Great apostasy

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe you're already aware of this. Wow...no words. Jesus can't even win.

Not sure what you mean here?  Jesus can't even win?

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not sure what you mean here?  Jesus can't even win?

His sacrifice wasn't enough?

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Read it years ago.
But you are missing the point.  An appeal to historical records that show differences in form do not prove differences in substance.

For example, in the OT God commanded animal sacrifice.  In the NT God put an end to that (for now) with the sacrifice of his Son.
The principle of sacrifice and shedding of blood as payment for sin remains constant, even if the form has changed.

So the early Christians didn't build temples and we do and our temples differ greatly from the OT temples in form.
The doctrinal underpinnings of the temple ceremonies are seen all through the OT, NT and today.
 

I would agree with you about the OT ceremonies as underpinnings, seen as Christ finishing the work as he was the sacrifice and fulfilled many OT prophecies. How specifically does the LDS temple have anything to do with the OT temples.  And correct the NT church was not building or practicing in the OT temple rituals.  How are the LDS temples a restoration of the NT church that didn't participate in the temple?  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Maybe.  But as far as I can see, there is no evidence that polygamy was a gospel principle taught by Christ.  If it was that important, I'd imagine there would be a record of him teaching and commanding it, IMO.

We don't even know if Christ lived polygamy himself or required it of his disciples as part of living the gospel.

I believe Christ did not marry on this earth. He actually taught that some made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the word - or seemingly remained single and celibate. If He had married it seems He probably would have made some provision for His wife while up on the cross like He did for His mother. Yet, the scriptures are completely silent about it. The scriptures do say Peter had a "wife" singular. However, on the whole Yeshua was silent about polygamy until the restoration. He never denounces it except to the Lehites as He says the people were abusing it. If He had promoted polygamy, I believe there would be at least some tradition of it in the early church - like there is some mention of some doing baptism for the dead. So I do not believe polygamy was a requirement, and I don't believe it is a requirement now. I believe that was largely an embellishment of BY. 

Quote

I believe it was a man made idea or lifestyle, and still is.  I can't believe it's a principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ (or from God).  I know you disagree!

There is only one instance in all of scripture where polygamy was clearly commanded. If a man's brother died, he was obligated to take his sister-in-law to wife and raise seed to his brother without exception for already being married. The infamous example of Onan often gets misinterpreted as God being angry about masturbation or some other nonsense. I believe Emma was commanded to accept the principle, but not specifically to say yes to any particular plural wife.

The restoration makes a new covenant concerning marriage. It may be singular or plural. It was prophesied in Isaiah, that the Lord would make a covenant with the Gentiles in their land. I agree there is no modern commandment to enter polygamy. Temporal polygamy is simply not a requirement, although for much of its history the church made out like it was.

Edited February 17, 2017 by RevTestament

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

His sacrifice wasn't enough?

Whatever God requires is right.  Simple as that.
Christ's sacrifice paid for all our sins.  If God wants to command animal sacrifice in memory of Christ as he used to command it in foreshadowing of Christ who are we to argue with him?

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I would agree with you about the OT ceremonies as underpinnings, seen as Christ finishing the work as he was the sacrifice and fulfilled many OT prophecies. How specifically does the LDS temple have anything to do with the OT temples.  And correct the NT church was not building or practicing in the OT temple rituals.  How are the LDS temples a restoration of the NT church that didn't participate in the temple?  

Much of the modern temple ceremonies can be found in the NT, the rest in the OT.  They just weren't practiced in buildings but even Christ considered the temple "his Father's house".
Now, critics can argue Joseph appropriated these things in creating the modern temple ceremonies, but nonetheless they ARE in scripture.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

I would completely agree with Johnny Cake's statement, there is absolutely no "restoration" if you compare today's mainstream Salt Lake version of LDS church to the NT church. What am I missing about this restoration claim?

That isn't what was restored. You have to compare today's keys with the ancient keys; teh Church is just an outgrowth of exercising the keys properly.

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Johnny Cake had an excellent comment in another thread, so Johnny I hope you don't mind I borrow your statement.

"Anyone who believes that the "following" that the man Jesus of Nazareth had and Paul continued has any resemblance or connection to the church that Joseph Smith founded hasn't done their homework. Unless you believe that Burger King is the restoration of McDonalds....because they both serve hamburgers, sell soft drinks and fries.  I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the one is in any way like the other...with the exception of the LDS church cooping some of the titles given to some of the followers of Jesus such as apostle, bishop, elder etc"

I would completely agree with Johnny Cake's statement, there is absolutely no "restoration" if you compare today's mainstream Salt Lake version of LDS church to the NT church. What am I missing about this restoration claim?

That's an absolutely silly statement by Johnny Cake. Wendy's is the restoration of McDonalds, not Burger King.

[Darren10]

And, of course, so far as fast food chains are is concerned you cannot beat the professionalism and courtesy Chic-fil-A employees regularly show. Such top notch service there.

[Gray]

58 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, actually it doesn't.

Matthew 19: 9 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.

He is speaking of the lack of validity in divorce.  In other words, if you divorce and remarry except for fornication you are committing adultery because the divorce is meaningless.
Oddly enough, this would make a large number of LDS Church members adulterers.

If divorce is meaningless, then what's going on is people who remarry actually have TWO spouses. Jesus calls that adultery. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Gray

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

And, of course, so far as fast food chains are is concerned you cannot beat the professionalism and courtesy Chic-fil-A employees regularly show. Such top notch service there.

They are the true church of fast foods.

[snowflake]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Much of the modern temple ceremonies can be found in the NT, the rest in the OT.  They just weren't practiced in buildings but even Christ considered the temple "his Father's house".
Now, critics can argue Joseph appropriated these things in creating the modern temple ceremonies, but nonetheless they ARE in scripture.

Again the NT church was not building or practicing worship in the temple, and they most certainly were not doing baptism for the dead, the endowment ceremony or eternal marriages.  Not a restoration whatsoever, just Joseph's very active imagination combined with Masonry IMHO.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Again the NT church was not building or practicing worship in the temple, and they most certainly were not doing baptism for the dead, the endowment ceremony or eternal marriages.  Not a restoration whatsoever, just Joseph's very active imagination combined with Masonry IMHO.

And your HO is wrong IMHO, but you are entitled to it.

Joseph restored the gospel.  The fact that it is unrecognizable to some is hardly his fault.

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

If divorce is meaningless, then what's going on is people who remarry actually have TWO spouses. Jesus calls that adultery. 

What He is saying is they are not keeping their covenant to their first wife - they are adulterizing this covenant - not that having two wives is committing adultery. There is a difference. He is speaking against divorce - not polygamy per se.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

If divorce is meaningless, then what's going on is people who remarry actually have TWO spouses. Jesus calls that adultery.

Exactly.  That's what Christ is saying.
He says it in D&C 132 as well.

•  41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
  42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.
  43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

And yet

• 61 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.

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Again the NT church was not building or practicing worship in the temple, and they most certainly were not doing baptism for the dead,

Then what is Paul talking about? Pagans who baptized? And who would those be? It certainly wasn't the Romans. That is a dishonest interpretation of the text. And there is a record of early members who did baptisms for the dead until the apostate state church put a stop to it 400 years later.

Quote

the endowment ceremony or eternal marriages.  Not a restoration whatsoever, just Joseph's very active imagination combined with Masonry IMHO.

The endowment and temple sealings are not a restoration but a fulfillment of prophecy in Isaiah concerning the Gentiles in their land:

Isaiah 61:

 6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

 7 ¶For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.

 8 For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

 9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

There is only one instance in all of scripture where polygamy was clearly commanded. If a man's brother died, he was obligated to take his sister-in-law to wife and raise seed to his brother without exception for already being married.

I disagree that polygamy is the commandment regarding Levirate marriages.  The brother was "clearly commanded" to marry and take care of his dead brother's wife (and raise up seed).  That is what he's being commanded to do.  It may or may not have involved living polygamy.  God seems to allow it in some instances just as he did in other cultures.  But that's not clearly commanding polygamy.

And even if this was the case where God commands that polygamy be practiced, that's not how Joseph lived polygamy (only with Don Carlos's widow and he already was living polygamy before then).

Nowhere is there a record that shows the manner in which Joseph lived polygamy (and especially polyandry) was ever commanded by God or that it was a principle of Christ's gospel.

Edited February 17, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Then what is Paul talking about? Pagans who baptized? And who would those be? It certainly wasn't the Romans. That is a dishonest interpretation of the text. And there is a record of early members who did baptisms for the dead until the apostate state church put a stop to it 400 years later.

A poster on this board once went into a convoluted explanation how baptism for the dead in Corinthians referred to those living people who were "once dead but were now alive in Christ".  Of course this ignores the context that by saying " if the dead rise not at all" they are clearly referring to actual dead people who will be resurrected.

Quote

The endowment and temple sealings are not a restoration but a fulfillment of prophecy in Isaiah concerning the Gentiles in their land:

Personally I think they are both.  Most of the endowment is found in earlier scripture.  That makes it a restoration even if the entire ceremony from beginning to end is not on record in earlier dispensations. 
I believe the endowment was practiced in every dispensation and that is why elements of it remain scattered throughout almost every culture and religion.

[Darren10]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They are the true church of fast foods.

[snowflake]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Then what is Paul talking about? Pagans who baptized? And who would those be? It certainly wasn't the Romans. That is a dishonest interpretation of the text. And there is a record of early members who did baptisms for the dead until the apostate state church put a stop to it 400 years later.

Like many of Paul's letters he is correcting a group that apparently was doing proxy baptism. He is asking them why are they doing it, Nowhere is it encouraged or taught as something to be done in the NT church. Christ never taught to do it, Paul is clearly not teaching to do it either.

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A poster on this board once went into a convoluted explanation how baptism for the dead in Corinthians referred to those living people who were "once dead but were now alive in Christ".  Of course this ignores the context that by saying " if the dead rise not at all" they are clearly referring to actual dead people who will be resurrected.

Personally I think they are both.  Most of the endowment is found in earlier scripture.  That makes it a restoration even if the entire ceremony from beginning to end is not on record in earlier dispensations. 
I believe the endowment was practiced in every dispensation and that is why elements of it remain scattered throughout almost every culture and religion.

From standing and sitting down, repeated certain prayer words, to having an alter, priestly robes, and others, to covenant -making, I find lots of parallels between the LDS endowment and a Catholic Mass.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I disagree that polygamy is the commandment regarding Levirate marriages.  The brother was "clearly commanded" to marry and take care of his dead brother's wife (and raise up seed).  That is what he's being commanded to do.  It may or may not have involved living polygamy.

And even if this was the case where God commands that polygamy be practiced, that's not how Joseph lived polygamy (only with Don Carlos's widow and he already was living polygamy before then).

Nowhere is there a record that shows the manner in which Joseph lived polygamy (and especially polyandry) was ever commanded by God or a principle of Christ's gospel.

Well I don't agree.
But even if that were true the gospel allows for it.

• D&C 124:40 And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;
  41 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times.
  42 And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built.
   
• AOF 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Now I don't believe polygamy falls under these categories, but if that helps you get by the "Nowhere is there a record that shows polygamy was ever commanded by God or a principle of Christ's gospel" issue then that's good too.

For me it's a restoration.  Perhaps it's easier for some to think of it as a great and important thing that had been kept hid because it pertains to this dispensation only.

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I disagree that polygamy is the commandment regarding Levirate marriages.  The brother was "clearly commanded" to marry and take care of his dead brother's wife (and raise up seed).  That is what he's being commanded to do.  It may or may not have involved living polygamy.  God seems to allow it in some instances just as he did in other cultures.  But that's not clearly commanding polygamy.

Come on now. Obviously, fulfilling that commandment often required polygamy, unless the surviving brother was expected to divorce his own wife - which clearly Jesus spoke against. The law recognized and therefore condoned polygamy. "if a man have two wives..."

David was given his wives by the Lord said Nathan who also gave David the parable about how he abused polygamy by desiring the wife of another man, which is why David got in trouble about polygamy with the Lord. To pretend that the Lord was somehow against polygamy per se, is just not an honest scriptural interpretation.

Quote

And even if this was the case where God commands that polygamy be practiced, that's not how Joseph lived polygamy (only with Don Carlos's widow and he already was living polygamy before then).

Nowhere is there a record that shows the manner in which Joseph lived polygamy (and especially polyandry) was ever commanded by God or a principle of Christ's gospel.

I made no allusions that the Levirate marriage law still exists. However, if James had died, Jesus would have been obligated to marry his wife, until His own death, and the bringing in of the new testament. God has not spoken of such a requirement in the NT.  In modern times we have other provisions to take care of a widow. I do not believe God commanded JS to take this wife or that wife to marriage. I believe God commanded JS to teach the principle of plural marriage to those who might want to live it - that is all. I believe it actually has more to do with sealing other churches to Christ through the priesthood than temporal polygamy. Again, let me be clear. There is no requirement or commandment to enter plural marriage. The end.

Edited February 17, 2017 by RevTestament

[snowflake]

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Then what is Paul talking about? Pagans who baptized? And who would those be? It certainly wasn't the Romans. That is a dishonest interpretation of the text. And there is a record of early members who did baptisms for the dead until the apostate state church put a stop to it 400 years later.

The endowment and temple sealings are not a restoration but a fulfillment of prophecy in Isaiah concerning the Gentiles in their land:

Isaiah 61:

 6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

 7 ¶For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.

 8 For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

 9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed.

I'm not following you at all on the Isaiah 61 fulfillment of prophecy. How does this have anything to do with temple sealings. You do realize that unless you are Jewish you would be considered a gentile right?

[JulieM]

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Come on now. Obviously, fulfilling that commandment often required polygamy, unless the surviving brother was expected to divorce his own wife - which clearly Jesus spoke against. 

Of course, but not every Levirate marriage involved polygamy (if the living brother wasn't already married at the time of his brother's death).  I agree it involved polygamy and probably most of the time.  But that doesn't change my belief that the commandment was to care for his brother's widow, not specifically commanded to live polygamy (although that was sometimes a part of it).

And this is the only place where polygamy may have been commanded.  

You stated that Joseph was "commanded to teach the principle of plural marriage".  Why do you believe he would be commanded to teach it (let alone practice it), when we have no record of it being a commandment of the gospel or a principle of the original gospel of Jesus Christ?  Do you think Christ taught polygamy as Joseph was commanded to do?

Edited February 17, 2017 by JulieM