Mormons

[Rejoice]

I do believe that marriage was a commandment to Adam and Eve as contained in Genesis.

It seems you've mis-quoted me.
I may have quoted someone else in that post, but I don't ever remember personally stating that wisdom and trustworthiness can on come through marriage.

I do believe Paul was married, but don't have absolute proof, nor do you have absolute proof that he wasn't.

As far as Jesus being married, it is a possibility, after all He was Jewish and this was held in very high regards. Actually (I don't know if this applied during Jesus' time)but a Rabbi told me that of the Mitzvah marriage is expected. That's neither here nor there and is only conjecture as it relates to Jesus.

The LDS view on celestial marriage was discussed. It is getting to be a 3 ring circus trying to answer all these different questions within the 3 or 4 threads I subscribe to. Would you be willing to start a new thread on this and ask this question so we can focus entirely on that particular subject? The answers would be much better this way.

TW

When I quoted a portion of your post, I missed including that you were quoting Richard Lloyd Anderson. My apologies for attributing his words to you. I assumed that you agreed with his statements.

I find the idea of that of Jesus being married, and it not being mentioned in any of the four gospels, hard to believe. He said that birds have nests, and foxes have holes, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. These do not seem to be the words of a married man. He had a far greater purpose.

I will read these threads and see how much the LDS view of celestial marriage has already been discussed before deciding if I should start a new thread. Has it been discussed in threads other than this one?

 

[RevKidd]

Galatians 1:6-9 is exactly what the mormon (LDS) church has done. They preach a different gospel. They teach the their modern day prophets speak words that are more reliable and supercede the Bible. JS states that an angel brought this "different gospel".

How do mormons explain Galatians 1:6-9.

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

 

[baker]

baker: Over the weekend I did a search at the official LDS website "lds.org" and could not find anything from the book of mormon which supports a teaching of eternal or temple marriage. I have to admitt that I have not read this book cover to cover, so I could stand to be corrected on this point. Anyway, my point is that it seems this is such an important ordinance in mormon beliefs yet there is virtually no mention of it in the bible or bom.

Doc: Baker, if I may just interject here. The Bible and the BofM are only 2 of our books of scripture. There is also the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. They are ordinances of importance and are found in the Doctrine and Covenants. They are implied, IMHO in the Bible, but you are correct they are not specifically mentioned.

Doc,

Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I have not read the bom cover to cover but was not sure if your scriptures supporting eternal/temple marriage were contained in there.

After following up on the direction of another lds poster, am I correct to assume that the mormon scripture used to support the concept of eternal/temple marriage is in doctrine & covenants section 132? I have read this section but it seems to contradict statements contained in your bom, especially with regards to polygamy. Also, after doing a search, am I correct that your original doctrine and covenants revealed to Joseph Smith included a different revelation on marriage? The chronology of this issue is somewhat confusing to me. Does any of this make sense to you?

Also, when you say the bible implies eternal marriage, what particular passages do you think make that implication, particularly in light of the passages and discussions I've provided Twhite above. To me anyway, without reading into the scriptures more than what they state, the collective
teachings of Christ seem very consistent that there is no need for marriage in this life or in His world. I find this subject very interesting in light of the lds claims and very interested in the thoughts of the mormon posters here.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Doc T]

Galatians 1:6-9 is exactly what the mormon (LDS) church has done. They preach a different gospel. They teach the their modern day prophets speak words that are more reliable and supercede the Bible. JS states that an angel brought this "different gospel".

How do mormons explain Galatians 1:6-9.

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Doc: What is there to explain? You think that we preach a differnt gospel and we think that you do.

 

[Doc T]

baker: Doc,

Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I have not read the bom cover to cover but was not sure if your scriptures supporting eternal/temple marriage were contained in there.

After following up on the direction of another lds poster, am I correct to assume that the mormon scripture used to support the concept of eternal/temple marriage is in doctrine & covenants section 132?

Doc: That certainly is one of them.

baker:I have read this section but it seems to contradict statements contained in your bom, especially with regards to polygamy.

Doc: That is a common mis-understanding. Try reading Jacob 2:30

baker: Also, after doing a search, am I correct that your original doctrine and covenants revealed to Joseph Smith included a different revelation on marriage? The chronology of this issue is somewhat confusing to me. Does any of this make sense to you?

Doc: The "Articles on Marriage", in the first printing of the D&C was not a revelation. It was the law of the Church at that time. What chronology issues are confusing to you?

baker: Also, when you say the bible implies eternal marriage, what particular passages do you think make that implication, particularly in light of the passages and discussions I've provided Twhite above. To me anyway, without reading into the scriptures more than what they state, the collective teachings of Christ seem very consistent that there is no need for marriage in this life or in His world. I find this subject very interesting in light of the lds claims and very interested in the thoughts of the mormon posters here.

Doc: I am not sure what passages and discussions you have had with TW and I don't have time to read through all of them. But the idea that the first marriage in the Bible was performed by God and they were married for all eternity as they were not mortal at the time. There was no death. Also statements from Paul like "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." and Christ's statement "For this cause shall a mand leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh, . . .What God has joined together, let not man put assunder."

baker:Thanks for your thoughts.

Doc: No problem.

 

[baker]

Doc: That is a common mis-understanding. Try reading Jacob 2:30

Thanks.

So are you saying that it was only to be used to generate offspring?

If so, how does polygamy generate more offspring than monogamy, particularly during the time it was practised by your church? Also, did Joseph Smith practice it just to have more offspring?

Doc: The "Articles on Marriage", in the first printing of the D&C was not a revelation. It was the law of the Church at that time. What chronology issues are confusing to you?

Let me explain what I have seen and see if I can make better sense of my comment above.



I ordered a book "Joseph Smith Begins His Work" which is a photo copy of the original BOM, Doctrine & Covenants and Book of Commandments put together by a Wilford Wood and it came with a letter of authenication from the LDS Church Historical Dept.



The preface, which is signed by Smith and some other people (Cowdery, Rigdon & Williams?) very clearly state that these were taken from revlations of god and represent the beliefs of the saints. The date of this D&C is 1835.

It appears, although I'm not sure at this time and you may know better, that this 1835 D&C is superceeding the revelations contained in a 1833 printing of the "Book of Commandments" (also included in this book).



From reading this original, it seems very clear that the section on marriage is very much included by revelation and the belief of your church at that time. It makes no distinction or differentiation between law or belief. So I'm not sure what you mean or how you conclude with your remark above.



Anyway, the section on marriage is very clear that all marriages should be solemnized in a public setting and indicates that because the church has been accused of the crime of polygamy, that a man can only have one wife.



But when I read your current section 132, it claims that this different revelation on marriage was received by Smith as early as 1831. The confusion I'm having regarding chronology is that. If Smith received the revelation in section 132 in 1831, why is it not mentioned in the 1833 Book of Commandments or the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants revelations. Also, the section 132 says, I think, that polygamy is required or commanded, but the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants say it is a crime and not allowed.



Does any of this make sense to you now? It just seems so contradicting to me when I finally research the details of it.




Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Doc T]

baker: So are you saying that it was only to be used to generate offspring?

If so, how does polygamy generate more offspring than monogamy, particularly during the time it was practised by your church? Also, did Joseph Smith practice it just to have more offspring?

Doc: No. It reads, "For if I will raise up a seed to me sayeth the Lord, I will command my people." Nothing about more offspring, just a seed unto God. Hope this helps.

I will try to answer the other later.

 

[baker]

baker: So are you saying that it was only to be used to generate offspring?

If so, how does polygamy generate more offspring than monogamy, particularly during the time it was practised by your church? Also, did Joseph Smith practice it just to have more offspring?

Doc: No. It reads, "For if I will raise up a seed to me sayeth the Lord, I will command my people." Nothing about more offspring, just a seed unto God. Hope this helps.

I am afraid you have completely lost me now!

When I go to the cross reference for "seed" in this bom verse at lds.org, it refers to an explanation of taking on women for "multiplying and replenishing". Seems pretty clear and obvious - what am I missing?

In your explanation above, what does raising seed have to do with god commanding then. Seems like god will command regardless so that raising seed is a moot point for this scripture based on your explanation.

Perhaps you could elaborate so I could follow your thoughts.

I look forward to your thoughts on the contradictions I discussed earlier as well.

Thanks

 

[Aaron11]

I never saw the question about the horses in North America answered... any mormons feeling that one? I heard one Mormon tell me that they were actually tapirs that it was referring to... Mormons don't actually believe this do they?

How about the steel sword that was used to cut that one guy's (was it Laban's) head off? Wasn't that pre-steel by a couple of thousand of years?

 

[twhite982]

When I quoted a portion of your post, I missed including that you were quoting Richard Lloyd Anderson. My apologies for attributing his words to you. I assumed that you agreed with his statements.

I find the idea of that of Jesus being married, and it not being mentioned in any of the four gospels, hard to believe. He said that birds have nests, and foxes have holes, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. These do not seem to be the words of a married man. He had a far greater purpose.

I will read these threads and see how much the LDS view of celestial marriage has already been discussed before deciding if I should start a new thread. Has it been discussed in threads other than this one?

Rejoice,

Thanks for being pacient with me. I've been out of town for the past 3 days extremely busy with work! I see that Doc T has been busy answering as many questions as he possibly can. He is very knowledgeable and can explain himself very well. Anyways, things should swing back into a normal type of schedule for me hopefully this weekend. Then I can actually take some time and answer a few posts directed my way.

Just wanted to drop you a quick note and let you know I haven't been abducted by aliens as of yet.

Hang in there,

TW

 

[Doc T]

Rejoice,

Thanks for being pacient with me. I've been out of town for the past 3 days extremely busy with work! I see that Doc T has been busy answering as many questions as he possibly can. He is very knowledgeable and can explain himself very well. Anyways, things should swing back into a normal type of schedule for me hopefully this weekend. Then I can actually take some time and answer a few posts directed my way.

Just wanted to drop you a quick note and let you know I haven't been abducted by aliens as of yet.

Hang in there,

TW

Doc: Oh, sure TW, you had to go back to Salt Lake to get de-programed because you had been influenced so much by the posters on these threads. But that's okay, the secret is safe with me. This is the private message board isn't it????

 

[baker]

Doc: No. It reads, "For if I will raise up a seed to me sayeth the Lord, I will command my people." Nothing about more offspring, just a seed unto God. Hope this helps.[\QUOTE]

I am afraid you have completely lost me now!

When I go to the cross reference for "seed" in this bom verse at lds.org, it refers to an explanation of taking on women for "multiplying and replenishing". Seems pretty clear and obvious - what am I missing?

In your explanation above, what does raising seed have to do with god commanding then. Seems like god will command regardless so that raising seed is a moot point for this scripture based on your explanation.

Perhaps you could elaborate so I could follow your thoughts.

I look forward to your thoughts on the contradictions I discussed earlier as well.

Thanks

Doc or Twhite,

Any further thought on this? This and the contradicting scriptures about marriage in the doctrine and covenants really have me perplexed.

 

[twhite982]

Doc: No. It reads, "For if I will raise up a seed to me sayeth the Lord, I will command my people." Nothing about more offspring, just a seed unto God. Hope this helps.[\QUOTE]


Doc or Twhite,

Any further thought on this? This and the contradicting scriptures about marriage in the doctrine and covenants really have me perplexed.

As I see it "raising seed" is getting offspring, but its also much more. When we raise seed, its nurturing those young children in the love and admonition of the Lord.

We are God's children by obedience and in this way we raise up children to the Lord. Hope I'm making sense?

What was left with the marriage / celestial marrieage?

I thought we were going to start a new thread on this?

TW

 

[baker]

As I see it "raising seed" is getting offspring, but its also much more. When we raise seed, its nurturing those young children in the love and admonition of the Lord.

We are God's children by obedience and in this way we raise up children to the Lord. Hope I'm making sense?

TW

Twhite,

Thanks. I don't think I disagree with your explanation. I mean it all sounds so very Christ-like.

Now, why is polygamy necessary to accomplish this?

 

[twhite982]

Twhite,

Thanks. I don't think I disagree with your explanation. I mean it all sounds so very Christ-like.

Now, why is polygamy necessary to accomplish this?

I haven't done extensive research into polygamy, so maybe I can leave that to Doc or I can find a web link for you to check out.

Edit: Here is a link on polygamy: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Facet.shtml#poly
It briefly mentions how many of the early LDS church leaders came out of polygamist families. This seems to me to be a quick way to "raise up seed to the Lord", whether you agree with the practice or not. Also noted polygamy WAS NOT given to the entire church. I believe the article stated 15% and 5% of those being men. This may not be exactly what you're looking for, but I hope it helps.



Of course I can always give you my one-minute answer, but I think you're looking for something a bit more in-depth.

TW

 

[Aaron11]

I never saw the question about the horses in North America answered... any mormons feeling that one? I heard one Mormon tell me that they were actually tapirs that it was referring to... Mormons don't actually believe this do they?

How about the steel sword that was used to cut that one guy's (was it Laban's) head off? Wasn't that pre-steel by a couple of thousand of years?

 

[twhite982]

Call me lazy, but its late so I'll just post some Jeff Linsey link's for these two questions.

Horses: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml#horses

Steel: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_metals.shtml#laban

There's others on that site as well.

Good luck and if there are any other specific issues and I'm not so tired I'll look into them later.

Adieu,

TW

 

[Rejoice]

The LDS view on celestial marriage was discussed. It is getting to be a 3 ring circus trying to answer all these different questions within the 3 or 4 threads I subscribe to. Would you be willing to start a new thread on this and ask this question so we can focus entirely on that particular subject? The answers would be much better this way.


TW

I agree, it is difficult to follow a discussion that diverges into many directions.

I started a new thread, titled "Mormons: Eternal Marriage."

 

[draper]

Oh, what, I'm still involved in this?

Basically i just wanted to know what they believe. Thanks a lot for those who have contributed

 

[twhite982]

Oh, what, I'm still involved in this?

Basically i just wanted to know what they believe. Thanks a lot for those who have contributed

For my small additions, your welcome.

Hope you've got some of your questions answered.

TW