part is in past tense. So, the "keys" that were given to Peter (aka the church by extension) was access to knowledge to know what was already bound or loosed in Heaven (bound or loosed are legal terms in Jewish vernacular), so that Peter could tell people what was legal or not, based on that knowledge. The event that took place in Acts 15 is a perfect example of Peter using the Keys of the Kingdom to gain knowledge about what was legal or not.

[cdowis]

So, if we are to say that our marriages continue to Heaven, by extension that would have to mean that Angels are also married, since we will be equal to them.

OK, here is a specific example.

What exactly is an angel according to your prophetic word?

According to modern revelation, angels may or may not be in a married state, depending on whether they accepted the sealing in a temple. But I suspect that is beyond your understanding, since we differ on what constitutes an angel, the sealing power of the priesthood power, temple ordinances, etc.

As I said, your comment is based on a false understanding and without a knowledge and correct understanding of modern revelation.

Again, there is nothing really to discuss except your claim to prophecy and inerrant interpretation, whereas we accept modern prophets and revelation. You have only a portion of the word of God, and ignore the rest. Christ taught his disciples for forty days after the resurrection but we have nothing of those "things of the kingdom", so the Bible itself proclaims that it is not a complete record. But I'm sure that you will pull out your lexicon and grammar text to prove otherwise.

Edited July 13, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

Thanks for your inerrant interpretation. It does not interpret that way to me. If course marriage, without the temple covenant, ends at death, but Peter was given the keys to the kingdom to seal in heaven what was sealed in heaven.

Of course, your prophetic interpretation also disagrees so we have to juxtapose your claim to prophecy to that of the living prophets who hold those priesthood keys today.

There is nothing really to discuss except your claim to prophecy and inerrant interpretation. There is no point in a discussion based on the principles of the Pharasees and the scribes -- and the latter day theologians and scholars. Christ and His chosen prophets already settled that issue for me.

A point of clarification. I am not claiming that my interpretation is inerrant. Nor am I claiming to be giving you or anyone here a prophecy. All I am claiming to be doing, is reading it as it was written.

My message to anyone here, is if you disagree, I would love to see why. Where in the text did I get something wrong?

If the basis for your disagreement is simply because of your testimony, that's fine too. However, because it has nothing to do with the text, I have no comment about it.

[danielwoods]

OK, here is a specific example.

What exactly is an angel according to your prophetic word?

According to modern revelation, angels may or may not be in a married state, depending on whether they accepted the sealing in a temple. But I suspect that is beyond your understanding, since we differ on what constitutes an angel, the sealing power of the priesthood power, temple ordinances, etc.

As I said, your comment is based on a false understanding and without a knowledge and correct understanding of modern revelation.

Again, there is nothing really to discuss except your claim to prophecy and inerrant interpretation.

I agree there is nothing to discuss if you're unwilling to analyze the biblical text.

If you are saying to me, "sure the biblical text doesn't support eternal marriages, but modern revelation from the LDS does." I would probably agree with you.

[teddyaware]

Not surprised, there are probably many evangelicals that believe this. Notice however that the poster of that page didn't believe in eternal families. What is interesting is his/her equating the marriage to a relationship that is unique. In essence, I don't think we understand how strong all of our interrelationships will be in Heaven, with sin removed. In essence, the closeness we feel within the marriage relationship is but a taste of what it will be like between all of us. Thinking that if there's no eternal marriage, means that it will be so sad, is just the opposite of what I'm trying to say.

The passage where the Saducees questioned Jesus:

Luke 20:³⁴ And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

³⁵ But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

³⁶ Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Notice a couple things. They asked him, "whose wife of them is she?" He didn't say, "Oh yeah, the first dude!" Nope. Not any of them will be married to her. Second, instead he emphasized, that "The children of this world marry and are given in marriage" as contrast to the world to come, where they "neither marry, nor are given in marriage." Which is equated to "neither can they die anymore: for they are equal unto the angels."

So, if we are to say that our marriages continue to Heaven, by extension that would have to mean that Angels are also married, since we will be equal to them.

Hi Daniel, Over the years, the way Latter-day Saint leaders have interpreted those verses in Luke to mean that the people mentioned there, who "are accounted worthy to obtain that world" (we Latter-day Saints might say 'that degree of glory'), are people who will obtain a lower degree of glory in the resurrection. That's what is meant when Christ says "they are equal to the angels." We believe Jesus is here speaking of a relegating this particular category of people to a lower degree of glory than that which will be obtained by those who obtain the fullness of heavenly glory in the world to come.

The reason why this line of thinking is logical to Latter-day Saints is because we believe those who obtain the fullness of the glory of God in heaven will be not equal to the angels, but greater than the angels. There are Evangelicals who believe the same thing, to wit that some will be rewarded with power and glory in the world to come that will make them greater than the angels, not just equal to them. To the Mormons, celestial marriage is reserved only to those who are made greater than the angels.

Here's a quote from Billy Graham touching on the destiny of those who will be made greater than the angels:

"DEAR DR. GRAHAM: My sister lost her small son a little over a year ago, and on the anniversary of his death, she put a poem in the paper to remember him. It said something about him being an angel now. Is that what happens to us when we die and go to heaven, that we become angels? -- Mrs. L.C.

DEAR MRS. L.C.: I know your sister was sincere, and I respect her sorrow and her desire to remember and honor her son -- but no, we don't become angels when we die and go to heaven.

The truth is, when we die and go to heaven, we become even greater than the angels! The angels are spiritual beings who were created by God to be His servants, and God has given them great authority and power to do His will. And at the present time, the angels are greater than we are, because God made us "a little lower than the heavenly beings" (Psalm 8:5).

But the Bible also says that in heaven we will be higher than the angels -- and the reason is because we will be like Christ. The Bible says, "Do you not know that we will judge angels?" (1 Corinthians 6:3). Although that verse may be referring to the rebellious angels who chose to follow Satan, it still implies that our status after death will be above that of the angels

Edited July 13, 2013 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

A point of clarification. I am not claiming that my interpretation is inerrant.

You claim that "it is clear" that your interpretation is correct. OK, so you now agree another interpretation is possible.

Nor am I claiming to be giving you or anyone here a prophecy.

Are there prophets today, and have you been claiming to be one of those prophets? Perhaps I have misread your posts -- I guess they were not very clear on that point.

All I am claiming to be doing, is reading it as it was written.

That is saying that your interpretation is inerrant, not subject to another interpretation. Make up your mind, please.

My message to anyone here, is if you disagree, I would love to see why. Where in the text did I get something wrong?

Read my post on your comment on angels. You ignore revelation, you have no knowledge of some of the doctrines as revealed by the Lord. There are 40 days of teachings by Christ which are outside of your knowledge even within the Bible itself.

You "get it worng" because of your lack of knowledge.

If the basis for your disagreement is simply because of your testimony, that's fine too. However, because it has nothing to do with the text, I have no comment about it.

"Testimony" is an issue for Social Hall. I am talking about different assumptions -- your testimony/assumption is that the Bible is complete record of all the doctrines of Christ, but I have shown you a specific example where it is lacking.

I accept all of the word of God, including the Bible, but you accept only the Bible alone. Your assumption is based on the concepts of the inerrant text and inerrant interpretation. If not, then how do you know what is missing, and whether it is critical to salvation.

I assume modern revelation, and you assume an inerrant Bible and inerrant interpretation.

Edited July 13, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

Hi Daniel, Over the years, the way Latter-day Saint leaders have interpreted those verses in Luke to mean that the people mentioned there, who "are accounted worthy to obtain that world" (we Latter-day Saints might say 'that degree of glory'), are people who will obtain a lower degree of glory in the resurrection. That's what is meant when Christ says "they are equal to the angels." We believe Jesus is here speaking of a relegating this particular category of people to a lower degree of glory than that which will be obtained by those who obtain the fullness of heavenly glory in the world to come.

The reason why this line of thinking is logical to Latter-day Saints is because we believe those who obtain the fullness of the glory of God in heaven will be not equal to the angels, but greater than the angels. There are Evangelicals who believe the same thing, to wit that some will be rewarded with power and glory in the world to come that will make them greater than the angels, not just equal to them. To the Mormons, celestial marriage is reserved only to those who are made greater than the angels.

Here's a quote from Billy Graham touching on the destiny of those who will be made greater than the angels:

"DEAR DR. GRAHAM: My sister lost her small son a little over a year ago, and on the anniversary of his death, she put a poem in the paper to remember him. It said something about him being an angel now. Is that what happens to us when we die and go to heaven, that we become angels? -- Mrs. L.C.

DEAR MRS. L.C.: I know your sister was sincere, and I respect her sorrow and her desire to remember and honor her son -- but no, we don't become angels when we die and go to heaven.

The truth is, when we die and go to heaven, we become even greater than the angels! The angels are spiritual beings who were created by God to be His servants, and God has given them great authority and power to do His will. And at the present time, the angels are greater than we are, because God made us "a little lower than the heavenly beings" (Psalm 8:5).

But the Bible also says that in heaven we will be higher than the angels -- and the reason is because we will be like Christ. The Bible says, "Do you not know that we will judge angels?" (1 Corinthians 6:3). Although that verse may be referring to the rebellious angels who chose to follow Satan, it still implies that our status after death will be above that of the angels

I understand. Interpreting that verse in light of what the LDS teach is where the differences come in. It isn't in the Biblical text alone.

With reference to Graham's interpretation of 1 Cor. 6:3, it seems clear to me that only the rebellious angles will be judged. So, no I wouldn't take it to mean that we are going to be greater than the Angels, at least based on that passage alone, especially when christ stated that we will be equal to them.

[danielwoods]

All I am claiming to be doing, is reading it as it was written.

That is saying that your interpretation is inerrant, not subject to another interpretation. Make up your mind, please.

My message to anyone here, is if you disagree, I would love to see why. Where in the text did I get something wrong?

Read my post on your comment on angels. You ignore revelation, you have no knowledge of some of the doctrines as revealed by the Lord. There are 40 days of teachings by Christ which are outside of your knowledge even within the Bible itself.

You "get it worng" because of your lack of knowledge.

If it's not in the Biblical text, then I am not claiming to know that it's true. It's not that I'm ignoring it, I simply have no basis for analyzing it.

name='cdowis' timestamp='1373758692' post='1209278540']I am talking about different assumptions -- your testimony/assumption is that the Bible is complete record of all the doctrines of Christ, but I have shown you a specific example where it is lacking.

I accept all of the word of God, including the Bible, but you accept only the Bible alone. Your assumption is based on the concepts of the inerrant text and inerrant interpretation. If not, then how do you know what is missing, and whether it is critical to salvation.

I assume modern revelation, and you assume an inerrant Bible and inerrant interpretation.

My assumption is that the Biblical text is enough for us to learn all we need to know about him. By extension, this means that the Biblical text leads us directly to him.

For example, I hear LDS say all the time they have a testimony in Joseph Smith or the LDS church or in this prophets teaching or that. Not me. I have one testimony, and it's in Christ alone. Which is what the Biblical text does, it leads us into a direct relationship with Christ.

Does that mean I am saying that the Biblical text contains ALL the "doctrines of Christ"? Not necessairly. As Paul stated, now we see through a glass, darkly. So, I'm sure there's more to come.

Do I then assume that the text is inerrant? Only until it's proven it isn't.

Have I ever claimed to have an inerrant interpretation? Of course not.

What I do not want to do is believe something that is false. Building my house on sand so to speak, is what I am interested in avoiding.

[cdowis]

I agree there is nothing to discuss if you're unwilling to analyze the biblical text.

If you are saying to me, "sure the biblical text doesn't support eternal marriages, but modern revelation from the LDS does." I would probably agree with you.

I am not willing to go down the rabbit hole of lexicons, grammar text books, and ignoring latter day revelation.

I agree that the Old and New Testament do not contradict the doctrine. It would be reasonable to suppose that it was part of those doctrines taught by Christ after His resurrection -- 40 days of teaching. These teachings would also include such things as the details of the authority of the priesthood, the sealing power, baptism for the dead and many other salvation doctrines.

Unless you can restore those teachings, what would be the point of a discussion when we have them restored in latter day revelation. We would only get down to "I believe it, I don't believe it."

Edited July 14, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

My assumption is that the Biblical text is enough for us to learn all we need to know about him.

It would have been nice if the Bible actually said that it was complete, and that we could ignore the verbal teachings of the prophets.

By extension, this means that the Biblical text leads us directly to him.

It would be nice if the Bible taught that, but it did not even exit at the time of the apostles. The Christians at that time were lead to Christ, not by a book. but by something else. I guess you are getting this doctrine from the theologians and scholars who have to justify their existence.

Looking at the Pharasees and scribes vs the Christians, you don't see the irony of this doctrine-- salvation thru a book?

For example, I hear LDS say all the time they have a testimony in Joseph Smith or the LDS church or in this prophets teaching or that. Not me. I have one testimony, and it's in Christ alone.

If you reject the messenger, you also reject the One who sent him.

When the Jews rejected Paul, they likewise rejected the Christ. Christ had dispatched Paul to be his messenger.

Which is what the Biblical text does, it leads us into a direct relationship with Christ.

And I always thought it was the Holy Ghost. You really need to think about where you got that from. Do not get confused -- the Bible is NOT the word of God itself, it merely contains the Word of God. You need to understand what that means.

Does that mean I am saying that the Biblical text contains ALL the "doctrines of Christ"? Not necessairly. As Paul stated, now we see through a glass, darkly. So, I'm sure there's more to come.

Do I then assume that the text is inerrant? Only until it's proven it isn't.

Have I ever claimed to have an inerrant interpretation? Of course not.

What I do not want to do is believe something that is false. Building my house on sand so to speak, is what I am interested in avoiding.

We both can agree that we should not build our house on a foundation of sand.

Edited July 14, 2013 by cdowis

[teddyaware]

I understand. Interpreting that verse in light of what the LDS teach is where the differences come in. It isn't in the Biblical text alone.

With reference to Graham's interpretation of 1 Cor. 6:3, it seems clear to me that only the rebellious angles will be judged. So, no I wouldn't take it to mean that we are going to be greater than the Angels, at least based on that passage alone, especially when christ stated that we will be equal to them.

How do you know what it is that Jesus is really trying to teach here? It was the Apostle John himself who said, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Yet with just the miniscule Bible -- by comparison to all the books on the acts of Christ planet earth could hold -- you know it all.

Here's an interesting question for you: Do you think that if you read that almost infinitely immense library of books on the works of Christ that John speaks of, do you think there would be anything new there that you don't already know by reading the Bible? Answering the same question myself, I would say there would be great many things to learn within the books of that heavenly library that I don't already know.

Back to Luke: Those Jews who tried to entrap the Lord in the way they did didn't know that it is only by the sealing power of God that husbands and wives who are bound as one flesh on earth can also be bound to each other forever in heaven. That's why the Lord said to those wicked men, "ye know not the power of God." These enemies of Christ had caught wind He had been teaching the holy principle of eternal marriage, and that's why they asked their trick question in the first place -- they were hoping to entrap Him in his own words by demonstrating a supposed logical inconsistency within said sacred principle.

By the way, it's a mind blower to know I'm actually dialoguing with someone who knows so much that even Billy Graham is a theological lightweight by comparison! I'm pleased to know you!

Edited July 14, 2013 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

By the way, it's a mind blower to know I'm actually dialoguing with someone who knows so much that even Billy Graham is a theological lightweight by comparison! I'm pleased to know you!

I think your heavy-handed sarcasm is misplaced, and detracts from your post.

Edited July 14, 2013 by cdowis

[teddyaware]

I think your heavy-handed sarcasm is misplaced, and detracts from your post.

[Vance]

I agree there is nothing to discuss if you're unwilling to analyze the biblical text.

If you are saying to me, "sure the biblical text doesn't support eternal marriages, but modern revelation from the LDS does." I would probably agree with you.

LOL!!!!

Go ahead and examine the Bible text (Greek) and tell me whether John the Baptist was an angel or not. (See Matt 11:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27)

[danielwoods]

I am not willing to go down the rabbit hole of lexicons, grammar text books, and ignoring latter day revelation.

I agree that the Old and New Testament do not contradict the doctrine. It would be reasonable to suppose that it was part of those doctrines taught by Christ after His resurrection -- 40 days of teaching. These teachings would also include such things as the details of the authority of the priesthood, the sealing power, baptism for the dead and many other salvation doctrines.

Unless you can restore those teachings, what would be the point of a discussion when we have them restored in latter day revelation. We would only get down to "I believe it, I don't believe it."

I would disagree that the Old and New Testament (aka the Biblical Text) does not contradict LDS Doctrine. It simply doesn't teach what is claimed to have been "restored" by latter day revelation.

[Storm Rider]

Sola scriptura has always appeared illogical, yet some demand that all the truth is found in the Bible. This also assumes that all scripture that was ever written and nothing was lost....of course, that creates problems since the Bible mentions books of scripture that are not in the Bible. This little running discussion continues to appear meaningless. Scripture read without the guidance of the Holy Spirit is an invitation of misinterpretation. Demands for the Bible to possess all truth are illogical and rejects Jesus' teachings, as well as the apostles, that God speaks to man.

[noel00]

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/ilj3/index.html

Does this guys discussion present any problems for LDS

[danielwoods]

How do you know what it is that Jesus is really trying to teach here? It was the Apostle John himself who said, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Yet with just the miniscule Bible -- by comparison to all the books on the acts of Christ planet earth could hold -- you know it all.

Here's an interesting question for you: Do you think that if you read that almost infinitely immense library of books on the works of Christ that John speaks of, do you think there would be anything new there that you don't already know by reading the Bible? Answering the same question myself, I would say there would be great many things to learn within the books of that heavenly library that I don't already know.

It's an interesting argument from silence that seems to be used a lot by the LDS.

What about all the books that should be written? Huh? What about it?

First, it doesn't automatically indicate that what is currently in the Biblical text is false or suspect or limited in knowledge. Second, if *new* things were taught, they wouldn't contradict what is already known. Third, they don't justify the teaching of a self-proclaimed prophet, anymore than any other person, because as any argument from silence, it can be used to justify anything. Making it useless.

Back to Luke: Those Jews who tried to entrap the Lord in the way they did didn't know that it is only by the sealing power of God that husbands and wives who are bound as one flesh on earth can also be bound to each other forever in heaven. That's why the Lord said to those wicked men, "ye know not the power of God."

Funny, in context it is fairly clear that Jesus was making a contrast to the world to come, where they "neither marry, nor are given in marriage." And the not knowing the power of God is a reference to the resurrection. And also interesting there isn't anywhere in the bible where the sealing power of God is used to bind a husband to a wife... curious.

These enemies of Christ had caught wind He had been teaching the holy principle of eternal marriage, and that's why they asked their trick question in the first place -- they were hoping to entrap Him in his own words by demonstrating a supposed logical inconsistency within said sacred principle.

If this was even close to being true, you'd think there'd be evidence of it... oh well.

It's more likely that they didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, and figured they'd trap him with "to whom is she married to then?" and he responded with not one! And further they didn't know the power of God, in the resurrection.