-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?
- Thread starter Songsmith
- Start date
Rescued One
...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
- Dec 12, 2002
- 36,184
- 6,771
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
No, God NEVER condemns skin color. His displeasure is with the wicked who serve other gods.
Upvote
0
You have explained nothing, The BoM says plural marriage is an abomination in front of God, and you quiet happily ignore that.
How came that God changes his opinion and what is an abomination for him is not any more when Joseph and Brigham wants to do it, and the easy answer: "God commanded it to us", So God changes abomination to Legal Good practice when is convenient.
You need to look into your inside and say sincerely if your answers are reasonable.
Upvote
0
skin colour is not the only characteristic of race, the Jew people document in the bible it's despise of other races, and even today they teach among themselves that they are the people of God and the rest has been created to serve them
Upvote
0
see my former posts, one have the cites and verses of the BoM in relation to plural marriage. in Jacob and other bits.
Upvote
0
smaneck
Baha'i
Skin color is the only characteristic of race because scientifically there is no such thing. What you are talking about are the 'nations' goyim mentioned in the Bible.
Where are you getting this from, the Protocols? I don't know of any Jew that teaches their children we are supposed to serve them. What Isaiah predicted was that one day we would all worship the same God. Given the fact that half of the world's population worships the God of Abraham, I think he was pretty close to being right.
Upvote
0
What? is condemned in the book of Mormon.
and Jesus said one man and one woman. the old Hebrew barbaric practices can not be used to justify polygamy specially after Jesus and the apostles said one man and one woman, they even said if you could stay eunuch better.
Upvote
0
Yes, and I highlighted in red.
Jacob 2
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Upvote
0
Just a bit I just want to support with the old testament.
See the story of Noa, getting drunk and his son cam seeing him naked, Noa cursed him and said his descence will serve the decendence of their brothers, now..... who are the descendent of cam,,, the Canaanite!
What what the condition of the Israelites to let the invaded tribes a live? .... they should serve the Israelites..
Upvote
0
Rescued One
...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
- Dec 12, 2002
- 36,184
- 6,771
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
The Bible does NOT condemn any races or criticize skin color! I've never met a person of the Hebrew religion that wanted me to serve him or her. In fact, they have done me and my family many favors.
Upvote
0
E
EarlyChristianresearcher
Guest
From early to later Critics' Polemics! Tactics to Make Us all Atheists? Part 1
Part 1:
All religions have good & bad points in them, & good & bad people in them, which if polemicalized with each point, could be used to vilify all religious faiths. Through the following tactics thus used as "reasons why not to believe," depending on the historical settings, they are intended to make non-believers out of the believers.
For example, the same tactics & issues raised by Christians against the Book of Mormon, are the same types used by Atheists against the Bible & all religious beliefs.
The same types of "reasons not to believe" in Mormonism, are the same types of "reasons" used by early anti-Christians.
While Christians cite past LDS leaders' past racial comments, (See my earlier response). Communist Atheists will cite examples of Christians' racial comments & days of slavery. Such as the writings of former slave, Frederick Douglas, Lynn, Mass., April 28, 1845: “What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference--so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial & hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of “stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.” I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, & cradleplunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right to learning to read the name of the God who made me. He who is the religious advocate of marriage robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravages of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families--sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers,--leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate. We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchases of Bibles for the [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]poor heathen! all for the glory of God and the good of souls! [/FONT][/FONT]The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other--devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.” [After citing from [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]Matthew 23; Luke 11:39-52[/FONT][/FONT], about Christ’s bold comments to and about the hypocritical practices of the ancient scribes and Pharisees, Douglas continues:] “Dark and terrible as is this picture, I hold it to be strictly true of the overwhelming mass of professed Christians in America. . . . They would be shocked at the proposition of fellowshipping a [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]sheep[/FONT][/FONT]stealer; and at the same time they hug to their communion a [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]man[/FONT][/FONT]-stealer, and brand me with being an infidel, if I find fault with them for it. . . . They love the heathen on the other side of the globe. They can pray for him, pay money to have the Bible put into his hand, and missionaries to instruct him; while they despise and totally neglect the heathen at their own doors.” (Frederick Douglas, Lynn, Mass., April 28, 1845, cited in [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic]Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, p. 104-109).[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
These historical settings I've seen Communist Atheists & Atheists use to vilify America & religion in general. Other example to follow.
Part 1:
All religions have good & bad points in them, & good & bad people in them, which if polemicalized with each point, could be used to vilify all religious faiths. Through the following tactics thus used as "reasons why not to believe," depending on the historical settings, they are intended to make non-believers out of the believers.
For example, the same tactics & issues raised by Christians against the Book of Mormon, are the same types used by Atheists against the Bible & all religious beliefs.
The same types of "reasons not to believe" in Mormonism, are the same types of "reasons" used by early anti-Christians.
While Christians cite past LDS leaders' past racial comments, (See my earlier response). Communist Atheists will cite examples of Christians' racial comments & days of slavery. Such as the writings of former slave, Frederick Douglas, Lynn, Mass., April 28, 1845: “What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference--so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial & hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of “stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.” I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, & cradleplunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right to learning to read the name of the God who made me. He who is the religious advocate of marriage robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravages of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families--sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers,--leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate. We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchases of Bibles for the [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]poor heathen! all for the glory of God and the good of souls! [/FONT][/FONT]The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other--devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.” [After citing from [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]Matthew 23; Luke 11:39-52[/FONT][/FONT], about Christ’s bold comments to and about the hypocritical practices of the ancient scribes and Pharisees, Douglas continues:] “Dark and terrible as is this picture, I hold it to be strictly true of the overwhelming mass of professed Christians in America. . . . They would be shocked at the proposition of fellowshipping a [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]sheep[/FONT][/FONT]stealer; and at the same time they hug to their communion a [FONT=ArialMT,Italic][FONT=ArialMT,Italic]man[/FONT][/FONT]-stealer, and brand me with being an infidel, if I find fault with them for it. . . . They love the heathen on the other side of the globe. They can pray for him, pay money to have the Bible put into his hand, and missionaries to instruct him; while they despise and totally neglect the heathen at their own doors.” (Frederick Douglas, Lynn, Mass., April 28, 1845, cited in [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic]Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, p. 104-109).[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
These historical settings I've seen Communist Atheists & Atheists use to vilify America & religion in general. Other example to follow.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So...? you want to commit all kind of evil in the name of God, and wants also everyone to have a closed mouth? just because you are....special?
Upvote
0
E
EarlyChristianresearcher
Guest
Part 2:
The "reasons why not to believe" are often listed by those objecting to other religions' doctrines, rituals & history. In other words, Christians have their lists of "reasons" why not to believe in the Book of Mormon & the restored gospel. Mormons have their lists of "reasons" why not to believe in "apostate" Christianity, thus the need for a "restoration." Atheists have their own lists derived from critical thinking, as to not believe in God & thus reject all religions. Muslims have their lists against Christians, Christians against Muslims, on & on it goes, in the world of religious polemics.
However, when we look at these lists, & the answers often given by religionists, we find out that they would have to be answers to the religionists' own objections against other religionists' lists. For example, how a Christians might answer an Atheist, might be the answer to their own polemics against their (Christians') rejection of the Book of Mormon, or Mormonism. How an early Christian apologists might answer the early anti-Christians, might be the answers to modern anti-Mormon "Christians'" polemics against Mormonism. (See radio show series discussing examples of tactics used. Another, Part 1, & 2).
The common lists of "reasons why not to believe," as critical thinking kicks in, are these:
1. Alleged or real contradictions between religious leaders, in scriptures.
2. Alleged failed "prophecies."
3. Charges of connections to bad groups because of symbols.
4. Mistakes, "crimes," & other things done by certain religious people are used to vilify the whole group in general.
5. Shocking generalizations of doctrines or beliefs, (examples: Atheists will vilify the Sacrament by calling it a barbaric meal of eating flesh & drinking blood. Anti-Mormon "Christians" use shocking generalizations against Mormons to vilify Mormons too: "The Jesus of Mormonism is the Spirit brother to Satan." The beliefs about the pre-existence are, also found in historic Christianity, are not given, because it's a generalization of beliefs intended to shock those not familiar to the surrounding beliefs explained. Early anti-Christian Celsus, 2nd cent., generalized that early Christians speak of 2 divine sons locked in combat with each other. He also knew of the war in heaven, etc., as taught by early Christians. He mocked it with shocking generalizations too).
6. No "evidence" for their religious books. Often when evidences are presented, those evidences are often rejected, so they can continue to claim "there is no evidence."
7. Cherry picking of statements made. (This is where different ones will select certain passages, or quotes from different religious leaders which they then make an issue over. Doing so in attempting to present the statements as "official doctrines," when the statements are speculative, theories, or the personal opinions of the religious leader, or religionists.
8. Standards of science, unscientific beliefs, & the laws & practises of the past are brought up to vilify those of today because of what their forefathers or past religious leaders did & believed. (Examples: Atheists wills often point out the unscientific beliefs held by biblical prophets, & peoples, "the four corners of the earth," when we know the earth's shape is an orb, (although many early Christian art works show the Christ-child holding an orb, symbolic of his rule over the whole earth). This is just one example in many that I've heard Atheists use. An anti-Mormon "Christians'" example is to point out early LDS beliefs, which also were held by Christians of the times too, about men on the moon, "Moonmen.")
9. Changes in scriptures, beliefs, rituals, etc., are often listed as "reasons."
10. Originality & "borrowing." Claims that because there was something that parallels the religous beliefs, rituals, or stories in the environment from where the religion came from. Those parallels become "evidence" to explain the origins of the religious book, or rituals, etc. (Examples: Atheists will claim Christianity was borrowed from the mystery religions, because they existed before Christianity & have parallels to Christianity. Anti-Mormon "Christians" claim Joseph Smith borrowed from his environment to come up with the Book of Mormon. The early anti-Christian Celsus, 2nd cent., claimed the early Christians' scriptures were borrowed from pagan myths. T. W. Doane, Bible Myths, used the same tactic against 19th century Christians).
Thus, all religionists who use these types of "reasons" why not to believe are all faced with the challenge of having to interchange "answers," to their own polemics, when they encounter the same arguments & reasons used against them by other religionists or non-religionists.
For how might a modern Christians answer their own objections against the Book of Mormon, when those same types of objections are found in early anti-Christian writings? Or Atheistic against the Bible? Visa versa, on down the list, with each groups' polemics against the other.
We can continue on with the polemical objections we have & ignore the challeges to answer ones' own charges, when mirrored back. Or we can look for common areas of agreement, common areas of the same types of beliefs, & learn to have love & respect for each others' differences. Or we can continue to nick pick each others' faiths in on going polemics that tend to divide us even further.
An example might be for a Christian to say something like: "I might not agree with your Book of Mormon, but I can appreciate & respect the belief in it that Christ visited other nations, because earlier Christians believed & taught that Christ did go to other nations."
Another common belief might be, like for a Mormon to say: "You know, I might not accept the later versions of salvation for the dead, such as indulgences, or prayers, masses, liturgical rituals for the dead. But I can at least respect it, for we have rituals, baptism & temple work for the dead that serve the same purposes."
There are many other common beliefs we could explore, rather than the differences. It's fun to argue over them and try to make ones point, and think that we've won the debate. But such things tend to divide when we ought to try to find ways to have more respect, love, & ways to work together to combat evil.
Bibliography
Early Christian Church Fathers' writings: The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers (series on line).
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html
http://jewishchristianlit.com//Resources/Texts/apFat.html
http://bullpup.lib.unca.edu/library/rr/early_xnty.html
3rd cent. AD: Origen, early Christian scholar & apologist, wrote 8 books in response to & against the early anti-Christian, Celsus. (See: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4). Many parallel arguments that Celsus makes against the early Christians; reminds me of modern anti-LDS' tactics, arguments & vilification methods used against LDS.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.toc.html
http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/search/topic/topic/4588/q/Missing%20books%20from%20bible?page=1
Note the parallels between early anti-Christian, Celsus, writing against the early Christians, about 170-80 AD, & anti-LDS.
Topix: Answers to Early anti-Christians, answer modern anti-Mormon "Christians!"
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/latter-day-saints/TA5R4BO83H9OD39T8#c7
R. Joseph Hoffmann, Celsus On The True Doctrine, (Oxford Un. Press, 1987).
A. S. Garretson, Primitive Christianity And Early Criticism, (Boston: Sherman, French & Company, 1912).
Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians As The Romans Saw Them, (Yale Un. Press; 1984).
Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome And The Early Christians,(Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1984).
W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom & Persecution In The Early Church, (NY: Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, 1967).
John Lundy, Monumental Christianity
T. W. Doane, Bible Myths
American Atheists
The "reasons why not to believe" are often listed by those objecting to other religions' doctrines, rituals & history. In other words, Christians have their lists of "reasons" why not to believe in the Book of Mormon & the restored gospel. Mormons have their lists of "reasons" why not to believe in "apostate" Christianity, thus the need for a "restoration." Atheists have their own lists derived from critical thinking, as to not believe in God & thus reject all religions. Muslims have their lists against Christians, Christians against Muslims, on & on it goes, in the world of religious polemics.
However, when we look at these lists, & the answers often given by religionists, we find out that they would have to be answers to the religionists' own objections against other religionists' lists. For example, how a Christians might answer an Atheist, might be the answer to their own polemics against their (Christians') rejection of the Book of Mormon, or Mormonism. How an early Christian apologists might answer the early anti-Christians, might be the answers to modern anti-Mormon "Christians'" polemics against Mormonism. (See radio show series discussing examples of tactics used. Another, Part 1, & 2).
The common lists of "reasons why not to believe," as critical thinking kicks in, are these:
1. Alleged or real contradictions between religious leaders, in scriptures.
2. Alleged failed "prophecies."
3. Charges of connections to bad groups because of symbols.
4. Mistakes, "crimes," & other things done by certain religious people are used to vilify the whole group in general.
5. Shocking generalizations of doctrines or beliefs, (examples: Atheists will vilify the Sacrament by calling it a barbaric meal of eating flesh & drinking blood. Anti-Mormon "Christians" use shocking generalizations against Mormons to vilify Mormons too: "The Jesus of Mormonism is the Spirit brother to Satan." The beliefs about the pre-existence are, also found in historic Christianity, are not given, because it's a generalization of beliefs intended to shock those not familiar to the surrounding beliefs explained. Early anti-Christian Celsus, 2nd cent., generalized that early Christians speak of 2 divine sons locked in combat with each other. He also knew of the war in heaven, etc., as taught by early Christians. He mocked it with shocking generalizations too).
6. No "evidence" for their religious books. Often when evidences are presented, those evidences are often rejected, so they can continue to claim "there is no evidence."
7. Cherry picking of statements made. (This is where different ones will select certain passages, or quotes from different religious leaders which they then make an issue over. Doing so in attempting to present the statements as "official doctrines," when the statements are speculative, theories, or the personal opinions of the religious leader, or religionists.
8. Standards of science, unscientific beliefs, & the laws & practises of the past are brought up to vilify those of today because of what their forefathers or past religious leaders did & believed. (Examples: Atheists wills often point out the unscientific beliefs held by biblical prophets, & peoples, "the four corners of the earth," when we know the earth's shape is an orb, (although many early Christian art works show the Christ-child holding an orb, symbolic of his rule over the whole earth). This is just one example in many that I've heard Atheists use. An anti-Mormon "Christians'" example is to point out early LDS beliefs, which also were held by Christians of the times too, about men on the moon, "Moonmen.")
9. Changes in scriptures, beliefs, rituals, etc., are often listed as "reasons."
10. Originality & "borrowing." Claims that because there was something that parallels the religous beliefs, rituals, or stories in the environment from where the religion came from. Those parallels become "evidence" to explain the origins of the religious book, or rituals, etc. (Examples: Atheists will claim Christianity was borrowed from the mystery religions, because they existed before Christianity & have parallels to Christianity. Anti-Mormon "Christians" claim Joseph Smith borrowed from his environment to come up with the Book of Mormon. The early anti-Christian Celsus, 2nd cent., claimed the early Christians' scriptures were borrowed from pagan myths. T. W. Doane, Bible Myths, used the same tactic against 19th century Christians).
Thus, all religionists who use these types of "reasons" why not to believe are all faced with the challenge of having to interchange "answers," to their own polemics, when they encounter the same arguments & reasons used against them by other religionists or non-religionists.
For how might a modern Christians answer their own objections against the Book of Mormon, when those same types of objections are found in early anti-Christian writings? Or Atheistic against the Bible? Visa versa, on down the list, with each groups' polemics against the other.
We can continue on with the polemical objections we have & ignore the challeges to answer ones' own charges, when mirrored back. Or we can look for common areas of agreement, common areas of the same types of beliefs, & learn to have love & respect for each others' differences. Or we can continue to nick pick each others' faiths in on going polemics that tend to divide us even further.
An example might be for a Christian to say something like: "I might not agree with your Book of Mormon, but I can appreciate & respect the belief in it that Christ visited other nations, because earlier Christians believed & taught that Christ did go to other nations."
Another common belief might be, like for a Mormon to say: "You know, I might not accept the later versions of salvation for the dead, such as indulgences, or prayers, masses, liturgical rituals for the dead. But I can at least respect it, for we have rituals, baptism & temple work for the dead that serve the same purposes."
There are many other common beliefs we could explore, rather than the differences. It's fun to argue over them and try to make ones point, and think that we've won the debate. But such things tend to divide when we ought to try to find ways to have more respect, love, & ways to work together to combat evil.
Bibliography
Early Christian Church Fathers' writings: The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers (series on line).
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html
http://jewishchristianlit.com//Resources/Texts/apFat.html
http://bullpup.lib.unca.edu/library/rr/early_xnty.html
3rd cent. AD: Origen, early Christian scholar & apologist, wrote 8 books in response to & against the early anti-Christian, Celsus. (See: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4). Many parallel arguments that Celsus makes against the early Christians; reminds me of modern anti-LDS' tactics, arguments & vilification methods used against LDS.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.toc.html
http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/search/topic/topic/4588/q/Missing%20books%20from%20bible?page=1
Note the parallels between early anti-Christian, Celsus, writing against the early Christians, about 170-80 AD, & anti-LDS.
Topix: Answers to Early anti-Christians, answer modern anti-Mormon "Christians!"
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/latter-day-saints/TA5R4BO83H9OD39T8#c7
R. Joseph Hoffmann, Celsus On The True Doctrine, (Oxford Un. Press, 1987).
A. S. Garretson, Primitive Christianity And Early Criticism, (Boston: Sherman, French & Company, 1912).
Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians As The Romans Saw Them, (Yale Un. Press; 1984).
Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome And The Early Christians,(Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1984).
W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom & Persecution In The Early Church, (NY: Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, 1967).
John Lundy, Monumental Christianity
T. W. Doane, Bible Myths
American Atheists
Upvote
0
E
EarlyChristianresearcher
Guest
Where you would get that kind of conclusion is beyond me. I'm only pointing out how the same issues that different ones bring up against the Book of Mormon & Mormonism, are the same issues that others bring up against Christianity. How you might respond to Atheists & early anti-Christians? Wouldn't your response answer the same types of charges against Mormonism. Or would a double standard be used? See next posts.
Upvote
0
I apologize, you correct in this point, this is why I think is so dangerous to take the scripture literally, because you soon fell into impossible to explain contradictions.
But there is a reality, there is 1 bible, 1 God, 1 truth. and there is 1000s of churches and kinds of believe, so 1000s of this believes are false in something.
all of them ask to pray and claim to have received a "testimony", this is why I think is only safe to love God, Love Jesus, and love your neighbour.
Mormonism is a nice ideal, but born out of lot of confusion, the main detractors of Mormonism in the time of Joseph Smith, were the disgusted members of the Mormon church itself. Most of the adventures he took failed, The Bank, Zion, and as a result you have members who lost every thing they were very upset.
He was imprisoned for burning a news paper in Nauvoo, They were criticising poligamy, and Joseph and Emma did wrote articles and deny Polygamy on those days.
As far as I could understand (As there is no much in the literature of the church on this),
Joseph did not established plural marriage, Emma deny all knowledge of the practice , it was a secret practice on the Nauvoo days. about 20 years latter it was made official. on a copy of the revelation, not the original, If Joseph practised it did in a secret way, and tried to hide it by burning the newspaper which was a church newspaper, but people were disturbed by the rumours.
The plural marriage is the eternal covenant of marriage by which the member marry in the temple with the caveat that they marry only one wife this days.
Eternal marriage does not exist in Christian literature until Brigham Young asked to church to approved it in general conference refering to the copy of the letter of the revelation to Joseph Smith as I said above.
Jesus said that the ones that will be worth of entering the kingdom of heaven will live like angels not worrying about marital relationships is in three passages. Matthew 22:2330 , Mark 12:1825, Luke 20:2736, Also we have Matthew 19:12 when it refers to a live without sex at all, and also the example of Paul who opted for celibate. I also have pointed in early posts that the Book of Mormon declared plural marriage and abomination.
Jesus is in direct contradiction with eternal marriage single or plural.
Having said that I personally like the mormon theology about pre-existence (being a seed of God), current probation period, and eternal life in eternal families. But It seems more just a nice idealism without historical or biblical support in this subjects. and also an accidental theology, as it was born to justify polygamy but later applied to normal relationships. also the pre-existence is based in the Perl of Great price, which was "translated by the prophet", unfortunately the original of the facsimile is now found. and is clear the interpretation given in the perl of great price is not matching with the original papyri. see the link: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/07/i-have-a-question?
Upvote
0
smaneck
Baha'i
Jesus never used the word "one" in connection with marriage. It is a century later that we find references to 'one wife' in connection with elders being monogamous in 1 Timothy. But that is a second century work.
But you are correct that early Christianity preferred celibacy over marriage and that anti-sexuality probably had a lot to do with Christianity insisting on monogamy later on.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
