Continuing Revelation

[Tacenda]

Would you who are LDS except another book of scripture not from anyone of our faith, if it was presented to you?

[Calm]

Hard to know. So much variations possible, I might well do so.

For example, if the Prophet announced scriptures would be appearing as part of the last days from all parts of the world.

[Coreyb]

Would you who are LDS except another book of scripture not from anyone of our faith, if it was presented to you?

I already do

[mfbukowski]

Would you who are LDS except another book of scripture not from anyone of our faith, if it was presented to you?

Of course. Ditto Coreyb.

[mfbukowski]

The Diache clearly to me should be in the New Testament but they forgot to ask my opinion. It's strictly Alma 32 mentality. A few things I disagree with, but what else is new?

I find a lot of philosophy to be inspired as well.

Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Avatar4321]

I used that term liberally. I really am rejecting your assertion that the great apostasy was a thing.

and yet your declaration the bible is all there is is evidence of the apostasy.

[JLHPROF]

Would you who are LDS except another book of scripture not from anyone of our faith, if it was presented to you?

 

No - no authority.

 

God doesn't work outside of established order.  Joseph Smith was called to receive revelation and be a prophet in our day.  That is why he was allowed to bring forth the BOM & D&C & PoGP.

 

Anyone else would be operating outside their authority.

[ERayR]

No - no authority.

 

God doesn't work outside of established order.  Joseph Smith was called to receive revelation and be a prophet in our day.  That is why he was allowed to bring forth the BOM & D&C & PoGP.

 

Anyone else would be operating outside their authority.

 

She wasn't asking for canonization. 

[Avatar4321]

Would you who are LDS except another book of scripture not from anyone of our faith, if it was presented to you?

if the spirit witnesses it's true why wouldn't we? Granted it would need to be sustained at conference for it to be binding on the church. There is a proper order to all things.

[mass168]

Then provide an alternative explanation as to why what you see as the only saving theology is a recent discovery.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" -Cardinal Newman

It is not a recent discovery. There have been people in many places since the times of Christ that follow his teachings and the teachings of available scripture as best they can. True that protestants "came into their own" with the reformation. But it is not as simple as saying that's when it started, period. 

[mass168]

Only because you don't understand. Mormonism is about restoring what once was known in ancient religions, but also, and IMO more importantly it's about revealing things that have never been know from before the foundation of the world. Don't you see, we aren't fettered down by proving that what we believe is "biblical", partly because there is no such thing as "biblical".

Do you know what the word restoring means? Explain to me how current temple doctrine is remotely similar to that of the Israelites of old.

[The Nehor]

It is not a recent discovery. There have been people in many places since the times of Christ that follow his teachings and the teachings of available scripture as best they can. True that protestants "came into their own" with the reformation. But it is not as simple as saying that's when it started, period. 

 

So are you saying the Catholics and Orthodox Christians who believed that Jesus expected his followers to act a certain way before he gave them salvation (which they did not merit), believed that baptism was mandatory, and more were not off the reservation and in danger of damnation? Then why are you insisting we are for believing the Savior expects similar things?

 

But yes, the theology you preach has only been around in any meaningful numbers for about six or seven centuries and did not take off until later then that.

Edited January 17, 2015 by The Nehor

[JLHPROF]

Do you know what the word restoring means? Explain to me how current temple doctrine is remotely similar to that of the Israelites of old.

 

Oh, I'd love to explain to you how the LDS temple ceremonies are all through scripture, but it's against board rules (not to mention a violation of my temple covenants).

 

But the ENTIRE endowment is in scripture, if you know what you are reading.

 

As for restoration - either you are claiming that the Catholic Church got out of order and your protestant religion from the 1400's on is a restoration of Christ's original Church (as Mormons do).  Or you are claiming to be a new revelation surpassing Catholicism (as Mormons also do).  In short you have more in common with us than you care to think.

[mass168]

And the two examples he gives just so happen to be two examples where it is clear they went beyond what they were authorized.  I doubt it.  Jacob verse 24 is just part of Jacob train of thought.  One can't interrupt his train of thought and then ignore everything he says afterwards.  Verse 30 does exist and it exists for a reason.  It clarifies the views of Jacob.  After all he knew other prophets had more than one wife.  The house of Israel is created from polygamy.  Would Jacob suggest that the foundations of Israel was built on an abomination?

So far, I am the only one who actually posted an entire run through of that chapter with a cohesive paraphrase.. It's on page 4 if you have time. I'd like to see you do the same. 

[JLHPROF]

So far, I am the only one who actually posted an entire run through of that chapter with a cohesive paraphrase.. It's on page 4 if you have time. I'd like to see you do the same. 

 

Yes, and your explanation of verse 30 made zero sense:

 

 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Don't do anything else, or your land will be cursed. Oh and did I mention I'm powerful enough to accomplish this with you having only one wife?

[mass168]

Oh, I'd love to explain to you how the LDS temple ceremonies are all through scripture, but it's against board rules (not to mention a violation of my temple covenants).

 

But the ENTIRE endowment is in scripture, if you know what you are reading.

Well that leaves me in a very tough position doesn't it.. I promise you it's all in the Bible if you know what you're reading. But sorry, can't tell you about that, you just have to have faith and spend years of your life trying to get in the temple to figure it out for yourself. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by mass168

[mass168]

Yes, and your explanation of verse 30 made zero sense:

It's not just verse 30.. its all in context, which you love. Did you read the whole thing? Post your own version, let's compare. 

[mass168]

As for restoration - either you are claiming that the Catholic Church got out of order and your protestant religion from the 1400's on is a restoration of Christ's original Church (as Mormons do).  Or you are claiming to be a new revelation surpassing Catholicism (as Mormons also do).  In short you have more in common with us than you care to think.

It's more of the first. This shouldn't be a surprise to you. I am sure you know that protestants and catholics don't see eye to eye on a lot, that's kind of in the definition. That doesn't mean the ideas of protestants were non existent between Christ and the reformation. It was no great apostasy, in other words. Also there are varying degrees of Catholics, some of which I believe are going to heaven. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by mass168

[carbon dioxide]

It's not just verse 30.. its all in context, which you love. Did you read the whole thing? Post your own version, let's compare. 

Verse 30 is the summation of everything he said.  Unless God gives a commandment for a person or group of people to have more than one wife, you are to only have one wife.  God did not give those people a commandment to have it so they did was an abomination. David was given wives by God BUT he decided to go beyond it and take a wife he was not authorized to have.   Solomon could have more than one wife but he decided to go beyond the commandment and take many unauthorized wives.  Bottom line--God regulates the practice of polygamy and the bounds that it can be practiced.  We just can't decide to do it because we want to.

[mass168]

make it a matter of prayer. And read the Book of Mormon sometime.

Not that you will accept this, because it requires some trinitarian thought experimentation.. Christ could have been speaking from his divine nature when He said that the thief would be with Him that day in paradise, since God the father was present in heaven already. And then speaking from His human nature when he told Mary He hadn't been to heaven yet. 

[JLHPROF]

Well that leaves me in a very tough position doesn't it.. I promise you it's all in the Bible if you know what you're reading. But sorry, can't tell you about that, you just have to have faith and spend years of your life trying to get in the temple to figure it out for yourself. 

 

Pretty much.  Pearls before swine, holy things and dogs.  You wouldn't recognize the elements of the temple in the Bible if I pointed them out.

 

But in all fairness to you, you could read:

 

1. Mormonism and Early Christianity

and

2. Temple and Cosmos

 

Then you can argue scholarship instead of whether something is or isn't in scripture.  Nibley shows it clearly is.

[ERayR]

Not that you will accept this, because it requires some trinitarian thought experimentation.. Christ could have been speaking from his divine nature when He said that the thief would be with Him that day in paradise, since God the father was present in heaven already. And then speaking from His human nature when he told Mary He hadn't been to heaven yet. 

 

How is it you can slip into and out of modalism so easily.

[mass168]

Pretty much.  Pearls before swine, holy things and dogs.  You wouldn't recognize the elements of the temple in the Bible if I pointed them out.

 

But in all fairness to you, you could read:

 

1. Mormonism and Early Christianity

and

2. Temple and Cosmos

 

Then you can argue scholarship instead of whether something is or isn't in scripture.  Nibley shows it clearly is.

I hope you realize I am speaking of the ordinances and purposes. Not the building. The buildings are interesting, but hardly my main concern. 

[JLHPROF]

I hope you realize I am speaking of the ordinances and purposes. Not the building. The buildings are interesting, but hardly my main concern. 

 

So is Nibley.  He shows how most of the elements of the ceremonies of the temple can be found in ancient Judaism, early Christianity, other ancient cultures that Joseph Smith would have no knowledge of, and yes, in the Bible too.

[mass168]

Verse 30 is the summation of everything he said.  Unless God gives a commandment for a person or group of people to have more than one wife, you are to only have one wife.  God did not give those people a commandment to have it so they did was an abomination. David was given wives by God BUT he decided to go beyond it and take a wife he was not authorized to have.   Solomon could have more than one wife but he decided to go beyond the commandment and take many unauthorized wives.  Bottom line--God regulates the practice of polygamy and the bounds that it can be practiced.  We just can't decide to do it because we want to.

Ok, let's try more detail here, verse by verse. 

 

 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 

What David and Solomon did was an abomination before God. He does not seperate one item from the other, the wives or the concubines. It was both. So why did God ever allow it at all? Not sure. But see more context. 

 

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

I the Lord have brought the people out of Jerusalem. Why? My purpose is to raise up unto me a righteous branch.

 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

I will do this in my own way, because I can. Therefore I will not suffer the people to do things that have been allowed (for whatever reason) to the people of old.

 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it beone wife; and concubines he shall have none;

It is the literal word of the Lord that every man among these people have but one wife, and no concubines. Why? See next verse. 

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

God delights in chastity, and not in whoredoms. What is he calling whoredoms? There are two things he lumped in there from the previous verse. having muliple wives, and having concubines at all. 

 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

The people had better keep these commandments or their land will be cursed. What commandments? Could be general, but the context points to the ones just given.

 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

The Lord will raise up a seed. How? He will do it in his way, honoring the chastity of women by enforcing the command to have one wife, and no concubines. Is he concerned about whether there will be enough seed from this arrangment? Not in the least. Why? Because he is God. He is never concerned about doing things his own way. The Lord clearly commands what he wants. Why? What things might the people hearken to otherwise? "these things" refers to the practices of the people of old, which were polygamy, and concubines. 

 

The attitude of the Lord is pretty clear in all this. It is not his true desire to have either plural wives or concubines. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by mass168