Mormon ousted as an apostate

East Valley Tribune—Phoenix, AZ, MSNBC ^ | Sept 23, 2007 | Lawn Griffiths

[colorcountry]

Being excommunicated for apostasy by the Mormon church is one thing, but Lyndon Lamborn is livid that his stake president has ordered bishops in eight Mesa wards to take the rare step of announcing disciplinary action against him to church members today. "I thought if he could go public, so can I," said Lamborn, a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who said his research into church history gave him "thousands of reasons the church can't be what it claims to be."

Stake President R. James Molina acknowledged Friday he intends to have Lamborn's excommunication announced to the wards at men's priesthood meetings and womens Relief Society gatherings, even with Lamborn now taking his case public. Molina, as well as officials at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, call such a public warning about an ousted member extremely rare. They say, however, church members must be protected from what discordant ex-followers may say to damage the church...................

[Elsie]

He didn't do anything "again".

Sure he did. Can you not read and understand?

He GAVE HER AWAY TWICE!

[JRochelle]

People keep bringing up Keturah. As if that has anything to do with polygamy. In fact on another thread one Mormon was unaware that Sarah had died when Keturah married Abraham.

“To wife” does not mean marry.
As for Rachel and Leah and their handmaidens, they also gave them to Jacob to wife. They were property. They were not equal to being a wife of Jacob. Leah and Rachel were.

Polygamy tends to relegate women to simply being property. As that one Mormon elder or prophet said, “I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying another cow.”

[JRochelle]

Stop making so much sense!

[Elsie]

And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

So if MY wife let's me boink the cleaning lady, God will consider that to be ok then?

Sorry, but in the scripture, there is NO command from GOD to Abram to take that woman, Hagar, as his wife.

In fact...

1. Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar;

2. so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her." Abram agreed to what Sarai said.

Sari assigns motive to GOD: "HE has kept me"

and then Old Abe agrees to what his WIFE had conjured up!

[Elsie]

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."
Romans 15:4

Someone MISSED this part...

[Elsie]

The scriptures clearly say that Hagar was his wife.

Genesis 16

 

 3.  So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.
 4.  He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.   When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress.
 5.  Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."
 6.  "Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.

[Elsie]

The only thing that condemned David it wasn't plural wives or concubines it was the murder of Uriah, murder is an unpardonable sin!

No, it is not.

Matthew 12:31
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

But; since it is merely Jesus, the Son of God speaking, who can REALLY figger out what He means?

[Elsie]

Dang!

What’d I miss at 363??

[Elsie]

Think not; that ye be not informed.

[Elsie]

DANG!

What’d I miss at 386?

[Elsie]

You have no proof who he did or didn’t an implying something that is open ended in no proof!

SOMEone needs to talk with their buds!

[Elsie]

I don’t lay the eggs;
I just color them.

[restornu]

To whom it may concern

I fine many ability to reduce everything to naughty offensive and are so quick to judge things they do not understand no matter how many times one shows them it is hearsays and gossip they feast on and perfer to continue to ignore and have no desire to understand that Celestial Marriage is not of this world!

For some reason many seem to be fixated and perfer to live the lesser law due to the fact they have an unhealthy out look towards the Higher Law which Moses too could not give to the people!

****

A TALE OF TWO MARRIAGE SYSTEMS:
PERSPECTIVES ON POLYANDRY AND JOSEPH SMITH

While the sole term of marriage is often used to
describe Joseph’s union with these women, the
relationships are more correctly defined as celestial
marriages, eternal marriages, or sealings.

In LDS belief, marriages must be sealed or bound together by
priesthood authority to be valid in the eternities. The
marriages the women had with their existing husbands
were of a completely different type of union than that
formed with Joseph Smith. The nature of the “marriages,”
or eternal bonds, with Joseph had little effect
during the mortal lives of these women.

Similarly, the civil marriages of these women to their earthly husbands will have had little effect in the immortal lives that were to come for them.

Respected historians have correctly noted that due to
the fact “celestial marriage transcends this world, it was
possible for a person to be married to one spouse for
this world and sealed to a different spouse for eternity.”7

In addition, celestial marriage could be “performed between
two living persons one or both of whom had living
spouses. Such a marriage, however, had no binding
effect during their lifetimes on the two people who entered
into it. It simply meant that they would be united
in the world to come.”8

Joseph’s marriages to these women functioned on two
co-existent marital spheres and may be incomprehensible
to those without understanding of LDS belief in
the nature of the eternal family unit. Indeed, as John A.
Widtsoe notes,Such marriages led to much misunderstanding
by those not of the Church and unfamiliar with
its doctrines and practices.

To them marriage meant only association on earth. Therefore
any ceremony uniting a married woman, for
example, to Joseph Smith for eternity
seemed adulterous to such people. Yet in any
day, in our day, there may be women who
prefer to spend eternity with another than
their husband on earth.9
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"For some reason many seem to be fixated and perfer to live the lesser law due to the fact they have

an unhealthy out look towards the Higher Law which Moses too could not give to the people!"

 

Resty, would you show us in the Bible some references to lesser law and Higher Law please?

 

I went to www.biblegateway.com and did a search in the KJV on "lesser law" and "Higher Law"... here's

what I found:

 

"Sorry. No results found for "lesser law" in Keyword Search."

 

Sorry. No results found for "higher law" in Keyword Search."

 

I'm stuck trying to find the Bible references, would you provide them please?

 

thanks,

ampu

[restornu]

Sorry why waste time on those who don’t care and looking for loop holes!

[tantiboh]

~”Then you HAVE to retract your constant saying that GOD commanded him to do it. It is false.”~

Why? I have teachings at my disposal that you don’t accept. Therefore, I believe it’s true.

This is an example of why we believe modern revelation to be necessary. Points such as the apparent “Abrahamic adultery” conflict are cleared up.

The counter-argument, of course, is that Smith made it all up to cover his own sins. If you don’t believe he was a valid prophet, then this is a logical conclusion.

Since I accept Smith as a prophet, I have the benefit of a great deal of clarification. The Bible is not a complete record. There is spiritual truth to be found outside its pages.

I suppose as long as we disagree on that, we will not find common ground on this topic.

[tantiboh]

~”But you’ve shown NO ‘command’.<

You’ve provided EXAMPLES of it; but no COMMAND of it.”~

How many other principles does Christianity accept as truth despite the fact that only examples of it are found in the Bible? I think we’d find quite a few if we put our minds to it.

[greyfoxx39]

Since I accept Smith as a prophet, I have the benefit of a great deal of clarification.

My clarification is better than YOURS!...how can one argue with such LOGIC?....UNLESS LOGIC comes from the OTHER SIDE!

[MHGinTN]

No matter how clear the contradiction in Smithism to the Bible, the ‘faithful’ adherent to Mormonism will find a way to disregard the contradiction or spin it to be a revelation of ‘latter day clarification.’ If they cannot find a way to spin the Bible or strain an interpretation out of it that is contrary to 2000 years of Christian life, they will simply cancel the contradiction with ‘so far as the Bible is accurately translated’, meaning the Joe Smith ‘translation’ of the King James Bible (he didn’t even go to the Greek and Hebrew texts available --so much for God directing ol' Joe-- just whole clothed his own interpretations; and with the study of our best now available texts in Greek, Hebrew, Ethiopic, Armenian, etc. the minor issues resolve as one would expect the revealed Word of God to do) which has Smith fabricating prophesies of him ‘coming in these latter days’.

[Colofornian]

Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah...

What? God failed to say, "Yes, but one of your wiVe[s]...? (how telling)