So then with that, all marriages before ~1840 are null in heaven?
ee
Gee did I say that?
THAT makes a lot of sense. I guess god was behind schedule on that... then the "great apostasy" came along and Elohim said "ahh screw it! I will get it done after I get the restoration out of the way..."
Mormons do believe in a thing called proxy ordinance work.
You believe you will be with your wife forever, based on the word of a man?
You totally missed my point didn't you.
Yet you disagree with other similar doctrines from this same man?
Let me explain my point for you real slow. It does not matter what I believe or do not believe regarding this thread you started. Your point is it has to a doctrine should be in the Bible or found somewhere somehow below for it to be valid in the LDS restoration. I simply pointed out that from the LDS standpoint this is incorrect. Things can be revealed that were not. That is it.
Jason wrote:While I think it is difficult to prove eternal marriage from the Bible alone I do not think the Bible says anywhere anything at all about until death do you part.
And PPs point is not good because it is clear that the LDS church also opened the potential for knowledge and doctrine never had before.
I'm giving PP credit for thought-provoking discussion. I much prefer this type of thread to his usual venom-spitting. At least with a topic like this, there are places to go...things to talk about.
And PP DOES have a valid point. Supposedly, the ordinances of the temple were a restoration of Solomon's temple.
I am not sure that is correct. Why do you think that?
So then with that, all marriages before ~1840 are null in heaven?
ee
Gee did I say that?
THAT makes a lot of sense. I guess god was behind schedule on that... then the "great apostasy" came along and Elohim said "ahh screw it! I will get it done after I get the restoration out of the way..."
Mormons do believe in a thing called proxy ordinance work.
You believe you will be with your wife forever, based on the word of a man?
You totally missed my point didn't you.
Yet you disagree with other similar doctrines from this same man?
Let me explain my point for you real slow. It does not matter what I believe or do not believe regarding this thread you started. Your point is it has to a doctrine should be in the Bible or found somewhere somehow below for it to be valid in the LDS restoration. I simply pointed out that from the LDS standpoint this is incorrect. Things can be revealed that were not. That is it.
I see your point. At the end of the discussion or hand wringing, the church is true.. it must be.
I pity you. You cannot express your feelings within the church which you pay 10% of your income.
This "restored gospel" is nothing more than a house of cards.
Last edited by Ask Jeeves [Bot] on Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jason wrote:While I think it is difficult to prove eternal marriage from the Bible alone I do not think the Bible says anywhere anything at all about until death do you part.
And PPs point is not good because it is clear that the LDS church also opened the potential for knowledge and doctrine never had before.
I'm giving PP credit for thought-provoking discussion. I much prefer this type of thread to his usual venom-spitting. At least with a topic like this, there are places to go...things to talk about.
And PP DOES have a valid point. Supposedly, the ordinances of the temple were a restoration of Solomon's temple.
I am not sure that is correct. Why do you think that?
I need to do some research and look up the information. I'm not sure which talk I heard this from. It is a huge apologetic claim. If Dr. Peterson decides to comment, maybe he can shed some light if he has the information off the top of his head.
I'm going to look up some things and see what I can find. It may be tomorrow before I can get back with you on this. I have a 3 year old pulling on my arm. LOL
liz3564 wrote:I'm giving PP credit for thought-provoking discussion. I much prefer this type of thread to his usual venom-spitting. At least with a topic like this, there are places to go...things to talk about.
And PP DOES have a valid point. Supposedly, the ordinances of the temple were a restoration of Solomon's temple.
I am not sure that is correct. Why do you think that?
I need to do some research and look up the information. I'm not sure which talk I heard this from. It is a huge apologetic claim. If Dr. Peterson decides to comment, maybe he can shed some light if he has the information off the top of his head.
I'm going to look up some things and see what I can find. It may be tomorrow before I can get back with you on this. I have a 3 year old pulling on my arm. LOL
Now I think I know what you referred. Joseph Smith referred to masonry having many correct things passed down from the days of Solomon though it was corrupted and lacked priesthood authority.
liz3564 wrote: Of course again, it goes back to whether or not personal revelation is valid. Joseph Smith introduced eternal marriage as a new and everlasting covenant.
Interesting that the apologists claim it was a restoration of ancient polygamy, and was only temporary. So "new and everlasting" really means "Old and temporary."
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
liz3564 wrote: Of course again, it goes back to whether or not personal revelation is valid. Joseph Smith introduced eternal marriage as a new and everlasting covenant.
Interesting that the apologists claim it was a restoration of ancient polygamy, and was only temporary. So "new and everlasting" really means "Old and temporary."
Well, see, that's the whole problem. Eternal marriage and plural marriage have been wrapped up in one big bow. Later, there was more separation of it via talks by leaders etc.
I'm fine with eternal marriage. I'm actually fine with plural marriage as long as it's something that ALL parties want. What I'm not OK with is plural marriage being a supposed "requirement" for exaltation.