Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718
Results 426 to 442 of 442

Thread: Can we have a "real" discussion about Joseph Smith and Polygamy?

  1. #426
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Uh...are you forgetting that famous faith + WORKS verse that says in so many words, "We know we are saved AFTER ALL WE CAN DO"??

    Are you gonna deny this teaches a works-based soteriology??

  2. #427
    Mesenja
    Guest

    Default No need to Father JD

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post

    Uh...are you forgetting that famous faith + WORKS verse that says in so many words, "We know we are saved AFTER ALL WE CAN DO"??

    Are you gonna deny this teaches a works-based soteriology??

    The Book of Mormon makes it abundantly clear that we are not saved our own works but through the righteousness of Christ.


    "And [the people] viewed themselves in their own carnal state,even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice,saying:O have mercy,and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins,and our hearts may be purified;for we believe in Jesus Christ,the Son of God, who created heaven and earth,and all things;who shall come down among the children of men.

    "And it came to p*** that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them,and they were filled with joy,having received a remission of their sins,and having peace of conscience,because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come,according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them." (Mosiah 4:2-3,emphasis added)

    "And if ye believe on [the name of Jesus Christ] ye will repent of all your sins,that thereby ye may have a remission of them through his [Jesus Christ] merits." (Helaman 14:13,emphasis added)

    "O remember,remember,my sons,the words which king Benjamin spake unto his people;yea,remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved,only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ,who shall come;yea,remember that he cometh to redeem the world. (Helaman 5:9,emphasis added)

    When Nephi said "it is by grace that we are saved,after all we can do" it was not a theological treatise on salvation rather it was an exhortation to do your best and exercise faith that leads to repentance.The Book of Mormon is not teaching us here that we are saved by grace only if we make up the difference through our works. All we are asked to do is repent of our sins.

    And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice,and encircles them in the arms of safety,while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice;therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. (Alma 34:16,emphasis added)



    And I also thank my great God,that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things...which we have committed,and taken away the guilt from our hearts,through the merits of his Son. And now behold my brethren,since it has been all that we could do,(as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins...which we have committed,and to get God to take them away from our hearts,for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain. (Alma 24:11,emphasis added)
    Last edited by Mesenja; 04-06-2009 at 07:04 AM.

  3. #428
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    I think "Nephi" can speak for his imaginary self, M. It's more than apparent that your "nuh-uh" response regarding his statement carries no weight, although other p***ages in the Book-O-Mormon suggest a SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH soteriology.

    We both know that Mormonism proper does NOT teach this, and your own equivocation back and forth has exemplified this to a great degree.

  4. #429
    Mesenja
    Guest

    Default Like your nuh-uh response?

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post

    I think "Nephi" can speak for his imaginary self,M. It's more than apparent that your "nuh-uh" response regarding his statement carries no weight,although other p***ages in the Book-O-Mormon suggest a SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH soteriology.

    We both know that Mormonism proper does NOT teach this,and your own equivocation back and forth has exemplified this to a great degree.
    What exactly have you offered in return besides your typical nu-uh your wrong because my interpretation is always correct response? Saying that my response carries no weight but offering no arguments in support of this in return? Saying that "other p***ages in the Book-O-Mormon suggest a SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH soteriology" when I have provided scripture verses that clearly states the opposite? Your claim that "Mormonism proper does NOT teach this,and your own equivocation back and forth has exemplified this to a great degree" yet offer absolutely nothing in support of this besides your say so? Either provide something of substance for me to respond to or just don't bother subs***uting your know nothing pronouncements on Mormonism as substantive arguments.
    Last edited by Mesenja; 04-06-2009 at 12:13 PM.

  5. #430
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mesenja View Post
    What exactly have you offered in return besides nu-uh your wrong because my interpretation is always correct? Saying that my response carries no weight but offering no arguments in support of this in return?

    Good point, M-dude. I guess we have to look at the full context of "Nephis" clearly-taught soteriology of faith + WORKS, don't we?


    Saying that "other p***ages in the Book-O-Mormon suggest a SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH soteriology" when I have provided scripture verses that clearly states the opposite?

    I disagree that they "clearly state", but do indeed suggest a works-free soteriology. The BOM does NOT teach distinctive Mormon doctrine and I think you know that:

    1. God once a mortal schmoe who earned godhood.
    2. The existence of other "true" deities.
    3. Jesus is Lucifer's "spirit brother".
    4. You too can become deity some day.

    In fact, I'll grant you that the BOM has MORE historic Christian positions than in Mormonism itself.

    Bottom line? The BOM contradicts MORE of Mormon teaching than it does historical Biblical doctrine. I'm not terribly surprised there are p***ages which are closer in agreement with the Biblical doctrine, but your problem is supporting a soteriology of BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH from the whole GAMUT of Mormon "scripture" and teaching. So, you wanna dance your little victory dance that the BOM isn't consistent in teaching a soteriology of Faith ALONE and NOT of works, by all means, happy dancing.


    Your claim that "Mormonism proper does NOT teach this,and your own equivocation back and forth has exemplified this to a great degree" yet you offer nothing in support of this besides your say so? Either provide something of substance for me to respond to or just don't bother subs***uting your know nothing pronouncements on Mormonism as substantive arguments.

    Do I really need to remind you of our long exchanges on CARM in which you clearly contradicted yourself dozens of times??

    You finally settled on a compromise of:

    1. Works not done in faith do NOT save but...
    2. Works that are done in faith DO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SALVIVIC PROCESS.

    This still means you hold to faith + WORKS, doesn't it?

  6. #431
    Mesenja
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    Good point,M-dude. I guess we have to look at the full context of "Nephis" clearly-taught soteriology of faith + WORKS,don't we?
    Yes let's take a look at the full context of this part of Nephi's sermon shall we? Soon after saying that "it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do" he clarifies this statement by explaining that "the law [of Moses] hath become dead unto us,and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith;yet we keep the law because of the commandments." Does he say that we are made alive spiritually because of "all [the works] we can do" that somehow makes up for our faith in Christ? No he states that "we are made alive in Christ because of our faith" as he is the source that we may "look for a remission of their sins."


    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    I disagree that they "clearly state", but do indeed suggest a works-free soteriology. The Book of Mormon does NOT teach distinctive Mormon doctrine and I think you know that:

    1. God once a mortal schmoe who earned godhood.
    2. The existence of other "true" deities.
    3. Jesus is Lucifer's "spirit brother".
    4. You too can become deity some day.

    In fact, I'll grant you that the Book of Mormon has MORE historic Christian positions than in Mormonism itself.
    This objection that the Book of Mormon does not contain every doctrine that is unique to Mormonism is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The Book of Mormon teaches us that "no flesh can dwell in the presence of God,save it be through the merits,and mercy,and grace the Messiah" therefore it is expedient that we have "unshaken faith in him [Christ],relying wholly upon the merits of him [Christ] who is mighty to save." (2 Nephi 2:8;2 Nephi 31:19) It also says that our hope to be raised to life eternal is because of our faith in Christ. (Moroni 7:41) It is not due to our works as even "if ye should serve him [God] with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants." (Mosiah 2:21)

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    Bottom line? The Book of Mormon contradicts MORE of Mormon teaching than it does historical Biblical doctrine. I'm not terribly surprised there are p***ages which are closer in agreement with the Biblical doctrine,but your problem is supporting a soteriology of BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH from the whole GAMUT of Mormon "scripture" and teaching. So,you wanna dance your little victory dance that the Book of Mormon isn't consistent in teaching a soteriology of Faith ALONE and NOT of works,by all means, happy dancing.
    Once again you have not supported any of your ***ertions with evidence. Also the Bible has never taught the soteriology of salvation by faith alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    Do I really need to remind you of our long exchanges on CARM in which you clearly contradicted yourself dozens of times??

    You finally settled on a compromise of:1. Works not done in faith do NOT save but...
    2. Works that are done in faith DO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SALVIVIC PROCESS.

    This still means you hold to faith + WORKS,doesn't it?
    Our works are the end result of God's grace to us and any merit we receive from them is God's gift to us in the form of increased grace and finally eternal life.

  7. #432
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    Good point,M-dude. I guess we have to look at the full context of "Nephis" clearly-taught soteriology of faith + WORKS,don't we?


    Yes let's take a look at the full context of this part of Nephi's sermon shall we? Soon after saying that "it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do" he clarifies this statement by explaining that "the law [of Moses] hath become dead unto us,and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith;yet we keep the law because of the commandments." Does he say that we are made alive spiritually because of "all [the works] we can do" that somehow makes up for our faith in Christ? No he states that "we are made alive in Christ because of our faith" as he is the source that we may "look for a remission of their sins."
    No, he doesn't say that the works makes one "alive", but one is saved AFTER HAVING DONE ALL THE WORKS ONE CAN DO which still adds works into the soteriology.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    I disagree that they "clearly state", but do indeed suggest a works-free soteriology. The Book of Mormon does NOT teach distinctive Mormon doctrine and I think you know that:

    1. God once a mortal schmoe who earned godhood.
    2. The existence of other "true" deities.
    3. Jesus is Lucifer's "spirit brother".
    4. You too can become deity some day.

    In fact, I'll grant you that the Book of Mormon has MORE historic Christian positions than in Mormonism itself.


    This objection that the Book of Mormon does not contain every doctrine that is unique to Mormonism is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The Book of Mormon teaches us that "no flesh can dwell in the presence of God,save it be through the merits,and mercy,and grace the Messiah" therefore it is expedient that we have "unshaken faith in him [Christ],relying wholly upon the merits of him [Christ] who is mighty to save." (2 Nephi 2:8;2 Nephi 31:19) It also says that our hope to be raised to life eternal is because of our faith in Christ. (Moroni 7:41) It is not due to our works as even "if ye should serve him [God] with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants." (Mosiah 2:21)
    It's hardly irrelevant when Mormons present semi-Biblical doctrine from the BOM which they themselves DO NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE OF OTHER SUPPOSED MORMON LATTER-DAY REVELATION.

    The BOM teaches there is ONLY ONE GOD...but we KNOW that's NOT WHAT YOU BELIEVE, M.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    Bottom line? The Book of Mormon contradicts MORE of Mormon teaching than it does historical Biblical doctrine. I'm not terribly surprised there are p***ages which are closer in agreement with the Biblical doctrine,but your problem is supporting a soteriology of BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH from the whole GAMUT of Mormon "scripture" and teaching. So,you wanna dance your little victory dance that the Book of Mormon isn't consistent in teaching a soteriology of Faith ALONE and NOT of works,by all means, happy dancing.


    Once again you have not supported any of your ***ertions with evidence. Also the Bible has never taught the soteriology of salvation by faith alone.
    You've done it yet again, M. Write above that works do NOT CAUSE ONE TO HAVE SALVATION, and here you're affirming the OPPOSITE: Salvation by faith + WORKS and apparently you don't know how to read Romans 3-5, Gal. 3, Eph. 2 in context when it's abundantly clear that SALVATION IS BY GRACE ALONE, THROUGH FAITH ALONE. It's the FAITH that justifies one, NOT THE WORKS.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    Do I really need to remind you of our long exchanges on CARM in which you clearly contradicted yourself dozens of times??

    You finally settled on a compromise of:1. Works not done in faith do NOT save but...
    2. Works that are done in faith DO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SALVIVIC PROCESS.

    This still means you hold to faith + WORKS,doesn't it?


    Our works are the end result of God's grace to us and any merit we receive from them is God's gift to us in the form of increased grace and finally eternal life.
    Do you even read what you write?? In a nutshell what you've just written:

    Works result in merit in the form of...eternal life.

    You just affirmed faith +WORKS.

    Amazing you can't see how you contradict yourself at every turn, M.

  8. #433
    Mesenja
    Guest

    Default Why wouldn't it be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    Hey,I'm merely showing you the NORM,which was MONOGAMY which is evident EVEN in Genesis. I've already conceded that God ALLOWED polygamy in OT times,but it's CLEAR that was NOT His intention NOR the NORM. You're forced to take your Mormonesque cues from the OT,and blithely IGNORE THE NT WHICH DENOUNCES POLYGAMY.
    He said through his prophet Nathan to David a polygamist with 7 wives "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." [2 Samuel 12:8] Not only did God give David his masters wives but went even further and said that He would have given David even more. What stopped this from happening was David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba,the wife of Uriah the Hit***e. However according to the argument you just gave me the ins***ution of polygamy was not his original intention concerning marriage and it went against the norms that God originally set.
    Last edited by Mesenja; 05-20-2009 at 10:25 PM.

  9. #434
    jade84116
    Guest

    Thumbs down Polygamy

    Go to http://cogeternal.org/articleform.htm to request a free copy of their article en***led Polygamy—Is It a Blessing or a Curse? if you really want to know the truth about polygamy. It should also be noted that the Mormons support polygamy as a result of D&C 132, but D&C 42:22 states: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else." I defy the Mormons to square D&C 132 with that one. They also quote Jacob 2:30 to the effect that polygamy is needed to "raise up seed" contrary to all of the condemnations of polygamy from cover to cover in the Book of Mormon and it's overall story of several migrations to the America's with them starting whole new civilizations with one wife each, square that fact with Jacob 2:30.
    Last edited by jade84116; 05-21-2009 at 04:44 PM.

  10. #435
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Duh, M. Try reading the Bible. Did God created Adam and Eve...and Susie, Harriet, Julie in the Garden, or was it JUST ONE MAN and just ONE WOMAN FOR THAT MAN??

    Or consider this:

    Genesis 2:24 (King James Version)

    24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


    That was God's NORM.

  11. #436
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    You've conflated Jesus' reply without looking at the ORIGINAL CONTEXT of the p***age:

    18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    The Biblical NORM was established as one man, one woman although God permitted polygamy in OT times.

    You have NO case for a continuation of a practice which God STOPPED permitting by the NT era.

  12. #437
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    It's already been addressed:

    Gen. 2 gives the CONTEXT which is intended as the NORM:

    One woman for one man.

    The permission was RESCINDED in the NT era.

    FYI...there are several OTHER instances in scripture where God's PERFECT will was REJECTED and a PERMISSIVE will was given:

    Israel was NOT TO HAVE EARTHLY KINGS.

    Every first-born Israelite was to have priesthood privileges (but altered by God Himself because of Israel's sin with the "Golden Calf" incident)

    Marriage was to be life-long, but then God ALLOWED divorce under certain circumstances.

  13. #438
    HickPreacher
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mesenja View Post
    He said through his prophet Nathan to David a polygamist with 7 wives "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." [2 Samuel 12:8] Not only did God give David his masters wives but went even further and said that He would have given David even more. What stopped this from happening was David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba,the wife of Uriah the Hit***e. However according to the argument you just gave me the ins***ution of polygamy was not his original intention concerning marriage and it went against the norms that God originally set.
    During the transfer of ruling powers due to war or a takeover-- the new King would take control of the previous King's household. Saul did the same when he took power, if you study the text and its history beyond the simple mentioning of "Wives" you will see even a previous King's daughters were listed as "Wives". These guys were not actually married to these "Wives"-- the term seems to be loosely used to denote all adult female's of the King's household. See http://www.godswordtowomen.org/lesson_75.htm

  14. #439
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    This subject was one that was especially bothersome to me and one of the main reasons I ended up leaving the church.

    Why did Joseph have himself sealed to girls as young as 14?
    Im going to have to look at the evidence myself.
    If this turns out to be true, if the guy did take a girl that young, then this would be a clear case of RAPE and its a darn good thing they shot him...

    Heck I would have shot him* had it been my daughter or sister...

    But I have not seen any proof of him doing such a thing, so I will have to put things to the test.






    (* castration would also be acceptable for such a crime )

  15. #440
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    Im going to have to look at the evidence myself.
    If this turns out to be true, if the guy did take a girl that young, then this would be a clear case of RAPE and its a darn good thing they shot him...

    Heck I would have shot him* had it been my daughter or sister...

    But I have not seen any proof of him doing such a thing, so I will have to put things to the test.






    (* castration would also be acceptable for such a crime )
    Todd Compton did all the research for us and put it in his book "In Sacred Loneliness". If you need to see the full corruption that Smith became involved, please get a copy of that book and read at least exploits of Joseph Smith.. Remember Oliver Cowdry insisted on the insertion of section 101 of the 1837 D&C because of the Smith "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" speaking of his improper activities with the 16 year old Fanny Alger.

    You can also see the history of the polygamy of Smith at http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/. There you will see that Smith married 7 girls under 18 years old, two of which were just 14.. Most of these marriages were secret defying the command given in section 132 of the modern D&C. Which teaches:

    D&C 132:61
    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.

    If Smith took other wives without the conceit of Emma then he, Smith, committed adultery, and because he never confessed that adultery as sin, taking it to Jesus, that sin is still on him and will be the cause of his ****ation.. Just the act of marrying these girls was enough to convict him. After all did the Lord teach us that:

    Matthew 5:28
    But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    I have to have someone tell me how marrying a 14 year old girl isn't based in anything more than lust.. Isn't this a good reason for Cowdry to call Smith's sin a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair."(Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 26-28, 34-35, 38-39.) ? IHS jim

  16. #441
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks for the information.

    I read the account of Helen Mar Kimball , and there is no way around what happened to her.

    Joe Smith raped her....case-closed.

  17. #442
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    we tend to only think about the fact that Smith was married to more than one women at a time...we forget that Smith also was introducing the idea that women could be married to more than one man at the same time.

    many of the women that Smith married and had sex with were actually already married at the time.

    So Smith was fine with girls going from bed to bed with different men it seems too, just as he went from bed to bed with different women.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •