Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32003 comments on the CNN story from Oct 12, 2011, titled Who says Mormons aren't Christians?. In it, CNN reports that:

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CNN.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22880 Mar 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
"Now as for myself, Dana, I'm hardly the epitome of goodness and virtue. When you disagree with me, it's straight to overinflated claims, personal attacks, and statements about others intelligence. This is why I don't buy my own BS, because when I have something of substance to say, I'll say anything that sounds good even if it isn't true and when challenged, I won't respond unless it's with some childish rant, just read my past posts for proof. I try and get a raise out of anyone, that's what I do best I think. And most people accommodate me in childish rants but I like doing that. I'm not guiltless by any means but I do have a bit of honesty I display from time to time.
Hate facing yourself, do you?
Lil

Salt Lake City, UT

#22881 Mar 30, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, or eternal marriage. They were attempting to entrap Jesus. Just like the Pharisees had earlier.
Wrong!

Since: Sep 12

West Plains, MO

#22882 Mar 30, 2013
Lil wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong!
So, you believe that the Sadducees believed in the resurrection and in eternal marriage? Can you show me where they held and practiced this belief?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22883 Mar 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Nomo in months past posts has said the most out right vile things that she could ever fathom to think of to say to me from her black heart because she thinks these things she says hurts my emotions.
Nomo has wished me death, to wither up and die, to crawl back to hell and said so many other things it's not even worth mentioning and 90% of all she said was because of how she feels I feel when we speak about same sex marriage conversations.
She has wished the death and disappearance and destruction of Mormon leaders over and over and over.
She has vomited her seething hatred, anger and dark foul cursings upon anyone that disagrees with her stance on same sex marriage and or homosexuality.
She has said these things for months and you think I lie? Why don't you take a trip to 4 or 5 months past of her posts and begin to read forward. I need not lie about what she has posted as what she has factually stated.
As to you and your dad, you have described a most disrespectful relationship from you to him, that is what you did. You also once described your relationship with your mom as not the best either. But that is neither here nor there. You and nomo talk about respect and such and than you disrespect others and when it's done to you in a similar manner, it's like you two call out like wounded kids "foul! foul! stop it!" You two don't take the same medicine you dish out very well.
And you two have been surmised by many, many people in many threads as being hateful and vile in how you speak to people for months if not longer. So yes, you two have made it known by your posts in how you two speak that you two are very vile and hateful when it comes to responses to others. You two have hardly any civility to yourselves when you speak to others.
And so you did notice my post's :) How's it like? Thought I'd give it a change and become vile and venomous as you and nomo are at times. I really don't like it, quite a disgusting way to be I feel. How do you two manage it?
And accusing her of a death is irresponsible? So to you and she it's responsible to hold people accountable to deaths who didn't even know a child? That's your reproach? That's your logic?
Nomo holds Mormons in general accountable for every suicide that happens to a Mormon child. She especially holds the leaders and parents accountable and she doesn't give a rat's *ss how the suicide happened or why it happened. As long as one takes place, nomo bangs on that like a drum and proclaims leaders and parents murderers! She has claimed that over and over that leaders and parents of Mormon kids committing suicide are responsible for their deaths! That's the equivalent of calling them MURDERERS which she has called them on occasion.
And you find fault with me for accusing her of the same exact thing by her own measured usage of reason and logic to call Mormon leaders and parents murderers??? Why am I not surprised you would think that way.
You just never think before you speak dude, just saying. You defend nomo for calling people murderers of children they may or may not have even known but I am wrong to use her same logic? Fricking just to funny and really way to fricking sad.
Sounds like justification for your ugliness. "Mommy, she did it first!"

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22884 Mar 30, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you believe that the Sadducees believed in the resurrection and in eternal marriage? Can you show me where they held and practiced this belief?
Well, if they didn't believe in resurrection, they certainly didn't believe in marriage. They were trying to trap Jesus in a conflict with his teachings of resurrection with the marriage question. But while supporting the belief we are to be resurrected, he was clearly saying there was no conflict because there will be no marriages. We are not going to be resurrected and then it's just back to business as usual.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22885 Mar 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate facing yourself, do you?
lol...nooo. I'm cool with me. I just hate to pretend to be you and nomo from time to time, that's tough on the psychic seriously. Don't know how you two survive yourselves.

Since: Sep 12

West Plains, MO

#22886 Mar 30, 2013
Lil wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong!
In Acts 23:8 it states "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. Furthermore, since the Sadducees lived according to the Law of Moses, a lesser law, the law of marriage contained within it was for this life only.

BTW- your post above was a word for word rip-off from this website: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-cc/cc-etern...

Next time supply your source and give credit where credit is due.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22887 Mar 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like justification for your ugliness. "Mommy, she did it first!"
My ugliness? lol...fricking please! And that comes from the guy that loves to get as ugly and foul with his words about Smith and Mormons in general?
That is funny! I would actually have to spend a few months refining my character to even be a novice of ugly speech compared to you and nomo, the masters of ugly speech...
By the way, all I have been doing is running her logic/reasoning ugly speech back at her as she uses it for others. Neither you or she seems to think that should be done back on her.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22888 Mar 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
But while supporting the belief we are to be resurrected, he was clearly saying there was no conflict because there will be no marriages.
Jesus didn't say it the way you rephrase it.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
You should read the verse as it was written, not as you wish to redefine it.
Jesus stated that IN THE RESURRECTION, he referenced nothing of this mortal life and what happened to those married here who would die a married couple.
He neither didn't answer their question. The woman in this scenario presented by the Sadducee, had by the law of Moses legally wedded seven brothers one after another as they died. Jesus didn't say she would remain married to one brother or all three or none of them. You can show anything from Jesus where he actually answered the original question they asked of him.
Jesus went on to state that in the resurrection AFTER THIS MORTAL LIFE WAS DONE AND OVER, "...they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,.." IN THE RESURRECTION. In the resurrection "..THEY NEITHER MARRY, NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE,.."
Jesus said nothing, not a single thing, not even a clue did he give as to what would happen to a couple that was married in the MORTAL LIFE who died. Jesus didn't say their marriage was ended at death and he didn't say it continued on in the resurrection. HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION. GET IT????
The answer Jesus gave had nothing directly to do with their actual question. Jesus made a statement that THEY would neither marry nor be given in marriage IN THE RESURRECTION.
A married couple here in mortal life couldn't be remarried in the after life in the resurrection. Not possible according to what Jesus said. So what he said couldn't pertain to people married in this mortal life that die man and wife. Get it yet?
Jesus was speaking of people that died single. Only single people according to Jesus's statement can be married. So Jesus's statement could have only been referencing single people, not already married people from the mortal life, get it?
If you think you can prove that Jesus was referencing a Sadducee belief that married mortals that died could marry and be given in marriage a second time in the resurrection, please show your proof. Because that is your logic. That the Sadducee believed people in the mortal life that married and died, that in the resurrection the Sadducee believed those married couples could be married and given in marriage a second time.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22889 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus didn't say it the way you rephrase it.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
You should read the verse as it was written, not as you wish to redefine it.
Jesus stated that IN THE RESURRECTION, he referenced nothing of this mortal life and what happened to those married here who would die a married couple.
He neither didn't answer their question. The woman in this scenario presented by the Sadducee, had by the law of Moses legally wedded seven brothers one after another as they died. Jesus didn't say she would remain married to one brother or all three or none of them. You can show anything from Jesus where he actually answered the original question they asked of him.
Jesus went on to state that in the resurrection AFTER THIS MORTAL LIFE WAS DONE AND OVER, "...they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,.." IN THE RESURRECTION. In the resurrection "..THEY NEITHER MARRY, NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE,.."
Jesus said nothing, not a single thing, not even a clue did he give as to what would happen to a couple that was married in the MORTAL LIFE who died. Jesus didn't say their marriage was ended at death and he didn't say it continued on in the resurrection. HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION. GET IT????
The answer Jesus gave had nothing directly to do with their actual question. Jesus made a statement that THEY would neither marry nor be given in marriage IN THE RESURRECTION.
A married couple here in mortal life couldn't be remarried in the after life in the resurrection. Not possible according to what Jesus said. So what he said couldn't pertain to people married in this mortal life that die man and wife. Get it yet?
Jesus was speaking of people that died single. Only single people according to Jesus's statement can be married. So Jesus's statement could have only been referencing single people, not already married people from the mortal life, get it?
If you think you can prove that Jesus was referencing a Sadducee belief that married mortals that died could marry and be given in marriage a second time in the resurrection, please show your proof. Because that is your logic. That the Sadducee believed people in the mortal life that married and died, that in the resurrection the Sadducee believed those married couples could be married and given in marriage a second time.
Sorry, but the fact he was answering a question about a woman who was married 7 times, says you're wrong.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22890 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, if you have any doubts of what I said about who and by what agenda set forth the Bible and the NT that is minus polygamy stories and any one of Israelite leadership partaking in polygamy, than read some recent words from the new pope...
"For now, though, "the discipline of celibacy stands firm," he said, adding that priests should quit if they can't abstain from sex or if they get a woman pregnant."
And you wonder not where the doctrine of Jesus always being single and a virgin came from. It wasn't from the NT, just saying.
If you want to claim that the Catholic church rewrote the NT, provide something besides your conspiracy theories. There is no record of Jesus being married.
For many centuries priests were allowed to marry until the 4th century.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22891 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The definment of a one man one woman relationship is of proven Christian origin. We have historical writings proving a monogamous marriage/union between a single man and a single woman came from the church in Rome. We have no evidence that this strict concept was ever taught from the early church Jesus set forth.
Deacons and Bishops where forbidden, and Genesis 2:24 was written long before Jesus was born.
Everyone has an opinion on this. But understand this fact: Jesus never set forth requirements about how marriage was to be of any disciple that held an office he created in his church. The fact is that it was Paul, long after the death of Jesus who set forth writings concerning church positions and marriage status, not Jesus. And at mentioning that it is well to remember Paul's opinion of marriage in spite of what God told us by way of commandment to do.
Paul was his chosen representative, if he taught it, it was by the authority of Christ. Jesus certainly never taught the principle of eternal marriage, the plan of salvation, or the need for a temple endowment, yet you swallow those teaching hook, line, and sinker. No one ever was taught that polygamy was a requirement for their salvation.
Now were monogamous marriages/unions the custom of even pre-Christian times? of course. But so were polygamous marriages.
Of the warning to the kings of Israel and having to many wives, what does history state that kings of ancient times do that even kings in some countries do today? They acquire things to make themselves appear powerful/important.
Israelite kings were adding things to themselves that God was not giving to them. Understand? The old testament is rife with leaders and kings having polygamous marriages. The marriages given to them by God were sanctioned by God. Any marriages they took unto themselves without God's approval, not they fell into God's disapproval. Just like them taking extra horses and silver and gold etc. The kings of Israel usually had a prophet that told them God's will. When to war, when not to war, where to go, how to handle disputes and the prophet was there to teach the will of God and give revelation. He had what are called 'minor prophets' that took his words and spread them out to the tribes and people.
You can find weak reasons for being offended by polygamy all you want. The fact remains that God through out the OT allowed many prophets/leaders/kings to have multiple wives and never disciplined them unless they took wives God didn't allow for, as was the case with Solomon and David and Bathsheba.
And you forget this one fact. Who brought forth volumes of writings to compile a book that would one day be called the Christian Bible? Anti-polygamists who taught against marriage as Paul for the first 20 popes of that early church in Rome. Polygamy stories do not exist in the NT. No Abraham and Sarah and and other wife stories. No stories of God giving wives of one king to another king. No stories of leaders/prophets/kings having extra wives or why they had them.
Paul clearly taught that to be able to hold an office, a person was only to be married to one wife. Setting the standard of the church. To be "blameless". If there is no sin against polygamy, there would be no breaking of a law, they would be blameless. But the order for the leaders to be married to only one wife says otherwise.
Polygamy was never a bad taste in God's mouth. There is no evidence of it except a warning and it concerns Israelite kings taking unto themselves wives, horses, gold, silver, lands, slaves, etc that God had not blessed them to have. Understand?
God set the standard in Genesis 2:24, one man, one woman, one flesh.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22895 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the fact he was answering a question about a woman who was married 7 times, says you're wrong.
He didn't answer the question. Do you understand? Stupid question on my part, of course you don't understand because you have a pre-set agenda for what you are predisposed to believe of this conversation. And that blinds you as usual.
I on the other hand claim the verse states nothing either way. It states nothing because Jesus didn't answer the question. So you will be forever wrong to think he answered the question when he didn't in fact answer it.
Jesus stated in the resurrection, IN THE RESURRECTION, there would be no marrying nor being given in marriage. This woman was already marred. Married seven times.
The Sadducee didn't ask if the woman could be married a eighth time in the resurrection. If they had asked Jesus if this woman could be married an eight time in the resurrection, Jesus's response would make total sense because he said..."..they are neither married nor are given in marriage in the resurrection."
THAT ISN'T WHAT THEY ASKED.
They asked... "28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her."
Jesus said without answering their actual question..."30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,"
That response DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHO'S WIFE SHE WOULD BELONG TO OF THE SEVEN BROTHERS BECAUSE SHE MARRIED THEM ALL IN THIS MORTAL LIFE. Get it yet?
I'm not debating marriage. I'm not debating eternal marriage and or if it exists.
You claim this verse states marriages don't exist in the next life. And your wrong. You will always be wrong. Jesus said nothing if marriages in this life would continue on in the next life. Jesus said as they are preformed in this mortal life, marriages, in the resurrection marriages will not take place. Jesus was describing a condition of marriage that if you didn't marry in this life and you want to marry in the next life it wouldn't happen.
Open your mind and read what was written, quit reading by your anti-Mormon agenda and you'll begin to understand more than your allowing your self to understand.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22896 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to claim that the Catholic church rewrote the NT, provide something besides your conspiracy theories. There is no record of Jesus being married.
For many centuries priests were allowed to marry until the 4th century.
lol...you really need to quit saying I said what I didn't say. I never said they rewrote the NT. The bishops didn't rewrite the NT. the bishops PUT TOGETHER THE NEW TESTAMENT.
And that was their influence of what was in that compilation of writings and what wasn't included in it. That's a historical fact of what they did to compile what we call the NT.
The early church leaned heavily on things Paul wrote even if what Paul said had some base contradictions with what God said.
The early church founded a requirement to be a priest on this single verse..."1 Corinthians 7:32-34, Paul writes,“An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided."
That verse is what kept the first TWENTY POPES CELIBATE AND SINGLE.
That verse though not law, was an unsaid law that the first twenty popes and to many priests to mention went by to hold clergy positions. They believe Jesus was celibate. Regarding marital status, the pope and priests followed Jesus's words literally to be like him, to be single and celibate and that is how a true man of God was, single and celibate, not married. They felt if you married, your eye wasn't single to the glory and purpose of God. They taught this concept as an iron clad law for so long females took on celibacy to Jesus with these priests and pope. Concerning Jesus, they were against marriage in order to be as Jesus.
FYI, look it up. It was a disgrace to be clergy in the early Roman church and be married. Twenty popes and 99% of their clergy for centuries swore off marriage as ill and wrong if you wanted to be a true follower of Jesus. They believed only the weak and weak in faith became married.
From the web...
FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL

The first of these councils was held in 1123 during the pontificate of Callistus II; it was the first general council held in the West. Its most important decision was the confirmation of the Concordat of Worms (1122), which ended the controversy between ecclesiastical and secular authorities over investiture. The council also adopted canons forbidding simony and the marriage of clergymen, and it annulled the ordinances of the antipope Gregory VIII (reigned 1118-1121).
SECOND LATERAN COUNCIL

The second council was held in 1139 under Pope Innocent II (r. 1130-1143). It was called to heal the schism caused by the antipope Anacletus II (r. 1130-1138) and decreed excommunication for his followers. The council renewed the canons against clerical marriage and forbade dangerous tournaments.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22897 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Deacons and Bishops where forbidden, and Genesis 2:24 was written long before Jesus was born.
Okay, so let's use your reasoning, not mine.
Deacons and bishops were to be the husband of one wife. That is your claim of the scripture.
Well that verse excludes apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers and seventies as having a choice to have multiple wives instead of just one.
Now what?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22898 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so let's use your reasoning, not mine.
Deacons and bishops were to be the husband of one wife. That is your claim of the scripture.
Well that verse excludes apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers and seventies as having a choice to have multiple wives instead of just one.
Now what?
Straining on gnats isn't going to make you or the LDS church right. People without an agenda to promote polygamy see it clearly.

How do those gnats taste?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22899 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't answer the question. Do you understand? Stupid question on my part, of course you don't understand because you have a pre-set agenda for what you are predisposed to believe of this conversation. And that blinds you as usual.
I on the other hand claim the verse states nothing either way. It states nothing because Jesus didn't answer the question. So you will be forever wrong to think he answered the question when he didn't in fact answer it.
He was asked a question about marriage in the next life. He answered by telling what it was going to be like. Just because you don't want to see it, doesn't make it so.
Jesus stated in the resurrection, IN THE RESURRECTION, there would be no marrying nor being given in marriage. This woman was already marred. Married seven times.
While Crazy isn't part of the dialog, I wish you would talk to him before you answer. Because he said Jesus was only talking about the old covenant. That she wouldn't be married because of that. Now you are claiming she will. Which is it? If she will be married, as you are claiming, why didn't Jesus say that, instead of "you don't the scriptures?" Your answer makes zero sense.
The Sadducee didn't ask if the woman could be married a eighth time in the resurrection. If they had asked Jesus if this woman could be married an eight time in the resurrection, Jesus's response would make total sense because he said..."..they are neither married nor are given in marriage in the resurrection."
THAT ISN'T WHAT THEY ASKED.
They ask who she was going to be married to, he clearly was saying none of them when he said she was going to be "like the angels." The phrase "given in marriage" means there will be no married people.
They asked... "28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her."
Jesus said without answering their actual question..."30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,"
That response DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHO'S WIFE SHE WOULD BELONG TO OF THE SEVEN BROTHERS BECAUSE SHE MARRIED THEM ALL IN THIS MORTAL LIFE. Get it yet?
Yeah, I get it, none of them. Clear as a bell. He answered their question. He was clearly saying they don't understand what the next life will be like when he said
Luke 20
34 Jesus said to them,“The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

They didn't know the scriptures, and neither do you.
I'm not debating eternal marriage and or if it exists.
Then why are you talking about it?
You claim this verse states marriages don't exist in the next life. And your wrong. You will always be wrong.
I thought you wasn't debating it? Do you read what you post?
Jesus said nothing if marriages in this life would continue on in the next life. Jesus said as they are preformed in this mortal life, marriages, in the resurrection marriages will not take place. Jesus was describing a condition of marriage that if you didn't marry in this life and you want to marry in the next life it wouldn't happen.
He was clearly answering their question of who she will be married too:

34 Jesus said to them,“The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Learn how to read.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22900 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Deacons and Bishops where forbidden, and Genesis 2:24 was written long before Jesus was born.
<quoted text>
Paul was his chosen representative, if he taught it, it was by the authority of Christ. Jesus certainly never taught the principle of eternal marriage, the plan of salvation, or the need for a temple endowment, yet you swallow those teaching hook, line, and sinker. No one ever was taught that polygamy was a requirement for their salvation.
I want you to remember your own very words as I write the following... "Paul was his chosen representative, if he taught it, it was by the authority of Christ."
Jesus taught Paul ONLY deacons and bishops were to have one wife.
Jesus didn't teach Paul that apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors and seventies had to have one wife.
That means Jesus left it open to the disciple holding one of those positions the right to marry a single wife or several wives because he didn't make the same marital status for them as he made for deacons and bishops.
And Jesus set forth the offices and positions to be held by his disciples, not Paul. Jesus set forth apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, deacons, bishops and seventies.
This means/insinuates that in his church, in the church that Jesus the Christ set forth himself, this means he allowed of his disciples to have polygamous marriages as it was allowed in the law of Moses if they choose it in his church also.
This means Jesus wasn't against polygamous marriages. That means he wasn't offended by them as you erringly claim since he allowed for a "choice" to take place.
What say ye now? Going to call Jesus a liar again?

Since: Sep 12

West Plains, MO

#22902 Mar 31, 2013
OOdle wrote:
<quoted text>Not only do the Mormons promote polygamy they promote the good old boy system and they have their fingers in every facet of Utah life. Church is state in Utah. And then the Mormon lawmakers and elected officials get caught drunk driving or like Larry Craig soliciting another male and worse.. Mormons can't even practice what they preach.
That's in every faith. For you to think otherwise is just plain stupid.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22903 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Straining on gnats isn't going to make you or the LDS church right. People without an agenda to promote polygamy see it clearly.
How do those gnats taste?
lol...this is really fricking sad. You want to get respect while speaking like some small minded child that just got bested. What is your problem? Do you even know? gnats??? lolol.....
You made a statement of the NT. I agreed to discuss it.
You stated a deacon and a bishop were to be the husband of a SINGLE wife. I didn't dispute it. That is the English rendition. So I made comment according to your statement.
Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors and seventies WERE GIVEN NO MARITAL REQUIREMENT BY GOD THROUGH PAUL. Thats a fact! That's a NT fact. It is not my personal opinion or belief.
Jesus was born in the land of Israel where Israelites could have one or more wives as stated by the laws of Moses with laws about from God himself before he was born as a human.
God is now flesh.
God now sets forth a new religion, very different from Judaism.
God sets forth offices in the church for his disciples to hold as apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, pastors, teachers, evangelists and seventies. THOSE ARE OFFICES SET FORTH BY GOD HIMSELF and you can't handle that fact. You can't handle that fact from Jesus because though he restricted two offices of disciples to having a single wife, he did not say the other offices had to also have one wife.
That means God aka Jesus the Christ was allowing the laws for polygamous marriages to continue from the Mosaic era into all the other offices of his new church he set forth.
And you can't handle that fact! So instead of considering it and making an intelligent reply you revert to some childish non-sense and why am I not surprised.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Television Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Steve Martin reflects on nearly 5 decades in Ho... 1 min Marvin 1
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 22 min State the Obvious 309,950
News Cruz supports federal relief for Texas floods; ... 43 min Go Blue Forever 22
News I Was Bitten: The Walker County Incident 49 min cann 15
News San Clemente Our Town 56 min Modenaro 2
News What's at Stake for the Duggars if TLC Cancels ... 1 hr Tazo 3
News Huckabee defends Josh Duggar molesting sisters:... 4 hr yup 55
More from around the web