Posted on 11/14/2013 9:24:09 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Like talking to a stump; ain’t it...
(I see you didn't answer my "yes" or "no" either...By your own standards then -- since you didn't answer it -- "That alone would make a reasonable person question your credibility on this subject." It's always interesting when "thine own standards" condemn the person issuing them!)
Amazing what the OT scriptures holds
Genesis Chapter 29
10 And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother’s brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother.
___
Jacob meets Rachel at the well—He serves Laban seven years for her—Laban gives to Jacob first Leah then Rachel in marriage—Jacob serves another seven years—Leah bears Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah.
20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her
“It was discouraged however. Not because it was immoral, but because it bread jealousy and envy and caused contention in the home. Abraham’s experience is an example of this.”
This doesn’t square with two things:
First, the scripture that recommends not marrying at all, which you dismissed earlier as simply a “letter” written “2000 years ago to someone in another country.”
Nor does it explain why Jesus and the Apostles forbid polygamy, when, if what you say is true, it was permissible. You do not explain why they would setup Adam and Eve as the model, rather than King David or Solomon, who more closely matches your Prophet. Though, at least David took the time to kill the other husband before he married one of his wives. Smith just took wives that were already married to other men and married them.
It also doesn’t explain Hagar and the child being exiled and sent packing by Abraham.
Since marriage is necessary for salvation in Mormonism, it makes no sense that Paul would recommend to people to say unmarried, or for Christ to say:
Mat_19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Now if someone makes themselves an Eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake, that is, choose to go unmarried, so that they can live solely for missionary work, how do they get to the Celestial heaven?
“Any young man who carelessly neglects this great commandment to marry, or who does not marry because of a selfish desire to avoid the responsibilities which married life will bring, is taking a course which is displeasing in the sight of God…There can be no exaltation without it. If a man refuses…he is taking a course which may bar him forever from (exaltation).” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:74).
How can you compare these sentiments? One from Christ, which takes no thought of marriage for the sake of heaven, save maybe as a tool to avoid fornication, and your Prophet who claims it is a grave thing to avoid it?
Furthermore, how can a marriage be eternal when Christ says it is not eternal? But that no one marries or is given in marriage in heaven, but are as the angels? And, again, that the wife is loosed from the law of her husband when he has died?
You do not answer these things, which have all been said before, but just keep repeating yourself, or else avoiding them altogether while still barking like a dog.
Sorry, this is one of those times where Christians have been conditioned by mormons and their vocabulary.
Marriage is necessary for EXALTATION. "Salvation", by mormon definition is "attainable" without marriage, but one will either be in the terrestial kingdom (can't see "god") or if female, consigned to another "male" to be one of his wives.
Exaltation is becoming a god and residing in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, able to romp around with "god" and your harem of celestial wives, populating the planet that you are now "god" of.
Yea, I caught my mistake after I had posted it, as I know that even non-Mormons will be “saved,” they just won’t get to go to the Celestial Kingdom. I was going to fix it in another reply if he replied to the error and avoided the issue of Exaltation.
My apologies for “stealing your thunder”...and I meant no disrespect with regards to the “condition” comment.
Btw, as an ex-mo, I really do enjoy your posts on this topic and those from a couple of other folks...I’ll admit, I’m not doing so hot in my conversion from mormonism to Christianity and let’s just say, that any clarification of Biblical scripture that rebuts mormon doctrine/teaching helps immensely.
“Paul doesn’t recommend not marrying.”
Yes he does:
“For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1Co 7:7-9)
“Because at that time God took it away.”
The question is, why would He take it away? And where does it say that He took anything away? When Christ was abolishing it, He didn’t say “It was good but now not so much,” He replied “In the beginning it was no so,” and forbid any man to marry another wife, since doing so would be adultery. In the Mormon case, it was because you needed to give up polygamy to attain Statehood. For their case, they had no such political interest, as God’s Kingdom is not of this world.
Furthermore, even though Mormonism has bowed to the state on this matter, they have not taken away the need for marriage to at least one woman for exaltation. In Christianity, not even marriage to one woman is necessary for anything at all, as has been shown.
” Joseph Smith had to because all things had to be restored.”
So bigamy is necessary for all things to be restored, and for what Christ called “adultery”? Contrary to all of scripture? And then this restoration is then lost, since Mormonism no longer allows for polygamous marriages.
“There was trouble between Hagar and Sarah. In order to maintain his home, Abraham sent Hagar away. I’m not sure why that’s so difficult to grasp.”
Because you said the marriage was commanded and approved by God, even though it says that nowhere at all. Why didn’t God force Sarah to accept polygamy, as He threatened Emma Smith? Aren’t families “forever”?
“In verse 12, “Eunuch” refers to men that can’t have children.”
A ridiculous assertion, since the scripture says that they are men who make themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God. IOW, to remain celibate to focus on missionary work, exactly as recommended by Paul.
If these are men who cannot have children, then they were made Eunuchs by God, or by nature, but they did not make themselves Eunuchs. That is a choice that a man makes.
On the issue of divorce, the grounds of forbidding divorce is that if a man divorces a wife and marries another, he is committing adultery.
Mat_19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Now if only divorce is the sin, it would not be adultery to marry another wife, since that would just be your second lawful celestial marriage. There is therefore no sin in putting away a wife and marrying another, only in putting away the wife. But Christ is clear that divorce is wrong because it causes adultery, and not for any other reason.
Also the second part of that, wheover marries the divorced woman commits adultery, is also against Smith directly. Since Smith did not even marry a divorced woman, but married them while they were still married to other men. Though, it so happens, the adultery is the same, even if they had been divorced.
“That’s not what Eunuch means”
An Eunuch, in the sense of “made so by men” as the Romans, are those who are castrated. In Paul’s/Christ’s sense, it’s those who do not touch a woman, and therefore remain unmarried.
“You don’t have to be married to be in the Celestial kingdom of God. “
Yes you do, and you even practice marriage sealings after death for those who died unmarried, since it is necessary, and to avoid it in life is a sin:
“Marriage is not only a righteous institution, but obedience to this law [Temple marriage] is absolutely necessary in order to obtain the highest exaltation in the Kingdom of God” (Milton R. Hunter, in Gospel Through the Ages, p.119).
“The principal purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ultimate goal of eternal progression is to receive eternal life, i.e., to become as God is. It is thoroughly understood, however, that a vast majority of the human family will never become gods, because to do so they must accept the true gospel, receive all of the ordinances-including celestial marriage-and obey all of God’s commandments faithfully to the end,” (Milton R. Hunter, Christ in Ancient America, p.168).
D&C 132
“3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”
“Paul says it’s the doctrine of the devil to forbid to marry. “
But then we can also rightly say, since salvation is by grace alone, it is a doctrine of the devil to require to marry. When Christ and Paul spoke of remaining unmarried, it was a recommendation, not a command, obviously.
” Marriage is not performed in heaven. Marriage is performed on earth.”
A foolish response, since Christ was answering a question on who the widow would belong to. According to the law of Moses, after the death of each husband, she had been married to each man separately. The question was, in the resurrection, who would she belong to? The answer was: None of them, since marriages on Earth are not binding in heaven.
“God Himself married Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were married, living in a celestial state, in the presence of Almighty God. Why? Because:
1 Cor 11: 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”
If by this you mean that a man is not a man unless he marries, the passage is on men and women in the sight of God, and not that marriage is a requirement, as Mormonism teaches:
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
(1Co 11:7-13)
You also keep avoiding the issue of Smith marrying already-married women. Why?
“No he doesn’t. But if that’s what you want to see, you have your agency.”
This verse says that all marriage is honorable, it does not say:
1) Marriage is required
2) That remaining unmarried isn’t recommended exactly as he says, as he does in those verses. (Mind you, his concern is for serving the LORD, and the recommendation is not one of saying “it’s holier to remain unmarried,’ but one of “it’s more useful to remain unmarried.”)
You can say something silly like “if that’s what you want to see,” but what I’m seeing is what’s actually there, and you are the one who is ignoring the verse for what it means:
“For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1Co 7:7-9)
Unless you can read this verse for what it is, then all you’re doing is seeing “what you want to see, you have your agency.”
“But if you want to keep claiming that Paul said not to be married...*sigh*... well good luck with that /sarc”
This is false, and something I’ve already corrected in the previous post. I said that Paul recommends not being married, I did not say that he said “don’t be married,” as in “you are commanded to be married.”
Why do you insist on tilting at strawmen?
“What in the world are you talking about?”
This: “Why didn’t God force Sarah to accept polygamy, as He threatened Emma Smith? Aren’t families “forever”?”
Now your argument only works if it was not an actual celestial marriage, and therefore it made no difference if she was exiled or not, or married or not. If God gave her to Sarah, then we can reasonably conclude that this was not a ‘celestial’ marriage, and therefore is not Mormon marriage or polygamy, since if it was Mormon polygamy, then the marriage is “forever” and is approved by God, and Sarah, like Emma Smith, could have been threatened by God for not abiding by His command.
If that is not the case, then you must answer my original objection exactly as I penned it:
“Because you said the marriage was commanded and approved by God, even though it says that nowhere at all. Why didn’t God force Sarah to accept polygamy, as He threatened Emma Smith? Aren’t families “forever”?”
Anything that is not an answer to this is just avoiding the issue.
“Ridiculous? All of Matt 19 is about divorce.”
Another strawman. My statement was in response to you saying that Eunuchs are those who can’t have children, in the sense of them being born like that. My answer was that these were men who “made themselves” Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God, and therefore were not born that way, but by choice decided to remain unmarried.
” The Lord is talking about not having children as a reason for divorce. He’s telling the Jews that not having children is not a reason for divorce.”
A pure invention on your part. Nowhere does Christ say anything about not having children being a cause of divorce. Christ forbids divorce since to put away a woman to marry another is adultery. Which cannot be true if polygamy is permissible or commanded by God, since a second wife is just another legal wife, even if you put away the other wife, like Abraham did to Hagai.
“As I said, getting into the Celestial kingdom does NOT require marriage. Being Exalted with in the Celestial Kingdom does.”
IOW, whoever is not married, or is not married within Mormonism, is unable to progress towards Mormondom’s highest aim, which is to become a God, because they were either disobedient in life or, for reasons beyond their control, were not sealed to a wife after death.
D&C 132
“ 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”
This is a difference in merits by an extreme, since by marrying you are fulfilling the commands of God, and is not something that Mormonism is indifferent to.
A typo, correcting the sentence:
“I did not say that he said “don’t be married,” as in “you are commanded to NOT be married.”
I missed the “not” before.
Eunuch
A class of emasculated men attached to the courts of eastern rulers. They were employed to watch over the harems and also were often given positions as trusted officials. Eunuchs are mentioned in 2 Kgs. 20:18; Isa. 39:7; 56:4; Jer. 38:7–13; 41:16; Matt. 19:12; Acts 8:27–38.
Hmmm, interesting phraseology.
So, assuming I was angry, I shouldn’t ping you because I was “too angry”.
But, since I wasn’t angry to begin with, I shouldn’t ping you either...
Either way, I win.
Have a great Thanksgiving anyway...
I am sorry. These conversations and the threads themselves always feel hostile. The Religion Forum is a place with a lot of heat and very little light. I’ve never liked bullies and, particularly on the anti-Mormon threads, that’s all it seems like. The anti-Catholic ones feel that way too. Some of the Protestant threads are so esoteric that I can’t fully follow them. They seem OCD and remind me of the movie Rainman.
I suppose it is the win/lose attitude on all the Religion threads. I’m not a big fan of zero sum games. I like win/win. Although I do see a lot of eisegesis in this Forum. Posters often talk through each other and even I’m guilty of that. It happens on other forums as well, but, perhaps naively, I expect more from a nominally Christian Religious Forum.
Hope you, your wife and son have a great Thanksgiving. May God bless you, as well. BTW, you don’t seem angry, now.
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.