Posted on 09/01/2007 8:44:09 AM PDT by Ottofire
“BECAUSE...according to the Bible the Church is the BRIDE of Christ.”
Like Zell Miller said: It’s called a metaphor, you know what a metaphor is, right? Like when someone is said to be married to their work. We don’t take that as meaning they don’t have a spouse.
If you think it isn’t a metaphor, then you have to toss the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and come up with some definition that allows a man to be married to a group of people who believe in him.
That you are clueless regarding why God as a man would not be married to one or more women, thus becoming ‘one flesh’ with one or more ‘adamic nature’ humans (the wives) says a lot about your spiritual state as a Mormon rather than a Christian. Am I saying you are not a Christian? Of course not, but I am saying if you are a Christian you are far off from a close relationship with The Lord to edify/transform your mind since you would not instantly recognize why Jesus would not be joined to ‘other flesh’ during his sojourn as God with us.
“So when we hear the Apostle Orson Hyde teach in the Journal of Discourses, the Mormon can ignore it?”
If it is something outside of what is taught in our scriptures, yes, they can ignore it. They can also go to the Lord themselves and ask God if the thing was true and find out for themselves. Either way however, it is not the doctrine of the church. The doctrine is defined by what is in our scriptures.
The JoD is not a church publication, so it is not an official writing of the church or a product of their official calling and it is not a source for doctrine. The speeches in there are the opinions of the speakers, and the way the transcripts were made left lots of room for mistakes to be made in the record.
Since you posted this thread, is there some obscure reason why you are not dealing with these Mormonism fallacies (like the insult of why wouldn’t Jesus be married to one or more women while he was on earth) as they arise in offense to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Well, since you claim it is something we should be able to ‘instantly recognize’ you ought to be able to actually express why you think Christ could not have possibly been married instead of just casting stones at us for asking what would be wrong if he was.
Go ahead, I’m all ears.
‘The two shall become one flesh’ ... ‘Leaving Father and Mother and cleave unto each other’ ... ‘To mind the things of the flesh is to be carnally minded’ ... are you getting the picture yet, Grig? You Mormons may believe Jesus was not God with us and only became ‘exalted’ with His death and resurrection thus He would not have been any different from men while he walked among us before the cross, but a real Christian who has studied to show themselves approved is immediately offended by the foolishness of entertaining that Jesus would have been married and perhaps had children while God with us. There are a host of more scriptures (in the Bible, Grig, not the BM) which show why Jesus was not sexually minded and was not joined with ‘other flesh’, so why don’t you search the scriptures and understand the foundational principles of Christianity, as opposed to Mormonism?
You are more patient than I. Perhaps you would enjoy this one.
I suggest you re-think you position on marriage. Read Genesis 1 & 2. Adam and Eve were brought together as husband and wife by God BEFORE the fall. They lived as husband and wife in the Garden of Eden BEFORE the fall in a state of perfection. In other words, the institution of marriage PRECEDED the fall and is not a carnal relationship of fallen man as you claim. It is a holy and pure relationship given by God to His perfect creations—Adam and Eve.
“‘The two shall become one flesh’ ... ‘Leaving Father and Mother and cleave unto each other’ ... ‘To mind the things of the flesh is to be carnally minded’ ... are you getting the picture yet, Grig?”
Yes, I get the picture that you can’t tell the difference between the love that should exist between a husband and wife and carnal lust. There is nothing wrong or ungodly about the love God wants husbands and wives to have for each other, including their sexual desires for each other.
“You Mormons may believe Jesus was not God with us and only became ‘exalted’ with His death and resurrection thus He would not have been any different from men while he walked among us before the cross,”
We believe Christ is the God of Israel, Jehovah, the great I AM. He was still all that during his mortal life, but he was every bit as much a mortal human as we are except for his ability to control his death and take his life up again.
“but a real Christian who has studied to show themselves approved is immediately offended by the foolishness of entertaining that Jesus would have been married and perhaps had children while God with us.”
If the only reason for being offended is this confusion between godly love between spouses and carnal lust then all you are doing is showing that I am right, it is all rooted in an unhealthy attitude towards sexuality.
Sex is not some dirty little thing, the power to bring a new child into the world is the most sacred and god-like power we have been given. Satan wants us to abuse it, or reject it, or be ashamed of it. God wants us, even commanded us, to find a spouse and raise a family.
Thanks for your post. Clueless I might be about many things, but your mention of " ‘adamic nature’ humans (the wives)" gives me a clue about your thinking.
Apparently, you believe that Jesus Christ is one Person having two distinct natures, one Divine and one human. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) Hence it is often stated that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. I gather that this is something of a paradox for traditional Christians, who view the Divine and the human as completely different from each other. I am guessing that you consider sexuality as belonging wholly to the human nature, and incompatible with the God nature.
Am I right thus far?
What if Satan imitated God to the “prophets” and convinced them to sin in multiple marriages? I am leery of what you say. Jesus spoke in the Gospels about adultery, he was quite clear.
As soon as you introduce mormonism into a discussion
of Christ, you lose all credibility.
Of course God is truth, God is unchanging, and God is eternal.
However, God gives different commandments at different times, to fit the circumstances and limitations of mankind. Moses was not given the commandment to build the Ark, for instance.
What if Satan imitated God to the “prophets” and convinced them to sin in multiple marriages? I am leery of what you say. Jesus spoke in the Gospels about adultery, he was quite clear.
And God is quite clear about adultery in our latter-day scriptures: he strictly forbids it. But he does not forbid sexual relations within a lawful marriage; indeed, I would say he encourages it. In times and places where plural marriage is legal and commanded by God, sexual relations with more than one wife is not adultery.
As for Satan imitating God, that is always a danger to watch out for. Although we consider our leaders to be inspired men, we do not consider them to be infallible. They sometimes express their own opinions, which may be mistaken.
How then do you tell whether a man is inspired by God or not? We believe that you must study out the issue in your own mind, consulting the scriptures and your own experience, and then ask God. Ultimately, it is through the power of the Holy Spirit that you may know the truth of all things.
“Commanded” by God? rme
Certainly. The reason the LDS Church excommunicates polygamists is that God has commanded that plural marriage not be practiced. Presumably, he could command otherwise, although I do not expect him to do so.
Orson Pratt mentioned in the article, was brother to Parley P Pratt, Romney’s great great grandad. Parley and Orson were both Apostles. Parley was bowie knifed and shot by an irate husband for stealing his woman and kids to make her the 10th out of 12 wives. Eventually, Bishop Romney will be up to his ears explaining polygamy etc.
“I’m not Mormon, but I do know that if you took speculation from the ministers and laypeople”
Except Orson Pratt was an Apostle.
“After learning that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon from behind a blanket by translating golden plates inscribed in ‘reformed Egyptian’ with his face buried in a hat with a magic stone in it and occasionally using giant spectacles, I have no problem with it.”
Except the plates were hidden buried on the hillside when he did the translation, this confirms it even more.
“Note that we do not consider as prophecy everything the president says; he is a prophet only when acting as such.”
In other words, he can have a revelation that his revelation wasn’t a revelation. And he can have a revelation that a non-revelation is a revelation if it turns out to be true. It’s good work if you can get it.
If a person honestly has a question about Jesus Christ, they might begin by simple reading His Word. Nowhere is Scripture are such notions implied nor suggested, but their contrary is probably supported by multiple doctrines.
Such suggestions about Jesus Christ having wives and fathered biological offspring make about as much sense as an egotisical wife claiming her husband is having affairs when they are working and sleeping 24/7 trying to pay bills. If one simply read Scripture, one would be hard pressed to find enough time in the life of Jesus Christ to have had a wife and children, let alone abiding to the many responsibilities of an immediate family, not to mention missing the entire point of the Incarnation.
The entire affair, IMHO, is simply an obfuscation by those who lack the patience to read Scripture, or humility to learn from Him how to have a relationship with God through faith in Christ. They seek to encourage believers to disprove negatives, while they lack the patience to hear the Truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.