Guest tomk Posted May 8, 2008 Report Share Posted May 8, 2008 I believe that is a consequence a person brings upon themselves. What I am arguing is that all sins are not equal. You can't unmurder someone, but you can return the bubblegum and apologize for stealing it. One causes a lot more heartache than the other. Sure, but either one (technically) keeps you out of the Celestial Kingdom.All things being equal, I'd **rather** be a thief than a murderer, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningStar Posted May 8, 2008 Report Share Posted May 8, 2008 True. There's also the issue of denying the Holy Ghost being an unpardonable sin. No matter what sins we commit, we all need the Atonement, but some sins are more harmful and more difficult to repent of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningStar Posted May 8, 2008 Report Share Posted May 8, 2008 Another point I'd like to make - If all sins are equal, why the destructions in the Bible due to wickedness? The flood came because of wickedness and Sodom and Gomorrah was also destroyed due to wickedness. Lot and his family were allowed to leave despite them being sinners too. Noah and his family were sinners. Why spare some sinners and not others? Is that playing favorites? It seems to me that God considers some sins more serious than others - yet He doesn't tolerate sin in the least degree of allowance. No unclean thing can dwell with God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 8, 2008 Report Share Posted May 8, 2008 JenaMaiieThe difference between you and me is that you believe in the plurality of gods, and I believe in One God.OMFH....I knew it wouldn't be long before the Walter Martinesque lies surfaced... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 8, 2008 Report Share Posted May 8, 2008 This is another example of a post that requires references. You should have no problem locating this on lds.org to discuss the talk in its entirety. I have seen partial quotes from President Hinckley posted with assumptions made regarding what he meant. SeraphimSeraphim...It wasn't a talk per se. It was originally quoted in an article in the Church News some 10 or more years ago...and then maligned and misquoted...or more correctly distorted by the "traditional christian media."For a number of years, I had a pdf of the article...and then one day...poof, I couldn't find it.Basically, President Hinckley was responding to a question posed to him during a trip to Europe. I believe it was for Swiss Temple Rededication.He basically said that we as Latter Day Saints don't worship the traditional Christ of the NT, but rather we worship a living Christ...a person of flesh and bone...just like his Father, our Heavenly Father.I've got a call into a school chum who works for NAC, which publishes and distributes the Church News in the Saturday Deseret News. I know he'll have a copy of it on PDF. When I get it, I'll gladly post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 8, 2008 Report Share Posted May 8, 2008 But Josepth Smith did preach polytheism,. where "Traditional Christianity" does not support that.Actually...Hiz...you are proffering yet another Walter Martinesque lie...Here is a link to a BYU website with the text of the King Follett Sermon or Lecture as many call it. Please feel free to read through it. It is the entire text of what the Prophet said...not some hatchet job done by one of your so called "men of God"Mormon Literature Sampler: The King Follett DiscourseWhile the Prophet does use the term God in the plural...and while technically Latter Day Saint Doctrine could be considered polytheistic in the micro...in the macro, we are monotheistic in worship.We know there to be those who have and will achieve exhaultation, but we don't worship them. We worship only God the Father...through his only Begotten, Jesus Christ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skalenfehl Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 Is this the one? President Hinckley talks about us not believing the "traditional Christ of Christianity."As a Church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. They spoke to him. He spoke with Them. He testified openly, unequivocally, and unabashedly of that great vision. It was a vision of the Almighty and of the Redeemer of the world, glorious beyond our understanding but certain and unequivocating in the knowledge which it brought.Here's his talk: We Look to Christ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skalenfehl Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 I think I found a snippet, but I haven't been able to find the entire article:In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President [Gordon B.] Hinckley spoke of those outside the [LDS] Church who say Latter-day Saints “do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.” (Church News, June 20, 1998, 7) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 Is this the one? President Hinckley talks about us not believing the "traditional Christ of Christianity."Skale...NO...My buddy sent me a link to the DesNews Archieves...when I clicked on it, a window popped open saying it was in an older archieve...he's getting me a different link.The "topic" came up on a European visit...hopefully, I'll have it tomorrow...although, I'm jumping through multiple hoops to get up to Zion, so I can watch the Laker's kick some booty in the "Glow in the Dark" Center... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skalenfehl Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 I think I understand where President Hinckley is coming from. The Christ that we believe in is Jehovah, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Alpha and the Omega, the eternal God. This is the Jesus we believe in. From my understanding of traditional Christianity, Christ, or God, is someone without body parts or passion, etc. We don't believe that at all. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that He is without body parts or passion. The Nicene Creed is the most widely accepted and used brief statements of the Christian Faith. A simple search of the Nicene Creed tells me what traditional Christians believe and I believe this is what President Hinckley referred to by traditional Christianity. Without being able to find the entire quote, I really can't comment further. Edit: Furthermore we believe that Christ and His Father are two separate glorified and perfect personages of flesh and bone. They appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove near his home. Hence the modern day revelation that they are two distinct personages, just as we believe Steffen in the New Testament saw before he was stoned to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skalenfehl Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 LOL, "glow in the dark"? Are you in SLC right now? I can't believe they call it the Energy Solutions Arena. I liked Delta Center just fine. Anyway, back on topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 LOL, "glow in the dark"? Are you in SLC right now? I can't believe they call it the Energy Solutions Arena. I liked Delta Center just fine. Anyway, back on topic...NO...I'm flying out tomorrow night...and will be up in zion for the weekend... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 I think I found a snippet, but I haven't been able to find the entire article:Bada Bing...Bada Boom...You've got it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 Joseph Smith did preach polytheism...I would expect, during the Millennium, Polygamy will again be restarted. Why? There will be more righteous women than those of men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenamarie Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 I would expect, during the Millennium, Polygamy will again be restarted. Why? There will be more righteous women than those of men.Could you site this? I've heard it mentioned by several people, but never attributed to any Prophet or Apostle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 It's personal. However, let me look for references after dumping [hundreds] e-mails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HizWife625 Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 I would expect, during the Millennium, Polygamy will again be restarted. Why? There will be more righteous women than those of men.Restarted? I don't think it has stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenamarie Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 Restarted? I don't think it has stopped.In what sense? In the sense that some people are Sealed to more than one spouse (only ONE of whom is living) then yes, in a sense, there's still polygamy. But in a physical sense like you see with the FLDS? It has absolutely stopped. Anyone found to be trying to sneak under the radar and practice it within the LDS church is excommunicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 I would expect, during the Millennium, Polygamy will again be restarted. Why? There will be more righteous women than those of men.Is there a nexxus between Polytheism and Polygamy...Oh...I've got a line for that...but alas, I'll stay on topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HizWife625 Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 In what sense? In the sense that some people are Sealed to more than one spouse (only ONE of whom is living) then yes, in a sense, there's still polygamy. But in a physical sense like you see with the FLDS? It has absolutely stopped. Anyone found to be trying to sneak under the radar and practice it within the LDS church is excommunicated.Yeah, it is a gray matter to me.....I just to not see that is was/is an acceptable practice. It was done in the OT. But God's design was between one woman and one man.......Bible Answers for Almost All Your Questions By: Elmer L. Towns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 A good book to read on this very subject with referencing Isaiah 4 or 2 Nephi 14 is Hoyt W. Brewster's book called "Isaiah Plain and Simple". Apostle Matthias F. Cowley ['Cowley's Talks on Doctrine, p 190] Talks about The earth is to be burned and few men left. That honorable women, who desire wifehood and motherhood under the laws of GOD may have this priviledge...however, he mentioned that will come eventually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 Yeah, it is a gray matter to me.....I just to not see that is was/is an acceptable practice.If it wasn't an acceptable practice, then an angel would declare it and not forgetting the Savior, He never rejected this practice in His mortal ministry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 In what sense? In the sense that some people are Sealed to more than one spouse (only ONE of whom is living) then yes, in a sense, there's still polygamy. But in a physical sense like you see with the FLDS? It has absolutely stopped. Anyone found to be trying to sneak under the radar and practice it within the LDS church is excommunicated.Good source: LDS.org - Topic Definition - Polygamy (Plural Marriage) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HizWife625 Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 HE did not stop alot of things, but that does not mean it is right....... Throughout the entire Bible it also speaks specifically of one woman and one man... Adam and Eve..... One woman and one man..... Jesus could have stopped His death, but He didn't...... He could have stopped alot of things..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenamarie Posted May 9, 2008 Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 The Twelve Tribes of Israel came about through polygamy. Nathan, a Prophet, told King David, after he had Uriah killed, that if he'd wanted another wife all he had to do was ask. King Solomon was also a polygamist, and was only chastized for taking idolotrous wives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.