LDS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!

Jane_Doe said:

I am explaining LDS beliefs to you. This is how things are believed, you can listen and learn what LDS actually believe or you can not. Though, please don't flame.

The Gospel is the Good News. It is not the Bible (though surely the Bible testifies of it). Again, the beef here is with the Creeds, not with the text of the Bible.

Click to expand...

It makes no sense to have a conversation that consists of "yes it does, not it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does....." There comes a time when you have to call it quits. Everyone can read and make their own minds up as to what it says. I will not continue with this, it is obviously hopeless.

mmksparbud said:

It makes no sense to have a conversation that consists of "yes it does, not it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does....." There comes a time when you have to call it quits.

Click to expand...

I'm just explain LDS beliefs, which are expressly not "just read and make up your mind what it says". That's more of a Protestant approach... even vast vast majority of Protestants don't fit that bill either...

mmksparbud said:

I will not continue with this, it is obviously hopeless.

Click to expand...

Your choice.

Phoebe Ann said:

Knowledge of God's words in the Bible protects us from Mormonism. I joined at a young age with very little knowledge of the Bible. Neither if my parents ever became Christians. My mother is still living, but the word of God doesn't interest her.

Psalm 119
11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

Psalm 119
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

View attachment 219006 View attachment 219005

Click to expand...

I am very impressed with your ability to put the bible first, and to not hang on to what you were told instead of what you can read from His word. The Holy Sprit does lead when it is truth one wants.

Jane_Doe said:

I'm just explain LDS beliefs, which are expressly not "just read and make up your mind what it says". That's more of a Protestant approach... even vast vast majority of Protestants don't fit that bill either...

Your choice.

Click to expand...

LOL! A Protestant approach?--and what is your approach--Catholic?? You wish to hang on to what you are told, instead of what you can read for yourself. I don't know what approach that is called, but I definitely reject that. I prefer:
2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Jane_Doe said:

(Again, just explaining LDS perspective, respect other people's different beliefs).

Creedal DOCTRINES have simple truths taken from them. CREEDS take simple truths from understanding. Not corrupting the text of the Bible itself, but understanding of it.

Click to expand...

It might be your "LDS perspective", but it is not the LDS church perspective.

Jane_Doe said:

Again, the beef here is with the Creeds, not with the text of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Interesting position, considering 8 out of 13 of the LDS Articles of Faith are not in alignment with the Bible texts.

mmksparbud said:

I am very impressed with your ability to put the bible first, and to not hang on to what you were told instead of what you can read from His word. The Holy Sprit does lead when it is truth one wants.

Click to expand...

The fact that I (and other LDS) do consider the Bible to be God's words and do listen to the Holy Spirit is what I've been trying to convey to you.

mmksparbud said:

LOL! A Protestant approach?

Click to expand...

Yes, "sola scriptura" (or more commonly accurate "prima scriptura"). That is a trademark Protestant thing (consisting of ~1/3 of the world's Christians). LDS do not fall into that 1/3.

mmksparbud said:

You wish to hang on to what you are told, instead of what you can read for yourself.

Click to expand...

Mmksparbud, I would greatly appreciate it if you followed forum rules and stopped flaming.

Phoebe Ann said:

Please forgive me if my opinion offends,

Click to expand...

Church theology is that the key prophet of each dispensation will, in the afterlife, have a degree of authority over those individuals who lived during that dispensation, potentially up to and including helping with the final judgement for that person.

So that puts Joseph Smith in company with Moses, Samuel, and other key leaders.

Jane_Doe said:

Mmksparbud, I would greatly appreciate it if you followed forum rules and stopped flaming.

Click to expand...

I can't even count the number of times that a post has started with the same thing said about me---"you are SDA and therefore you are merely following what the church tells you instead of reading for yourself."
I don't have enough fingers and toes to count that high---never once did I get upset or complain about flaming. They were stating what they thought. I merely corrected them with biblical verses. I suggest you get thicker skin or you're going to get ulcers. Our discussion is over.

BigDaddy4 said:

How about the 27 books of the New Testament? Would that be enough for you? Everywhere the gospel is mentioned in the New Testament, "celestial marriage" is not.

Click to expand...

Jesus plainly says there is not marriage in heaven. Based on some marriages I see today that is a good thing. If that has to continue in hell, I am sure some people would rather be in a lower heaven.

Phoebe Ann said:

This is anti-biblical and therefore not true:

"Celestial marriage is the crowning ordinance of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Chapter 15: Eternal Marriage


The Bible Warns us:
Galatians 1
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Click to expand...

Celestial Marriage is the crowning achievement of the gospel.

It does not conflict with the 3 basic tenets of the gospel cited by Paul in that chapter:
1. Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
2. our Lord Jesus Christ gave himself for our sins, and
3. that he might deliver us (ie be our Savior) from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.

If you don't know these are the three basic tenets of the gospel taught by Paul by now, I'd say you haven't gotten much from reading Paul.

However, our Savior said a number of virgins were invited to the wedding. Isaiah says:
Isaiah 4:1
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

So, yeah, I'd say celestial marriage is the highest ordinance/covenant.

Daniel Marsh said:

Jesus plainly says there is not marriage in heaven. Based on some marriages I see today that is a good thing. If that has to continue in hell, I am sure some people would rather be in a lower heaven.

Click to expand...

No, He said in the resurrection they are not given in marriage. You cannot marry once you are resurrected. It does not mean a marriage covenant cannot continue.

RevelationTestament said:

No, He said in the resurrection they are not given in marriage. You cannot marry once you are resurrected. It does not mean a marriage covenant cannot continue.

Click to expand...

RevelationTestament said:

1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

Click to expand...

That verse must be taken in context. This has been divided from the rest of the previous verses and should not be--there were no verses and chapters in the Hebrew.

Isa 3:16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:
Isa 3:17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
Isa 3:18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
Isa 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
Isa 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
Isa 3:21 The rings, and nose jewels,
Isa 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
Isa 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.
Isa 3:24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
Isa 3:25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.
Isa 3:26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.
Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

This was not in any way shape or form an invitation to a wedding. These once haughty women would be left destitute and without men--to be unmarried was considered a shame, to be barren was a shame. There are 2 ways this is looked at---one is that these women still wanted to do their own thing, but be called a wife as a sign of status, the other was that they would so want a husband as all the men had been killed, that they would not ask to be supported and taken care but take care of themselves. In no way was this ever considered as a sign of a good wedding. Married women were often not taken as slaves and captives, but left as widows. The single women were the ones that were led captive.

RevelationTestament said:

No, He said in the resurrection they are not given in marriage. You cannot marry once you are resurrected. It does not mean a marriage covenant cannot continue.

Click to expand...

It does not say anything about any marriage covenant continuing,
Mat_22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
In the resurrection--when Jesus returns and all are resurrected--they neither marry nor given in marriage--but are as the angels in heaven. Angels are not married. This never says ---except for those married in the Mormon church by a Mormon priest--except those sealed in an eternal marriage--it makes no exceptions. The question asked was which if the 7 husbands would be hers in heaven. She was legally, by Jewish law in the eyes of God married to all 7. The answer is simple---there is no marriage after the resurrection.

RevelationTestament said:

3. that he might deliver us (ie be our Savior) from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.

Click to expand...

Multiple wives is merely a way for a man to be lustful without the stigma of adultery. All these polygamous cults have ever done is to eventually end in child brides. The wives always get younger and younger. It is seen worldwide. It is an evil thing and one that the NT did no condone. All church leaders were to have one wife. To have more than that, would automatically cut you off from any church leadership, and you would be going against an expressly stated command of the apostles.

mmksparbud said:

Multiple wives is merely a way for a man to be lustful without the stigma of adultery. All these polygamous cults have ever done is to eventually end in child brides. The wives always get younger and younger. It is seen worldwide. It is an evil thing and one that the NT did no condone. All church leaders were to have one wife. To have more than that, would automatically cut you off from any church leadership, and you would be going against an expressly stated command of the apostles.

Click to expand...

If you want to go there, where are your bishops and apostles? Was Ellen White an apostle? Her prophecies of Yeshua's return did not come to pass - twice. Yet, SDAs eat up all her words plagiarized from so many other Christians. Your Church has no bishops and no apostles, so those scriptures you reference cannot apply to them. You are merely applying your personal opinion to a discontinued LDS practice. The way polygamy is practiced around the world is usually not even marriage since a child cannot consent to such a relationship - thus there is not covenant in God's eyes, and the man is either committing adultery or fornication or both. Yet you pretend to compare that to legal relationships between adults who consent and commit to it. I agree that the practice of polygamy around the world is usually filth, and do not condone the practice of taking unwilling and unconsenting children to commit their crimes, and find your attempt to smear my comments this way to be in bad taste to say the least.
Your comments have smeared some of the greatest patriarchs of the Judeo-Christian tradition - including Israel himself, and the parents of Samuel. Why God would even talk to such as you believe were guilty of such sin is a mystery.