Support Of The Bible-accordined To Outshined

[Outshined]

Thanks for the kind words. I hope we have decent internet access there this time so I can check in from time to time here for moral support...

[Brother Dorsey]

Hi...having dealt with anti's there seems to be the constant..."prove it with the Bible, prove it with the Bible...show me, show me, show me where in the Bible it says.....you have false gospel because what you preach is not in the Bible". They want us to back up LDS doctrine with just the Bible....Brothers and Sisters you know we can't do that with only the Bible, it's only part of the full Gospel, it is missing many plain and simple truths. However we can with the Book of Mormon, D & C and modern day revelation.....we have more than just the Bible, we have the fullness of the Gospel. I say back up the LDS doctrines with the Lords word...all his word, don't limit it to just the Bible. We have been given great light and knowledge...let's be bold in our testimonies to non members and anti Mormon groups...if they want to know....quote not only the Bible but ALL the scriptures from God.

Thanks for the kind words. I hope we have decent internet access there this time so I can check in from time to time here for moral support...

Outshined...

May you and the other Americans over there and their families be blessed for your sacrafice for all of us.

Godspeed my brother...HF is with you all the way!

[a-train]

OK,

Since this thread is on the subject. I'll ask this question:

Does Paul outright condone polygamy in 1 Corinthians 7?

'And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.' (1 Cor. 7:10-11)

If the LORD here commands a man NOT to put away his wife and further disallows the wife to marry another, what does this mean?

Does this mean the man whose wife has left will re-marry without a divorce?

If the estranged wife returns and is so reconciled does the man then have two wives?

What about verses 27-28? 'Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.'

Is he saying that a man, whether bound to a wife or not can marry and 'hast not sinned'?

Why is there any question whether a virgin would sin by getting married?

Are we talking about a virgin who is marrying a married man?

These are questions. I don't intend to put forth the answers.

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[Dr T]

Does Paul outright condone polygamy in 1 Corinthians 7?

No

[Guest mamacat]

dear Outshined ~

i wish you safe passage during your tenure in Iraq. you and your men. you will be in my prayers. thanks for sharing so much of yourself on your webpage listed here...i found alot of great stuff on the education page for homeschooling.

peace, love and light to you,

mamacat

[roman]

I have also in the past thanked outshined for his milatary service and am endeed still thakful for him in that capacity. I also think that it is great that others on this board have come to say what they have about him. BUT--- I feel I need to clarify something that was a major gaft of outshined posting. I'm

only doing this after much thought and consideration in many areas.

When I first approached the topic of blacks and the priesthood band, outshined used what he called===PAULS VISION TO TAKE THE GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES IN ACTS 20 as a defence for the lds stance. He mentioned this several times, not just once. When he first used it, I said his answer was nonapplicable. The second time he used it, I said it was a non answer. The third time he used it, I asked for verse clarification of which he never gave. That whole proccess frustrated me to no end, and I guess it showed in my posting. outshined would say repeatedly that the answers he was giving were supported by the Bible and that I couldn't handle his answer---was running from him--couldn't deal with his answers, ---well you all read what he said And to add fuel to this all----------another lds poster said that their was a coralation of lds understanding and Acts 20.

The big problem in all of this is that there is no such record in Acts 20 of Paul having a vision of God telling him to take the gospel to the gentiles---------nor is that event anywhere in the Book of Acts. I noticed that the very first time he posted it and that is why I said what I did about his use of Acts 20. Thats why I said it was nonapplicable----a non answer and so on-------------he was flat wrong on his scriture reference and when i tried to push it by asking for the exact verses in Acts 20 he------well you know things went down hill even farther. I' am very suprised that no one else caught that and said something about it. Esspecially as outshined called it FACT and was so adamint about the whole thing on more than one occasion. You post something once I could see it as just a mistake or error in correct passage---------but he went on and on about it-------He was dead sure of his passage--------but in the end he was wrong, which competly underminds his whole argument----------hence my frustration and outrage over something so easy to research and get right. He even said he was taught this in nonlds Bible college and had know it for along time

Now as to my 6 emails i said I got from this thread--------outshined called me a liar-----well I'm not! The 6 are not posters on this board at all.I know I used the word pals in reference to that but it was used in the sence of all being lds,except the one. I emailed this thread and the other one to 6 of my friends that I know here locally and that was there reaction to it. I will bet outshined assumed they were board poster I was talking about. And that assumption is flat wrong too. Yes I have many lds friends and hope to continue to have a few on this board,

From my point of view outshined made several comments that he could not back up and I think he is better than that When you attribute certain things to certain posters----it should come with proof and maybe it should be required in the future---------to avoid the look of bias.

well thats my explanation of a few things-------------I'm sorry to all who had to endure , but when dealing with falsehoods--intentional or not he can become frustating. I know I can also do better in posting in the future and will give it a good Christian try on my next posting

[CrimsonKairos]

Gotcha roman.

Outshined meant Peter's vision, not Paul's. As for Acts 20, he meant Acts 10, and the "1" key is right next to the "2" key on a standard keyboard. Probably just a slip of the fingers in typing.

I never said there was a correlation between the priesthood ban and Acts 20. What I said was that there is a similarity in principle between the priesthood ban and the gospel being the sole property of the Jews until after Christ's death.

No mention of Acts 20 was ever made in any of my posts, I think you just assumed that.

There, typos corrected, scripture references verified, apologies given and accepted all around...we cool. B)

a-train, good questions about polygamy and 1 Corinthians. I suppose an argument could be made for Paul condoning polygamy--as per your observations on virgins marrying--though I see Dr. T shared a contary view in a wonderful display of brevity, to wit, a one-word answer. Bless you Dr. T, I love short answers sometimes. :)

[Outshined]

I never said there was a correlation between the priesthood ban and Acts 20. What I said was that there is a similarity in principle between the priesthood ban and the gospel being the sole property of the Jews until after Christ's death.

Which was the exact point all along, of course.

It's not to my credit that I allowed myself to be drawn into a setup "discussion" with someone who calls our Church a "false gospel built on lies and distortions". Was there any question where that would go? Better to rectify it late than never, I suppose. It's too easy to get carried away, so the ignore function can keep us from the temptation to interact with those who are here only to contend and tear down, when we know it will only get unpleasant.

a-train's post gives more food for thought (as usual with his posts). Thanks; I'll be thinking about that one.

Thanks to everyone for the good wishes and kind thoughts. When we get settled in I'll give my address to one or two people here to give out to whoever wants it.

[roman]

Gotcha roman.

Outshined meant Peter's vision, not Paul's. As for Acts 20, he meant Acts 10, and the "1" key is right next to the "2" key on a standard keyboard. Probably just a slip of the fingers in typing.

I never said there was a correlation between the priesthood ban and Acts 20. What I said was that there is a similarity in principle between the priesthood ban and the gospel being the sole property of the Jews until after Christ's death.

No mention of Acts 20 was ever made in any of my posts, I think you just assumed that.

There, typos corrected, scripture references verified, apologies given and accepted all around...we cool. B)

Thanks for a responce. but if that was true then when I brought Acts 10 into the discussion he would have caught his error. as I already said---I could understand an error--once, but not several times over several post. edit: he also got the person wrong then as he continually said Paul when its Peter in Acts10-------no this was a serious error on his part all the way around

Correlation or similarity is the same to be, but well thats just me. I understand your point a bit better now and I don't think I attributed an acts 20 to you ---It was to another poster

yep---we cool

[CrimsonKairos]

I hope you'll hook me up, bro. You know I'm behind you! B)

[Outshined]

You know it! B)

I actually planned to PM it to you and Shan and let you give it to whoever wants it rather than post it publicly.

[a-train]

Perhaps this has also been asked, but why was the 'kingdom of heaven' likened to ten virgins who all waited on a single bridegroom in Matthew 25?

The five who maintained enough oil for their lamps are considered 'wise' and go into the marriage. Why do we have the LORD portraying the kingdom of heaven as the polygamous marriage of five women to one man? And why would He give us an example of polygamous women as role models?

If they are only bridesmaids, why were they waiting on the groom and not the bride?

Indeed I can see a necessity to present the union of the numerous host of the Church to the LORD with a plural company marrying the single Groom in 'the hour wherein the Son of man cometh', but it would seem that most of modern Christianity (and many LDS for that matter) would be highly uncomfortable with the LORD's inclusion of polygamous marriage in such a holy and beautiful parable. In fact, there are many who will outright deny the bridegroom was polygamous in this parable for that very reason.

Imagine if the LORD were to have put it forth as ten men waiting on the Groom? While this could have some validity in the symbolic union of all men to Christ, it would be shocking nonetheless to our modern society of Christians if not also the Jews to which the Master gave the parable. It would of course sit easier with us however, for we could interpret them to be mere groomsmen in support of a bridegroom to whom some unknown virgin was being wed. However, the parable would lose it's conveyance of the symbolic matrimonial hold of Christ to the Church as was also presented by Paul in his Epistles.

DISCLAIMER: For anyone wondering if New Testament references to polygamy such as this are where the LDS obtained the notion and vindication of polygamy, the answer is emphatically NO.

-a-train

[Dr T]

Thank you CK. :)

===

A-Train,

I see that parable as talking about Jesus' return and being prepared, not as actual marriage of those women. Seeing it as a support for polygamy is to much of a stretch for me.

[roman]

===

A-Train,

I see that parable as talking about Jesus' return and being prepared, not as actual marriage of those women. Seeing it as a support for polygamy is to much of a stretch for me.

I totally agree with you Dr. T

a-trians interpertation is flawed--on the 10 virgins. It has to do with the LORD's return. 5 were prepared and 5 were not.

[Dr T]

Sorry my post ought to have read "too" not "to." My fingers aren't as good as they used to be...

[Outshined]

A-Train,

I see that parable as talking about Jesus' return and being prepared, not as actual marriage of those women. Seeing it as a support for polygamy is to much of a stretch for me.

I'm inclined to agree. The parable was about being prepared for the return of Christ, which he related to the wise and foolish virgins.

I've heard discussion before about whether the virgins were there to attend the wedding or were the actual brides, but there just isn't enough there to be conclusive. That part just wasn't integral to the point He was making.

[Dr T]

agreed :)

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't know fellas, I lean towards the polygamy context myself.

Far be it from me to second guess the Lord, but...if the parable is just about being ready for the Lord's coming and being prepared, why didn't the Lord use a parable about a Master coming to check on his servants in his vineyard to see if they have all the tools in hand they'll need to do his will? Or why not a parable about a military commander ordering his troops into battle and five are armed and ready and five are not?

I don't think the Lord chose the imagery of ten virgins waiting for one bridegroom just because it sounded nice. As a-train pointed out, the imagery of Christ marrying the Church is a frequent theme. It is pretty obvious that the virgins were waiting to join their fiance the bridegroom.

It was not Jewish custom to have virgins serve as torch-bearers for a bridegroom, or for virgins to wait as servants to assist the bridegroom. In fact, why the specific mention of virgins at all, why not just ten comely lasses???

Now, just because the parable is couched in the framework of a polygamous marriage does not prove or disprove the LDS practice of polygamy.

[Dr T]

Right. Was the term "virgins" used to describe the age of the females or something like that?

Maybe it was really a plug for a certain type of wick that was being sold at that time :)

[a-train]

Wow,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post. Of course the parable is about being prepared for the LORD's return. That is exactly why the question exists. Why is the Church/Kingdom of God on Earth uniting with the LORD at His coming symbolized by a polygamous union? Is the question unclear? Do you not understand what the question is? How can I be more clear in this question?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Of course the parable is about being prepared for the LORD's return.

I don't think anyone has disagreed about that.

Why is the Church/Kingdom of God on Earth uniting with the LORD at His coming symbolized by a polygamous union? Is the question unclear?

A few of the members here don't believe the parable involves a polygamous union. That's what I was trying to highlight, that the literal parable is a story about ten virgins waiting for their fiance, the bridegroom.

[roman]

I don't want to drudge up old stuff---------lets leave that behind. But do lds us any NT reference for polygamy. And what are they?

[a-train]

LDS did NOT use the New Testament to bring about or vindicate any notion and/or practice of polygamy. However, there have been groups of Christians that have and do. Two of the New Testament scriptures used by non-LDS groups are the two I brought up: the Parable of the Ten Virgins and 1 Corinthians 7.

So, do I understand this right? Is everyone here but CK of the opinion that the five virgins were NOT polygamously marrying the groom in the parable?

Now, understand, I am making no ascertion here that to admit that the LORD's parable contained polygamy would in any way mean that polygamy is to be practiced by us today. This thread is somewhat dedicated to New Testament references to polygamy and that is why I am asking about what people think of these two references, because they have been viewed by non-LDS Christians to be making mention of polygamy.

But here is another question: 'If polygamy was indeed allowed under the Mosaic Law, then what indication do we have in the New Testament that it was to be discontinued altogether with the new covenant?'

-a-train

[roman]

a-train

Exellent question you asked on the NT discontinuation of polygamy. I don't have time now to answer, as I'm off to work. But when I get off later today I may give it a shot to list a few scriptures.

That may indeed work backwards to show that polygamy wasn't an appoved practice by God at all when lds practiced it-----------maybe we will see.

BTW what nonlds groups are you talking about---got a name for them?

[Outshined]

So, do I understand this right? Is everyone here but CK of the opinion that the five virgins were NOT polygamously marrying the groom in the parable?

No; I agree that it seems likely that the marriage in the parable was a polygamous one, though it is rather inconclusive. I was just saying it wasn't the point of the parable.

If anything, I believe it just shows that polygamous marriages were not out of the ordinary at the time. So it would make sense that Christ would reference multiple brides, as He was teaching about many people being unprepared for His return.

'If polygamy was indeed allowed under the Mosaic Law, then what indication do we have in the New Testament that it was to be discontinued altogether with the new covenant?'

Good question. We see reference to 'man and wife' in the NT, as well as references that suggest polygamous unions, but no actual forbidding of polygamy. In that part of the world, polygamy was still common at that time.

Interestingly, Martin Luther said on this subject; "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."