Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 4 hours ago, busybee said: You have no idea what those books contained. CFR. (Call For References) Please provide proof of what, according to you, the LDS would reject from those books.This should be interesting Nominally, the LDS accept the KJV Bible in its current form. Effectively, the LDS does not accept any portion of the Bible that cannot be construed to conform to the teaching of Joseph Smith Jr. and their other prophets. I find it extremely unlikely that the missing books of the New Testament would contain the idea of Three Heavens or detailed instructions for performing baptisms for the dead. You cannot prove otherwise. Quote Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Quote Ephesians 1:1-12 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Given the choices of source of canon, I am more than comfortable accepting Joseph Smith's revelations over these Ecumenical Councils conclusions. Regardless of what I have been taught to see as doctrinal errors in their interpretation of Biblical texts, the very councils choosing the books of the Bible and the interpretation of their contents do not appear to have had the spiritual welfare and doctrinal truth as their primary interests. It seems politics and power were as much the deciding factors as anything spiritual. Why? What kind of person was Joseph Smith Jr.?
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Why? What kind of person was Joseph Smith Jr.? As good (if not better) than Noah, Moses, Abraham, Enoch, Peter, Paul, Jacob, etc, etc. If he had character flaws, he was still called of God despite them. Like every other prophet and apostle. Only Christ was perfect and he always called imperfect men to build his kingdom. And I will accept Joseph's inspired revelations over the uninspired philosophizing and politicking of the Ecumenical Bishops. 1
Jim Stiles Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: As good (if not better) than Noah, Moses, Abraham, Enoch, Peter, Paul, Jacob, etc, etc. If he had character flaws, he was still called of God despite them. Like every other prophet and apostle. Only Christ was perfect and he always called imperfect men to build his kingdom. And I will accept Joseph's inspired revelations over the uninspired philosophizing and politicking of the Ecumenical Bishops. OK, but some of his behaviors and revelations raise flags. Quote D&C 132:61-62 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. Compare and contrast to: Quote Matthew 19:1-9 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Human beings were designed to have ONE sexual partner per lifetime. Edited February 3, 2016 by Jim Stiles continuation of thought
Avatar4321 Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: The gospel is bad news, even in this life, to those who will never be saved. These persons, called reprobates in formal theological language, will never be saved and for whom the cross, not the garden of Gethsemane, will always be foolishness. Martin Luther said: Paul of Tarsus said: I disagree. Even those who reject the gospel are saved through the resurrection. "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." 1 Tim 4:10 1
Avatar4321 Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 24 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: OK, but some of his behaviors and revelations raise flags. Compare and contrast to: Human beings were designed to have ONE sexual partner per lifetime. And yet blessed men such as abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon and others has multiple wives 1
JLHPROF Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 21 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: OK, but some of his behaviors and revelations raise flags. Compare and contrast to: Human beings were designed to have ONE sexual partner per lifetime. Someone should have told God that - 2 Samuel 12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. ...11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. or maybe when he was giving Moses the old law he should have forbidden plural marriage instead of giving a law on how to live it:Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. Heck, even that great Biblical Christian preacher Martin Luther said: Quote 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 And again, it wasn't outlawed among Christians until those Ecumenical councils again. You know, those same ones that pushed for priestly celibacy (that Tertullian among others has a lot to answer for) despite Peter being married. Mormonism never could quite 100% rid itself of members who had that false pseudo-Christian tradition so deeply ingrained. And which of God's prophets were polygamists? Moses? Jacob? Abraham? If God never condemned their plural marriages, why should that bar Joseph from being a prophet too? 1
Jim Stiles Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: And yet blessed men such as abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon and others has multiple wives They were blessed because of their union with Christ and the redemptive work of Christ on the cross for the entire elect. Do you really want me to list all of their personal sins?
JLHPROF Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Jim Stiles said: They were blessed because of their union with Christ and the redemptive work of Christ on the cross for the entire elect. Do you really want me to list all of their personal sins? I'd settle for you listing any reference to their polygamy being a sin. There is none, just as there was no sin for Joseph. Because polygamy in and of itself is no sin. Were it a sin, God surely would have condemned those who practiced it at some point in your Bible. Right? 1
Avatar4321 Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 18 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: They were blessed because of their union with Christ and the redemptive work of Christ on the cross for the entire elect. Do you really want me to list all of their personal sins? How were they sins when as quoted God gave them their wives? Was Judah sinning when hope fathered his children with his daughter in law?
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 10 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Nominally, the LDS accept the KJV Bible in its current form. Effectively, the LDS does not accept any portion of the Bible that cannot be construed to conform to the teaching of Joseph Smith Jr. and their other prophets. I find it extremely unlikely that the missing books of the New Testament would contain the idea of Three Heavens or detailed instructions for performing baptisms for the dead. You cannot prove otherwise. We accept all Bibles in their current form. Three Heavens are mentioned in the KJV of the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:41
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: . I find it extremely unlikely that the missing books of the New Testament would contain the idea of Three Heavens or detailed instructions for performing baptisms for the dead. You cannot prove otherwise. But neither can you. Your statement was pretty adamant that those books did not contain what the LDS wanted them to contain. We weren't the ones who chucked them out. I asked for an example of what we would reject from those books and all you can say is that I can't prove that we would have accepted what was in them. I never made any assertions one way or the other. You, on the other hand, did. So put up or shut up. Edited February 3, 2016 by busybee
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 15 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Nominally, the LDS accept the KJV Bible in its current form. Effectively, the LDS does not accept any portion of the Bible that cannot be construed to conform to the teaching of Joseph Smith Jr. and their other prophets. I find it extremely unlikely that the missing books of the New Testament would contain the idea of Three Heavens or detailed instructions for performing baptisms for the dead. You cannot prove otherwise. The scriptures you quote along with this statement has nothing to do with the books that were rejected for inclusion in the current Bible or what they contained. I asked for an example of what was contained in those books that LDS would disagree with.
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 13 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: They were blessed because of their union with Christ and the redemptive work of Christ on the cross for the entire elect. Do you really want me to list all of their personal sins? You seem happy to list everyone else's so go ahead...
Jim Stiles Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 19 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I'd settle for you listing any reference to their polygamy being a sin. There is none, just as there was no sin for Joseph. Because polygamy in and of itself is no sin. Were it a sin, God surely would have condemned those who practiced it at some point in your Bible. Right? The New Testament does prohibit clergy from having more than one wife. Quote 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Clergy are suppose to be an example for the rest of the body of Christ.
JLHPROF Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Jim Stiles said: The New Testament does prohibit clergy from having more than one wife. Clergy are suppose to be an example for the rest of the body of Christ. Nah, that's a minimum requirement, not a limit. If it were a limit it would say "only one wife", "just one wife" or "but one wife". The fact that it says the bishop must be the husband of one wife indicates that bishops must be married to a minimum of one wife. Basic reading comprehension, unless someone can show me it has a different meaning in the original. 1
Jim Stiles Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: We accept all Bibles in their current form. Three Heavens are mentioned in the KJV of the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:41 No you do not. That much is clear. Quote 1 Corinthians 15:35-45 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Paul is describing the nature of the resurrected body. Paul is not talking about multiple kingdoms of heaven. You are confusing Christianity with Swedenborgianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Church#Influence
Jim Stiles Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 7 hours ago, busybee said: The scriptures you quote along with this statement has nothing to do with the books that were rejected for inclusion in the current Bible or what they contained. I asked for an example of what was contained in those books that LDS would disagree with. I do not know what was in those books. You do know either. The burden of proof remains with those who would like to change things.
Jim Stiles Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 20 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Someone should have told God that - 2 Samuel 12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. ...11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. or maybe when he was giving Moses the old law he should have forbidden plural marriage instead of giving a law on how to live it:Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.Heck, even that great Biblical Christian preacher Martin Luther said: And again, it wasn't outlawed among Christians until those Ecumenical councils again. You know, those same ones that pushed for priestly celibacy (that Tertullian among others has a lot to answer for) despite Peter being married. Mormonism never could quite 100% rid itself of members who had that false pseudo-Christian tradition so deeply ingrained. And which of God's prophets were polygamists? Moses? Jacob? Abraham? If God never condemned their plural marriages, why should that bar Joseph from being a prophet too? Martin Luther was talking about a case where a noble person was required to marry someone with whom he was not in love. The second marriage with whom the nobleman was in love with was to keep the nobleman from committing adultery. The nobleman was not a clergyman, so an exception was made. The main sin was that the nobleman was not permitted to marry someone of his own choosing.
Jim Stiles Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Nah, that's a minimum requirement, not a limit. If it were a limit it would say "only one wife", "just one wife" or "but one wife". The fact that it says the bishop must be the husband of one wife indicates that bishops must be married to a minimum of one wife. Basic reading comprehension, unless someone can show me it has a different meaning in the original. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs
Calm Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 I completely withdraw my comment of a few days ago that Jim Stiles was being civil (or whatever I said) and should not be included in the commentary on saved wheat. 3
JLHPROF Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs http://listverse.com/2010/02/23/10-people-who-give-christianity-a-bad-name/http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/the-8-most-evil-popes-in-history/?view=allhttps://letmetellyouthis.wordpress.com/tag/list-of-christian-evangelist-scandals/ See, I can post meaningless links too. Edited February 3, 2016 by JLHPROF 2
JLHPROF Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: Martin Luther was talking about a case where a noble person was required to marry someone with whom he was not in love. The second marriage with whom the nobleman was in love with was to keep the nobleman from committing adultery. The nobleman was not a clergyman, so an exception was made. The main sin was that the nobleman was not permitted to marry someone of his own choosing. Funny. That's not what he said 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. Doesn't sound like he is saying anything other than that marrying several wives doesn't contradict scripture. And he would be right. 2
Jim Stiles Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: http://listverse.com/2010/02/23/10-people-who-give-christianity-a-bad-name/http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/the-8-most-evil-popes-in-history/?view=allhttps://letmetellyouthis.wordpress.com/tag/list-of-christian-evangelist-scandals/ See, I can post meaningless links too. Aimee Semple McPherson was a character.
Jim Stiles Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Funny. That's not what he said 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. Doesn't sound like he is saying anything other than that marrying several wives doesn't contradict scripture. And he would be right. I was providing context to the quote.
Recommended Posts