Speculation mounts on who will be next pope

Fox News ^ | February 11, 2013 | Joshua Rhett Miller

[BlueDragon]

These were the same people that crucified Jesus yes?

Did "they" crucify Jesus, or did you and I?

They revered the Song of Solomon because Solomon wrote it that's all.

What happened to the shopping lists? How about the orders written to chief of stable hands?

It was very well explained by another here why the book is revered.

The bottom line is, you're saying that God inspired Solomon to write love sonnets to his multiple wives and lovers

Bottom line? The "song",which is poetry actually, was of the love of and between one man (God) and one woman (those whom He loves)

Therefore, if The Song of Solomon is scripture, then God approved of Polygamy.

There ya' go again. Misreading between the lines. Applying fleshly mind understanding not of word-for-word following, but of derivitive nature, finding whatever justification suits a particular agenda (Smith's)...then going no further.

This "therefore" here proclaimed, while arguing both sides at once (on this thread) whichever twisted method brings Joey up on top, or can excuse him if not tossing Song of Solomon OUT, is valid??? No way, sister. They done been lying to you, all the live-long zombie day.

So typical... But what was that YOU JUST SAID about

"The problem is people are not willing to separate when Solomon was good and when Solomon went bad.

Like you are properly "separating" good from the bad? Or is it focusing on some imagined "good" time period compared to a "went bad" time period?

When does the "went bad" time period kick in, in regards to Joey? Try applying everything the mind employs to pull down what Christians follow, and see how well Joey fares by the same tokens. No "special pleadings", no inequally applied measures allowed. The sword slices through him in so many directions he's not only cleft by the very same reasonings employed to defend his perverted presentations of scripture, but is left sliced and diced into mincemeat. Each apologetic, if allowed to fall backwards onto the speaker FIRST, as truth must, devastates those things peculiarly Mormon (even those portions borrowed from Swedenborg). Google is you friend?

Went bad? Jesus said none but the Father in Heaven was "good". Solomon himself concurred. A few "upright", one man in a thousand perhaps, but none that could be called "good". Including himself, which leaves imagined good period/bad period that need be separated rather impossible in a sense.

Elijah wasn't always upbeat. He didn't always walk in assurance and faith, even though he was a powerful & true prophet before God. For a time he was hiding from Jezebel and her men whom wanted to kill him. Was the Spirit on him then? It was before he feared for his life and hid...and it was afterwards too, when he ran before king Ahab's chariots, outrunning the horses. The Spirit being upon him quite strongly, so strongly then it was not so much he who ran, but the Spirit which gave him the strength to do so.

Is there a "good period" and a "bad period" we must separate in regards to Elijah, too? Wouldn't that leave him out of the picture after the period when he was first become fearful of Jezebel? If we are to apply the same which you seem to suggest be applied to Solomon it would. This is what I meant by applying standards by which we judge, equally. If we are to judge David...then it goes downhill after his sending Bathsheba's husband off to die in battle (so David could then, after her then husband die, marry her as widow) But the Lord does not cut David completly off (as you would have us "separate" Solomon's good period from a bad one?) telling him otherwise 'death shall not leave your house'. Leaving the the judgement you bring against Solomon as could be applied to his own father, far beyond what the Lord Himself spoke (concerning David).

Yet Joseph Smith was not a David, nor a king of Israel, just an ambitious huckster whom had a genius for manipulation and lies, bending the truth. Do what you will. Just don't expect God to see it as after His own godliness & spirit. That boat leaves harbor without Joseph Smith & Co. (their own added-on doctrines and "discourses") for being themselves bereft of spirit, they cannot rightly read the cargo mainifest, or the sailing schedule. Tootle-loo...

Besides, Solomon repudiated much of his own kingly excess in Ecclesiastes without claiming himself or any other person "good". Wisdom even, though preferred, was still not enough. One could look it up. It's not as short as Song Of Solomon, but not much longer. 15 minutes, half an hour for casual perusal.

Solomon's model is not what children of Abraham are to follow. Abraham's model, what we can learn from him (including a few mistakes) is what is to be first learned, not jettisoned, overturned by this later arrival of a Solomon, himself a son of David's own sin in regards to how David made that woman whom became Solomon's mother, a wife. Death would not depart David's house for David's sin, that particular one. Exchanging as model husband, Solomon for Abraham, is backwardness, making a son of sin (though a king over Israel at one time, and a wise one whom other kings of the earth payed homage to) a model of righteouness.

This can not be. David's joy towards the Lord, his unrestrained joy at the return of the ark (thus the Spirit) to the people...that is a model to emulate. David's heart towards God, his yearning for God with his utmost being, that is what brought God to love David, even as Solomon wrote of that relationship in Songs Even as he wrote of love between man & woman,and between God and his own betrothed...

Not sending another man off into battle so that he can take that man's wife. Or like Joseph Smith sending both men whom were betrothed to women he himself fancied, and men whom were ALREADY married to woman Joey wanted as additional wives, off onto a "mission" so he could rid of them, then marry and bed down the women himself. Brigham Young committed the same crimes.

Smith was no King David, though he fancied himself as good as one (better! if one asked Joey) taking upon himself from the bible any "glory" found there, mis-appropriating it for himself. Much as the mis-reading, adding to between the lines, you yourself have regularly expressed on these pages does so...

It all goes back to Joey for Mormons, doesn't it? Funny how that works. His corrruptions, living on in zombie fashion, not living but as an peculiarly not living, undead set of reasonings, biting those whom get too near to it (or sadly enough were born into it) making them zombie-like in regards to things of the Lord, spreading the poison.

(That's what I'm here for. To delineate...to point out the poisonous reasonings, offering instead life, or at least point towards LIFE.
Crosses and garlic cloves for the vampires perhaps, but rhetorical double-taps to the knoggin to stop zombies, hehheh.)

Although Abraham himself was persuaded (through lack of faith, by his lawful wife) to enter into his wife's own maid, thus have an heir as Sara reasoned, that child was not the son of promise (God's promise) but was the son after the flesh, thus not the heir God had in mind.

Those persons (by way of Hagar's son) are still not heirs to the promise, unto this very day, even as God in His mercy & in answer to Abraham's prayer said to Abraham that he would make a great nation of them, too. Notice here the "them too" not them as one with sons after the promise made by God to Abram when he was yet in Ur...to "make A great nation" of Abram, with sons & daughters (heirs) as numerous as the stars. God did not say He would make TWO great nations of Abraham, but only one.

Although it is written of that Abraham had two sons (Genesis 16:15), one of a bond woman, one of a free woman (Galatians 4:22) it is spoken of in both Genesis (Genesis 22:2) and Hebrews 11:17 that Abraham had only one begotten son. That would be Isaac, through Sara the lawful wife, not Hagar a concubine, a stand-in, the whole thing becoming "a almost-as-good-as, let's all help God out in fulfilling His promise, because it's too late otherwise, it's impossible otherwise" half-measure which produced (not beget) Ishmael --- with that illegitimate son becoming "a wild donkey of a man; his hand... against everyone and everyone's hand against him, [living] in hostility toward all his brothers".

To this very day that describes the sons of Ishmael, both after or according to fleshly descendents, and those of spiritual descent, also.

If we are to be children of Abraham, it is by spirit & adoption, not through Ishmael, but through Isaac, then the other only begotten Son, which is Christ.

It is now by our adoption (through Christ, the real Son of promise) we cry "Abba, Father". Thus Jesus said unto the Jews, "say not 'We have Abraham as our father' ". for they too can be much as sons merely after the flesh, not sons after the Spirit --- which Christ WAS, for Isaac was merely a forerunner, with Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own "only begotten" type & shadow foretelling of the sacrifice made by Christ, the lamb without spot or blemish (Exodus 12:1-13).

The Jews of Christ's days to whom revelation of Christ was opened (not merely those gazing upon Him as dumb oxen might) but to those whom were given understanding, such as Paul, could see it then. I'm not making this interpretation up, for there is no other interpretation open ---unless we slam our ears shut and not listen to Paul, whom teaches us plainly enough of the Law. Paul himself (before his road to Damascus experience) was a Pharisee of utmost zealousness, a Roman citizen, a lawyer even according to Roman customs (for any Roman citizen of good standing had standing to argue before the courts of Rome of that day). He had it all, baby. None surpassed him in way of in-depth explanation of the Law.

Can you see it? If not, start at Acts, then read clear through Galatians. That might be enough, remembering the Law be not now done away with, but fulfilled by Christ. Himself being the word made flesh dwelling on earth in bodily form (for a time) while also being the Way, Truth, and the Life (chiam) from before the foundations of this world.

There are other more basic explanations of why Christians whomhave revelation given them, should define marriage as being only of one man, and one woman. Should we discuss those next?

That beats second guessing RC bishops of this present day whome they will chose to elevate as titular leader of their own church.

I know...let's talk about how "prophets" are renewed, chosen among SLC Temple Mormons instead! High-up muckity mucks, most nowadays having oodles and gobs of money themselves, or networking closely with those whom do and bring big money to lay up in SLC coffers, the movers and shakers, patting themselvesand each other on the back for how God is all for them in the business realm (regardless of who they run over along the way, or what business it is, or what they charge non-Mormons in particular).

But it's a hard to talk about, because it's all kept as secret as possible...with the "prophet" having infallibility attributed to him, and the claim being that individual (selceted by who?) is the only "prophet" to reign over any church inthe whole wide world! According to SLC Temple Mormons, that is. Yeah, let's talk about how Mormon "popes" are elected.