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

Eternal marriage

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

  • Eternal marriage

    Yeah, I know, I have posts to respond to...but while I was looking up passages for my response on the Heavenly Mother thread, I came across this. I never put these two passages together before:
    Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. (Rom 7:1-3)

    And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." (Luke 20:34-36)

    So marriage is really part of the law for living on earth, and only applies to life on earth. Why else would Jesus give "they can't die" as the reason why people don't get married in heaven?

  • #2
    The standard trope is that there will be no NEW marriages in heaven.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      The standard trope is that there will be no NEW marriages in heaven.
      Yes, I've seen that response to Jesus' teachings on marriage and resurrection. But I think the two passages together imply that marriage is only applicable when the involved parties can die, as marriage is only until death, and is therefore a stronger argument against marriage in heaven.

      Besides, it seems some LDS believe there are new marriages in heaven at some point, because they don't like to say that someone would be denied exaltation/entrance to the celestial heaven simply because they didn't get married during their life on earth. I've seen that sentiment expressed on the LDS board I'm on, and it seems to be expressed in Hinckley's speech:

      Originally posted by Gordon B. Hinckley
      Some who are not married, through no fault of their own, ask whether they will always be denied the highest degree of glory in that kingdom. I am confident that under the plan of a loving Father and a divine Redeemer, no blessing of which you are otherwise worthy will forever be denied you.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        The standard trope is that there will be no NEW marriages in heaven.
        That is the short, easy, and somewhat uninformed answer to the question. However, it hardly covers it.

        The real answer is that the scenario that was given to Jesus was based on the Law of Moses, a preparatory law which operated under the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. The children of Israel after their captivity in Egypt were not suited for the higher law, and therefore were given a preparatory law. According to that law, if a man died without having a child with his wife, then the brother of that man was to marry the wife in order to provide offspring (This a way that polygamy existed under the law by the way, but that is another discussion for another day.)

        The bottom line is that the blessing of eternal marriage did not exist under the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, but instead under the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Nobody in the scenario presented to Jesus had been sealed for eternity. This is a priesthood authority that was to be provided to humanity again, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:19)

        Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
        Yes, I've seen that response to Jesus' teachings on marriage and resurrection. But I think the two passages together imply that marriage is only applicable when the involved parties can die, as marriage is only until death, and is therefore a stronger argument against marriage in heaven.
        Again, the Romans passage is referring back to the "law", meaning the Law of Moses, and here Paul is alluding to it for an entirely different reason, being that the law was "dead".

        Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
        Besides, it seems some LDS believe there are new marriages in heaven at some point, because they don't like to say that someone would be denied exaltation/entrance to the celestial heaven simply because they didn't get married during their life on earth. I've seen that sentiment expressed on the LDS board I'm on, and it seems to be expressed in Hinckley's speech:
        You misunderstand. Those marriages do not occur in Heaven. Marriages must be performed on Earth, by those living in mortality. What is being referred to are ordinances and sealings which can be performed "vicariously" in the same sense that "baptisms for the dead" are performed vicariously.

        Allow me to elaborate a little further. According to scripture, the "Final Judgement" will occur at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth. LDS believe that during this time period, the communication between Heaven and Earth will be very strong, and those details of sealings will be dealt with in operating temples all over the Earth under the direction of Jesus Christ himself. According to LDS doctrine, it is at the end of this "Millenium" that individuals will be placed into their kingdom (Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial, etc).

        So, that is why the short answer of "no New marriages" will be made in heaven is technically correct, but I find it to be a short cut that can lead to misunderstandings.

        -7up

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          The bottom line is that the blessing of eternal marriage did not exist under the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, but instead under the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.
          Which I'd LOVE to see you support using scripture.

          In the meantime, let's look at how a General Authority in your church analyzed the verses from the Pharisees:

          Source: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/04/celestial-marriages-and-eternal-families?lang=eng


          When the Pharisees came to Jesus, tempting him, to ask about divorce, his answer included the following: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

          “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

          “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4–6).

          These scriptures indicate that celestial marriage, ordained by God and performed by his authority in his holy temples, is eternal, and couples so united are sealed for time and all eternity, and their children are born in the covenant of the everlasting gospel. They will be an eternal family according to their faithfulness.

          © Copyright Original Source

          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #6
            7up: The bottom line is that the blessing of eternal marriage did not exist under the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, but instead under the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Which I'd LOVE to see you support using scripture.
            How about this? How about I explain from scripture, that IF Adam and Eve had remained in the Garden of Eden without the Fall, then they would have remained in that married state? This paradise in the presence of God is representative of Heaven. This state of paradise, with the blessing of marriage in the presence of God is meant to be restored.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            In the meantime, let's look at how a General Authority in your church analyzed the verses from the Pharisees:
            Source: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/04/celestial-marriages-and-eternal-families?lang=eng


            When the Pharisees came to Jesus, tempting him, to ask about divorce, his answer included the following: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

            “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

            “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4–6).

            These scriptures indicate that celestial marriage, ordained by God and performed by his authority in his holy temples, is eternal, and couples so united are sealed for time and all eternity, and their children are born in the covenant of the everlasting gospel. They will be an eternal family according to their faithfulness.

            © Copyright Original Source



            I don't see your point Bill. The concept referenced by the general authority who cited Jesus and goes way back to Adam and Eve. Jesus was not pointing to the Law of Moses. In fact, Jesus specifically said that an end of marriages was contrary to God's will. "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

            In the Beginning, Adam and Eve were dwelling immortal in a paradisaical state, and the marriage was meant to be immortal/eternal in that state. This is the ideal existence and relationship, which was presented in the Garden of Eden when God blessed them and gave them their very first commandment, to have children. God never changed this bond, which is meant to exist in the immortal/paradisaical state in the presence of God.; and He certainly did not change his mind about it after the fall. It will be restored, but the difference will be that those who obtain it will now know good from evil, and will have chosen good over evil.

            Then Jehovah God said, "Behold, the man has become as one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "

            -7up
            Last edited by seven7up; 02-19-2015, 03:37 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              7up: The bottom line is that the blessing of eternal marriage did not exist under the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, but instead under the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.



              How about this? How about I explain from scripture, that IF Adam and Eve had remained in the Garden of Eden without the Fall, then they would have remained in that married state?
              How about you do this instead... show where there was a Melchizedek Priesthood possessed by anyone who was not the King of Jerusalem (whether heavenly or earthly Jerusalem).

              This paradise in the presence of God is representative of Heaven.
              No. It was innocence, not redemption.

              This state of paradise, with the blessing of marriage in the presence of God is meant to be restored.
              No it isn't. it is but a shadow of the relationship we are to have with Christ. Even in your belief system, God never intended for Eden to go on forever. He supposedly gave them instructions that would have forced them to choose one sin or the other, meaning they were destined to fall. In my belief system, Eve was given to Adam with God's foreknowledge that they would sin, but they were never told that their union was how it was in heaven nor how it was going to be there.

              Source: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/04/celestial-marriages-and-eternal-families?lang=eng


              When the Pharisees came to Jesus, tempting him, to ask about divorce, his answer included the following: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

              “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

              “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4–6).

              These scriptures indicate that celestial marriage, ordained by God and performed by his authority in his holy temples, is eternal, and couples so united are sealed for time and all eternity, and their children are born in the covenant of the everlasting gospel. They will be an eternal family according to their faithfulness.

              © Copyright Original Source



              I don't see your point Bill.
              The point is that this general authority equated the levirate marriage that the Pharisees were asking Jesus about with the marriage of Adam and Eve, which implies that all marriages joined by God are "celestial marriages" if they were done in God's temples. If the marriages that the Pharisees were asking about were NOT "celestial marriages", then these scriptures do not indicate anything about celestial marriages.

              The concept referenced by the general authority who cited Jesus and goes way back to Adam and Eve.
              No it doesn't. There were no "temples" before the tabernacle built by Moses and the Israelites. There is no mention of anyone holding a Melchizedek Priesthood except Jesus, David, and Melchizedek himself. Like most everything in your religion, this is yet another concept Joseph Smith stole and morphed into something completely unrecognizable.

              Jesus was not pointing to the Law of Moses.
              Because marriage was not instituted in the law of Moses. And the Law of Moses has nothing to do with the marriage ceremony, only laws that govern when it is mandated and when it is terminated for the Jews. No mention anywhere of priests performing ceremonies in any temple and no mention of higher priesthood holders doing anything.

              In fact, Jesus specifically said that an end of marriages was contrary to God's will. "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."
              In THIS lifetime, yes. But God's Word clearly says that it ends at death. See Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39.


              In the Beginning, Adam and Eve were dwelling immortal in a paradisaical state, and the marriage was meant to be immortal/eternal in that state.
              No it wasn't. God knew they would fall and that they would die. Their marriage was meant to be for their mortality. When one died, the other was no longer married.

              This is the ideal existence and relationship, which was presented in the Garden of Eden when God blessed them and gave them their very first commandment, to have children.
              Which He knew they could not obey if they obeyed His other command to them.

              Adam and Eve were told to multiply and replenish the earth, and they were told not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These commandments, the scriptures plainly state, contradict each other. See 2 Nephi 2:22-23.


              God never changed this bond,
              Agreed. The bond was never meant to be eternal.

              which is meant to exist in the immortal/paradisaical state in the presence of God.;
              Nope. Eden is not heaven.

              and He certainly did not change his mind about it after the fall. It will be restored, but the difference will be that those who obtain it will now know good from evil, and will have chosen good over evil.
              New heaven and new earth = new relationships. We will all be brothers and sisters and the bride of our ONLY spouse, Jesus Christ.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                How about you do this instead... show where there was a Melchizedek Priesthood possessed by anyone who was not the King of Jerusalem (whether heavenly or earthly Jerusalem).
                For starters, the single Book of Genesis goes from approximately 4000 B.C. to 1800 B.C. So, of the 66 books found in the Bible, the first book alone covers the most amount of time. Moses had very little information about that time period available to him when the Book of Genesis was compiled. Very little information is given even about Melchizedek himself, so obviously there is scant information about the priesthood prior to the Levitical order that God set up through Moses.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                No. It was innocence, not redemption.
                Obviously it was not redemption. They had not yet fallen, therefore redemption was not yet necessary.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                No it isn't. it is but a shadow of the relationship we are to have with Christ.
                Oh really? Do expect that Christ is going to divorce us (the Church) when we die? Just cut off the relationship?

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Even in your belief system, God never intended for Eden to go on forever. He supposedly gave them instructions that would have forced them to choose one sin or the other, meaning they were destined to fall.
                Wrong. We have been over this before. God gave Adam and Eve two commands that ONLY perfect beings could obey perfectly; a divine standard. Since Adam and Eve were not perfect or divine, they were not equipped to successfully fulfill both commands. So, while it is possible to fulfill both commands, Adam and Eve did not, and therefore fell. This is like the 10 commandments or Christ's beatitudes; God commands those things, even though he knows that we will not successfully implement them in our lives.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                In my belief system, Eve was given to Adam with God's foreknowledge that they would sin, but they were never told that their union was how it was in heaven nor how it was going to be there.
                The union of marriage was what God set up in the paradisaical/immortal state. Typically, Christians believe that it would have been better if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit. (Please tell me if you disagree.) If that is how it would have remained and if they would have always made the correct choice, then Adam and Eve would have remained in the presence of God, as immortal beings and married for eternity.

                When the Pharisees came to Jesus, tempting him, to ask about divorce, his answer included the following: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
                “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
                “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4–6).


                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                The point is that this general authority equated the levirate marriage that the Pharisees were asking Jesus about with the marriage of Adam and Eve, which implies that all marriages joined by God are "celestial marriages" if they were done in God's temples. If the marriages that the Pharisees were asking about were NOT "celestial marriages", then these scriptures do not indicate anything about celestial marriages.
                Wrong. The Levitical order provided through Moses allowed for divorce, which is what the Pharisees were asking about. However, Jesus said that this is only because of the hardness of their hearts. Then Jesus points to the true teaching about marriage and how it was set up "In the Beginning", as a union set up to exist in an immortal state in the presence of God.

                Just as there was a relationship with God that was broken with spiritual death with the fall, there is a potential break in the family relationships that God set up in paradise as well. The relationship with God which existed in the Garden is restored through the atonement, and so is the marriage union that God set up there. Simple.

                "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” , which is exactly what you are attempting to do Bill.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                No it doesn't. There were no "temples" before the tabernacle built by Moses and the Israelites.
                You don't know that. In fact, the creation story in Genesis IS considered by scholars to be a temple dedication text.
                A short article for you sir: Genesis 1 as Temple Text in the Context of Ancient Cosmology

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                There is no mention of anyone holding a Melchizedek Priesthood except Jesus, David, and Melchizedek himself....
                Again, the text of Genesis has very few historical details. You are making a HUGE assumption by claiming that since we don't have the detailed information of most of the Earth's human history wrapped up in a relatively short summary, then nobody held the priesthood or worshiped in temples in that time period.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Because marriage was not instituted in the law of Moses. And the Law of Moses has nothing to do with the marriage ceremony, only laws that govern when it is mandated and when it is terminated for the Jews. No mention anywhere of priests performing ceremonies in any temple and no mention of higher priesthood holders doing anything.
                Correct. Marriage is an institution given by God "In the Beginning" in the Garden and in the presence of God prior to the fall, NOT in the Law of Moses. Correct. The Levitical priesthood did not marry people in temples. Under that period, people were married "for time only", "till death do us part".

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                In THIS lifetime, yes. But God's Word clearly says that it ends at death. See Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
                First, Romans 7:2. Here's the context:

                1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
                2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
                3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man....
                5 . . . wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ."


                This section is talking about temporal law , not celestial law. The verse mentions how to know if someone is guilty of adultry, but really Paul is using the temporary nature of the Law under the Law of Moses as an analogy, saying that it was a precursor to a superior faith. Therefore, this verse does not provide the support that you wish it did. The same goes for 1 Cor 7:39, where Paul clearly is giving his opinion rather than commandment from God concerning a betrothed couple (verses 36-38) (who perhaps are being asked to abstain from marriage during a specific calling) and again whether or not it is considered adultery to remarry when a husband dies (verse 39).

                I find it fascinating that you are willing to use these wishy washy texts out of context and claim that they make a "clear" point in your favor, when in reality the scriptures are in fact very clear about God's intent for marriage "In the Beginning", and Jesus confirming this, rejecting divorce, and explaining how man and woman are to become "one flesh". Even Paul admits later in the same letter you referenced that, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." Yet, you conclude that God intends a divorce for every single faithfully married couple at the end of mortality. On top of it, you claim that Christ's relationship with the Church is analogous to marriage, .... a temporary union that ends at death!

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                No it wasn't. God knew they would fall and that they would die.
                Is it your position to say that God INTENDED for them to fall and die? Knowing that they would and wanting it to happen are two different things. You are gonna get twisted up on this argument too Bill.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Their marriage was meant to be for their mortality. When one died, the other was no longer married.
                They were married BEFORE mortality. They were married BEFORE the fall. Your stance here has no legs whatsoever. Nice try though.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Adam and Eve were told to multiply and replenish the earth, and they were told not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These commandments, the scriptures plainly state, contradict each other. See 2 Nephi 2:22-23.
                They are only contradictory for those who are not "like God's knowing good and evil". (Gen 3:5 and Gen 3:22)

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Nope. Eden is not heaven.
                Heaven is in the presence of God.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                New heaven and new earth = new relationships. We will all be brothers and sisters and the bride of our ONLY spouse, Jesus Christ.
                Just because marriage is compared to the relationship between the Church and Christ, does not mean that marriage is an invalid institution. That is just another foolish argument Bill.

                -7up
                Last edited by seven7up; 02-20-2015, 03:25 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                  For starters, the single Book of Genesis goes from approximately 4000 B.C. to 1800 B.C. So, of the 66 books found in the Bible, the first book alone covers the most amount of time. Moses had very little information about that time period available to him when the Book of Genesis was compiled. Very little information is given even about Melchizedek himself, so obviously there is scant information about the priesthood prior to the Levitical order that God set up through Moses.
                  I'm asking for the ENTIRE BIBLE, not just Genesis. How about you do this instead... show where there was a Melchizedek Priesthood possessed by anyone who was not the King of Jerusalem (whether heavenly or earthly Jerusalem). So quit trying to answer the question you hoped I asked.


                  Obviously it was not redemption. They had not yet fallen, therefore redemption was not yet necessary.
                  And thus, it was not heaven. It was Earth.


                  Oh really? Do expect that Christ is going to divorce us (the Church) when we die? Just cut off the relationship?
                  Divorce is not what happens to our marriages when we die. If we die spiritually (apostasy), our marriage to Christ is cancelled. Or are you now going to support OSAS?


                  Wrong. We have been over this before. God gave Adam and Eve two commands that ONLY perfect beings could obey perfectly; a divine standard.
                  Wrong again. That is your THEORY, but contradicts what your church publishes through official channels (e.g. Quinn McCay in the January '71 Ensign or the LDS manual Preparing for Exaltation)

                  Since Adam and Eve were not perfect or divine, they were not equipped to successfully fulfill both commands.
                  And did Elohim know that? If so, he gave them a conflicting set of commands, as Quinn McCay stated in the Ensign article.

                  So, while it is possible to fulfill both commands, Adam and Eve did not, and therefore fell.
                  It was not possible for them.

                  This is like the 10 commandments or Christ's beatitudes; God commands those things, even though he knows that we will not successfully implement them in our lives.
                  But He does not force us to choose one or another that will directly result in our sinning.

                  The union of marriage was what God set up in the paradisaical/immortal state.
                  No. It was what He set up in the state of innocence with perfect foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore become mortal. They didn't fool God when they sinned.

                  Typically, Christians believe that it would have been better if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit. (Please tell me if you disagree.)
                  It would have been better for them had they not sinned, yes. And Gen 3:16 implies that childbirth in that innocent state was possible for them, because "multiplying" pain in childbirth would have meant nothing if there was no childbirth in paradise in the first place.

                  If that is how it would have remained and if they would have always made the correct choice, then Adam and Eve would have remained in the presence of God, as immortal beings and married for eternity.
                  And if God had created frogs with wings, they wouldn't bump their butts when they jumped. But God knows all and did exactly what He foresaw. He knew Adam and Eve would fall before He ever created them, and gave her to him with that in mind. Marriage was for as long as God foreknew they would live.

                  Wrong. The Levitical order provided through Moses allowed for divorce, which is what the Pharisees were asking about.
                  Because that's ALL there was. There was no such thing as a "higher priesthood" held by anyone who was not the King of Jerusalem.

                  However, Jesus said that this is only because of the hardness of their hearts. Then Jesus points to the true teaching about marriage and how it was set up "In the Beginning", as a union set up to exist in an immortal state in the presence of God.

                  Wrong. Jesus explained that it was set up "until death do they part", as Adam and Eve both died.

                  Just as there was a relationship with God that was broken with spiritual death with the fall, there is a potential break in the family relationships that God set up in paradise as well.
                  It's called premature divorce. Natural death ends the natural union of man and wife in God's eyes. It allows for a new union to be formed without polygamy. Or are you claiming that getting remarried after a spouse dies is committing polygamy?

                  The relationship with God which existed in the Garden is restored through the atonement, and so is the marriage union that God set up there. Simple.
                  No it isn't. The atonement does not "restore" something that never existed. Adam and Eve's marriage was for the duration of their lives.

                  "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” , which is exactly what you are attempting to do Bill.
                  So, remarriage after death is polygamy then, huh?


                  You don't know that.
                  Yes I do. The Bible lists no prior tabernacle.

                  In fact, the creation story in Genesis IS considered by scholars to be a temple dedication text.
                  A short article for you sir: Genesis 1 as Temple Text in the Context of Ancient Cosmology
                  The universe is considered God's Temple because His presence dwells there. It doesn't mean that the universe had a priesthood class to perform the temple rituals. Walton is describing a metaphorical temple, not a physical structure attended by priests.


                  Again, the text of Genesis has very few historical details. You are making a HUGE assumption by claiming that since we don't have the detailed information of most of the Earth's human history wrapped up in a relatively short summary, then nobody held the priesthood or worshiped in temples in that time period.
                  That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that NOWHERE in the Bible is anyone else said to possess this priesthood except 3 kings of Jerusalem. It is that fact that gives them the priesthood to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people of Jerusalem. And there was only ONE at a time.


                  Correct. Marriage is an institution given by God "In the Beginning" in the Garden and in the presence of God prior to the fall, NOT in the Law of Moses. Correct. The Levitical priesthood did not marry people in temples. Under that period, people were married "for time only", "till death do us part".
                  That's completely false. The first descriptions of marriage we see after Adam and Eve's was Isaac and Rebecca. There is no hint of them being married "for time and eternity", nor was there any hint of a priest performing the ceremony. It was a 3 stage process arranged between the groom and the bride's father. That's it.

                  A. Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond)
                  • i. The bride would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah".
                    ii. Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet.
                    iii. Young children were often married, (arraigned marriage) but did not consummate until of age.

                  B. Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation.
                  • i. Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the money as set out in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride's home.
                    ii. The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and his companions.
                    iii. The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or in the next room.
                    iv. The groom hands the bloodied "proof of virginity cloth" to the witnesses chosen by the bride's parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping.

                  C. Stage 3: The wedding feast
                  • i. After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a procession for a wedding feast.
                    ii. At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the ancient ritual of marriage.

                  http://www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient...-the-bible.htm

                  So, as we see, this invention of Joseph Smith has ZERO basis in reality. No Melchizedek Priesthood to seal a couple "for time and eternity".

                  First, Romans 7:2. Here's the context:

                  1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
                  2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
                  3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man....
                  5 . . . wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ."


                  This section is talking about temporal law , not celestial law.
                  There is no such thing as "celestial law". God's law is God's law. And marriage is part of God's law. It is for this life only. Always has been, always will be.

                  The verse mentions how to know if someone is guilty of adultry, but really Paul is using the temporary nature of the Law under the Law of Moses as an analogy, saying that it was a precursor to a superior faith. Therefore, this verse does not provide the support that you wish it did. The same goes for 1 Cor 7:39, where Paul clearly is giving his opinion rather than commandment from God concerning a betrothed couple (verses 36-38) (who perhaps are being asked to abstain from marriage during a specific calling) and again whether or not it is considered adultery to remarry when a husband dies (verse 39).
                  Again, you eisegete what Paul is saying. You import this nonsense about "celestial law" which is a non-existent thing and try to nullify God's commandments and laws that marriage is terminated on one spouse's death.

                  I find it fascinating that you are willing to use these wishy washy texts out of context

                  I find it fascinating that you think that a discussion on marriage is out of context on a debate about marriage

                  and claim that they make a "clear" point in your favor,
                  They do.

                  when in reality the scriptures are in fact very clear about God's intent for marriage "In the Beginning", and Jesus confirming this, rejecting divorce, and explaining how man and woman are to become "one flesh".
                  God's intent for marriage, as Paul was saying, was for a marriage to not be terminated by divorce.

                  Even Paul admits later in the same letter you referenced that, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
                  Yes. But Paul is not saying anything about permanence of marriage here, but of shame and honor. A woman's shame or honor (because of her head covering or lack thereof) is shared by her husband because they are married. Same with a man's honor or shame being shared by the woman. The context is not even close to being about eternal marriage. And what was that you said earlier?... I find it fascinating that you are willing to use these wishy washy texts out of context.

                  Yet, you conclude that God intends a divorce for every single faithfully married couple at the end of mortality.
                  Strawman alert!! No. Divorce is a breaking of the marriage contract for living couples. At death, the marriage contract is finished, just like property ownership (which is what Jewish marriages basically were).

                  On top of it, you claim that Christ's relationship with the Church is analogous to marriage, .... a temporary union that ends at death!
                  And considering we who are married to Christ will never die, then it will never end!

                  Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.


                  Is it your position to say that God INTENDED for them to fall and die?
                  No. it is my position that He KNEW they would.

                  Knowing that they would and wanting it to happen are two different things.
                  I know that.

                  You are gonna get twisted up on this argument too Bill.
                  It's you who is twisting arguments. There's more straw in your posts than in a hay field in Indiana.


                  They were married BEFORE mortality. They were married BEFORE the fall.
                  With God's full knowledge that they would fall.

                  Your stance here has no legs whatsoever. Nice try though.
                  It has more legs than a millipede. Your stance has less legs than the Black Knight after Arthur left.


                  They are only contradictory for those who are not "like God's knowing good and evil". (Gen 3:5 and Gen 3:22)
                  And God knew that Adam and Eve didn't know it, therefore, the commands FORCED them to sin.


                  Heaven is in the presence of God.
                  No it isn't.


                  Just because marriage is compared to the relationship between the Church and Christ, does not mean that marriage is an invalid institution. That is just another foolish argument Bill.
                  Strawman... I never implied that it was "invalid". I said that it doesn't exist in the resurrection and the new heavens and new earth. And scripture backs me up fully.
                  Last edited by Bill the Cat; 02-20-2015, 09:47 AM.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    7up wrote: For starters, the single Book of Genesis goes from approximately 4000 B.C. to 1800 B.C. So, of the 66 books found in the Bible, the first book alone covers the most amount of time. Moses had very little information about that time period available to him when the Book of Genesis was compiled. Very little information is given even about Melchizedek himself, so obviously there is scant information about the priesthood prior to the Levitical order that God set up through Moses.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    I'm asking for the ENTIRE BIBLE, not just Genesis. How about you do this instead... show where there was a Melchizedek Priesthood possessed by anyone who was not the King of Jerusalem (whether heavenly or earthly Jerusalem). So quit trying to answer the question you hoped I asked.
                    Your question is based on a false premise. The typical Protestant/Evangelical view is that the 66 books that have been compiled to make "the Bible" are a complete record of God's dealing with humanity. LDS reject this premise and it is obvious, even by reading the Bible itself, that many things occurred which are not found in our current "Bible". We have, for example, a list of the following:

                    Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

                    My point is that Genesis is the only time period in the Old Testament where the Melchizedek priesthood was dominant on the Earth, however, as I mentioned, that is a very long time period in human history. The thing is that Genesis is likely a brief oral history passed down by the Israelites that was eventually written down by Moses. We don't have a detailed account of much of anything that occurred in that long, long history. The detailed account which we find in the Old Testament consists of what occurred after the advent of Exodus under the Levitical priesthood.

                    In the New Testament, Jesus is at the head of the "order of Melchizedek" and passes that authority to the apostles. While Protestant traditions downplay the scriptures of the New Testament which point towards the need for authority, they also downplay the priesthood, by claiming that there exists a "priesthood of all believers". In other words, an Evangelical view is that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ is a "priest", and that is how they get around those passages.

                    The early church had priests along with bishops and deacons. Origen spoke of the church organization in the 2nd century describing the priest's office , including bishop. Eusebius discussed those in the church who held the priesthood (i.e. bishops, presbyters or elders, priests, deacons, etc.) and distinguished them from the lay members both men and women. Documents from the early Church show that the Aaronic Priesthood remained as part of the early Christian church. 1 Clement divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites/Deacons. The Levites/Deacons and according to Justin's First Apology were responsible for passing the bread and wine to those attending service. The term priest is found in the New Testament, as well as pastor (Ephesians 4:11), evangelist (Acts 21:8); (2 Timothy 4:5), presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14), and seventy (Luke 10:1),(Luke 10:17). The full view of the early New Testament church is not readily available because we have a relatively few documents available to us from the Apostles themselves, but the "Protestant/Evangelical view of a priesthood of all believers" is a rather weak argument.

                    7up wrote: Obviously it was not redemption. They had not yet fallen, therefore redemption was not yet necessary.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    And thus, it was not heaven. It was Earth.
                    Heaven existed before the Fall. Heaven existed before redemption. If you are in the presence of God, then you are in Heaven. The intention that God has for Earth is to have "Heaven on Earth". That is the paradisaical state that the Garden represents in the Genesis text, and God wants to bring us back to that paradisaical state in His presence.

                    7up wrote: Do expect that Christ is going to divorce us (the Church) when we die? Just cut off the relationship?

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Divorce is not what happens to our marriages when we die.
                    Then what does happen to our marriages when we die? You don't want to call it a "divorce", but that is essentially what you are describing. Is that the same thing that happens to Christ's relationship to the Church in the next life?

                    Your analogy fails.

                    7up: We have been over this before. God gave Adam and Eve two commands that ONLY perfect beings could obey perfectly; a divine standard.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Wrong again. That is your THEORY, but contradicts what your church publishes through official channels (e.g. Quinn McCay in the January '71 Ensign or the LDS manual Preparing for Exaltation)

                    And did Elohim know that? If so, he gave them a conflicting set of commands, as Quinn McCay stated in the Ensign article.

                    It was not possible for them.
                    You are correct, it was not possible for them. They did NOT know good and evil because they were not "as the gods knowing good and evil" until AFTER they ate the fruit. You don't even understand the details my argument, (you haven't attempted to understand it), which is why you pretend that it conflicts with the articles you provided. I argued that IF Adam and Eve were Deity, then they could fulfill the commands. Obviously they were not Deity, which is why they did not. Here is the pertinent passage from the Book of Mormon found in 2 Nephi 2:22-23

                    And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

                    Since Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil, they were not "as the gods" (Gen 3:5 and Gen 3:22). Only a perfectly divine being can fulfill all of the commandments of God. Your argument that it is not fair for God to command something that he knows we cannot fulfill falls flat on its face, because every person who studies the Bible understands that God knew that the Israelites would not be able to fulfill the commands given in the Law of Moses, and God knew that the New Testament Church would not be able to live up to the Sermon on the Mount. The very fact that God knew that Adam and Eve and everyone else would not fulfill divine commands is precisely why he foreordained Jesus Christ to pay the debt of sin as our Savior.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    But He does not force us to choose one or another that will directly result in our sinning.
                    You misrepresent the LDS position. God did not "force" them to choose anything.

                    7up wrote: The union of marriage was what God set up in the paradisaical/immortal state.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    No.
                    Yes, God set up the union. Yes, they were in the presence of God. Yes, they were in paradise. Yes, they were immortal.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    It was what He set up in the state of innocence with perfect foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore become mortal. They didn't fool God when they sinned.
                    I never said that they "fooled God." And of course God knew that they would fall. That is the LDS position entirely. However, your argument from your theological standpoint is flawed Bill. On one hand you have to argue that God did NOT intend Adam and Eve to Fall and did not intend for them enter into mortality, yet on the other hand you have to argue that God instituted marriage in the garden which is ONLY intended for mortality.

                    In reality, the truth is very simple. The blessing of marriage was given in immortality, in the presence of God, because it is intended to exist in immortality, in the presence of God.

                    7up wrote: Typically, Christians believe that it would have been better if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit. (Please tell me if you disagree.)

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    It would have been better for them had they not sinned, yes.
                    Explain your position further please.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    And Gen 3:16 implies that childbirth in that innocent state was possible for them, because "multiplying" pain in childbirth would have meant nothing if there was no childbirth in paradise in the first place.
                    Could VS Would

                    Yes, childbirth is possible in immortality and painless, but as Lehi explains in the scripture above, Adam and Eve "would not have had children" because of their state of innocence. They were like children, not even realizing they were naked. Therefore, they WOULD not have sexual relations just as in the same way that children are unaware of these things. In Chapter 3 of Genesis, God removes Adam and Eve from the Garden in the last verse of that chapter. Immediately after they are removed from the Garden, we see what happens in Genesis 4:1. It was at this point, now in mortality, that they knew good and evil, it was at this point that they were no longer in the state of innocence.

                    Your argument that Adam and Eve would have sexual intercourse in the Garden while in the state of innocence and while not even realizing that they were naked is a very poor argument indeed.

                    7up wrote: If that is how it would have remained and if they would have always made the correct choice, then Adam and Eve would have remained in the presence of God, as immortal beings and married for eternity.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    .... God knows all and did exactly what He foresaw. He knew Adam and Eve would fall before He ever created them, and gave her to him with that in mind. Marriage was for as long as God foreknew they would live.
                    Nonsense. The relationship was designed as part of the very creation which :

                    "And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." (Genesis 2:18) Here the Lord God makes a declarative statement that not only is marriage acceptable, but it is good. Therefore, to remain single and alone is not good. Does heaven contain things that are good, or things that are not good? If heaven contains good things, then it must contained married couples, since marriage has been defined by God himself as good. "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever:" (Ecclesiastes 3:14) And again "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6)

                    7up: The Levitical order provided through Moses allowed for divorce, which is what the Pharisees were asking about.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Because that's ALL there was. There was no such thing as a "higher priesthood" held by anyone who was not the King of Jerusalem.
                    That's all there was under the Law of Moses. Obviously, higher/Melchizedek priesthood was not held by Levitical priests.

                    The king known as "Melchizedek" is described by Paul as "a great man". When Abraham returned from the slaughter of the kings, he had spoils of war. A tenth of that was given to this "priest of the Most High God". We know nothing else for certain about this man, not even his genealogy (some speculate a line from Noah through Shem but it doesn't matter). The genealogy isn't necessary because it was only the Levitical priesthood that required priests to be of a specific tribe/lineage. The point is that the priesthood existed prior to the Levitical priesthood. The Bible simply does not have the complete record or details.

                    7up: Again, the text of Genesis has very few historical details. You are making a HUGE assumption by claiming that since we don't have the detailed information of most of the Earth's human history wrapped up in a relatively short summary, then nobody held the priesthood or worshiped in temples in that time period.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that NOWHERE in the Bible is anyone else said to possess this priesthood except 3 kings of Jerusalem.....
                    And the Bible barely even mentions even that. And so what? You are still assuming that the Bible explains everything about the priesthood that occurred between 4000 B.C. to 1800 B.C. , which is an assumption that no reasonable person should make.

                    7up wrote: However, Jesus said that this is only because of the hardness of their hearts. Then Jesus points to the true teaching about marriage and how it was set up "In the Beginning", as a union set up to exist in an immortal state in the presence of God.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Wrong. Jesus explained that it was set up "until death do they part", as Adam and Eve both died.
                    Ha! You are arguing that when Jesus refers to "In the Beginning", he is actually referring to when Adam and Eve DIED? That is ridiculous. "In the Beginning refers to the initial creation and Garden/Paradise state.

                    Perhaps you imagine that when God blessed Adam and Eve in marriage, God said in the vows "till death do you part". Then Adam and Eve look at each other and say, "Hmm, I guess we are going to eat of the tree and die after all". Your arguments unravel any way you try to twist out of it Bill.

                    7up wrote: The relationship with God which existed in the Garden is restored through the atonement, and so is the marriage union that God set up there. Simple.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    No it isn't. The atonement does not "restore" something that never existed.
                    How can you claim that their marriage in paradise and immortality "never existed"?

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Adam and Eve's marriage was for the duration of their lives.
                    God intended for the duration of their lives to go on forever in the presence of God. Whether he knew they would fall or not is irrelevant. It was IMPERFECTION which led to the Fall. Of course, in your theology this leads to you essentially having to admit that God intended for Adam and Eve to be imperfect and created them that way, and so on and so forth.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    It's called premature divorce.
                    All of it is "premature". If Adam and Eve had not fallen, they would still be married today, in immortality, and in the presence of God. That is precisely how God set it up.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Natural death ends the natural union of man and wife in God's eyes. It allows for a new union to be formed without polygamy. Or are you claiming that getting remarried after a spouse dies is committing polygamy?
                    It can be polygamy, but not necessarily.

                    7up wrote: You don't know that. (ie you don't know that there weren't prior priests or temples).

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Yes I do. The Bible lists no prior tabernacle.
                    I get it Bill. The idea that things existed which are not described in the books that have been compiled into the "the Bible" is foreign to you. I stand by my statement.

                    7up wrote: In fact, the creation story in Genesis IS considered by scholars to be a temple dedication text.
                    A short article for you sir: Genesis 1 as Temple Text in the Context of Ancient Cosmology


                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    The universe is considered God's Temple because His presence dwells there. It doesn't mean that the universe had a priesthood class to perform the temple rituals. Walton is describing a metaphorical temple, not a physical structure attended by priests.
                    No Bill. Walton is describing an actual temple dedication ceremony. A temple dedication ceremony was performed over the period of 7 days in order to represent and describe God's creation. The temple built (yes, actually a physical structure attended by priests) was representative of the construction of God's creation/Universe. This is what was being taught in the ceremony. John H. Walton writes:

                    "In the ancient world, temple dedications were often seven days in duration. During those 7 days, the functions of the temple would be proclaimed, the furniture and functionaries installed, the priests would take up their role and at the end, the Deity would enter and take up his rest."

                    Genesis 1 is described as an ancient temple dedication ceremony. The Temple being described by Walton is an actual temple, much like the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple where the "Holy of Holies" is where the "Deity would enter and take up his rest".

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    The first descriptions of marriage we see after Adam and Eve's was Isaac and Rebecca. There is no hint of them being married "for time and eternity", nor was there any hint of a priest performing the ceremony.
                    You sola scriptura folks are incredible. Since there is no description of marriage from Adam and Eve all the way to Abraham's time (with Isaac and Rebecca), then I guess you are just going to assume that the marriages then were the same as it was for the Levites under the law of Moses. And since you don't have recorded in your Bible the blessing that Abraham gave to his son Isaac and his bride Rebekah, you must assume that there must not have been a blessing given by Abraham at all.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    So, as we see, this invention of Joseph Smith has ZERO basis in reality. No Melchizedek Priesthood to seal a couple "for time and eternity".
                    No. We see that your position is based on the false assumption that the Bible is an absolutely complete history. This is a ridiculous assumption, considering how obvious it is that so much of what happened is not recorded there, especially in the time span covering the generations listed in Genesis.

                    -7up

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      PLEASE learn how to use the quote tags...

                      [ quote=7up] Your first statement
                      [ quote=Bill the Cat] My reply[/quote][/quote] looks like this:

                      Originally posted by 7up
                      Your first statement
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat
                      My reply

                      I'll get the post response up shortly.
                      Last edited by Bill the Cat; 02-24-2015, 10:44 AM.
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        7up wrote: For starters, the single Book of Genesis goes from approximately 4000 B.C. to 1800 B.C. So, of the 66 books found in the Bible, the first book alone covers the most amount of time. Moses had very little information about that time period available to him when the Book of Genesis was compiled. Very little information is given even about Melchizedek himself, so obviously there is scant information about the priesthood prior to the Levitical order that God set up through Moses.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        I'm asking for the ENTIRE BIBLE, not just Genesis. How about you do this instead... show where there was a Melchizedek Priesthood possessed by anyone who was not the King of Jerusalem (whether heavenly or earthly Jerusalem). So quit trying to answer the question you hoped I asked.
                        Your question is based on a false premise. The typical Protestant/Evangelical view is that the 66 books that have been compiled to make "the Bible" are a complete record of God's dealing with humanity.
                        That’s utterly false on EVERY level. I’ll just cite a few:
                        Source: http://iphc.org/beliefs/


                        We believe the Bible is the Word of God, the full and complete revelation of the plan and history of redemption.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Source: http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp


                        The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Source: http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_full.cfm#1


                        The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Nowhere do ANY state that the Bible is the complete record of God dealing with man.
                        LDS reject this premise and it is obvious, even by reading the Bible itself that many things occurred which are not found in our current "Bible". We have, for example, a list of the following:

                        Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).
                        And unless you have proof that ANY of these lost books list anything about a “higher priesthood”, then you are fallaciously arguing from silence. It’d be the same thing as me arguing that Adam stole the flaming sword from the cherubim named Gadreel while Gadreel was sleeping at the Garden of Eden’s entrance and Adam used it to slay the Leviathan, which Noah took the rib cage bones and fashioned the ark’s gopher wood to. It is plagiarized fiction, just like your fictional “priesthood class” nonsense that is plagiarized from the biblical mention of Melchizedek (the King of Salem) being a priest for His people.

                        My point is that Genesis is the only time period in the Old Testament where the Melchizedek priesthood was dominant on the Earth,
                        That’s utterly false. There was only ONE Melchizedek “priesthood holder”, and that was Melchizedek because HE was the King of Salem who offered sacrifices on behalf of his people –just like David and Jesus. Unless you are now in Jesus’ place as the king of Jerusalem, then you simply don’t qualify.

                        however, as I mentioned, that is a very long time period in human history. The thing is that Genesis is likely a brief oral history passed down by the Israelites that was eventually written down by Moses.
                        So what?
                        We don't have a detailed account of much of anything that occurred in that long, long history. The detailed account which we find in the Old Testament consists of what occurred after the advent of Exodus under the Levitical priesthood.
                        And silence is all you have. There is no indication of anything called a “higher priesthood” that anyone else had besides Melchizedek himself.

                        In the New Testament, Jesus is at the head of the "order of Melchizedek" and passes that authority to the apostles.
                        Jesus was the ONLY holder of that priesthood in the NT times, and is the only one now because He did not die and leave it to another one to succeed Him. And the term for “order” used in Hebrews (Gr. taxis) is referring to individual things in a sequence, not a collection of things. In fact, Hebrews 7:11 specifically uses the one-at-a-time “order of Aaron”, not the “order of the Levitical priests”.

                        While Protestant traditions downplay the scriptures of the New Testament which point towards the need for authority,


                        they also downplay the priesthood, by claiming that there exists a "priesthood of all believers".
                        False. We believe in a harmony of the presbyter and believer. Catholics agree with us:
                        Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm


                        As a matter of fact the profound and beautiful idea of the universal priesthood may be traced from Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 116), Irenæus, (Against Heresies IV.8.3), and Origen ("De orat.", xxviii, 9; "In Levit.", hom. ix, 1), to Augustine (City of God XX.10) and Leo the Great (Sermo, iv, 1), and thence to St. Thomas (Summa, III, Q. lxxxii, a. 1) and the Roman Catechism.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        In other words, an Evangelical view is that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ is a "priest", and that is how they get around those passages.
                        And that is the correct view. Notice however, that Evangelicals do NOT in any way reduce the need for the ministerial offices or the leadership positions of the Church as described in the Bible. The ONLY one we have an issue with is Apostle, because of the requirement of an Apostle to have actually seen the risen Lord.

                        The early church had priests along with bishops and deacons.
                        Bishops and Deacons were both considered “priests”.

                        Origen spoke of the church organization in the 2nd century describing the priest's office , including bishop.
                        Again, the offices were all encompassed under the term “priest” because they were the ones who were appointed as leaders over the church who would offer the Eucharist.

                        Eusebius discussed those in the church who held the priesthood (i.e. bishops, presbyters or elders, priests, deacons, etc.) and distinguished them from the lay members both men and women.
                        Only in terms of authority in proclaiming doctrine, church service, and discipline. In terms of being one who offers sacrifices for themselves, all Christians are priests.
                        Source: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/28/Priesthood_of_the_Christian____Peter_Chrysologus_on_Baptism_and_Confirmation.html


                        Listen now to what the Apostle urges us to do. I appeal to you, he says, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice. By this exhortation of his, Paul has raised all men to priestly status.
                        - St. Peter Chrysologus

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Documents from the early Church show that the Aaronic Priesthood remained as part of the early Christian church.
                        No they don’t. They use the Levitical Priesthood’s form and function to support the presbytery’s authority in the Church. Nowhere do they claim that the Levitical Priesthood survived after the Resurrection.
                        1 Clement divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites/Deacons.
                        No he doesn’t. In 1 Clem 40, he says there is A High Priest (Meaning ONE), priests, Levites, and laymen. He uses the labels of the former priesthood to explain about the authority structure in the New, as the context of 1 Clem 40 shows.

                        The Levites/Deacons and according to Justin's First Apology were responsible for passing the bread and wine to those attending service.
                        Justin does not mention “Levites” in Chapter 65

                        The term priest is found in the New Testament, as well as pastor (Ephesians 4:11), evangelist (Acts 21:8); (2 Timothy 4:5), presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14), and seventy (Luke 10:1),(Luke 10:17). The full view of the early New Testament church is not readily available because we have a relatively few documents available to us from the Apostles themselves, but the "Protestant/Evangelical view of a priesthood of all believers" is a rather weak argument.
                        It’s quite clear that you have no real clue what we mean by a “priesthood of all believers”. It’s not a free-for-all with no authority structure.

                        And again, as I’ve said numerous times, how the Early Church Fathers describe Church leadership is quite different from how your church is run.
                        Originally posted by 7up
                        7up wrote: Obviously it was not redemption. They had not yet fallen, therefore redemption was not yet necessary.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        And thus, it was not heaven. It was Earth.
                        Heaven existed before the Fall.
                        So did the earth. And heaven was not earth.

                        Heaven existed before redemption. If you are in the presence of God, then you are in Heaven.
                        Completely false. Even in your view this cannot be possible. The garden is where satan tempted Eve, and according to your religion, satan was cast out of heaven before creation.

                        The intention that God has for Earth is to have "Heaven on Earth".
                        Then why create heaven separate from earth?
                        That is the paradisaical state that the Garden represents in the Genesis text, and God wants to bring us back to that paradisaical state in His presence.
                        Heaven is FAR better than Eden.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        Do expect that Christ is going to divorce us (the Church) when we die? Just cut off the relationship? [/I]

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Divorce is not what happens to our marriages when we die.
                        Then what does happen to our marriages when we die?
                        They end naturally.

                        You don't want to call it a "divorce", but that is essentially what you are describing.
                        No it isn’t. Not even close. “Putting someone away” is not the same as them dying. One is initiated by a disgruntled spouse while the other is initiated by God taking life away. If you think the two are even remotely comparable, then you are even more blind than I had suspected.

                        Is that the same thing that happens to Christ's relationship to the Church in the next life?
                        Since the Church has been born again and not subject to death any longer, no.

                        Your analogy fails.
                        Your hat is pointy.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        ]7up: We have been over this before. God gave Adam and Eve two commands that ONLY perfect beings could obey perfectly; a divine standard.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Wrong again. That is your THEORY, but contradicts what your church publishes through official channels (e.g. Quinn McCay in the January '71 Ensign or the LDS manual Preparing for Exaltation)

                        And did Elohim know that? If so, he gave them a conflicting set of commands, as Quinn McCay stated in the Ensign article.

                        It was not possible for them.
                        You are correct, it was not possible for them. They did NOT know good and evil because they were not "as the gods knowing good and evil" until AFTER they ate the fruit. You don't even understand the details my argument, (you haven't attempted to understand it), which is why you pretend that it conflicts with the articles you provided. I argued that IF Adam and Eve were Deity, then they could fulfill the commands. Obviously they were not Deity, which is why they did not.
                        The commands were contradictory for Adam and Eve. Period. They were incapable of following both, so they were FORCED to choose which sin to commit. Dance all you want, but the fact remains that the commands were conflicting for Adam and Eve and Elohim knew full well that they were.

                        Here is the pertinent passage from the Book of Mormon found in 2 Nephi 2:22-23

                        And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

                        Since Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil, they were not "as the gods" (Gen 3:5 and Gen 3:22). Only a perfectly divine being can fulfill all of the commandments of God.
                        Sorry, but that’s not the commands that were supposedly given. They were 1) Do not eat of the tree and 2) Reproduce. They were conflicting commands. Adam cannot reproduce unless he eats and falls.

                        Your argument that it is not fair for God to command something that he knows we cannot fulfill falls flat on its face
                        That’s not what I am arguing at all. I am saying what Mormons say. That the two commands were conflicting for Adam and Eve. They COULD NOT obey both.

                        because every person who studies the Bible understands that God knew that the Israelites would not be able to fulfill the commands given in the Law of Moses,
                        Please show me two commands that conflict in the Torah. Not being able to do fulfill one is not the same as sinning against another command by fulfilling the first.

                        and God knew that the New Testament Church would not be able to live up to the Sermon on the Mount.
                        Sorry. That excuse fails just like the one before it. Unless you have evidence that Jesus commanded us to bless our neighbor and kill them at the same time. You obviously don’t want to understand that conflicting commandments are not the same as ideals to strive for.

                        The very fact that God knew that Adam and Eve and everyone else would not fulfill divine commands is precisely why he foreordained Jesus Christ to pay the debt of sin as our Savior.
                        It’s not about fulfilling divine commands. It’s about forcing them to choose one command that will result in disobeying another.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        But He does not force us to choose one or another that will directly result in our sinning.
                        You misrepresent the LDS position. God did not "force" them to choose anything.
                        He gave them 2 conflicting choices. By choosing not to eat, he was forcing them to not be fruitful and multiply.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        7up wrote: The union of marriage was what God set up in the paradisaical/immortal state.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        No.
                        Yes, God set up the union. Yes, they were in the presence of God. Yes, they were in paradise. Yes, they were immortal.
                        And God knew they would fall. Thus, He planned for Adam and Eve to be married for the duration of their lives, which He knew exactly how long that was going to be.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        It was what He set up in the state of innocence with perfect foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore become mortal. They didn't fool God when they sinned.
                        I never said that they "fooled God." And of course God knew that they would fall. That is the LDS position entirely. However, your argument from your theological standpoint is flawed Bill. On one hand you have to argue that God did NOT intend Adam and Eve to Fall and did not intend for them enter into mortality, yet on the other hand you have to argue that God instituted marriage in the garden which is ONLY intended for mortality.
                        That’s not flawed. It was not His intent that man would fall. But it was His complete foreknowledge that they would, and thus He set up marriage. Or are you suggesting that Jesus was “Plan B” and that “Plan A” was that they remain innocent forever?

                        In reality, the truth is very simple. The blessing of marriage was given in immortality, in the presence of God, because it is intended to exist in immortality, in the presence of God.
                        The truth is spelled out in scripture. Marriage is for this life.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        7up wrote: Typically, Christians believe that it would have been better if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit. (Please tell me if you disagree.)

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        It would have been better for them had they not sinned, yes.
                        Explain your position further please.
                        Why? Disobedience is never the favorable position.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        And Gen 3:16 implies that childbirth in that innocent state was possible for them, because "multiplying" pain in childbirth would have meant nothing if there was no childbirth in paradise in the first place.
                        Could VS Would

                        Yes, childbirth is possible in immortality and painless, but as Lehi explains in the scripture above, Adam and Eve "would not have had children" because of their state of innocence.
                        Then it was not POSSIBLE for them. QED
                        They were like children, not even realizing they were naked.
                        Do animals need to realize they are naked to engage in intercourse? Of course not!

                        Therefore, they WOULD not have sexual relations just as in the same way that children are unaware of these things.
                        If they would not have, then there could not have been any frame of reference to say that childbirth pain would “increase”.

                        In Chapter 3 of Genesis, God removes Adam and Eve from the Garden in the last verse of that chapter. Immediately after they are removed from the Garden, we see what happens in Genesis 4:1. It was at this point, now in mortality, that they knew good and evil, it was at this point that they were no longer in the state of innocence.



                        Your argument that Adam and Eve would have sexual intercourse in the Garden while in the state of innocence and while not even realizing that they were naked is a very poor argument indeed.
                        Why? Are you assuming that animals realize they are naked? Are you ascribing something to scripture that it does not say while handwaving away something that it implies based on your own argument from silence?
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Sorry to have to split this up into two posts, but I had to in order to respond fully, which is what this topic deserved.

                          Originally posted by 7up
                          7up wrote: If that is how it would have remained and if they would have always made the correct choice, then Adam and Eve would have remained in the presence of God, as immortal beings and married for eternity.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          .... God knows all and did exactly what He foresaw. He knew Adam and Eve would fall before He ever created them, and gave her to him with that in mind. Marriage was for as long as God foreknew they would live.
                          Nonsense. The relationship was designed as part of the very creation
                          Actually, no it wasn’t. It was not until AFTER God rested from His creation that He later created Eve. God created Adam on day 6 and then said “It is good”.

                          which :
                          "And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." (Genesis 2:18) Here the Lord God makes a declarative statement that not only is marriage acceptable, but it is good.
                          But He never says it was required nor that it was the way it was supposed to be originally. Or are you now going to claim that God’s creation before Eve wasn’t REALLY good?

                          Therefore, to remain single and alone is not good.
                          Utterly false.
                          1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

                          Does heaven contain things that are good, or things that are not good? If heaven contains good things, then it must contained married couples, since marriage has been defined by God himself as good.
                          It contains Jesus who is married to His bride, the Church. So, marriage is good, and marriage is in heaven. Just not earthly marriages between humans.

                          "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever:" (Ecclesiastes 3:14) And again "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6)
                          Neither verse means what you claim.

                          Originally posted by 7up
                          7up: The Levitical order provided through Moses allowed for divorce, which is what the Pharisees were asking about.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Because that's ALL there was. There was no such thing as a "higher priesthood" held by anyone who was not the King of Jerusalem.
                          That's all there was under the Law of Moses. Obviously, higher/Melchizedek priesthood was not held by Levitical priests.
                          There was only ONE holder at a time. The King of Salem/Jerusalem. Melchizedek died at some point. David died. Christ is alive forever more, and thus will not pass His priesthood to another. He ALONE is the High Priest and King who offers sacrifices on behalf of His people. Your president isn’t the King of Jerusalem, neither is your local bishop, and you certainly aren’t.

                          The king known as "Melchizedek" is described by Paul as "a great man". When Abraham returned from the slaughter of the kings, he had spoils of war. A tenth of that was given to this "priest of the Most High God". We know nothing else for certain about this man, not even his genealogy (some speculate a line from Noah through Shem but it doesn't matter). The genealogy isn't necessary because it was only the Levitical priesthood that required priests to be of a specific tribe/lineage. The point is that the priesthood existed prior to the Levitical priesthood. The Bible simply does not have the complete record or details.
                          But Joseph Smith sure didn’t let that get in his way, did he? He said to heck with the facts that we DO know (i.e. Melchizedek was KING of Salem) and that the only other two said to possess a priesthood in the manner that Melchizedek did were/are also Kings of Jerusalem.

                          Originally posted by 7up
                          7up: Again, the text of Genesis has very few historical details. You are making a HUGE assumption by claiming that since we don't have the detailed information of most of the Earth's human history wrapped up in a relatively short summary, then nobody held the priesthood or worshiped in temples in that time period.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that NOWHERE in the Bible is anyone else said to possess this priesthood except 3 kings of Jerusalem.....
                          And the Bible barely even mentions even that. And so what? You are still assuming that the Bible explains everything about the priesthood that occurred between 4000 B.C. to 1800 B.C. , which is an assumption that no reasonable person should make.
                          And YOU are following Joseph Smith’s lies that there was a whole class of people holding this incredibly important priesthood, and that everyone up to Moses just simply didn’t bother to mention it!! Sorry, but no. Any reasonable person should be able to see that Joseph Smith was a liar in this matter and hosts of others.

                          Originally posted by 7up
                          7up wrote: However, Jesus said that this is only because of the hardness of their hearts. Then Jesus points to the true teaching about marriage and how it was set up "In the Beginning", as a union set up to exist in an immortal state in the presence of God.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Wrong. Jesus explained that it was set up "until death do they part", as Adam and Eve both died.
                          Ha! You are arguing that when Jesus refers to "In the Beginning", he is actually referring to when Adam and Eve DIED? That is ridiculous. "In the Beginning refers to the initial creation and Garden/Paradise state.
                          In the beginning refers to the entire Adam and Eve story from Genesis. Jesus made that clear when they asked Him about marriage. Not my fault that you have to excuse Joseph Smith’s lies.

                          Perhaps you imagine that when God blessed Adam and Eve in marriage, God said in the vows "till death do you part".
                          Perhaps you think Adam and Eve were standing in front of God in a Mormon chapel with angelic groomsmen and seraphim bridesmaids? That they had a nice wedding cake and the Father’s dance?

                          Then Adam and Eve look at each other and say, "Hmm, I guess we are going to eat of the tree and die after all".
                          Your straw is burnt to a crisp.

                          Your arguments unravel any way you try to twist out of it Bill.
                          Your ignorance and delusion are quite obvious to everyone but you.

                          Originally posted by 7up
                          7up wrote: The relationship with God which existed in the Garden is restored through the atonement, and so is the marriage union that God set up there. Simple.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          No it isn't. The atonement does not "restore" something that never existed.
                          How can you claim that their marriage in paradise and immortality "never existed"?
                          Because you are conflating Eden with heaven. It’s pathetic.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Adam and Eve's marriage was for the duration of their lives.
                          God intended for the duration of their lives to go on forever in the presence of God.
                          So you DO believe that redemption was “Plan B”!! Wow… just wow…

                          Whether he knew they would fall or not is irrelevant.
                          It is WHOLLY relevant. It is the ONLY thing that matters! He knew and already had the answer in Christ. Jesus was not the “backup plan”

                          It was IMPERFECTION which led to the Fall.
                          No. It was free will.

                          Of course, in your theology this leads to you essentially having to admit that God intended for Adam and Eve to be imperfect and created them that way, and so on and so forth.
                          This crap again??

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          It's called premature divorce.
                          All of it is "premature".
                          So, you now claim that our deaths are “premature”, and that God doesn’t know the number of our days now? You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper, don’t you?

                          If Adam and Eve had not fallen, they would still be married today, in immortality, and in the presence of God. That is precisely how God set it up.
                          And they would have then been sinning by not going forth and multiplying, which would have expelled them from the garden anyway Your theology is an absolute mess.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Natural death ends the natural union of man and wife in God's eyes. It allows for a new union to be formed without polygamy. Or are you claiming that getting remarried after a spouse dies is committing polygamy?
                          It can be polygamy, but not necessarily.
                          Jello. Tree. Nail.

                          Originally posted by 7up
                          7up wrote: You don't know that. (ie you don't know that there weren't prior priests or temples).

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Yes I do. The Bible lists no prior tabernacle.
                          I get it Bill. The idea that things existed which are not described in the books that have been compiled into the "the Bible" is foreign to you. I stand by my statement.
                          Your argument is that arguments from silence are valid. Sorry, but the rest of the world that understands the rules of logic disagrees with you.

                          Originally posted by 7up
                          7up wrote: In fact, the creation story in Genesis IS considered by scholars to be a temple dedication text.
                          A short article for you sir: Genesis 1 as Temple Text in the Context of Ancient Cosmology


                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          The universe is considered God's Temple because His presence dwells there. It doesn't mean that the universe had a priesthood class to perform the temple rituals. Walton is describing a metaphorical temple, not a physical structure attended by priests.
                          No Bill. Walton is describing an actual temple dedication ceremony. A temple dedication ceremony was performed over the period of 7 days in order to represent and describe God's creation. The temple built (yes, actually a physical structure attended by priests) was representative of the construction of God's creation/Universe. This is what was being taught in the ceremony. John H. Walton writes:

                          "In the ancient world, temple dedications were often seven days in duration. During those 7 days, the functions of the temple would be proclaimed, the furniture and functionaries installed, the priests would take up their role and at the end, the Deity would enter and take up his rest."

                          Genesis 1 is described as an ancient temple dedication ceremony. The Temple being described by Walton is an actual temple, much like the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple where the "Holy of Holies" is where the "Deity would enter and take up his rest".
                          No, 7. Walton is not describing a physical temple building within the cosmos where only the priests may enter and the unclean are forbidden, as the Jerusalem temple was. He is describing a metaphorical “temple” where God resides. There is no mention of “higher priesthoods” held by specific humans or anything of the sort you are trying to shoehorn in here.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          The first descriptions of marriage we see after Adam and Eve's was Isaac and Rebecca. There is no hint of them being married "for time and eternity", nor was there any hint of a priest performing the ceremony.
                          You sola scriptura folks are incredible.
                          And you hairetikos are even better. Who needs truth when you can manufacture it based on silence?

                          Since there is no description of marriage from Adam and Eve all the way to Abraham's time (with Isaac and Rebecca), then I guess you are just going to assume that the marriages then were the same as it was for the Levites under the law of Moses.
                          You’re an idiot. I gave you the specifics of Isaac and Rebekah’s marriage from scripture. It’s you and your founder’s lies that manufacture a priesthood class and a blessing from Abraham that just so happens to coincide with how your religion does them. Silence FTW!!!

                          And since you don't have recorded in your Bible the blessing that Abraham gave to his son Isaac and his bride Rebekah, you must assume that there must not have been a blessing given by Abraham at all.
                          And you must assume that there were. So, did Adam steal the flaming sword while Gadreel was asleep or not?

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          So, as we see, this invention of Joseph Smith has ZERO basis in reality. No Melchizedek Priesthood to seal a couple "for time and eternity".
                          No. We see that your position is based on the false assumption that the Bible is an absolutely complete history.
                          Load of manure.
                          This is a ridiculous assumption, considering how obvious it is that so much of what happened is not recorded there, especially in the time span covering the generations listed in Genesis.
                          And we see that YOUR position is based on a con-man’s fabricated stories thousands and thousands of years removed from the actual events that use the event’s silence as a smoke screen to cover up the glaring contradictions in what there IS given in related passages.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Um, Bill, you do realize that Eve was made on day six as well, right?

                            Genesis 1:26-28New International Version (NIV)

                            26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

                            27 So God created mankind in his own image,
                            in the image of God he created them;
                            male and female he created them.
                            28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

                            If Eve was made after God's rest on day 7, then the above verses aren't true.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              Um, Bill, you do realize that Eve was made on day six as well, right?

                              Genesis 1:26-28New International Version (NIV)

                              26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

                              27 So God created mankind in his own image,
                              in the image of God he created them;
                              male and female he created them.
                              28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

                              If Eve was made after God's rest on day 7, then the above verses aren't true.
                              You are correct. My mistake. But my point remains. Genesis 2 shows that man was created first, and then God created woman to be His helper since He was alone. God took a break from creating and allowed Adam the time to name the animals before Eve was created, which Gen 2 shows was somewhat of a reaction by God to Adam's solitude. Again, this was because God foreknew Adam and Eve would fall.

                              So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:20–22)
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment

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