Posted on 05/18/2010 7:40:38 AM PDT by Colofornian
To a nonbeliever, all religions perplex, but Mormonism perplexes absolutely. Let me immediately qualify that remark. To the non-Mormon faithful, and especially those conservative Protestants who consider it an anti-Christian sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is hardly a religion at all.
Hostility toward Mormonism has many sources. A religion established in the 19th century has not had the time to establish its teachings as timeless. A religion founded in the United States lacks the exoticism of those more directly connected to the mysterious Middle East. A religion that once allowed randy elders to possess child brides and consigned its young males to oblivion makes the Catholic Church's problems with wayward priests seem like a mere episode of, well, waywardness. A religion whose followers show a pronounced tendency to become CEOs of some of America's largest corporations is bound to arouse envy.
Not least, there is the Book of Mormon itself. This text, depending on where one stands on the Mormon question, was either discovered by the 17-year-old Joseph Smith in upstate New York after the Angel Moroni directed him to golden plates written in reformed Egyptian, or it was the product of a budding confidence man who copied and pasted other pieces of scripture into a totally improbable tale in which ancient Israelites found their way to the New World. Whatever one's views on the authenticity of the text, it has been widely regarded as a rather inferior work of literature, especially when compared to the King James Bible. "Chloroform in print," is Mark Twain's famous dismissal of it.
SNIP
...I simply cannot imagine anyone setting those words to music the way Handel did with the Bible in his oratorios. The Book of Mormon has a structure. It does not sing.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
This author should review the 1830 Book of Mormon in its purely raw form. Grammar problems galore. If published as is today, would need [sic] placed everywhere. Except, of course, where Smith copied from the Bible...12 chapters from the book of Isaiah, word-for-word. Phrases copied from the Bible all over.
Those graphs read majestically. And then when you compare 1830 Smith beyond his Bible copying, the contrast is sharp. So sharp that Mormonism's leaders have employed editors through the generations to make thousands of changes. Most of them slight changes.
But they prevent the average reader, when challenged by a Mormon or Mormon missionary to read it, from doing a careful examination. They see fewer of the contrasts mentioned above. They are being asked to pray about a book of Mormon version that is not authentic. Characters have been changed to cover up Smith mistakes (he mistook kings, putting a dead king in a place where he should have put another king; he also failed in a few Nephite passages to insert the word "Son of" so that it originally read that God had a mother -- vs. a few references to Mary; skin color changes have been made -- from "white and delightsome" to now "pure and delightsome")...and those mountainous contrasts have been whittled down to hide the obvious comparison of the writing of a Smith vs. his Bible language imports...
They do have a great choir. ;-)
Yep.
I Cor. 7:2
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Yes, polygamy still goes on in Utah ... among other places and Orin Hatch WINKS at it ... but it is ILLEGAL and considered un Christian - this is Biblically correct. Still people wish to excuse a false prophet ... .
The book of mormon is chloroform in print (Mark Twain, Roughing It)
People probably thought this way about Jesus or Muhammad once, as they do about Joseph Smith today. A thousand years on, mebbe we’ll ALL be mormons.
Years ago I opined here that the biggest problem with Mormonism and all newer religions is that they haven’t been around long enough to acquire the aura of widespread legitimacy.
Their roots are too well documented compared to those of religions in earlier ages, which had the advantage of great antiquity. Also, they long predated the advent of such information technology as printing and the internet.
A Freeper assured me that, for that statement, I would burn in Hell.
>>This text, depending on where one stands on the Mormon question, was either discovered by the 17-year-old Joseph Smith in upstate New York after the Angel Moroni directed him to golden plates written in reformed Egyptian, or it was the product of a budding confidence man who copied and pasted other pieces of scripture into a totally improbable tale in which ancient Israelites found their way to the New World.<<
There is actually a third theory - that it was stolen in whole from a small publishing house where it was intended by its author to be a work of fiction. I’d google it to get the details, but I leave it to the curious.
When one compare the history of the bible to the BOM and the Koran, One finds that the BOM and Koran have the most in common. They are both examples of men attempting, in one form or another, to build on the real thing. And neither is really very good at it.
It is a pretty
Been there, done that! And one HUGE LOL.
What most people don’t realize is that you don’t even need a god to have a religion. The only reason any religion succeeds is through the acquisition and maintenance of great wealth and political power. God or no god, Remove the money and the politics and you don’t have a religion.
So were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also hugley false prophets? (two of the three confirmed polygamists).
Interesting. I disagree but interesting none the less.
I offer you Chiasmus ... an ancient poetic structure of the Hebrews, Rediscovered in the 1960s(?).
....and yet the book of Mormon has multiple examples of this literary antiquity!
Hmmmm .... not bad for being authored by an uneducated 22 year-old living on the frontier!
So how did Christianity survive the first 400 years not only without money and political power of its own but with intense opposition by those that did have money and political power?
That doesn’t mean there is actually any real similarity between the religions. Jesus’ terachings were not designed to serve his own desires and ambitions unlike the teachings of mormonism and muhammedanism.
Take the issue of polyganism. How many wives did Jesus have? meanwhile mormon leaders were allowed to satisfy their lust by picking and choosing multiple wives while more lowly mormon men went single. And Muhammad declared that any woman he wanted belonged to him.
There is one religion that is based on truth, justice and doing right for your fellow man. And then there are all those non-Christian religions which justify the lust and greed of their adherents...
The Mormon Babblenackle Choir can be seen regularly right here on F.R.
Interesting take. Completely lacking in historical context but still interesting. It must have escaped your notice that Christianity sprang out of a repeatedly subjugated province of the Roman Empire. Its followers were beaten, ridiculed and cruelly killed. Its Founder and His followers lived simple, unassuming and certainly not materially rich lives. Its most holy city was destroyed within forty years of its Founder’s Execution and subsequent Ascension into Heaven... and yet, it became the dominant religion of the waning Roman Empire and went on to preserve and rebuild civilization through the Dark Ages.
You are referring to the template for most modern cults, not true religion. Religion is the expression of man’s relationship to God. You can not have religion without a god to worship.
and let every woman have her own husband. 1Corinthians 7:2
_______________________________________________
Well that there makes a lie of the excuse “it was God’s idea. God thought it up because rthere were many more women than men in Utah Territory, Kirkland, OH, Nauvoo, IL in those days”
Solution would have been Mail Order Grooms
Jesus’ terachings were not designed to serve his own desires and ambitions unlike the teachings of mormonism and muhammedanism.
________________________________________
And Jesus’ terachings were not designed to get him a date and cheat on his wife with immunity or lots of ill gotten gain and control over others..
No. They were disobendient to God.
God created ONE Eve for Adam.
Later in incest was ruled out once the earth was populated.
No, incest is not okay. Incest is the sexual relations between family members either by birth or marriage. God has forbidden this in the Bible.
Lev. 20:11-12, “If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 12 If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
Lev. 20:19-21, “You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they shall bear their guilt. 20 If there is a man who lies with his uncle's wife he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. 21 If there is a man who takes his brother's wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They shall be childless.”
But some may point out that Adam and Eve had children and since there were no other people around, their children would have had to commit incest in order to produce more children. At the time of creation, the genetic line was pure. It wasn't until later, at the time of Moses, that incest was then forbidden as the genetic pool became less and less able to stand interbreeding. “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD,” (Lev. 18:6).
No back to pologamy!
It NEVER PLEASED GOD. It was man being disobedient. By NOW, you should realize that! When you KNOW your Bible and what is written you are not “tossed to and fro” and believing that disobedience is okay for you too!
Many leaders in the Old Testament are described as having multiple wives. Does that mean that polygamy is acceptable to God?
No. God did not say polygamy was acceptable to Him, although for a while—like divorce—it was allowed in the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians 7:2 makes it very clear that marriage is one man and one woman:
“each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”
But, let's look at polygamy and the Bible in more detail. To do this there are several questions we need to answer:
Why does the Old Testament tell us about important people who had many wives?
http://www.evangelical.us/polygamy/old-testament-polygamy.html
Why did some people in the Old Testament have many wives?
http://www.evangelical.us/polygamy/old-testament-polygamy-examples.html
Are the examples of polygamy in the Old Testament examples we should follow?
NO!
http://www.evangelical.us/polygamy/old-testament-polygamy-examples.html
What does the New Testament say about polygamy?
“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.” - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB
1 Corinthians chapter 7 discusses marriage and it is always in the context of “wife” (singular) and “husband” (singular). It does not make sense for the singular words to be used, if it is possible to have more than one wife. If it were acceptable to God to have more than one wife, then the word “wives” would have to have been used here. The wording of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 completely excludes the possibility of polygamy.
Ephesians chapter 5 (verses 22-33) discuss marriage. Here again we do see the plural “wives” used. However, it is used because Paul is writing to the overall category of husbands and wives.
“Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” - Ephesians 5:22 NASB
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,” - Ephesians 5:25 NASB
Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal:
“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” - Ephesians 5:23 NASB
When Paul speaks to individuals, it is husband and wife. ONE man and ONE woman. That is marriage. But there is something even more important here. The relationship of husband and wife in marriage is the same as the relationship between Christ and His church.
“Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself ready.” - Revelation 19:7 NASB
Marriage is a reflection of Christ's relationship with the church—one groom (Christ) and one bride (the church).
Not two Christs marrying (two homosexual men).
Not two churches marrying (two homosexual women).
Not Christ and many churches (polygamy).
Marriage is ONE man and ONE woman.
http://www.evangelical.us/polygamy/polygamy-new-testament.html
There are many instances in which the church has promoted wrong doctrines, which God has had to correct. God using Martin Luther to straighten out doctrinal errors in the church immediately comes to mind. There have also been questions and issues that took hundreds of years to resolve—and there are still questions about Scripture we have not yet resolved (for example, concerning the end times). However, the question of polygamy is not one of these open questions. Historically it is not even an issue that has generated debate—Christian marriage has always been ONE man and ONE woman.
You may be as disobedient as the pagans. That is your choice to do as you wish, however this is NOT the will of God and never has been. Polygamy even in the Bible, doesn't have good outcomes.
Back in the 18th century the U.S.S.C. OUTLAWED or made polgamy by Mormons ILLEGAL because it VIOLATED Judeo Christian teachings.
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.