Posted on 09/01/2007 8:44:09 AM PDT by Ottofire
The issue is not the God nature of Jesus, it is the fallen nature of the wife or wives you Mormons would have him becoming one flesh with. But I can understand why this goes swishing right over your heads.
FastCoyote either you have short term memory or you just fib like this!
We been through this a few weeks ago an it was in conclusive.
...and today you talk about as thought it is cut and dry and a fact!
And you say you had a crooked partern you are not far behind!
Except Orson Pratt was an Apostle.
FastCoyote your bias is showing again!
I love it you read a hit peace on the LDS and you act if though everything in this strawman is factual!
When you come down to it I wonder why we are even discussing this thread with others when it is a strawman argument?
Is the long addition Smith inserted at the end of chapter 50 in Genesis factually posted? Stop trying to dismiss truth which exposes the heresies in Mormonism by merely claiming the facts are strawmen and or have been refuted ‘weeks ago’. That is a bold lie, but still a lie Resty.
FC: Orson Pratt mentioned in the article, was brother to Parley P Pratt, Romneys 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.
“We been through this a few weeks ago an it was in conclusive.”
What are you talking about, there’s nothing inconclusive about any of that. Maybe you will argue whether it was indeed wife stealing, but you can’t argue polygamy, being butchered with a knife by an irate husband, Romney family polygamy, connections to the Pratt’s or any of it.
Here’s the Pratt/Romney connection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt-Romney_family
Here’s some more high involvement in the Mormon Church:
Marion George Romney (September 19, 1897May 20, 1988) was a high-ranking official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Born in Colonia Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico to parents who had come from the United States to spread the Church, he was the son of George S. Romney and a cousin of Michigan governor George W. Romney, who was born in nearby Colonia Dublan. Elder Romney’s family left Mexico in 1912 as violence from the ongoing Mexican revolution spead to their region. He spent the remainder of his youth in California and Idaho. Marion G. Romney’s 47 years as a General Authority of the Church began when he was the first person ever called to fill the position of an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1941 (the position was abolished in 1976). In 1951 he was advanced to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles himself, and served on that body until he became Second Counselor in the First Presidency when Harold B. Lee, with whom he had worked on the Church Welfare program, became Church President in 1972.
Lee’s death the following year brought Spencer W. Kimball to the Church Presidency; who retained Romney and First Counselor Nathan Eldon Tanner in their positions. As Kimball, Tanner, and Romney all became octogenarians and developed health problems, it was decided to add Gordon B. Hinckley as an additional counselor in 1981. Upon Tanner’s death in 1982 Romney was named First Counselor and Hinckley Second Counselor, but Romney was fairly inactive in this position. When Kimball died in 1985 press reports indicated Romney had not been seen in public for many months.
*****
The Mexican colonys were polygamist enclaves. So the Romney’s aren’t just Joe Mormon down the street, they are part of the fabric of the church.
Im not Mormon, but I do know that if you took speculation from the ministers and laypeople
Except Orson Pratt was an Apostle.
FastCoyote your bias is showing again!
************
Statements of fact are not bias.
“The issue is not the God nature of Jesus, it is the fallen nature of the wife or wives you Mormons would have him becoming one flesh with.”
Nowhere in scripture does it state that Christ was incapable, or that it would be improper, for him to be married. As was pointed out to you already, Adam and Eve were husband and wife and ‘one flesh’ before the fall.
“But I can understand why this goes swishing right over your heads.”
Yes, the traditions of men created by a group of apostates from the dark ages makes no sense to us.
Nowhere in scripture does it state that Christ was incapable, or that it would be improper, for him to be married. As was pointed out to you already, Adam and Eve were husband and wife and one flesh before the fall.
...
Yes, the traditions of men created by a group of apostates from the dark ages makes no sense to us.
Nowhere in the scriptures is there any suggestion that Christ was married ... or had physical children.
In fact, there exists much greater scriptural evidence that He was not married.
This is not about an aversion to godly marriage. I daresay most who contribute to this thread are married.
It is about presenting a biblical portrayal of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ... and speculation like this simply confuses and muddies the water.
(Just a note, I have yet to read the the rest of the comments yet, so hopefully I am not repeating something someone else is saying...)
>Im fascinated by how some Christians find the idea horrifying though. So what if Christ married? There is nothing dishonorable about it, marriage was instituted by God and if Christ was married that would only underscore the sacredness and sanctity of marriage. The way some Christians find the idea so revolting seems to me an expression of an unhealthy attitude towards sexuality.
This is a BIG difference between Christianity and Mormonism here. IF Christ was who he claims to be in the Christian bible, God incarnate, then there is a problem with Jesus marrying. The Church is His bride. Jesus’ purpose was to die for the sins of those that believed, not to start His own family, live a normal life.
What does the Mormon Church teach as the reason for Christ’s sacrifice? To be an example? I have looked up some stuff, and it looks like, if I am correct, that Jesus died so that original sin was covered. Is that correct? Seems to me that if that is the case, most of the NT must be corrupted by the apostasy claimed by Joseph Smith.
Which leads to another question, why does the Mormon church not use the Prophet JS’s translation? Seems if he was a true prophet, that his book would be the one to use...
"Are we to assume that the Lutheran leadership and its PR department don't read their church's manuals? Or are we to assume that they hope the membership doesn't? One thing is abundantly clear and that is the Lutheran Church is of often guilty of teaching two messages -- one for the membership and one for the general public."
You seem to have a knack for complicating simple things.
Quite true, but the Lutherans are not monolithic. I’m Missouri Synod, we are strict constructionists, some of the other synods have slipped.
“And you say you had a crooked partern you are not far behind!”
And you know what restornu, everything you say is crooked to the core as well, spin spin spin.
I hope you enjoy tit-for-tat slander.
“Nowhere in the scriptures is there any suggestion that Christ was married ... or had physical children.”
Agreed. Neither position contradicts the Bible.
The important thing is that Christ atoned for our sins and rose from the dead.
“IF Christ was who he claims to be in the Christian bible, God incarnate, then there is a problem with Jesus marrying. The Church is His bride.”
That is a metaphor, marriage is between a man and a woman, not between someone and a group of believers.
“Jesus purpose was to die for the sins of those that believed, not to start His own family, live a normal life.”
Moses’ purpose was to lead the children of Israel out of bondage. That didn’t mean he couldn’t have a wife (in fact he had two wives, but it’s unclear if he married the second one after the first one died or if he had a plural wife)
“What does the Mormon Church teach as the reason for Christs sacrifice? To be an example? I have looked up some stuff, and it looks like, if I am correct, that Jesus died so that original sin was covered. Is that correct?”
We do not believe in original sin, each man is born innocent and pure and is only accountable to God for the sins they themselves do. Christ atoned for our sins so that we may become cleansed from our sins by obeying the laws and ordinances of the gospel. If we do that, his grace and mercy will cleanse us enabling us to return to the presence of our Heavenly Father.
“why does the Mormon church not use the Prophet JSs translation?”
Some parts have been accepted as scripture, like the Book of Moses and JST Matthew 24. The rest is an unfinished work in progress. He was killed before he was done so we use it more as a study aid.
Please explain...or is the word "sealed" another definition, or substitute for "married" in LDS doctrine?
Or, perhaps a better question is, "What exactly in the JOD that is recorded of what the LDS prophets stated, is NOT LDS doctrine? How is THAT defined? What criteria is used, and by whom?
As I have noted, some Mormons may believe that Jesus was marriedsome may even believed that he practiced plural marriagebut that is speculation, not a settled doctrine. Personally, I find the evidence for it unconvincing.
However, I also find nothing repugnant in the idea. If Jesus were married, that would in no way change his status as the Son of God, the Savior of the world. I would think that anyone who can accept the paradoxical doctrine that Jesus is one Person with two distinct and wholly different naturesboth fully God and fully manshould have no difficulty accepting normal sexuality as a part of his human nature.
In any case, it cannot be important for us to know, since God has not chosen to reveal more on the subject.
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.