Mormons "getting Their Own Planet" (Merged)

[rodheadlee]

So you must beleive in polygamy to be in the celestial kingdom? And to say someone is not "cut out" for the highest reward God allegedly offers...is...well...condemning someone.

Well hey then how about rodheadlee for President of the USA? Or do my carpenter qualifications not make me cut out to be president? Being President of the USA is nothing compared to being a God and ruling your own planet, justly.

[Robert F. Smith]

You make an argument like this because you think it bolsters the argument for God mandated polygamy. It doesn't. You see even if the Old Testament people practiced polygamy they did it because it was the norm and culture of their time. It was not God mandated but God tolerated. There is nothing in ancient scripture requires polygamy for exaltation and as a religiously commanded ordinance.

False.  God has commanded polygyny (2 Samuel 12:7, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, 25:5-10), and has promulgated rules for it (Exodus 21:10).  Such commandments and rules have nothing directly to do with exaltation, which you bring in as a red herring.

 

Martin Luther: 

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." 

[Randall57]

So you reject a canonized piece of scripture,  and consider the first seven prophets, most of the Apostles, Moses, Abraham, Jacob, and many others to be adulterers (because if polygamy isn't from God that's exactly what they were, no other option) and I'm the one that believes questionable doctrines? 

Also, if the case, we should reject any revelation to Joseph or ordinances restored after Fanny Alger.  And D&C 121 tells us none of said prophets and apostles can hold the priesthood, so we might as well reject the Church today too.

 

Reject polygamy as from God, and the unarguably attached sins of Church leaders would remove all priesthood, authority, and most ordianance validity from the Church today.  So which is it?  Is the Church true WITH polygamy being from God, or is the Church false with polygamy being a grievous sin?

 

And I never said polygamy was "suffering", I said it was challenging, especially to our mortal feelings and false traditions.  Big difference.

 

 

Our religion is designed to change, it has in the past and will in the future. Like i said i believe that Joseph error-ed, and section 132 was written to get him out of a jamb, that eventually led to his martyrdom. 

 

The OT culture has nothing to do with modern day culture, they would put their wives out once a month in that they were unclean, and other things we would never do in our day and age, your argument is a straw man Teancum said it well when he wrote....

 

Teencum wrote...You make an argument like this because you think it bolsters the argument for God mandated polygamy. It doesn't. You see even if the Old Testament people practiced polygamy they did it because it was the norm and culture of their time. It was not God mandated but God tolerated. There is nothing in ancient scripture requires polygamy for exaltation and as a religiously commanded ordinance.

 

 

Nowhere does the Bible or rabbinical extra biblical teachings support polygamy as a requirement to be in God presence (exaltation).

 

Reject polygamy as from God, and the unarguably attached sins of Church leaders would remove all priesthood, authority, and most ordianance validity from the Church today.  So which is it?  Is the Church true WITH polygamy being from God, or is the Church false with polygamy being a grievous sin?

The church is true without polygamy, it was a mistake, and HF removed it from our church...so much so if you enter into it you will be disiplined and excommunicated. Are you implying the FLDS are in Gods will and we are not?

 

 

And I never said polygamy was "suffering", I said it was challenging, especially to our mortal feelings and false traditions.  Big difference.

 

 False traditions? So again, the FLDS and movements like the Manti church are practicing true traditions.

 

We are changing, and old school hardliners like yourself are slowly being weeded out, and a new inspired membership is coming to age with hopefully a humility to recognize that Joseph was not perfect, as Adam, Noah,Moses,  Jacob and others were not,and as we learn form their mistakes, so we can learn from Joseph's.

[JLHPROF]

Like i said i believe that Joseph error-ed, and section 132 was written to get him out of a jamb, that eventually led to his martyrdom.

The church is true without polygamy, it was a mistake, and HF removed it from our church...so much so if you enter into it you will be disiplined and excommunicated. Are you implying the FLDS are in Gods will and we are not?

 

If polygamy was "a mistake" then Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F., and Heber (not to mention all of the apostles in their day) were adulterers and would have been unworthy to hold priesthood, let alone lead the Church.

 

There are no two ways about this - either polygamy came from God or the Church is false and everything after the introduction of polygamy would have not come by revelation because God doesn't lead his Church through adulterers.  No other option works.

Our religion is designed to change, it has in the past and will in the future.

 

Congrats on wanting to fulfill Isaiah 24:5

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

 

I'll stick with Joseph Smith - Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.

Edited November 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

False.  God has commanded polygyny (2 Samuel 12:7, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, 25:5-10), and has promulgated rules for it (Exodus 21:10).  Such commandments and rules have nothing directly to do with exaltation, which you bring in as a red herring.

 

Martin Luther: 

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."

The first two passages you cite do not command polygamy but they do tolerate it. The third commands it in the case of death of a brother. Rules for it were promulgated due to the culture.

It is absolutely not a red herring to bring up the LDS command of polygamy for exaltation because LDS defenders argue that the same God commanded polygamy existed in the OT, which based on the text it did not.

Lastly since when is Martin Luther authority for things LDS?

[Teancum]

Well hey then how about rodheadlee for President of the USA? Or do my carpenter qualifications not make me cut out to be president? Being President of the USA is nothing compared to being a God and ruling your own planet, justly.

I am not sure I follow your logic but given the current crowd running for president I may be happy to support your bid.

[Randall57]

 

If polygamy was "a mistake" then Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F., and Heber (not to mention all of the apostles in their day) were adulterers and would have been unworthy to hold priesthood, let alone lead the Church.

 

There are no two ways about this - either polygamy came from God or the Church is false and everything after the introduction of polygamy would have not come by revelation because God doesn't lead his Church through adulterers.  No other option works.

 

Congrats on wanting to fulfill Isaiah 24:5

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

 

I'll stick with Joseph Smith - Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.

 

God will deal with those men. By your logic today's prophets are clueless then? Joseph made a lot of errors, and BY made even more. But we learn and progress not only individually but as a body.

 

We are saved by obedience to the laws (eternal) and ordinances of the Gospel, not by following men who made many mistakes. These eternal laws were in place long before Joseph and BY were here.

[JLHPROF]

God will deal with those men. By your logic today's prophets are clueless then? Joseph made a lot of errors, and BY made even more. But we learn and progress not only individually but as a body.

 

You are STILL ignoring the simple choice.

But go right ahead if you don't want to address it that's up to you.

You cannot say the Church is true but polygamy wasn't from God.  Doesn't work.

 

 

We are saved by obedience to the laws (eternal) and ordinances of the Gospel, not by following men who made many mistakes. These eternal laws were in place long before Joseph and BY were here.

 

If Joseph Smith committed adultery with Fanny Alger in 1836 then all subsequent revelation, ordinations, ordinances that he performed would not have been sanctioned by God.  (Unless you think God is ok with an adulterer as prophet).)

Which would mean today's prophet would not have any priesthood either and todays baptisms and ordinances would be invalid.

Edited November 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Randall57]

You are STILL ignoring the simple choice.

But go right ahead if you don't want to address it that's up to you.

You cannot say the Church is true but polygamy wasn't from God.  Doesn't work.

I can and I have and I believe it. All polygamy has done is bring the church grief, like it did to Abraham and other men of old. It was the bane of Joseph and by he was murdered.

 

It is not taught in the BoM or the Bible as a necessary ordinance, you can believe opinions, I will believe revealed truth.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................

 

..................................... Are you implying the FLDS are in Gods will and we are not?

.........................................

The FLDS are apostates in general and have no authority.  However, if the civil law supports it, they and Muslims, and any other groups may practice polygyny without consulting with the LDS Church.  Probably not a major concern of God, since they are not his authorized representatives.

[JLHPROF]

I can and I have and I believe it. All polygamy has done is bring the church grief, like it did to Abraham and other men of old. It was the bane of Joseph and by he was murdered.

 

It is not taught in the BoM or the Bible as a necessary ordinance, you can believe opinions, I will believe revealed truth.

 

Then PLEASE explain how the priesthood authority in the Church today exists?

(You are very good at stating your position, but you refuse to address the problem with your position).

Edited November 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

The first two passages you cite do not command polygamy but they do tolerate it.

God actively giving wives to David is merely tolerating it?  You have a very odd sense of semantics. 

 

............................. Rules for it were promulgated due to the culture.

The Mosaic Code is now merely cultural, so that those laws promulgated in Exodus and Deut are meaningless -- even though the Jews still think they have force?  One can explain virtually anything away in such fashion, and biblical words cease to have any meaning.

 

It is absolutely not a red herring to bring up the LDS command of polygamy for exaltation because LDS defenders argue that the same God commanded polygamy existed in the OT, which based on the text it did not.

False.  Your red herring is valueless because your exegesis of the biblical text is false.  As Professor Martin Luther confirms.

 

Lastly since when is Martin Luther authority for things LDS?

Since he was a great Hebrew and Greek scholar at Wittenberg Univ, aside from the fact that he has a hymn in the LDS Hymn Book.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

If it wasn't for the church introducing polygamy in the 1800s, it wouldn't be practiced today by Warren Jeffs and the FLDS where teenagers are involved. Why shouldn't the church be responsible at least a little bit for the FLDS who are following what Joseph Smith introduced. If polygamy wasn't introduced by the church, young women wouldn't be affected by the FLDS today.

[Tacenda]

If it wasn't for the church introducing polygamy in the 1800s, it wouldn't be practiced today by Warren Jeffs and the FLDS where teenagers are involved. Why shouldn't the church be responsible at least a little bit for the FLDS who are following what Joseph Smith introduced. If polygamy wasn't introduced by the church, young women wouldn't be affected by the FLDS today.

Big part of the anguish I feel about the polygamy issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

If it wasn't for the church introducing polygamy in the 1800s, it wouldn't be practiced today by Warren Jeffs and the FLDS where teenagers are involved. Why shouldn't the church be responsible at least a little bit for the FLDS who are following what Joseph Smith introduced. If polygamy wasn't introduced by the church, young women wouldn't be affected by the FLDS today.

Sounds like an illegitimate blame game to me.  By extension, we can always find some precursor who is really responsible for whatever we are complaining about.

 

I have heard the same claptrap blaming of the Treaty of Versailles for the rise of Adolf Hitler, Czar Nicholas really responsible for the rise of Lenin, etc.  If the biblical Patriarchs hadn't practiced polygyny, then Warren Jeffs wouldn't have been molesting children . . .

[rodheadlee]

I am not sure I follow your logic but given the current crowd running for president I may be happy to support your bid.

I was just trying to point out that I am not qualified to be president which is a simpler job than owning your own planet and being a god or God but it is no condemnation on me. I don't expect to be either one. I'll be happy to be a builder in a Celestial Kingdom You guys are too hung up on polygamy to see the forest for the trees. This thread is about owning your own planet, remember.

 

70 These are they whose bodies are ^acelestial, whose ^bglory is that of the ^csun, even the glory of God, the ^dhighest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

 

To be a God you have to be like God. If you don't receive the Everlasting Covenant, D&C Section 132. You will be in a telestial state of being and cannot be Celestial. It's just a fact not condemnation. Bobbieaware is not condemning Tacenda, just pointing out the facts.

 

98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;

  99 For these are they who are of ^aPaul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

  100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of ^aEsaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

  101 But ^areceived not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the ^beverlasting covenant.

[rodheadlee]

If it wasn't for the church introducing polygamy in the 1800s, it wouldn't be practiced today by Warren Jeffs and the FLDS where teenagers are involved. Why shouldn't the church be responsible at least a little bit for the FLDS who are following what Joseph Smith introduced. If polygamy wasn't introduced by the church, young women wouldn't be affected by the FLDS today.

Yeah and if we were not born a mortal on this earth we couldn't sin. Perhaps we should have just skipped the whole thing.

[Randall57]

Then PLEASE explain how the priesthood authority in the Church today exists?

(You are very good at stating your position, but you refuse to address the problem with your position).

The same way it did when Moses and David murdered, when Noah did what he did, and the other OT prophets that sinned deeply and held the priesthood. The priesthood is a eternal law, and in itself is eternal it is impossible for it not to exist.

 

JFS, and other modern prophets claim that BY and other were wrong on many issues, including on the nature of God? Did the PH in your opinion leave them when they taught that?

 

Do you understand that the priesthood is eternal?

 

Why is it we accept and learn from the sins of Biblical prophets and apostles, and we chastise ourselves, and others if we/they dare admit Joseph and Brigham sinned.

 

We can teach and learn from David's sin of murder and adultery, yet more or less hold up as a model of perfection.

[KevinG]

The Lord clearly chastised David for his sins.  

 

There is no chastisement of Joseph and Brigham in the Latter-day Covenants for their practice of the principle.  In fact those practices are codified in the Doctrine and Covenants.  They were no mistake but a commandment of God.

[Randall57]

The Lord clearly chastised David for his sins.  

 

There is no chastisement of Joseph and Brigham in the Latter-day Covenants for their practice of the principle.  In fact those practices are codified in the Doctrine and Covenants.  They were no mistake but a commandment of God.

You are proving my point. And, Josephs sins lead to his death. We know he broke the laws of the lands, we know BY broke the WoW and taught that Adam was the father of our spirits, yet we do not treat it as we do the OT prophets and apostles. We tend to hide the sins of our own, when we should, at least in my opinion discuss them openly so our children can learn from their mistakes.

 

Our prphets have said they were just men, and made mistakes as men. The issue is they leave it there.

[KevinG]

You are proving my point. And, Josephs sins lead to his death. We know he broke the laws of the lands, we know BY broke the WoW and taught that Adam was the father of our spirits, yet we do not treat it as we do the OT prophets and apostles. We tend to hide the sins of our own, when we should, at least in my opinion discuss them openly so our children can learn from their mistakes.

 

Our prphets have said they were just men, and made mistakes as men. The issue is they leave it there.

 

Joseph's revelations led to his death not any sin.  You call something a sin without evidence that it was a sin.  In fact our own Doctrine and Covenants say the opposite.

[Randall57]

Joseph's revelations led to his death not any sin.  You call something a sin without evidence that it was a sin.  In fact our own Doctrine and Covenants say the opposite.

He was guilty of bigamy according to the state laws of the time.

[Gray]

You are STILL ignoring the simple choice.

But go right ahead if you don't want to address it that's up to you.

You cannot say the Church is true but polygamy wasn't from God.  Doesn't work.

 

 

If Joseph Smith committed adultery with Fanny Alger in 1836 then all subsequent revelation, ordinations, ordinances that he performed would not have been sanctioned by God.  (Unless you think God is ok with an adulterer as prophet).)

Which would mean today's prophet would not have any priesthood either and todays baptisms and ordinances would be invalid.

 

Perhaps our modern idea that prophets can't be guilty of major sins and still be prophets is misguided. 

[KevinG]

Sounds like a perfect dish for cafeteria Mormonism. 

[ERayR]

You are proving my point. And, Josephs sins lead to his death. We know he broke the laws of the lands, we know BY broke the WoW and taught that Adam was the father of our spirits, yet we do not treat it as we do the OT prophets and apostles. We tend to hide the sins of our own, when we should, at least in my opinion discuss them openly so our children can learn from their mistakes.

 

Our prphets have said they were just men, and made mistakes as men. The issue is they leave it there.

 

All I can say is that your posts show a serious lack of understanding of the principles you are talking about.  Before getting so dogmatic 8 or 10 years of serious research seems to be in order.