Posted on 06/06/2006 10:11:12 PM PDT by Panerai
Ha ha!
An athiest IS dreaming if he/she actually believes there is no God!
Now, instead of understanding the scriptures, we're to understand your rewording of the scriptures? The verse does not use the term "no marriage"; those are your words. Your paraphrasing is inaccurate.
It very specifically uses the terms "marry" and "are given in marriage", both of which are actions. Those actions will not be done after the resurrection.
To twist what is clearly a verse dealing with the activity of marrying into one dealing with the state of being married is simply wrong. Context doesn't change a verb into an adjective.
Some scholars believe the ultimate question was "Who will have sex with her?" and the answer was "There is no sex in Heaven".
What some scholars believe is entirely irrelevant.
OK, which brother is her husband?
You are wasting your time. As best I can tell, all eternal proclamations can be overturned by prophecy.
- the Oneida Community founded by John Humphries.
Correction: John Humphreys Noyes
The practice of plural marriage wasn't the important part of the "new and everlasting covenant"; the doctrine of eternal marriage was. Your original accusation was that the Church had abandoned a "new and everlasting covenant" by discontinuing plural marriage. I was explaining to you that the practice of plural marriage was not the "new and everlasting" part.
That's not to say that plural marriage wasn't a commandment; it was. All the other stuff you quote confirms that the practice of plural marriage was given by command, and that it was not to be ignored.
Go read the story of Israel and God's commandment to them to completely destroy the Canaanites. Men, women, children and beasts. He commanded them to kill every living thing.
Now, killing women and children is a particularly nasty thing. No God-fearing person would normally ever want to consider it. But there it is. Commanded by God. They fulfilled that commandment, then discontinued the practice by not wiping out whole peoples afterward.
The real question of plural marriage is whether or not it was a command given by God. If it was, then it must be obeyed, just as His command for the Israelites to kill was to be obeyed. Our position is that it was commanded by God, through a living prophet, just as the command to Israel to slay the Canaanites was given by God through a living prophet.
But your "interpatation" is the relevant one?
The verse does not use the term "no marriage";those are your words. Your paraphrasing is inaccurate.
No yours is
The actual word is "neither"which is translated from the (NT)Greek word, oute which means, "not, not even, no, nothing, none"
And what is the test to know if a prophet is a real prophet or not?
As we are, as you state, commanded by God to do?
1 John 4
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world
No, it's your interpretation of the scripture. You are the one who claims all marriages will end at death. That's a massive group divorce, isn't it?
see post#148 and post#149
Yes, that's true. But that still doesn't change the words. Just because the revelation was given in response to that question, and that it deals with plural marriage, it does not make that practice the "new and everlasting" part of the scripture. Look at the sentence again. The phrase "new and everlasting" modifies the noun "covenant". It's the covenant that is "new and everlasting", not the practice of plural marriage.
Those plural marriage covenants will be eternal, just as any other valid marriage for time and all eternity.
That section of the Doctrine and Covenants still doesn't say that the practice of plural marriage would be "new and everlasting", no matter how you spin it.
I think this answers that question best:
Elder James E. Talmage writes: “The Lord’s meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only. … In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity” (Jesus the Christ, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982, p. 509).
Yeah right. There is no "Holy Priesthood". We believe in the Priesthood of all Believers.
OK, the Muslims beat the Christians and it is OUR fault.
If Mitt runs for President, his fellow citizens are going to learn lots about LDS history and beliefs, much more than they ever wanted to know.
Welcome to the ever-changing world of Mormonism....I am so thankful I now worship a God that is unchangeable....
In 1866, Brigham Young forcefully stated, "We are told that if we would give up polygamy--which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven and it is God and the world for it--but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them." Later in the sermon President Young asked, "Will the Latter-day Saints do this? No" (JOD 11:239).
That same year, John Taylor, Mormonism's future third president, accused those who opposed polygamy within the LDS Church as "apostates." He said: "Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God...When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom" (JOD 11:221).
In 1869 Wilford Woodruff, Mormonism's future fourth president, taught, "If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).
Even as late as 1879, Joseph F. Smith was insisting that plural marriage was essential for LDS exaltation. Speaking at the funeral of William Clayton, Mormonism's future sixth president, stated, "This doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become god..." (JOD 21:9).
During a message given in 1880, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said, "...if plurality of marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinances, and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true." (JOD 21:296).
Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Hbr 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
Another new poster....welcome to FR. :-)
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.