This exercise illustrates my point that Mormon history and doctrine is not concrete and is wide open to interpretation of said history and vague references to biblical references that seem to contain Mormon theology.
No, but what is does illustrate is that you are in denial, unable or unwilling to actually address the evidence instead preferring to feign ignorance and foster a certain bumpkiness to stroke your ego.
This exercise illustrates my point that Mormon history and doctrine is not concrete and is wide open to interpretation of said history and vague references to biblical references that seem to contain Mormon theology.
No, but what is does illustrate is that you are in denial, unable or unwilling to actually address the evidence instead preferring to feign ignorance and foster a certain bumpkiness to stroke your ego.
I find it odd that you defending Mormons will use the Bible to defend the foundation of your beliefs, that being "the most correct book on earth". Yet your own AoF states you only believe in it "so far as it is translated correctly"....
And for that matter, the part that was or was not translated correctly has never been explicitly defined.. that conveniently keeps it open to shifting perspectives.
This exercise illustrates my point that Mormon history and doctrine is not concrete and is wide open to interpretation of said history and vague references to biblical references that seem to contain Mormon theology.
No, but what is does illustrate is that you are in denial, unable or unwilling to actually address the evidence instead preferring to feign ignorance and foster a certain bumpkiness to stroke your ego.
== 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.
I do not think this phrase was intended to carry a theological meaning with it. I mean think of the chances that a husband and wife would die at the same exact time. Naturally, when one dies and the other continues in this life, they do part at death - even in LDS marriages. What happens in the afterlife is another question altogether, and I do not think this phrase "till death do us part" was intended to cover that area. So I think it is improper for LDS to assume the "time and all eternity" preference should be understood as a corrective for a false doctrine.
Matthew 22;30 has always been a true stumper for me, even as an apologist. It seems to be clear that we do not continue with the marriage status, at least according to Matthew. The spin by Tvetdnes doesn't carry much weight, especially in liught of the fact that schoplarship overwhelmingly rejects his exegesis. But I guess scholarly consensus only matters in threads started by Bokovoy.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein