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

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---FrJD says "I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff. I'm all ears."

Maybe FrJD has "another Bible" where the stuff you mentioned got deleted.

Maybe FrJD knows his Bible better than Mos, jeff!

[Father_JD]

Vewy good, gw***hoppuh. So now you know God NEVER forbade circumcision.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Trinity

In the book of Acts, it was the main concern of the Jerusalem council, and the practice became forbidden for the gentile converts.

Trinity

Sorry, but you're misreading Acts. It was NEVER forbidden, just considered UNNECESSARY for Gentile conversion to the faith.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Sorry, but you're misreading Acts. It was NEVER forbidden, just considered UNNECESSARY for Gentile conversion to the faith.

You are right, "unnecessary" is a better word. However, this is an importance change of an ordinance of God. A complete divorce from the Judaism. In a time when the Gentiles will overflow the Jews in the Church. After the apostles the converted gentiles became the leaders into the Church. The gentiles will outnumber the Jews m***ively.

What was a perpetual sign (circumcision) had become obsolete and was replaced by the baptism.

Trinity

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

No. Show me were He forbade animal sacrifice, ok?

Does God still accept animal sacrifice as a sacrifice for sin? Think carefully now.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

No. The Ten Commandments are still in force last time I heard. And anything of ceremonial law was not FORBIDDEN. Please show otherwise from the Bible.

No wonder you don't have an account on Concerned Christians. Those folks vehemently deny that the 10 Commandments are still in force. They would say that they are fulfilled.

But, I specifically asked about the law of Moses. (Read Lev. 8: 1, 4-6, 9-10, 13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24, 28-31, 36 for example)

Are you saying that God still accepts these observances? Could just anyone perform these rites and ordinances of the Law of Moses? Could just anyone do them today? Or were only certain Israelites (Sons of Aaron or of Levi for example) commanded, and the rest forbidden?

Originally Posted by Father_JD

You'll have to clarify what you mean here.
...
No. God didn't forbid the practice. Please show from scripture that it is NOW FORBIDDEN.

John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Divorcement also appears to be one of those things once allowed, but not really sanctioned.

I shouldn't wonder that you metaphorically stone Joseph Smith today. And fully justify yourself in it.

Mark 10
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It seems that old some things that were done in the past, WILL be done away with. Doesn't this count?

1 Cor 13:9-10
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Trinity

You are right, "unnecessary" is a better word. However, this is an importance change of an ordinance of God. A complete divorce from the Judaism. In a time when the Gentiles will overflow the Jews in the Church. After the apostles the converted gentiles became the leaders into the Church. The gentiles will outnumber the Jews m***ively.

What was a perpetual sign (circumcision) had become obsolete and was replaced by the baptism.

Trinity

Baptism. Great idea Trinity.

Baptism is another thing that was once commanded, but now, it seems to be largely dismissed as 'optional'. (Though Father JD hasn't exactly said it is forbidden...yet that is.)

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Baptism. Great idea Trinity.

Baptism is another thing that was once commanded, but now, it seems to be largely dismissed as 'optional'. (Though Father JD hasn't exactly said it is forbidden...yet that is.)

No one has said baptism is "optional", stemmy. Although baptism does NOT save one, it IS a proper and thankful response to God for what it represents:

New life in Christ.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Trinity

You are right, "unnecessary" is a better word. However, this is an importance change of an ordinance of God. A complete divorce from the Judaism. In a time when the Gentiles will overflow the Jews in the Church. After the apostles the converted gentiles became the leaders into the Church. The gentiles will outnumber the Jews m***ively.

What was a perpetual sign (circumcision) had become obsolete and was replaced by the baptism.

Trinity

Uh, you'd better go back and read your Bible. Circumcision was NOT replaced by baptism. And I challenge you to show from the Bible that that is so.

(Hint...you're not going to find support for your contention. Another hint: circumcision is STILL the perpetual covenantal sign between God and JEWS).

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

No one has said baptism is "optional", stemmy. Although baptism does NOT save one, it IS a proper and thankful response to God for what it represents:

New life in Christ.

Well, I noticed that you ignored the other post. I guess you see the folly of the idea that God doesn't command for some, and forbid the same for others.

So is baptism required? Or was it given as an optional commandment?

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Uh, you'd better go back and read your Bible. Circumcision was NOT replaced by baptism. And I challenge you to show from the Bible that that is so.

"Superposed" could have been a better term.

Colossians 2:11-12
When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised", but not by a physical procedure. It was a spiritual procedure – the cutting away of your sinful nature. For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to a new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

Both signs are metaphorical. By the circumcision we are entering in the Judaism and by the baptism we are entering in the Christendom.

The circumcision of the heart and the baptism have some equivalence. Jews also see the circumcision as a sign of purity. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia a baptism of purification has often preceded the circumcision.

"This shows how deeply rooted in the minds of the ancient Hebrews was the idea that circumcision was an indispensable act of national consecration and purification... Loyalty to the Abrahamic covenant was shown by the Gentiles who voluntarily espoused the Jewish faith, but not by the slaves of Abraham upon whom circumcision was enforced, the patriarch having done so only because he wished to conform to the Levitical laws of purity."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...h=circumcision

"Deuteronomy 10:16 says: "Circumcise the foreskin of your heart," suggesting that ethical acts (among people) are as important as spiritual acts (between people and God). The prophetic tradition emphasizes that God expects people to be good as well as pious, and that non-Jews will be judged based on their ethical behavior. Thus, Jeremiah 9:25-26 says that circumcised and uncircumcised will be punished alike by the Lord; for "all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_circumcision

"It signified purification of the heart, inward circumcision effected by the Spirit (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Ezek. 44:7; Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:28; Col. 2:11). Circumcision as a symbol shadowing forth sanctification by the Holy Spirit has now given way to the symbol of baptism.(q.v.). But the truth embodied in both ordinances is ever the same, the removal of sin, the sanctifying effects of grace in the heart. Under the Jewish dispensation, church and state were identical. No one could be a member of the one without also being a member of the other. Circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in both. Every circumcised person bore thereby evidence that he was one of the chosen people, a member of the church of God as it then existed, and consequently also a member of the Jewish commonwealth."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumcision

(Hint...you're not going to find support for your contention. Another hint: circumcision is STILL the perpetual covenantal sign between God and JEWS).

For the Judaism, yes. Not for the Christians. Did I say otherwise? No. Here is what I said.

Post # 154

"However, this is an importance change of an ordinance of God. A complete divorce from the Judaism. In a time when the Gentiles will overflow the Jews in the Church. After the apostles the converted gentiles became the leaders into the Church. The gentiles will outnumber the Jews m***ively.

What was a perpetual sign (circumcision) had become obsolete and was replaced by the baptism."

Indeed it was a MAJOR change.

Trinity

[Father_JD]

Whether you recognize it or not, your argument is NOT FROM SCRIPTURE, but from commentary found in an encyclopdia.

I'm NOT arguing that baptism is for Christians. The argument was ostensibly that CIRCUMCISION WAS NOW FORBIDDEN...whether for Jew or Gentile.

That case has NOT been made.

[Father_JD]

Circumcision IS commanded for Jews but NOT for Christians.
Baptism is NOT required for salvation.

Neither was circumcision required for salvation.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Circumcision IS commanded for Jews but NOT for Christians.
Baptism is NOT required for salvation.
Neither was circumcision required for salvation.

---So you are saying that the One True God continues to enforce The Law (Torah) where today's Jews are concerned? And that same God enforces DIFFERENT commandments upon Christians? For example, you believe that God wants all Jews to keep following the eye-4-an-eye law?

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

... but from commentary found in an encyclopdia.

Alright, it is not the proper time.

Trinity

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Baptism is NOT required for salvation.

So then baptism is optional, in your opinion, right?

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

So then baptism is optional, in your opinion, right?

Nope. Please stop putting words into my mouth, figgie.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---So you are saying that the One True God continues to enforce The Law (Torah) where today's Jews are concerned? And that same God enforces DIFFERENT commandments upon Christians? For example, you believe that God wants all Jews to keep following the eye-4-an-eye law?

Remember, jeff, the question was about God once "commanding" something and then later FORBIDDING it. Moral Law is and has ALWAYS been in force...ya ever hear of the "Ten Commandments"?

And YES!! Eye-for-an-eye is Biblical, but do you KNOW what that law even MEANS??

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD
No. Show me were He forbade animal sacrifice, ok?

Does God still accept animal sacrifice as a sacrifice for sin? Think carefully now.

Animal sacrifices were rendered OBSOLETE with Jesus' once-for-all atoning sacrifice on the Cross, figgie. Something you Mos still don't understand about the function of the Levitical Priesthood which was DONE AWAY WITH IN CHRIST and could NOT be "restored" by Joseph Smith. Remember, now, just how you've equivocated the argument from God once COMMANDING something and NOW FORBIDDING IT. Think carefully now...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
No. The Ten Commandments are still in force last time I heard. And anything of ceremonial law was not FORBIDDEN. Please show otherwise from the Bible.

No wonder you don't have an account on Concerned Christians. Those folks vehemently deny that the 10 Commandments are still in force. They would say that they are fulfilled.

All commandments are "fulfilled" in Christ, in that Christians are NOT JUDGED BY THE LAW SALVIVICALLY. I think you're probably misunderstanding "Concerned Christians".

But, I specifically asked about the law of Moses. (Read Lev. 8: 1, 4-6, 9-10, 13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24, 28-31, 36 for example)

Are you saying that God still accepts these observances?

No, I didn't say that. The sacrificial system was done away with in Christ...which is WHY THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD COULD NOT BE RESTORED BY JOSEPH SMITH. We don't see Mormon "High priests" offering sacrifices do we?? Of course not. It's NOT a question of whether God "still accepts" these practices but did He ostensibly FORBID them later? That was the argument which you keep equivocating.

Could just anyone perform these rites and ordinances of the Law of Moses? Could just anyone do them today? Or were only certain Israelites (Sons of Aaron or of Levi for example) commanded, and the rest forbidden?

Right on, figgie!! And that's WHY the supposed Mormon "restoration" of the Levitical Priesthood is patently ABSURD. Thanks for demonstrating the ridiculousness of JS supposedly "restoring" the OT Priesthood!!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
You'll have to clarify what you mean here.
...
No. God didn't forbid the practice. Please show from scripture that it is NOW FORBIDDEN.

John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Incredible...i.e. the lack of Mormon understanding of scripture. The temple still stood...the sacrifices were still in operation...and YES, the woman should have been stoned, figgie...but the Pharisees weren't forthright in their observance of the law which would necessarily involve the guilty MAN AS WELL.

Divorcement also appears to be one of those things once allowed, but not really sanctioned.

More equivocation, dude. When are you Mos gonna stop doing this? God permitted divorce. Yes. Did He ever say there were NO GROUNDS EVER for divorce? No. Does God forbid divorce? No. Do you see how you've equivocated the argument???

I shouldn't wonder that you metaphorically stone Joseph Smith today. And fully justify yourself in it.

Under the Law, Joseph Smith SHOULD HAVE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN STONED for the FALSE prophet that he was. Are American laws founded on a theocracy with God literally running the country? I don't think so. I haven't seen either the Father or the Son in Washington lately. What I'm getting at that most are CIVIL laws that could exist ONLY within the context of Israel's THEOCRACY. But it's NOT about God NOW FORBIDDING stoning. Get it?

Mark 10
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It seems that old some things that were done in the past, WILL be done away with. Doesn't this count?

No problem, figgie. Your argument was that there were things COMMANDED in the past which are NOW FORBIDDEN. You insist on equivocating your own argument or don't you see that?

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Remember, jeff, the question was about God once "commanding" something and then later FORBIDDING it.

---So tell us: God (known as Yahweh) once commanded that people believed to be witches, gays, or disrespectful of their parents be executed by religious leaders. Did God (known as Jesus) forbid such executions? Or did He reiterate that the commandment is still in force and is expected to be carried out forever? Or: How about "Love thy friends, but hate thine enemies" ? Was that part of The Law ever rescinded, and hating enemies changed to a FORBIDDEN thing?

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---So tell us: God (known as Yahweh) once commanded that people believed to be witches, gays, or disrespectful of their parents be executed by religious leaders. Did God (known as Jesus) forbid such executions? Or did He reiterate that the commandment is still in force and is expected to be carried out forever? Or: How about "Love thy friends, but hate thine enemies" ? Was that part of The Law ever rescinded, and hating enemies changed to a FORBIDDEN thing?

Good questions, jeff. Now let's unravel your argument:

Under OT law which was enforceable in a THEOCRACY in the land of Israel, YES, all of the above were subject to capital punishment. Did Jesus "forbid" such executions. NO, HE DID NOT. I'm ***uming you're using John 8 as some kind of anti-capital punishment sentiment from Jesus, no?

FYI, for the law to be fully executable, the GUILTY MAN would have necessarily been brought to judgment as well. Note as well, Jesus did NOT FORBID the woman's stoning...or forbid capital punishment...EVER.

I suggest you read Romans 13 as well...

You have made NO case for "God formerly commanding something and then later FORBIDDING it".

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Good questions, jeff.

--Thanks. I try to keep them good.

Under OT law

---which you believe to be GOD'S law, right?

which was enforceable in a THEOCRACY in the land of Israel, YES, all of the above were subject to capital punishment. Did Jesus "forbid" such executions. NO, HE DID NOT. I'm ***uming you're using John 8 as some kind of anti-capital punishment sentiment from Jesus, no?

---No, I am not using John 8, I am using Matthew 5 and Luke 6, where Jesus gives new commandments that revoke or supersede the old ones that He gave the Israelites about 1000 years earlier: The old commandment was love your friends but hate your enemies, but the new one commands people to love and do good for their enemies. Sounds like a case of forbidding something that was previously a commandment.

FYI, for the law to be fully executable, the GUILTY MAN would have necessarily been brought to judgment as well. Note as well, Jesus did NOT FORBID the woman's stoning...or forbid capital punishment...EVER.

--Is this more arguments from silence? After all, Jesus did not forbid executing gay people, or witches, or disrespectful children, right? So we should ***ume the commandment is still in effect, and we should be out there executing round the clock, right?

You have made NO case for "God formerly commanding something and then later FORBIDDING it".

Matthew 5 and Luke 6

[Father_JD]

Under OT law

---which you believe to be GOD'S law, right?

Yesiree...you do believe the Ten Commandments to be GOD'S law, correct?



Quote:
which was enforceable in a THEOCRACY in the land of Israel, YES, all of the above were subject to capital punishment. Did Jesus "forbid" such executions. NO, HE DID NOT. I'm ***uming you're using John 8 as some kind of anti-capital punishment sentiment from Jesus, no?

---No, I am not using John 8, I am using Matthew 5 and Luke 6, where Jesus gives new commandments that revoke or supersede the old ones that He gave the Israelites about 1000 years earlier: The old commandment was love your friends but hate your enemies, but the new one commands people to love and do good for their enemies. Sounds like a case of forbidding something that was previously a commandment.

Unless you can actually produce a scripture that states this, jeff...your argument has no merit. I believe Jesus is citing the TALMUD, which is NOT scripture. He said, "You have HEARD"...He did not say, "As it is WRITTEN..." Sorry, nice try but no bubble gum cigar for you!!

Quote:
FYI, for the law to be fully executable, the GUILTY MAN would have necessarily been brought to judgment as well. Note as well, Jesus did NOT FORBID the woman's stoning...or forbid capital punishment...EVER.

--Is this more arguments from silence? After all, Jesus did not forbid executing gay people, or witches, or disrespectful children, right? So we should ***ume the commandment is still in effect, and we should be out there executing round the clock, right?

You're not listening, jeff. These types of laws were enforceable ONLY under a theocracy in ancient Israel and/or when they still had the Sanhedrin. So NO, they're NOT in effect, but not FORBIDDEN by God which was the original argument which has been repeatedly equivocated by youse Mos!!


Quote:
You have made NO case for "God formerly commanding something and then later FORBIDDING it".

Matthew 5 and Luke 6

Doesn't qualify. See answer above.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Under OT law
Yesiree...you do believe the Ten Commandments to be GOD'S law, correct?

--Of course, but The Law encomp***es far more than just the Decalogue.

I believe Jesus is citing the TALMUD, which is NOT scripture. He said, "You have HEARD"...He did not say, "As it is WRITTEN..." Sorry, nice try but no bubble gum cigar for you!!

--OK, fair enough, and besides I don't smoke--not even gum cigars--so I can cope with being denied my cigar.

So NO, they're NOT in effect, but not FORBIDDEN by God which was the original argument which has been repeatedly equivocated by youse Mos!!

--So you are publicly stating that murdering suspected hookers, witches, gays, and disrespectful children is currently not forbidden by God? Talk about a license to sin--what's being licensed here, is not even a sin! Is this mainstream Christian doctrine you are teaching here? Or are you out on the fringe with this "God doesn't forbid it" stuff?

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Under OT law
Yesiree...you do believe the Ten Commandments to be GOD'S law, correct?

--Of course, but The Law encomp***es far more than just the Decalogue.

Good. You're the one making a case for God first commanding and then later FORBIDDING the law.


Quote:
I believe Jesus is citing the TALMUD, which is NOT scripture. He said, "You have HEARD"...He did not say, "As it is WRITTEN..." Sorry, nice try but no bubble gum cigar for you!!

--OK, fair enough, and besides I don't smoke--not even gum cigars--so I can cope with being denied my cigar.

So NOW you're admitting that Jesus didn't rescind the law?


Quote:
So NO, they're NOT in effect, but not FORBIDDEN by God which was the original argument which has been repeatedly equivocated by youse Mos!!

--So you are publicly stating that murdering suspected hookers, witches, gays, and disrespectful children is currently not forbidden by God?

It would be "forbidden" in the sense for us to take the law into our own hands because we aren't living under a theocracy. No one can rightly arrogate that kind of authority in this day and age. Civil government is STILL permitted by God for capital punishment for murder. CF Romans 13.

But, in the sense which YOU intended, NO, God hasn't "forbidden" in principle what He originally commanded.

Talk about a license to sin--what's being licensed here, is not even a sin! Is this mainstream Christian doctrine you are teaching here? Or are you out on the fringe with this "God doesn't forbid it" stuff?

You misunderstood the nature of the argument, jeff. That's all.

[nrajeff]

So your theory is that if you went out and slaughtered some kids whom you suspected of being disrespectful to their parents, you'd go to jail for breaking MAN's laws, but what you did would be cool with God because He has never forbidden it? And here I was tempted to believe that the antis were right when they said the LDS were the dangerous cult with weird ideas!