AnthonyB

LDS believe that with a few exception nearly every one gets to go to one of three heavens (or subdivisions of heaven) and there abide with at least 1 of the persons of God. You also believe that baptism for remission of sins with correct priesthood authority is neccessary and that baptism must take place either by us here or by a proxy after our deeaths. So non-LDS remain in a temporary state (that I have heard LDS call spirit prison), away from the presence of God until they have there proxy baptism performed? So are you going to get around to baptising everyone by proxy either now or in the millenium? If someone continues to refuse to accept the proxy baptism, are they sent to "outer darkness" eventually? Now for a slightly trickier question, I'd agree that basptism of a believing repentant person remits their sins, but do LDS believe that is the only way to remit sin? If so, do you have a scripture (I happy to take non-NT scripture quotes) that expresses that point? I am not asking for a defence of baptism for the remission of sins or that it is the normal entry of a disciple into the church but that it is the only way for someone to have their sins remitted. Keeping in mind that Jesus remitted sins during his ministry merely on his say so and that 1 John 1:9 teaches that confession also remits sins (it uses the same word as Acts 2:38) Thanks in advance for those that take the time to respond.

BoMW, I for one don't damn or declare people heretical just because the don't have the same understanding of the nature of God as me. I certainly hope that I wasn't being contentious but if your going to talk to people then it is I think polite to attempt to correctly understand their point of veiw. The following quote nicely sums up my point of veiw.... "I object to the doctrine of the Trinity not because it is contrary to reason or revelation, but because of the metaphysical technicalities, the unintelligible jargon, the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject, and the interminable war of words without ideas to which this word Trinity has given birth." (Mill. Harb. 1833, p. 155)

Is this a fair summation of the LDS position? "We are corrputed by sin but still responsive to God and responsible before God for that response." RO 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

BoMW, The topic keeps getting raised because it is a major distinction of the LDS church. Given trinitarian Christians make up around 30% of the worlds population (nominally at least) it is got to be a major issue for you spreading your version of the gospel. I think the threads although tedious to re-read for many have certainly helped I think clear up some misconceptions on both sides. BUT it seems they (the misconceptions) still exist (maybe we need a sticky written by both an LDS and Trad Christian to clearly spell things out). Little Wyvern's answer above, has a common LDS mistake. It is not only LDS who believe that God exists as 3 persons, that is exactly what trinitarians (even non credal ones) believe. 3 eternally loving, caring, communicating persons, each capable of differing tasks and each capable of being in differing spatial locations. (ie The father was not crucified with the son, the Son COULD really talk to the Father) Where the difference is that LDS see the 3 persons as 3 beings and therefore 3 Gods. Traditional Christians somehow try to merge the Bible (and incidentally the BoM) declarations of the oneness of God with the revelation of the 3 persons. Of course to most people that is largely incomprehensible but we're stuck defending it because that is what we believe God has declared about himself in scripture. LDS have a modern prophet to interpret the scripture and allow you a more rational response. Traditional Christian have no prophet to do that task but instead fall back on the words that God has declared about himself in scripture. It really comes down to, does God still authorize modern prophets and authorize them to change concepts about God. Or should we stick to the recieved written revelations.

Most Christians think that some sort of apostasy has happended at some stage in church history. That some other section of the church has neglected, misunderstood, failed to practice or believe something they see as an important part of the gospel and true christian practice. The level, extant, duration and what effects it had on the church is what is really up for contention. This is where I find LDS at times confusing. Your version of the apostacy is far more dramatic then mine but the key nub of the issue is the loss of priesthood/apostolic authority. You believe that no other church has had any priesthood authority since shortly after the apsotles. Yet politely say that there was still some lesser or greater truth in the churches which preceeded yours. Now I agree that baptism is for the remission of sins but I see it as a normative act not exclusive. That is, it is the biblically prescribed way to remit sins but 1 John 1:9, (which incidently uses the same greek word for removing sins as Acts 2:38) indicates that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to remit us from all unrighteousness. Whereas I precieve (please correct if wrong) that like some churches in the states, you believe that baptism for remission is exclusive and the only way to remit sins. However since you believe that priesthood authority is required to baptise and that you alone have that authority, then no Christian outside the LDS (since apostolic times) has been baptised. No true baptism, means no remission of sins, no entry into Christ's church and no receiving the Holy Spirit. Then for LDS no other Christians, have their sins remitted, are walking with Christ and truly have the Holy Spirit. Yet I would submit that although the Christian church is not perfect and there are poor example of Christians in it, yet there are people who do show the fruit of the spirit, do the work of preaching the gospel of Jesus by the spirit of God to the glory of Jesus Christ and live as if they are Jesus' people on earth. If it baa's like a sheep, lives like a sheep, and is not the slightest bit wolvish then it is a sheep. Either we are sheep (albeit slightly confused ones in your opinion) and part of Jesus flock or we are goats. I feel LDS leave other Christians as some sort of hybrid between a sheep and a goat.

That is what the genealogy bloke suggested, but for me it has been easier said then done. Go to church on Sunday morning and don't get back till lunch time and then am I out most Sunday arvo's with my boys. Also felt a bit self conscious about turning up in my Sunday best, shorts, t-shirt and reef sandals would make me stand out. Luckily I'm not too concerned about what people think, and am planning to turn up but will they actually have a BoM for me to take? (Actually while I'm at it wouldn't mind getting a "Quad", would they have one of those for sale?) But I have more time during the week and thought arranging to meet the misso in the cafe under Gog and Magog would be more fun!

How do you get a free BoM without giving out your home address? I went and visited of an LDS chapel, and the guy staffing the genealogy room was quite willing to assist me but there was no BoM anywahere in the entire chapel. I couldn't imagine visiting another church and not being able to get given a bible or I could pick one up at nearly every hotel room thanks to the Gideon's. I'm from Melbourne and walk around the CBD in my lunch break. I can tell you where the bookshops for Catholics, Anglicans, Uniting, general evanglelical ones, Christian Science, Scientology, Theosophy, Hare Krishna's and a couple of Eastern religions groups, LaRouche (the Church of Christ just closed theirs) but there just isn't an LDS book store to be found. More than happy to chat to some misso's over a Hot Chocolate (I'll even shout to cover the cost of the BoM) but without giving a home address, how do I know where they will be?

BTW just to add to the mix....there are also mid-trib people, who think the rapture will occurr oddly enough in the middle of the tribulation. Hemi, Was that a joke? Play on rapture and resurrected from the dead?

Are you wanting a greek grammar analysis! My guess would be that it is something like saying.....The grand canyon is majestic, awesome, wonderful and breathtaking. Or to really put it in LDS terms...The fruit of the LDS church is wholsomeness, purity, holiness, dedication. (The author of the preceeding comment wishes to express that it was an example and not an expression of his personal opinion or the the truthfulness of the statement or not.)

I apologize for the pendantry....but some of the posters have used plurals to paraphrase the verse. It is "fruit is". There is only one fruit. I have heard people make an issue out of that, I don't know if it makes that big a difference but quoting scripture accurately never hurt anyone.

Sometimes I feel like some of the choruses we sing at the Bapo church I attend would suit LDS folk quite well... As an example, here is part of one we sang last Sunday.... "One day every tongue will confess you as Lord, One day every knee will bow, still the greatest treasure remains for those, who galdly choose you now." One could more easily fit those lyrics into LDS thinking than traditional christians thinking.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Nicene creed of its self. If people choose to believe that it is essential to rephrase God inspired truths from God given scripture in terms of greek philosophical thinking then more power to them. I'm glad they really understand "ousia", "hypostasis", "substantia", "essentia" and they can navigate the fact that the words used in latin and greek are somewhat garbled when translated to the other. Where I have a problem is the hateful, repressive, toxic use people have made of the creeds. That they were created to be used as tools of imperial interference with personal belief. That they have led to the execution and persuction of so many, for no crime except believing and thinking differently. Living in western civilization in the 21st C, it is easy to forget just how creeds were used. We today mostly except the right of an individual to seek out God and worship Him as they believe. For someone in the 1820's, having just come through horific wars and persecution, where refusal to conform to the state religion in some countries meant execution or in the majority persecution. In 1820, even in England one had to conform to anglicalism just to attend university. (Not to mention forced tithes to support the anglican priest and church even if they choose not to attend) This was also a time when churches split into endless division over minor issues with each having its own creed to justify their own stand and wholeheartedly despised those who they differed so little from that today we fail to grasp that it could ever have been an issue.

Maxel, Thanks for your post, I'll try to digest it. I visited a LDS chapel about a month ago, (trying to get a copy of BoM). One of my initial impressions was how american it felt. (I have also often got the same impressions from some pentecostal churches I have visited.) The pictures were very reverent but I doubt a Pro Hart would feel right placed on the walls and the place very spotless but the colour scheme felt like a US mall. I can't help feel that you "one true church" might just be a tad monocultural for me to feel really at home. (Time to break out into..."Give me a home among the gum trees....") The NT does a very interesting but little noted thing....The first books of Paul's letters are actually ordered so as to address the major ethnic groups that inhabited large parts of the world he was reaching out to. Romans, Corinthians (Greek), Galatians (Celts) Now I'm sure that then as today there was quite some mixing of people but I can't help seeing it God honouring the varying cultures. Do I think it would be good for all Christians to give up their creeds and non biblical pratices and return to NT Christianity, most certainly. However I'd rather praise God for the good I see then spend my days cursing men for our collective failings. Seek unity in the essentials of the Christian faith, leave room for diversity on the unessentials and hopefully love everyone regardless.

If I could slightly hijack you thread (which has been great so far) harmony is what I see (OK maybe I'm seeing with the eyes of faith rather then current state) amongst the denominations of the Christian church. Each bringing our own fragrance to the worship of God, some exuberance, some reverence, some the loving hands of Christ out to those who need it. I get to be one body with such a rich diversity of people of God and I hope to learn something from all of them. We are all (in the grace of Jesus) the bride of Christ, preparing for the marrriage feast to end all marriage feast.

PC, Been meaning to ask this for sometime and I hope I won't offend by asking. What is you take on "me glossalia" in 1 Cor 12:30? Isn't Paul saying "Not all speaking in tongues, do they?" (I'm not antagonistic to spiritual gifts, my belief in the current existence of "charismata" rests on the fact that I personally have found no NT reference that they have ceased and if we are going to be a NT like church then they have to have their place. It also seems silly IMHO for Paul to spend so much time in the NT talking about their correct use, if they weren't supposed to exist after the apostolic age.)

mel, I apologize if you took my comments in the document as directed against you and not the actual authors of the article. I had realised that your "busy-ness" had probably led you not to fully review it. I was only addressing you when directly questioning if you really supported some of the harsher veiws in the article. Having read your previous posts and your profile this article did seem out of character. As for the matter in hand, under Rom 14, if you consider it a sin, then for you it would be a sin. But I still don't think you have raised a clear case for prohobition or sinfullness in general, just a case that it isn't normative behaviour. As for is it being worth argueing over, for the vast majority of people clearly not, since the vast majority of people I doubt would meet or interact with polygamous people. However this being an LDS forum and given the historic connection of the LDS to other groups that have maintained polygamy then the chances are that some one may just be reading who would feel accused of immorality. Not to mention the even stronger likelihood that LDS posters may have ancestors that you are accusing of immorality. I think before we lable people as breaking God's command we should establish that they actually have broken a command, not just a western cultural mores.

And anyone interested in Traditional Christianity should read the New Testament!

Abraham Was NOT a Polygamist In Genesis 21:8-21 is the record of Hagar's departure from Sarah and Abraham. God ordered Abraham to send away the concubine Hagar and her son, and Abraham obeyed. This was at the time Isaac was weaned. Abraham had, after this, no more relations with Hagar, or his other concubine, Susanna, who is mentioned in the ancient Austrian Chronicle -- see Genesis 25:6 where you will read that Abraham's concubines' sons were sent away. The Austrian Chronicles, a Latin document created in the 14th century. It appears that the authors of this article are a splinter group of Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God. Sarah's death is recorded in Genesis 23:1-2. It was after that (Gen. 25), that Abraham married Keturah. This, of course, was a perfectly legal marriage. There was no polygamy -- no divorce. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are termed, in both Old and New Testaments, "the Fathers." Jesus Christ came to confirm the PROMISES made to "the Fathers." The unconditional promises God made to Abraham were repeated to both Isaac and Jacob. Isaac Had Only One Wife Isaac was no polygamist! There is no mention whatever of any wife for Isaac other than Rebekah. There is no mention of any concubines, or of any act of adultery. In Old Testament types Abraham is the human type of God the Father. He is called, in the human sense, the father of the faithful. In this same system of types, Isaac is the type of Christ, the Son of God. And Isaac's wife, Rebekah, is the type of the CHURCH, which is to marry Christ. I never heard of that typology before. JACOB: One Wife After Conversion As he stole the Birthright from Esau by unfair means, and received Isaac's blessing by a lying deception, so his father-in-law, Laban, deceived Jacob. Laban supplanted Jacob's promised and loved wife, Rachel, with his elder daughter Leah. Leah was foisted on Jacob by fraud. According to God's marriage laws, Jacob could have rejected her -- put her away as soon he discovered the deception. In that event, he would never have been truly married to Leah -- GOD would not have bound them as one flesh. But when Jacob accepted her as his wife, she became his ONLY true wife, in God's sight, as long as they both live! But Jacob was not yet converted. He leaned to his own understanding. He did not seek wisdom from God, nor did he seek to OBEY God. He did what seemed right to him, in his own selfish interest. So Jacob lived in polygamy with both wives, and also had children by their two personal maids. But you read of Jacob's conversion in Genesis 32:24-30. He then put idolatry out of his household (Gen. 35:2-4). God appeared to him, changed his name to ISRAEL ("Overcomer," or "Prevailer with God"), and reconfirmed the PROMISES. Then God took Rachel, his second wife (Gen. 35:19), leaving only his first and true wife Leah. What kind of heartless person appears to rejoice in Rachel's death and has no appreciation of the life long pain that Jacob suffered that is clearly recorded in scripture. Like Job's comforter this person appears to delight in making God the author of suffering not the comforter of the suffering. Secondly there appears to be quite some time that passes between Jacob’s renewal and Rachel’s death. In fact she dies giving birth to a son, if he had stopped being a polygamist and was being faithful to only Leah that seems very odd. Actually they have inverted typology here. Leah is usually seen as the illegitimate wife or false promise (ie the law) and Rachel the wife of true promise (ie faith). I know this is a reasonably wide spread use of typology since C S Lewis uses it as a motif in his book “The Pilgrim’s Regress”. They have Leah as legit and Rachel as not which reverses to the far more common understanding. So, following his conversion, Jacob had but his one original wife. Jacob had repented. He lived no more in polygamy after his conversion. A Worldly Custom God FORBADE polygamy for the kings of Israel. Here is God's LAW respecting polygamy by Israel's kings: "When thou art come unto the land which the Eternal thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me. . . . Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut. 17:14, 17). It is spoken of as "THIS LAW" in verses 18 and 19. If polygamy was a sin why attempt to ban it from kings, why not simply and clearly ban it from everyone? The answer is a king can abuse his power. If you read the context you will clearly see that it is an attempt to stop kings from using their power to stockpile things. The NIV actually uses “many” wives not multiple wives. That is the restriction is not about polygamy but about abuse of power. Israel's first king, Saul, had plural wives. But in this he disobeyed God and followed the custom of the kings of the worldly nations around Israel. It was SIN. It was not approved by God. David REPENTED of Polygamy David had several wives. But after his tremendous sin of taking Bathsheba and having her husband murdered, David repented, in real heart-rending repentance. And he never repeated the sin. Very few seem to realize what actually happened. See II Samuel 12:9-12. "Now therefore," said God (verse 10), "the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised ME, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." Notice, David despised GOD -- not merely the commandment of God, as in verse 9, but also the very Person of God! He did it by taking this woman as his wife. Therefore the sword was never to depart from his HOUSE. The HOUSE OF DAVID, at that time consisted solely of these plural WIVES, and his children. This was a tremendous, super SIN. God was meting out tremendous super punishment. Now notice the next verse: "Thus saith the Eternal, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house. . . ." His own house included his wives and children. What evil? God has just said the sword will now come upon his house -- his family. God continues: ". . . and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." David repented. "And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Eternal" (I Samuel 12:13). You will read of David's private prayer of repentance to God in the 51st Psalm -- the prayer of a really broken and contrite heart. It was real repentance. David turned from polygamy. The next words in this text in II Samuel 12 are: "And Nathan said unto David, The Eternal also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." However, the son to be born of this adultery was to die. Bathsheba was another man’s wife and David had the husband killed that was the “SUPER” sin. David didn’t repent of polygamy but of murder and adultery (that is having another man’s wife.) Nathan never abrades David for having many sheep but for having many sheep and then taking the sheep of a man who had but one. I’m sorry but they are twisting scripture to fit their own preconceived opinions. Even Concubines Put Away Do you see what God did? He meted out to David a tremendous punishment -- God took all his wives, leaving Bathsheba only. With David's first and only legitimate wife, Michal, probably dead (see II Sam. 6:23), God also had cleared the way for Bathsheba to become the legal wife of David. Apparently this was done, that she might be the mother of Solomon, through whom God was to keep His unconditional, dynastic, promise to David -- a forefather of Jesus Christ -- and a prophet used in writing the Bible. After this David was away from Jerusalem. But, returning, there were ten concubines (his former harem). Here is what David did with them: "And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood" (II Sam. 20:3). Just as David kept the ten concubines "in widowhood" -- that is, he had no relations with them, for they had been defiled by his son Absalom. Firstly the ten concubines had been left to look after the palace when David fled. They were put aside because David’s son Absalom had defiled them (in a public act of defiance.) Whereas in 2 Sam 15:16 it makes it clear that the entire household (including his wives departed except for those ten concubines.) It has nothing to do with stopping polygamy and everything to do with the fact his son had defiled them. His son, Solomon, started out righteously, unselfishly, relying on God. But, "when Solomon was old," he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines -- it must have been a record harem. And his wives turned away his heart from God, and to their idols. It was SIN! Regarding it, God's Word says: "Solomon did evil in the sight of the Eternal" (I Kings 11:6). The evil Solomon did was allowing his wives to get him to worship other God’s not in having the other wives. There was polygamy in ancient Israel. But it was SIN! God condemned it -- He never condoned or sanctioned it. They reaped what they sowed. What GOD Joins in Marriage Also Israelites practiced what God had forbidden -- divorce and remarriage. On this, Jesus said: "Moses [not God] because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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" (Mat. 19:8-9). GOD has never legalized divorce and remarriage. It is not allowable today. I’d agree but Jesus did place a caveat in terms of marital unfaithfulness. Paul also includes desertion as legitimate means of ending a marriage. Jesus said, in this same connection: "Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?" Notice, Jesus was dating this from the BEGINNING. And God never changes! "And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" Notice, a man shall cleave to his WIFE -- not wives. And they TWO -- not he and several wives -- shall be one flesh. "What therefore GOD hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mat. 19:4-6). It is what GOD joins together. That is the definition of MARRIAGE. God does not join together one man with plural women! Any woman a man may "marry" according to man's codes, in addition to the wife GOD joined him to, is NOT his wife, so long as his real wife lives. Any additional women, whether in polygamy, or by divorce one at a time, is plain ADULTERY! GOD never joins the second, let alone the additional "wives." They are NOT truly wives -- they are adulteresses, and the man becomes an adulterer. THIS BREAKS GOD'S LAW. IT IS SIN. Again, Hannah is an adulteress? God punishes her adultery by giving her a son and making him one of the greatest judges/prophets. Jesus thus put us straight on monogamous marriage. God made ONE wife for Adam -- not a harem! He started the human family out as He ordained they should go -- a family of ONE man and ONE wife. And, remember, God gave this absolute command regarding future kings of Israel -- telling them they must not do as the pagan nations around them (whose kings had their harems): "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself!" Saul, Israel's first king, DISOBEYED that command. He let demons take hold of him. God deposed him, and put David in his place. David started out in polygamy, but God punished him. HE REPENTED thoroughly, and he finished his reign with his only living wife. Solomon finished his life in polygamy and idolatry -- and God, in punishment, rent the KINGDOM away from his son, Rehoboam. GOD DID NOT CONDONE POLYGAMY! He PUNISHED those who practiced it! It was always SIN! It is SIN today! Hosea and other prophets constantly dwell upon the thought of monogamous marriage as being a symbol of the union of God and His people, and denounce idolatry as unfaithfulness to this spiritual marriage tie. Christ to Marry ONE Church The marriage relationship, in the New Testament, is the type of the relationship between Christ and God's Church. The worldly churches are MANY. Those who claim the NAME Christian -- Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox Catholic, hundreds of Protestant churches -- all claim to be, combined, the Church which Christ started. They seem to believe, somehow, that when Christ returns to earth to marry His CHURCH, that Jesus Christ will be a POLYGAMIST -- that He will marry HUNDREDS of churches -- have HUNDREDS of WIVES! THEY ARE WRONG! Jesus Christ will marry but ONE Church -- the True Church of GOD -- and all these worldly churches will be on the outside looking in! Listen! "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and HIS WIFE [not wives] hath made herself ready" (Rev. 19:7). Are you happy to condemn other followers of Jesus, merely because they go to another church? You do realize that the “good folk” who wrote this article probably think your hell bound as well, since you’re not a member of their “Church of GOD”. By the measure we judge others, so shall we be judged. I happen to agree that there is only one true church and we should be baptized into it (not a denomination or club) but I’m not going to damn people just because they’ve joined a church or cherish their traditions. I’ll let Jesus be the judge and let His mercy extend to them as I believe he will extend it to me. One of the qualifications for a Minister in GOD'S Church is that he have only ONE wife! No POLYGAMIST may be a Minister of Jesus Christ in His True Church! Here it is: "A bishop [elder, overseer, preacher, minister] must be blameless, the husband of ONE wife" (I Tim. 3:2). Likewise, a man may not even be a deacon if he has more than one wife (verse 12). Here they actually make my point. I would put some caveat in their argument that some have argued that the one wife meant only married once (as not remarried after the loss of a wife). However I’ll stick with one wife meant not being polygamous. If Paul had thought that polygamy was a sin, then it seems very odd for him to restrict elders and deacons from it. If it was truly a sin (i.e.: adultery), no body should be practicing it. Not all the items in 1 Tim 3:2 are moral requirements, being “able to teach” is not. Looking at 1 Tim 3:12 where having one wife and managing kids and a household are linked it may be possible to view this as Paul being practical. A man with multiple wives will be just too busy (if he is doing the job properly) to fulfill the roles in the church. Let us, then, understand it once and for all! Polygamy is a SIN. God condemns it! It is ADULTERY! IT HAS NEVER BEEN APPROVED OR CONDONED BY GOD AT ANY TIME, IN PATRIARCHAL DAYS -- IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES -- OR NOW, TODAY! They have failed IMHO to show that polygamy was condemned in the Bible. This last section is I think a major divide amongst Christians. Some have decided that only what God specifically permits is allowed and everything else is a sin. Thus you get the people who forbid music in church, missionary societies, having kitchens attached to churches et al. Other Christians take the view that what is commanded should be obeyed and where there is silence in the bible then we are allowed some measure of freedom. If you wish to be amongst those who condemn all that isn’t permitted then I wish you luck and will pray that you unlike many others do not fall into petty legalism so rampant amongst those who take that line. Again monogamy is preferable and IMHO the normative form of marriage but polygamy is not forbidden or inherently sinful.

Jesus Mt 19:5, Mk 10:7 and Paul Eph 5:31 get this statement from Gen 2:24. So Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon all committed adultery in your opinion. Not to mention Hannah Samuel's mum was an adulteress.

I would just like to mention that the LDS are not the only Christian group that has no paid clergy, group such as the Christian Brethren don't as well.

I think that the Catholic church has a couple of levels of baptism (maybe types would be a better word). If you come from some churches they'll except your baptism as legit. (eg Orthodox) From other churches they'll presume your baptism legit but do some sort of covering baptism just in case it wasn't. (eg For some protestants) For other churches they consider it no baptism (if you weren't baptised in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit or otherwise didn't meet their requirements for a baptism) (eg LDS and Oneness Pentecostals). Those people would need to be given the full baptism rights. I suppose my question to any RC posters was does another baptism invalidate the RCC one.

Hijolly, It is the lack of "transcendentalness" in LDS expression that does get me perplexed. LDS are so concerned in hammering home the manifest that it seems to leave God as a mere "super" man. I believe in a God, who has revealed that He is always with me, that there is no where I could go to escape Him. A God who knows my innermost thoughts and hearts intentions better then I know them myself. A God who is the ultimate expression of infinite love, mercy, goodness, kindness. God is my "childhood" hero, my perfect examplar. I strive to be hopefully ever more like Him knowing that an eternity of trying would only be the beginning of the journey. Somehow having Him live on a planet near a star called Kolob, with a real body and as a man who managed to work his way to Godhood leaves Him sounding (to me) as much less divine. I don't comprehend that the things in above paragraph which I hold dear about God would be compatable with the LDS vision of God. Of course the answer would be Jesus, who was fully God and fully man. However LDS don't appear to have a dual nature Christology and the idea of the limiting/masking divine nature by assuming manhood. Your Father God is permanently incarnate and simultaneously unlimitedly divine.

mel, Could you, when you get a chance, answer my questions at the beginning of the tread, it would increase my sample....

I was tring to ask, what state I would be regarded as by the RC church....I am merely a lapsed RC or a heretic for having been rebaptized? I presume I wouldn't have to get rebaptised but have to repent of my 2nd baptism? (Not planing to go back to Rome, just curious)

Mel, Thanks for the clarification on your faith. I'd agree that the verses you quoted show the normative scriptural position is for one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others. However you haven't provided a command against polygamy or any verse that forbids it. You could argue that like divorce it was something that was allowed due to hardness of heart in the OT but however Jesus clearly clarified divorce not polygamy. You could hardly call Jacob's position as a hardness of heart issue, he had been promised Rachel but was given Leah, it wasn't his fault. (Although the story clearly shows some of the real problems with polygamy.) Suck it in son, you've been had, seems hardly fair! I think that the lack of a clear negative commands allows some liberty on this topic. (I'm not of the persuasion that only those things listed as permitted in the bible are allowed but that God has given us a very short list of actions we should do, an even shorter list of things we shouldn't and whole lot of freedom to hopefully choose the best options for ourselves in whole heap of other areas.) I don't know that every action that is not God's perfect chose for us is automatically a sin. I think scripture gives us some freedom to choose and not everybody all the time is going to always choose the highest path at every occasion. (Have you? I certainly haven't) I think the general consensus on this thread has been that those already in a plural married state when coming to faith should be encouraged to be faithful to those committemnts. Firstly they are not in the optimal marriage arrangement but they have made committment and vows to each other. Jesus it makes it clear that divorce is not ever God's intended hope for any marriage. Secondly, I doubt the best interest of the kids would be served by breaking marriages into which they may have been inoncently born into. Thirdly, following Paul's advice in Corinthians, that if your married you should not sek a divorce but to stay as in the state in which you were called (whether IMHO single, married or plurally married) is the optimal choice for Christians. However I wonder and I'm happy to be corrected on this, whether there may not be a limited case for exceptions for missionaries to islamic countries. Getting the gospel out as best we can surely has high priority in Jesus teachings. Would it be a cultural advantage to have a plurally married Christian family in a strict islamic area? Would it allow greater access into their society, greater freedom of movement for the wives (there has been an historical gender imbalance in missionaries and being a single female is quite limiting in those areas). Does Paul's statement of being all things to all men in order to win some, have enough force to overcome the normative marriage imperiative? We have learnt over the last century to put aside some of our Western mores that were not neccesarily scriptural mores to reach out to those in other cultures. We once enforced western ways as Christian ways. Does the ban on polygamy come from scripture or western culture? I eagerly concede that monogamy is not only normative from scripture, but appears to be IMHO the fairest and best way to be married. (Even biology, given the relatively equal numbers of each gender born, lends wait to monogamy.) All that being said, I personally think plural marriage would be awfully tough on all involved. If hell hath no fury like a scorned wife, imagine two of them!