Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[tagriffy]

That is interesting.

The difference between the OT and the NT is Jesus is the Messiah or not. Jewish faith certainly rejects Jesus as Messiah.

The difference between the LDS and Non-LDS is modern revelation (that comes from the LDS) true or not? IF all christians thought the LDS prophets were true, they'd be LDS.

I think you've just discovered your own answer.

[Calm]

If someone stated that polygamy was now commanded by God, non-LDS Christians would not accept it. Even if this person claimed to be a prophet of God, and even if they did miracles and signs and wonders. Why is that? It's very simple. It conflicts with already understood and know teaching from God. New prophecies or teachings that conflict with the old are not true.

And if Christ himself appeared and commanded polygyny be lived, would nonLDS Christians still not accept it?

[Calm]

The polygamy that might have resulted, wasn't the goal of the command.

What difference does that make if the result was the same...polygyny occurred due to a commandment of God?

[Calm]

As I read it, calmoriah was more or less just discussing the history of God's commandments related to polygamy.

Exactly.

[Vance]

The bible doesn't talk about Kolob and men becoming Gods.

It does talk about men becoming Gods, if you pay close attention. Even some non-LDS people have picked it up, just by studying the Bible on their own, (not by listening to the ramblings of some preacher or televangelist.)

[Vance]

New prophecies or teachings that conflict with the old are not true.

So you still do animal sacrifice, right? And you obey the law of Moses to the letter, right? And you stone adulterers, right?

[Flyonthewall]

As I see it, the goal of the command to marry a dead brother's wife, was to raise up seed...it did not matter if the brother was married or not. Nor did it matter what the local laws were regarding how many wives a man could have.

IMO, the Lord had just restored HIS church and had instructed HIS followers to add to their numbers...by both missionary work and by polygamy.

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

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

[Vance]

Non-LDS view Paul as a prophet/teacher, "later prophets" who teach conflicting things are not seen as prophets.

What about the instances where (your interpretation of) Paul's word conflict directly with what Jesus taught? Should you not reject them rather than embrace (your interpretation of) them?

[Vance]

I follow Jesus as best as I know how. That's all I know.

Then why to you accept your (MIS)interpretation of Paul's teachings that directly conflict with what Jesus taught. Even Paul claimed the preeminence of Jesus.

[Vance]

The topic at hand is whether LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible. The conflicts within the Bible itself is an appropriate subtopic since those have to be addressed in assessing that question. You have also admitted that latter revelation is to be preferred in conflicts between Old and New Testaments yourself. Thus, the conflict isn't really between whether latter revelation is to be preferred. The real difference is between when LDS and non-LDS say revelation has ended.

That is a good summary.

[Tacenda]

It does talk about men becoming Gods, if you pay close attention. Even some non-LDS people have picked it up, just by studying the Bible on their own, (not by listening to the ramblings of some preacher or televangelist.)

http://georgeamarcel...hat-we-are-god/ Vance your comment intrigued the lazy bible reader in me! And I went to the internet for help, much quicker and this thread would be way down the list before I could find all these passages on my own. I think you'll like that it shows many scriptures about that subject. Makes me think that Joseph Smith having read the bible, felt it was really important and thought he'd better start a church that believes we're going to be gods/goddesses. Maybe those other religions in his time, weren't even touching the "we are like god" or "going to become a god". Something to think about.

http://georgeamarcel...ss.com/2008/07/

I love this guys testimony, here's a video about the "chalk" story you may have heard about. Snopes is not sure how true it is, but reminded me of the student (I think he's LDS) who wouldn't stomp on a paper with the word Jesus on it. And was expelled or something, here's the article. http://www.mediaite....uspended-after-

Hoping I don't derail here, sorry if I have.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Tacenda

[cdowis]

And if Christ himself appeared and commanded polygyny be lived, would nonLDS Christians still not accept it?

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

[Vance]

They are, but that's not all they are. They are an establishment of a new covenant.

And what if that "new covenant" was broken due to apostasy? Would the reestablishment of that "new covenant" be considered a "newer covenant" or the "newest covenant" or would it be considered a restoration? Also, what parts of the NT are considered the "new covenant" and what parts are just part of the culture, place and time?

[Vance]

And if Christ himself appeared and commanded polygyny be lived, would nonLDS Christians still not accept it?

Some accept it now. http://christianpolygamy.com/

[DH]

Of course LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible. But then, every other church's doctrine contradicts the Bible, too.

For that matter, the Bible contradicts itself...

Edited June 19, 2013 by DH

[danielwoods]

I see it as a wiley attempt to avoid the reductio ad absurdum which is your basic argument. You ignore any evidence which damages your false claims.

How convenient. Such a position enables you to make a false statement and not have to support it, while you know very well that this is a major issue in evangelicalism -- my booklist above should have made that plain.

False. The debate and decision is always based on the will of the Lord in Mormonism, and this was the same rule in ancient Israel, as well as in the NT Church. Sequential order does not pertain, although it may accompany such decision-making. Thus, St Peter is not concerned with whether the new rule on what may be eaten is the latest revelation, but on whether it is the will of the Lord. Naturally those who favor observance of Jewish kashrut will attack him for following the latest revelation (in their view a false revelation), but that is not what he is doing. This applies as well to circumcision, or any other rite or observance which the Lord orders be placed in abeyance. The Lord's prophets are always concerned first and foremost with obedience to the Lord, not with sequence of commands.

.

In other words, the first objective of today's false "christians" is not obedience, but adherence to some set orthodoxy. The Classical OT prophets constantly inveighed against just such an establishmentarian view. Likewise for Jesus and his Apostles. They put obedience to God first, and the regulations of the scribes and pharisees second.

Brother Brigham didn't like the sheeplike attitude of followers. He stated publicly that the Mormon people had to know of themselves what the will of God was on any particular matter. He preferred that the people seek confirmation through the Holy Spirit of any revelation or policy. I recommend that you visit an LDS congregation on the first Sunday of the month and observe the Fast & Testimony Meeting. No one ever talks about following the latest revelation, but rather they bear testimony of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and express thankfulness for modern prophets of God. I Sam 15:22, "To obey is better than sacrifice," i.e., the Lord would prefer an obedient people than to have burnt offerings made in His name -- even though He Himself ordered those sacrifices. Obedience to the Lord is uppermost in the LDS mind and heart. The Mormons have paid dearly for that commitment through persecutions by so-called "chrsitians" which continue even today.

I stated, "I have pointed out that even in the LDS history, the latter revelation is preferred over the previous, if they conflict. And so this appears to me to be the core of the disagreement between LDS and Non-LDS interpretations of scripture."U

You replied, "False. The debate and decision is always based on the will of the Lord in Mormonism, and this was the same rule in ancient Israel, as well as in the NT Church. Sequential order does not pertain, although it may accompany such decision-making. Thus, St Peter is not concerned with whether the new rule on what may be eaten is the latest revelation, but on whether it is the will of the Lord."

I would reply with, the goal of all followers of Christ is to do the will of the Lord. The question is what is the will of the Lord and how is it determined? It appears to me that the LDS use modern prophets (as Joseph Smith et al) to a certain extent, in making this determination. Non-LDS would disagree that these modern prophets actually spoke for God, and by extension, the will of God.

Thus, the difference rests on a validity of LDS prophets or not.

[danielwoods]

And if Christ himself appeared and commanded polygyny be lived, would nonLDS Christians still not accept it?

A great example is Paul. Knocked off his feet, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Paul thought he was doing the will of God, but he wasn't and Jesus himself corrected him.

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

What difference does that make if the result was the same...polygyny occurred due to a commandment of God?

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

[danielwoods]

As I see it, the goal of the command to marry a dead brother's wife, was to raise up seed...it did not matter if the brother was married or not. Nor did it matter what the local laws were regarding how many wives a man could have.

IMO, the Lord had just restored HIS church and had instructed HIS followers to add to their numbers...by both missionary work and by polygamy.

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

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

Your last statement is interesting. How did Jesus feel?

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

[danielwoods]

And what if that "new covenant" was broken due to apostasy? Would the reestablishment of that "new covenant" be considered a "newer covenant" or the "newest covenant" or would it be considered a restoration? Also, what parts of the NT are considered the "new covenant" and what parts are just part of the culture, place and time?

What if there wasn't any apostasy, and Jesus was still building his Church, just like he promised he would to Peter?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A great example is Paul. Knocked off his feet, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Paul thought he was doing the will of God, but he wasn't and Jesus himself corrected him.

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

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

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

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

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What if there wasn't any apostasy, and Jesus was still building his Church, just like he promised he would to Peter?

Excpet he never did promise Peter that His church would never go in to apostasy. And the rock is the rock of revelation. That is what Jesus was going to build his church on that would never fail. It was revelation that would not fail, not the church. There are a few scriptures in the NT that fortold the apostasy.

In fact in the bible we read that the wolves came in and did not spare the flock. So I am sorry but your reading is something that I simply disagree with.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

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

[BlueDreams]

The bible doesn't talk about Kolob and men becoming Gods.

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

I just didn't grow up like Cal or many others where the gospel was taught in depth or had a library with this information in it. Or my parents kept it from me.....I didn't even grow up with scripture reading in my home and never remember taking the scriptures to church. My family wasn't too spiritual that way, my dad never owned a set of scriptures. The priesthood wasn't exercised in my home, but he was sealed in the temple to my mom. She was the stalwart in the family. But in my eyes you couldn't find a more Christian man. So my apologies, I reverted back to my old ways of cutting from questionable websites for lack of patience in finding it on other places.

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

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

http://georgeamarcel...hat-we-are-god/ Vance your comment intrigued the lazy bible reader in me! And I went to the internet for help, much quicker and this thread would be way down the list before I could find all these passages on my own. I think you'll like that it shows many scriptures about that subject.

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

With luv,

BD

Edited June 19, 2013 by BlueDreams

[USU78]

Um...wouldn't you think that's a problem? Take a few months, or a year. Simply quoting bible verses in isolation won't get you where you need to go. Put everything else away and read your bible while opening your soul to God. If you don't have the time or the patience to do this, don't be surprised if you can't get the answers you desire.

My wife got me the OT on CD from Deseret Book last year. I got through the entire OT in about 4 months while driving, and getting some very interesting insights into the BoM while I was doing it. Some may remember a few of my thread OPs a year ago on Judges in 1 Nephi, etc.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right. I understood that was the intended point. I disagree that it actually is commanding polygamy for the sake of polygamy, as established by Joseph Smith, and then rescinded. In other words, the intent was much different. The polygamy that might have resulted, wasn't the goal of the command.

I would say that that is complete irrelevant. The fact the polygamy was essetinally commaned under certain circumstances seems to contradict your assertion that it was never commanded.