Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Carbon Dioxide's Anti-Mormon Training Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    This is not for Paul's benefit like Joseph Smith's threat was for his benefit. Trying to compare the two is beyond stupid.
    Critics could always argue that Paul was the one teaching what was "worthy" and what was "unworthy" , thus Paul wanted to exercise power of religion over others.

    Of course, those critics tend to think that all religions are meant to exercise power over others, and they argue from that assumption.

    -7up

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      Joseph Smith did not "benefit" from "a new rule" that he "made up".
      Yeah, he did.

      Joseph Smith feared damnation for himself if he did not comply with God's will.
      That's a crock -- he was always looking out for himself. Was it "fear of damnation" that made him put a BAR in a hotel he owned, or start a bank to scam his own people out of money? The guy was ALL IN for himself and what he could get -- including babes.

      So, let's review this....
      God tells Smith to write the BoM, INCLUDING the part where polygamy is an abomination.
      God commands Smith to serially violate this prohibition.
      God commands Smith to threaten his otherwise faithful wife with DESTRUCTION if she doesn't comply.
      God then changes His mind, and polygamy is an abomination again.

      You SERIOUSLY believe that?

      You are simply arguing from your pre-conceived notion that Joseph invented the concept, and attempting to impose your assumption on others from there.

      -7up
      No, YOU are arguing from your "totally suckered" worship of a false prophet.
      Last edited by Cow Poke; 06-26-2014, 06:10 AM.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        Critics could always argue that Paul was the one teaching what was "worthy" and what was "unworthy" , thus Paul wanted to exercise power of religion over others.

        Of course, those critics tend to think that all religions are meant to exercise power over others, and they argue from that assumption.

        -7up
        We're not arguing from that assumption. How about addressing the argument actually made, not the one that's easier for you to dismiss?
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          This is awesome. You're defending a practice your church doesn't even practice any more by bringing up a verse that shows your god to be completely arbitrary in what he considers an abomination. Which you evidently realize doesn't look very good, because you're busy screaming bloody murder instead of, you know, actually addressing Sparko's question.

          By all means, I encourage you to establish anti-"anti-Mormon" classes. Your co-religionists can't all be so blindly committed to defending the indefensible.
          Abritrary? What about pork and shellfish? Were these not forbidden in the OT but not in the NT? Is this the arbitrary God you are talking about? One who arbitrarily decides that pork is bad and then changes his mind?

          Marvin

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Russianwolfe View Post
            Abritrary? What about pork and shellfish? Were these not forbidden in the OT but not in the NT? Is this the arbitrary God you are talking about? One who arbitrarily decides that pork is bad and then changes his mind?

            Marvin
            Let's see --- Smith wrote a book that makes polygamy an abomination, then turns it into a COMMANDMENT when it benefits himself, even to the point of coming up with a "revelation" that said that God would DESTROY his wife if she didn't go along with it, then your church subsequently outlaws polygamy again.

            OH, and the fact that Smith and your Church flat out LIED about polygamy, even though it was, supposedly, a "commandment"....

            Now, can you show where, in the NT we are COMMANDED to eat pork and shellfish?
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Russianwolfe View Post
              Abritrary? What about pork and shellfish? Were these not forbidden in the OT but not in the NT? Is this the arbitrary God you are talking about? One who arbitrarily decides that pork is bad and then changes his mind?

              Marvin
              Pork, shellfish, and certain other flesh was declared to be unclean under the Mosaic Covenant as a way of marking the Israelites as set apart; the flesh was to be an abomination to the Israelites, but not to God (unless I'm missing something). The New Covenant established by Jesus' blood has different, non-ethnic markers, since it is intended for all people. This is rather different than something being reversed under the same covenant by the same "prophet."
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #52
                7up: Joseph Smith did not "benefit" from "a new rule" that he "made up".

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Yeah, he did.
                Joseph's life was very difficult. Any objective observer could see that. He did not benefit in this life, but maybe he benefits for being faithful in this life, and thus is rewarded in the next.

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                That's a crock -- he was always looking out for himself.
                I can provide plenty of evidence that this accusation is false. Anybody who knew him personally testified contrary to your accusations.

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                So, let's review this....
                Yes. Lets.

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                God tells Smith to write the BoM, INCLUDING the part where polygamy is an abomination.
                Wrong. Anybody who reads the context of that passage can see that it is an abomination when men multiply wives unto themselves without the command of God. You, like most other LDS critics on this matter, purposefully ignore a key verse in that passage:

                30 For IF I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:30)

                Feel free to ask if you cannot comprehend what that verse means, however, I think you do. Just to be sure, I will provide you with Orson Pratt's explanation of that verse:

                The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be Divine) which condemns plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. But even that sacred book makes an exception in substance as follows—"Except I the Lord command my people." The same Book of Mormon and the same article that commanded the Nephites that they should not marry more than one wife, made an exception. Let this be understood—"Unless I the Lord shall command them." We can draw the conclusion from this, that there were some things not right in the sight of God, unless he should command them. We can draw the same conclusion from the Bible, that there were many things which the Lord would not suffer his children to do, unless he particularly commanded them to do them.

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                God commands Smith to serially violate this prohibition.
                See above.

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                God commands Smith to threaten his otherwise faithful wife with DESTRUCTION if she doesn't comply.
                See above.

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                God then changes His mind, and polygamy is an abomination again.
                See above.

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                You SERIOUSLY believe that?
                It is consistent with the Bible as well. If two brothers were both married and one had children with is wife and the other didn't and then the childless husband died, the Law of Moses required the first husband who remained alive to marry the widow so that she could have children.

                The first instance of plural wives in the Bible was with Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Then, of course, there was Solomon.

                So, David was allowed more than one wife and appeared to remain under the approval of the prophet Nathan. It was only in the case of Bathsheba where David made a series of very bad choices. The other polygamous Biblical leaders, kings and prophets erred when marrying wives who worshiped false gods or wives who then led them to make poor choices. The practice of polygamy in and of itself is not condemned in the Bible.

                -7up

                Comment


                • #53
                  7up: Critics could always argue that Paul was the one teaching what was "worthy" and what was "unworthy" , thus Paul wanted to exercise power of religion over others. Of course, those critics tend to think that all religions are meant to exercise power over others, and they argue from that assumption.


                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  We're not arguing from that assumption. How about addressing the argument actually made, not the one that's easier for you to dismiss?
                  It appears that you missed my point.

                  You all approach Joseph Smith with the decision already made in your mind that he was a false prophet. With that perspective, you will interpret everything you see about him in that light.

                  I was comparing that to how non-religious people approach the Bible. Their mind is not open to it and view it as a collection of old myths, so they will view those things in a critical and negative light.

                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  Pork, shellfish, and certain other flesh was declared to be unclean under the Mosaic Covenant as a way of marking the Israelites as set apart;...
                  Some LDS view our dietary laws in the same way.

                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  The New Covenant established by Jesus' blood has different, non-ethnic markers, since it is intended for all people. This is rather different than something being reversed under the same covenant by the same "prophet."
                  The point is that God commanded for and against something; even when that thing is not good or bad in and of itself.

                  -7up
                  Last edited by seven7up; 08-04-2014, 01:08 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Abraham had more than one wife? I thought his wife was Sarah, and that he had a concubine as well. (O.K. - there's no real distinction, but ...)
                    Levirate marriage does make monogamy impossible from time to time.
                    "shall not multiply wives" doesn't prohibit polygamy - "not multiply" doesn't mean only one. A matter that would have been established most readily by saying "take not more than one" where "not mulitply" might lead to ambiguity. Wives weren't the only condition subject to the "not multiply" restriction: acquisition of horses was also covered. Again, you shall not have more than one horse simply isn't a reasonable understanding.
                    In this point of difference between Mormon and standard church theologies, Mormon teaching was more closely in accord with the Bible.
                    Last edited by tabibito; 08-04-2014, 01:25 AM.
                    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      You all approach Joseph Smith with the decision already made in your mind that he was a false prophet. With that perspective, you will interpret everything you see about him in that light.
                      No, I don't. I judge by the evidence proffered.
                      The point is that God commanded for and against something; even when that thing is not good or bad in and of itself.
                      The point is immaterial, for the reasons I stated above.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        7up: Joseph Smith did not "benefit" from "a new rule" that he "made up".
                        PLEASE LEARN HOW TO PROPERLY USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION!!!!
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                          Joseph's life was very difficult. Any objective observer could see that. He did not benefit in this life, but maybe he benefits for being faithful in this life, and thus is rewarded in the next.
                          Life GENERALLY was very difficult in his day. He ADDED to that by some really DUMB decisions he made, like bilking people out of money, his banking scandal, owning a hotel in which he ran a bar.. he was always coming up with schemes that made (or ATTEMPTED to make) money, BESIDES "marrying" the wives of some of his faithful followers WHILE THEY WERE STILL MARRIED.
                          Last edited by Cow Poke; 08-04-2014, 09:55 AM. Reason: life instead of live
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Abraham had more than one wife? I thought his wife was Sarah, and that he had a concubine as well. (O.K. - there's no real distinction, but ...)
                            Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died.
                            Levirate marriage does make monogamy impossible from time to time.
                            Actually, it doesn't. Levirate marriage applied to brothers living under the same roof, i.o.w. unmarried.
                            "shall not multiply wives" doesn't prohibit polygamy - "not multiply" doesn't mean only one. A matter that would have been established most readily by saying "take not more than one" where "not mulitply" might lead to ambiguity. Wives weren't the only condition subject to the "not multiply" restriction: acquisition of horses was also covered. Again, you shall not have more than one horse simply isn't a reasonable understanding.
                            In this point of difference between Mormon and standard church theologies, Mormon teaching was more closely in accord with the Bible.
                            Gen. 2:24 is probably a more appropriate defense of monogamy.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              Wrong. Anybody who reads the context of that passage can see that it is an abomination when men multiply wives unto themselves without the command of God.
                              Therefore, Smith committed an abomination, as he did it without the command of God.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died.
                                Fair enough - but I had interpreted the statement to mean that Abraham had more than one wife at the same time. Which is not to say that I knew he had taken another wife ... and .... concubineS - that was a surprise.

                                Actually, it doesn't. Levirate marriage applied to brothers living under the same roof, i.o.w. unmarried.
                                First time I've encountered that argument - I'll have to investigate.

                                Gen. 2:24 is probably a more appropriate defense of monogamy.
                                In the face of records concerning people who had more than one wife concurrently without any trace of censure, I consider the interpretation unconvincing.
                                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X