Joseph Smith's Motives

[DrDavidT]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

In other words, you have no understanding--but only can continue to criticize my beliefs. Okay.

wrong. it means that you only use those scripture p***ages that are supposedly general enough to read your own Mormon ideas into then you feel justified in believing the deceptive words of the Mormon cult

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

The bible records many different biblical figures as having multiple wives at the same time but there is no verse providing God's approval or permission for this behavior.

Could you explain God's testimony of Abraham--who was polygamous?

Genesis 26:4-5---King James Version (KJV)
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

i won't cast pearls before swine but one thing is for sure, you do not know the context of the p***age and apply your own definition to the word 'gods'. Your misunderstanding of 'children of the most high' is understandable because you do not realize how those words are applied and that they may not reference those who are saved but are part of God's creation.

as for 'many things' that is up to Jesus to determine not me. it does not mean people will be made gods of their own planets. There is NO biblical teaching to support that idea and Smith included it in his heresy because he knew men loved power and control over others thus it was a tool of enticement not a word of truth.

Just a note here, David--most all the Early Church Fathers taught men may become gods:

Justin - Dial. 124 ...thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods", and of having power to become sons of the Highest. (ANF 1.262).

Justin - Discourse To The Greeks 5 The Word exercises an influence which does not make poets: it does not equip philosophers nor skilled orators, but by its instruction it makes mortals immortal, mortals god. (ANF 1.272)

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 5.Pref ...the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself. (ANF 1.526).

Tertullian - Adv. Hermogenes 5 Well, then, you say, we ourselves possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do—only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, "I have said, Ye are gods," and "God standeth in the congregation of the gods." But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods. (ANF 3.480).

Clement of Alexandria - Exhortation 1 ...the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. (ANF 2.174).

Clement of Alexandria - Strom. 7.10 ...they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour. (ANF 2.539).

Origen - Comm. on John 2.2,3 ...the Savior says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity...And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God", and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype. ...Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surp***es all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity. (ANF 10.323).

Athanasius - De Incarnation 54 For He was made man that we might be made God. (NPNF, second series, 4.65).

Augustine - Sermon 81 But in order to lift them out of these iniquities, to redeem, to cure, to heal, to change the sons of men, he gave them the power and right to become sons of God. So what’s so surprising about this text? You were men, if you were sons of men; you were all liars, because every man is a liar. The grace of God came to you, it gave you the power and right to become sons of God. Listen to the voice of my Father saying, I said you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High (Ps. 82:6). Because you are sons of men, you are liars, if you are not sons of the Most High, because every man is a liar. If you are sons of God, if redeemed by the grace of the Savior, if bought by his precious blood, if born again by water and the Spirit, if predestined to the heavenly inheritance, then of you are sons of God. Son you are already gods. (The Works of Saint Augustine - Part III - Sermons, vol. 3, p. 363.)

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Just a note here, David--most all the Early Church Fathers taught men may become gods:

Justin - Dial. 124 ...thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods", and of having power to become sons of the Highest. (ANF 1.262).

Justin - Discourse To The Greeks 5 The Word exercises an influence which does not make poets: it does not equip philosophers nor skilled orators, but by its instruction it makes mortals immortal, mortals god. (ANF 1.272)

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 5.Pref ...the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself. (ANF 1.526).

Tertullian - Adv. Hermogenes 5 Well, then, you say, we ourselves possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do—only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, "I have said, Ye are gods," and "God standeth in the congregation of the gods." But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods. (ANF 3.480).

Clement of Alexandria - Exhortation 1 ...the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. (ANF 2.174).

Clement of Alexandria - Strom. 7.10 ...they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour. (ANF 2.539).

Origen - Comm. on John 2.2,3 ...the Savior says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity...And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God", and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype. ...Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surp***es all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity. (ANF 10.323).

Athanasius - De Incarnation 54 For He was made man that we might be made God. (NPNF, second series, 4.65).

Augustine - Sermon 81 But in order to lift them out of these iniquities, to redeem, to cure, to heal, to change the sons of men, he gave them the power and right to become sons of God. So what’s so surprising about this text? You were men, if you were sons of men; you were all liars, because every man is a liar. The grace of God came to you, it gave you the power and right to become sons of God. Listen to the voice of my Father saying, I said you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High (Ps. 82:6). Because you are sons of men, you are liars, if you are not sons of the Most High, because every man is a liar. If you are sons of God, if redeemed by the grace of the Savior, if bought by his precious blood, if born again by water and the Spirit, if predestined to the heavenly inheritance, then of you are sons of God. Son you are already gods. (The Works of Saint Augustine - Part III - Sermons, vol. 3, p. 363.)

Anyone who has been to the capital building in Washington DC would realize this as well. The painting --"The Apotheosis of Washington depicts George Washington sitting amongst the heavens in an exalted manner, or in literal terms, ascending and becoming a god (apotheosis)." I remember seeing it when I was there and enjoying the fact that it is in the very core of our history.

[DrDavidT]

Could you explain God's testimony of Abraham--who was polygamous?

Really? Chapter and verse please that states he married more than one woman at one time. I know that he married AFTER Sarah died, (Gen. 25) something that is okay. He never married Hagar So you need to prove he was polygamous.

ust a note here, David--most all the Early Church Fathers taught men may become gods:

Where is it written that the church fathers always taught the truth, were inspired by God and wrote scriptures? Sorry but an ancient writer's opinion is just the same as that of a modern writer's. Their being 'church fathers' does not bestow upon them any divine status and they can be in error.

Also some of your quotes do not teach what you claim.

[alanmolstad]

"Abraham Was NOT a Polygamist

Many people recall at once a few Old Testament instances of plural wives, and ***ume that God sanctioned polygamy. That ***umption is absolutely false! God has never approved, nor made lawful, more than one living wife for any man. Quite the contrary, He FORBADE IT, even to the kings of Israel, and that by written STATUTE!

Abraham was not a polygamist. While Sarah, his wife, lived, he never married any other woman.

Abraham had an illegitimate son by Hagar. But that was an adulterous SIN. Although it renders it nonetheless a SIN, I think we can recognize extenuating circumstances.

Sarah was barren. For a wife in ancient times to go childless was felt to be a disgrace. It was Sarah, Abraham's own wife, who brought to Abraham her servant handmaid, asking him to produce a child for Sarah by this servant woman. We can imagine Hagar to have been attractive, and not necessarily lacking in voluptuous charms simply because she was a servant. That temptation, under these circumstances, at Sarah's instigation, might have been great. Certainly the very invitation coming from Sarah would have made it harder to resist.

Abraham was a strong man. But this temptation appears to have been stronger. All humans have sinned. Abraham was human. Abraham lied when he twice claimed Sarah was his sister, fearing for his own life.

Abraham was not without sin. But neither this adultery, nor the two lies, were sins of the nature that springs from a wrong at***ude of mind or heart. Abraham, in his heart, was always OBEDIENT to GOD. There was no spirit of hostility or rebellion. These sins were of the FLESH, under temptation -- not malicious or rebellious sins of the heart. But they were SINS! God forgave Abraham's sins of spiritual weakness, committed under heavy temptation.

Nevertheless, we all must REAP what we sow -- even though God forgives our sins upon repentance. God refused to approve this adulterous act of Abraham. He rejected the illegitimate son, Ishmael, from the birthright. This transgression produced jealousy between the women. It resulted in trouble, controversy, suffering.

How many realize that even the Arab-Jewish strife over Palestine, today, was brought on by this very THREE-CORNERED TRIANGLE, and the ensuing jealousy of the two women, Sarah and Hagar, over the one man, Abraham? The Jews are the children of Sarah, through Isaac, born later by a miracle. The Arabs are the children of Ishmael.

In Genesis 21:8-21 is the record of Hagar's departure from Sarah and Abraham. God ordered Abraham to send away the concubine Hagar and her son, and Abraham obeyed. This was at the time Isaac was weaned. Abraham had, after this, no more relations with Hagar, or his other concubine, Susanna, who is mentioned in the ancient Austrian Chronicle -- see Genesis 25:6 where you will read that Abraham's concubines' sons were sent away.

Sarah's death is recorded in Genesis 23:1-2. It was after that (Gen. 25), that Abraham married Keturah. This, of course, was a perfectly legal marriage. There was no polygamy -- no divorce.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are termed, in both Old and New Testaments, "the Fathers." Jesus Christ came to confirm the PROMISES made to "the Fathers." The unconditional promises God made to Abraham were repeated to both Isaac and Jacob."








http://giveshare.org/family/polygamy.html

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

"Abraham Was NOT a Polygamist

Many people recall at once a few Old Testament instances of plural wives, and ***ume that God sanctioned polygamy. That ***umption is absolutely false! God has never approved, nor made lawful, more than one living wife for any man. Quite the contrary, He FORBADE IT, even to the kings of Israel, and that by written STATUTE!

Abraham was not a polygamist. While Sarah, his wife, lived, he never married any other woman.

Abraham had an illegitimate son by Hagar. But that was an adulterous SIN. Although it renders it nonetheless a SIN, I think we can recognize extenuating circumstances.

Sarah was barren. For a wife in ancient times to go childless was felt to be a disgrace. It was Sarah, Abraham's own wife, who brought to Abraham her servant handmaid, asking him to produce a child for Sarah by this servant woman. We can imagine Hagar to have been attractive, and not necessarily lacking in voluptuous charms simply because she was a servant. That temptation, under these circumstances, at Sarah's instigation, might have been great. Certainly the very invitation coming from Sarah would have made it harder to resist.

Abraham was a strong man. But this temptation appears to have been stronger. All humans have sinned. Abraham was human. Abraham lied when he twice claimed Sarah was his sister, fearing for his own life.

Abraham was not without sin. But neither this adultery, nor the two lies, were sins of the nature that springs from a wrong at***ude of mind or heart. Abraham, in his heart, was always OBEDIENT to GOD. There was no spirit of hostility or rebellion. These sins were of the FLESH, under temptation -- not malicious or rebellious sins of the heart. But they were SINS! God forgave Abraham's sins of spiritual weakness, committed under heavy temptation.

Nevertheless, we all must REAP what we sow -- even though God forgives our sins upon repentance. God refused to approve this adulterous act of Abraham. He rejected the illegitimate son, Ishmael, from the birthright. This transgression produced jealousy between the women. It resulted in trouble, controversy, suffering.

How many realize that even the Arab-Jewish strife over Palestine, today, was brought on by this very THREE-CORNERED TRIANGLE, and the ensuing jealousy of the two women, Sarah and Hagar, over the one man, Abraham? The Jews are the children of Sarah, through Isaac, born later by a miracle. The Arabs are the children of Ishmael.

In Genesis 21:8-21 is the record of Hagar's departure from Sarah and Abraham. God ordered Abraham to send away the concubine Hagar and her son, and Abraham obeyed. This was at the time Isaac was weaned. Abraham had, after this, no more relations with Hagar, or his other concubine, Susanna, who is mentioned in the ancient Austrian Chronicle -- see Genesis 25:6 where you will read that Abraham's concubines' sons were sent away.

Sarah's death is recorded in Genesis 23:1-2. It was after that (Gen. 25), that Abraham married Keturah. This, of course, was a perfectly legal marriage. There was no polygamy -- no divorce.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are termed, in both Old and New Testaments, "the Fathers." Jesus Christ came to confirm the PROMISES made to "the Fathers." The unconditional promises God made to Abraham were repeated to both Isaac and Jacob."








http://giveshare.org/family/polygamy.html

Please provide proof that God ever called Abraham's relationship with Hagar a sin? Do you ever see him reprimanded for it? Are you aware that Abraham continued his relationship with the sons of Ishmael?

We then have Jacob (or Israel) which you never addressed in which the 12 tribes of Israel (some of which are from the concubines) are part of the 12 tribes--all now considered "Israelites." Looking just a few chapters ahead, you would find the conclusions you have made here must be wrong based on what happened only two generations later and how God dealt with the children of both the wives and the concubines.

[DrDavidT]

you do not understand anything as you try to use the bible to justify following your own sinful lusts.

you are also arguing from silence which means you have no argument. You do not have any verse where God says it is okay for them to marry multiple wives. you are also missing part of the story where God tells them to follow his commandments, which apply to all people, and where God sets up a sacrifice to receive forgiveness for their sins. how do you know that they did not ask forgiveness for their sins? Why should forgiveness mean that someone makes one of their wives an adulteress or des***ute?

you really have no clue on what scripture teaches.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

you do not understand anything as you try to use the bible to justify following your own sinful lusts.

you are also arguing from silence which means you have no argument. You do not have any verse where God says it is okay for them to marry multiple wives. you are also missing part of the story where God tells them to follow his commandments, which apply to all people, and where God sets up a sacrifice to receive forgiveness for their sins. how do you know that they did not ask forgiveness for their sins? Why should forgiveness mean that someone makes one of their wives an adulteress or des***ute?

you really have no clue on what scripture teaches.

Are you talking to Alan? He seems to see the Bible from the "sinful lust" perspective.

So, let's take a look at what you believe:

1. If the Bible does not have on record of God making a commandment, it must not be commanded.
2. Abraham was commanded to sacrifice to receive a forgiveness of sins.
3. Silence does not make a valid point.

But let's step back a few verses in the Bible:

1. Proof against your belief that "Silence means you have no argument.

Gen 4 And in process of time it came to p***, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

So---based on your conclusion--please show me WHERE in the proceeding versus was Cain and Able told to make offerings to the Lord?

Hence, if they were not commanded, they must have been sinning--but clearly, they were not.

2. Next, why do you believe it was the sacrifice that they offered that allowed them to receive a forgiveness of their sins?

3. How can you ***ert that you cannot make an argument of silence and then go on to argue (from silence) that MAYBE they asked for forgiveness? Clearly, the silence on their lack of asking for forgiveness is more damaging to your belief than the lack of a written word directing them to what they did DO. If this act was so hideous that they needed to make a sacrifice for it, why was it repeated by Jacob? And not only repeated, but the sons of his multiple wives and concubines were recognized by the Lord as HIS people. My argument looks at actions but no words, your argument relies on both silence in words AND in actions.

It is clear why you must end your post with a direct insult to me because your argument of silence alone does more to destroy your own beliefs than mine.

[DrDavidT]

it must be easy to be a mormon. they do not have to tell the truth, they dodge any difficult point they do not want to answer, they make claims without presenting evidence to support those claims, distract from the point and so on.

they also think they know what you believe, that is arrogance

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

it must be easy to be a mormon. they do not have to tell the truth, they dodge any difficult point they do not want to answer, they make claims without presenting evidence to support those claims, distract from the point and so on.

they also think they know what you believe, that is arrogance

I will just let my sigline do the talking

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

it must be easy to be a mormon. they do not have to tell the truth, they dodge any difficult point they do not want to answer, they make claims without presenting evidence to support those claims, distract from the point and so on.

they also think they know what you believe, that is arrogance

Oh, I suppose that my presenting Genesis 4 is not evidence?

I suppose that presenting your own argument as proof the fallacy of your argument against my argument is not evidence?

I suppose that you think that only the portion the Bible you want to discuss is evidence and the portion of the Bible I use to refute it is not?

And once again--you must begin and end with a put down, once again showing the weakness of your own argument. *sigh*

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I will just let my sigline do the talking

From the forum rules: "The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. "

"If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here."

I completely agree.

[DrDavidT]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I will just let my sigline do the talking

yet i haven't done that. I told the truth.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

yet i haven't done that. I told the truth.

Proof that you have "insulted, belittled or treats a group of individual with contempt"

Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post
it must be easy to be a mormon. they do not have to tell the truth

Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT you really have no clue on what scripture teaches.

And these are just on this page. Don't sweat it though. What it tells me is that you really have no argument--just as the sigline indicates.

[DrDavidT]

when you live in a deluded world anything is twisted and distorted to say something different than was intended..

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

when you live in a deluded world anything is twisted and distorted to say something different than was intended..

The point is, you try to denounce my religion by:

1. Stating that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy wickedly and then either claiming Abraham was wicked in his own polygamy (Alan's argument) which clearly contradicts the idea then that Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet by doing such, or by stating that there is no such commandment in the Bible and therefore it must not be, yet we can clearly show the offerings made by Cain and Abel when no such commandment is noted in the Bible, or by stating that Abraham sacrificed to repent which shows the hypocrisy of your making an argument from silence while stating we cannot.

2. Stating that we do not believe in the God of the Bible, and when we clearly make scriptural reference after scriptural reference that backs our belief, then we are either told we take the Bible too literally or that while you cannot explain the scriptural references, regardless we are wrong.

3. Stating that unless we have some type of archaeological evidence, that clearly we must be wrong-and yet when we produce it, you negate it based on your own biased viewpoint, and yet miss the hypocrisy that when asked to provide your own evidence, you also provide a believers viewpoint and ignore the detractors.

And when the above is pointed out to you, your only argument is one to put down the poster. (But I guess it is me who lives in the deluded world who twists and distorts---clearly stereotyping someone as "easy to be Mormon, [as] they do not have to tell the truth"--no...why would I see that as an insult--clearly I must be deluded.)

[DrDavidT]

You have no complaint you are wrong.

Stating that we do not believe in the God of the Bible, and when we clearly make scriptural reference after scriptural reference that backs our belief,

unbelievers and atheists do this as well, that act does not make them right or even Christian.

Stating that unless we have some type of archaeological evidence, that clearly we must be wrong-and yet when we produce it, you negate it based on your own biased viewpoint, and yet miss the hypocrisy that when asked to provide your own evidence, you also provide a believers viewpoint and ignore the detractors.

as i said, we have mss., ancient cities and civilizations, we have extra-biblical confirmation. YOU have NOTHING to support one claim smith made. All you have is blind faith in the words of a known con man.

That is not an intelligent act to do

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

You have no complaint you are wrong.



unbelievers and atheists do this as well, that act does not make them right or even Christian.

Oh, and I thought atheists and unbelievers attack Christians with the Bible--much as you are doing with Mormons. I agree though--attackers are not Christian--even if they use the Bible to justify themselves.

as i said, we have mss., ancient cities and civilizations, we have extra-biblical confirmation. YOU have NOTHING to support one claim smith made. All you have is blind faith in the words of a known con man.

Oh, okay---so you have a city--so that makes your evidence worthwhile even though you cannot prove what happened there and we have plates and a stone--which also cannot prove anything. But somehow your evidence counts and ours does not? Do you see the hypocrisy?

Do you notice that you do not even touch on the scriptures or my noting that your scriptural arguments do not hold? This is the one place that those who argue against the revelations given to Joseph Smith do NOT want to go.

If Abraham, being a polygamist, was sinful--both you and Alan have made this argument that it was--then you cannot use this sin as keeping a man from being chosen by God to be a leader of his people. In either case, Abraham was condoned by God or he was not--in either case, you cannot use the Bible to back your argument.

You also have no understanding of "and all are children of the Most High" and chose instead to open your eyes to what it possibly means, instead choose to ignore it and continue to criticize us.

You have no understanding of the"many things" God's faithful will be "rulers' over, however instead of opening your eyes to the possibility of what it means to be a "ruler" in the next life, you choose to ignore it and criticize us.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

All you have is blind faith ....

Could you explain for us why revelation through the Spirit of Truth is nothing?

John 16:13---King James Version (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Where do we find anything about "ancient cities and civilizations," there?

What I find as blind faith is believing in a theology that preaches a salvation through a faith without any acts of obedience to Jesus Christ:

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version (KJV)
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[DrDavidT]

Oh, okay---so you have a city--so that makes your evidence worthwhile even though you cannot prove what happened there and we have plates and a stone--which also cannot prove anything. But somehow your evidence counts and ours does not? Do you see the hypocrisy?

With jericho and Hazor and a few other cities we can prove what took place there.

Do you notice that you do not even touch on the scriptures or my noting that your scriptural arguments do not hold? This is the one place that those who argue against the revelations given to Joseph Smith do NOT want to go.

Not even close to being true.

If Abraham, being a polygamist, was sinful--both you and Alan have made this argument that it was

We also pointed out that Abraham was NOT a polygamist and you haven't shown where he was.

You also have no understanding of "and all are children of the Most High" and chose instead to open your eyes to what it possibly means, instead choose to ignore it and continue to criticize us.

I know what both mean but I do not cast pearls before swine.

[DrDavidT]

Could you explain for us why revelation through the Spirit of Truth is nothing?

Bring up Smith's revelations and see that they are nothing. Don't change the subject and go to the Bible when it suits your purposes.

Then please prove Smith had honest and pure and spiritual motives. The historical record says otherwise.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

We also pointed out that Abraham was NOT a polygamist and you haven't shown where he was.

Genesis 16:1-4---King James Version (KJV)
1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.


Full Definition of polygamy--Merriam Webster

1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time


So, David--you have a dilemma to face. If you do not believe Abraham was polygamous--then you are still left with adultery:


Galatians 5:19-21---King James Version (KJV)
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you explain for us why revelation through the Spirit of Truth is nothing?

John 16:13---King James Version (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Where do we find anything about "ancient cities and civilizations," there?

What I find as blind faith is believing in a theology that preaches a salvation through a faith without any acts of obedience to Jesus Christ:

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version (KJV)
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

Don't change the subject and go to the Bible when it suits your purposes.

The Bible always suits my purposes.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

So, David--you have a dilemma to face. If you do not believe Abraham was polygamous--then you are still left with adultery:


[]

Abraham was very much guilty of adultery....as clearly was King David.....






and they are not the only people too that are talked about in the Bible yet had sins of the flesh such as this in their past.

And Jesus talked about this sin so that we understand how serious God took this sin - "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So even just the thought of cheating with another girl is a sin.


So lets just admit the fact that Abraham was guilty of adultery.
I dont think he actually 'married" the other woman...I dont remember him calling her his "wife"
But he did have sex with the girl and so he is clearly guilty of that sin and its ramifications.

so according to a verse in the Bible, Abraham deserved ****ation for adultery.







But to this all we need to do is turn to the Bible for our salvation -1 Corinthians 6:9




Here at 1 Corinthians 6:9 we find the offer of salvation that is ours in Christ....even to guys like King David who killed to try to get away with sleeping with a wife of a married man can find forgiveness

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.






So the conclusion is this....
Guys who are clearly guilty of adultery such as King David and Abraham clearly deserve to be cast into the fires of Hell

....anyone who disagrees needs to go read the text again.
But for our salvation we have the cross...


We all need the cross to live or none would live



Or none would live...no not one.