Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31996 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.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#19355 Dec 14, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
How did some of the people in the Book of Mormon get called "Christian" before there was a Christ?
Christ existed before he was born, and he appeared to people in the Old Testament.

See John chapter 1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." verse 14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...."

Christ is the word of God, he existed before he was born.

I know I am preaching to the choir here because you are a well educated Christian...but:
The whole purpose of the Law of Moses was to point people to Christ. From creation's dawn to the meridian of time and throughout all eternity the plan was for Jesus Christ to save us from death and hell. All of God's children rely on the Atonement of Christ, both before and after the meridian of time. Christ's atonement is infinite. The people before Christ's coming looked for the signs of his coming and awaited the salvation he would bring with great anticipation. Undoubtedly these people had faith in Christ, and under that assumption, I think they could qualify as Christians.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#19356 Dec 14, 2012
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
What nonsense. The Bible tells us that the dead know nothing. They sleep until Judgment Day.
Your practice makes a mockery of baptism. If it was legitimate, then they would have done it during Jesus' life.
If the dead know nothing, why did the Savior of the world teach the dead in prison? Our spirits still exist after we die, for Christ told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in paradise that same day.

References for Christ teaching people in spirit prison:

See 1 Peter 3:18-19
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison."

Or Isa 42:7 or Isa 24:22

Or why did Christ say that he would speak to the dead if the dead know nothing?

John 5:25-28 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice."

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#19357 Dec 14, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
The Book of Mormon is the spiritual record of the people in the Ancient Americas, the Bible is the spiritual record of the people in the Ancient Middle East.
If there is one God and he has the same message of salvation for everyone, don't you think he would want all of his children to have the same gospel, the same divine message?
God loves all of His Children, the Book of Mormon is evidence of that. God did not neglect his Children in the Americas at the meridian of time when the most important moment in the history of the earth occurred. Christ's miraculous sacrifice extends to everyone, and surely it was important to God to get the message out to everyone. Christ said in John 10:16 that he had other sheep not of this fold and they would hear his voice. He is talking about the people in the Americas.
PS: Isaiah also says Christ and his role in the salvation of mankind was known from the foundations of the earth.

Isa 40:21 "Have ye not know? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?" (Isaiah speaking Messianically)

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#19358 Dec 14, 2012
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
Your practice makes a mockery of baptism.
Paul cites the practice of baptisms for the dead as evidence for the resurrection.

1 Cor 15:29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

It seems implied in this statement that baptisms for the dead were common practice in Christ's time, at least common practice enough for Paul to use it for evidence of the resurrection.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#19359 Dec 14, 2012
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
Your practice makes a mockery of baptism.
How do you believe we should be baptized?

I believe we should be baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19)

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19360 Dec 14, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
That one is awesome too! I love how it captures the anticipation of the coming of Christ or Christmas.
If you enjoy great Christmas songs by Choirs, listen to this version of "The Hallelujah Chorus" by the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir:
&pl aynext=1&list=PL6025ABB136 93D683&feature=results_mai n

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19361 Dec 14, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: Isaiah also says Christ and his role in the salvation of mankind was known from the foundations of the earth.
Isa 40:21 "Have ye not know? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?" (Isaiah speaking Messianically)
But it does not say "Jesus Christ" by name, as the Book of Mormon" does.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19363 Dec 14, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul cites the practice of baptisms for the dead as evidence for the resurrection.
1 Cor 15:29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"
It seems implied in this statement that baptisms for the dead were common practice in Christ's time, at least common practice enough for Paul to use it for evidence of the resurrection.
Yes, he does. He often used the practices of other religions to make a point. That however, does not equal a practice done by the early church. Notice how he separates the Christians from the group doing the baptism for the dead. He referred to them as "they". But in the very next verse, he refers to the Christians by including himself: "How do we".

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19364 Dec 14, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
The Book of Mormon is the spiritual record of the people in the Ancient Americas, the Bible is the spiritual record of the people in the Ancient Middle East.
If there is one God and he has the same message of salvation for everyone, don't you think he would want all of his children to have the same gospel, the same divine message?
God loves all of His Children, the Book of Mormon is evidence of that. God did not neglect his Children in the Americas at the meridian of time when the most important moment in the history of the earth occurred. Christ's miraculous sacrifice extends to everyone, and surely it was important to God to get the message out to everyone. Christ said in John 10:16 that he had other sheep not of this fold and they would hear his voice. He is talking about the people in the Americas.
So why didn't Jesus go to all the islands, if your theory is true? Wher are all the books about the visits Jesus made to the people cut off from Israel not found? And if he did come to America, what good did it do? His church disappeared within 400 yrs according to the Book of Mormon. Yet it has never left Europe and Asia from the time he arrived in Israel.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19365 Dec 14, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
What I read from this is that Jesus Christ saves us from the demands of justice. There was nothing the debtor could do to save himself, he was toast, but because he had a Mediator, he was able to be saved from the demands of justice. It is by mercy and grace that we are saved from the demands of justice. I don't see how that conflicts with other things the bibles says about the relationship between faith and works.
No, not according to Packer. All Jesus did was take over the same debt, expecting payment. That isn't grace.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19366 Dec 14, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
Response to scriptures:
We totally believe what those scriptures are saying.
No you don't, or you wouldn't be doing temple work for the dead. Temple work for the dead is a statement that the Mormon church doesn't believe the blood of Christ covers all sin and is sufficient for our salvation. You are saying his work wasn't enough.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19368 Dec 14, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, it doesn't matter what the LDS church is teaching. Paul is clearly saying that at death, the marriage is over, otherwise, if a person remarried, they would be committing adultery.
<quoted text>
Which has nothing to do with marriage, eternal or not. You do not see him teaching eternal marriage. In fact, you can read him teaching against marriage altogether later in order to serve the Lord better. Now if eternal marriage was so important to our lives after the resurrection, that would be a very strange thing to teach.
<quoted text>
We are all going to be literally married to Jesus for eternally? Because the is the "him" that is talked about in that verse. That isn't even LDS teaching. He is only using a metaphor for Christ's love for us. In another verse it talks about Christ being our bridegroom. If that were literal, even the men would be married to Jesus. I hope you know you were pushing there to try an get a point.
<quoted text>
We are dead to the law because we are saved by the grace. You are really stretching it to claim it has anything to do with eternal marriage.
I gave you information on this topic before to consider. No matter what Paul's personal opinion is, Jews 2000 years ago did teach eternal marriage and being a priest, he knew of those teachings.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid...

The eternal Jewish future depends on the old Jewish past, which gives ample evidence that Jews who relate to G&#8209;d survive. The words of the betrothal blessing are important in this context: He forbade relations for the betrothed, and permitted it for the married. These are declarations of G&#8209;d who created man and woman and ordained marriage. Given true love and a man and woman who follow religious and ethical precepts, life holds the possibility of being as close to paradise as is possible in this world. But if they violate G&#8209;d's commands, they must repeat the experience of Adam and Eve in paradise lost. Judaism teaches that every bride and groom must go back to Adam and Eve, and reenact that physical and spiritual drama of community as "one flesh."

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19369 Dec 14, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, it doesn't matter what the LDS church is teaching. Paul is clearly saying that at death, the marriage is over, otherwise, if a person remarried, they would be committing adultery.
I gave you this information before, maybe you should re-read it again?
http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2011/04/did-s...
--
This colloquy between Jesus and his Sadducean detractors does not question or throw doubt, in proper cases, on the eternal verity that the family unit continues in the resurrection. Jesus had previously taught the eternal nature of the marriage union. "What therefore God [not man!] hath joined together, let not man put asunder." That is, when a marriage is performed by God's authority—not man's!—it is eternal. See Matt. 19:1-12. "Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever." (Eccles. 3:14.)

Indeed, almost the whole Jewish nation believed that marriage was eternal, and that parents would beget children in the resurrection. Those few who did not believe that marriage continued after death and among such were the Sadducees, who could not so believe because they denied the resurrection itself—were nonetheless fully aware that such was the prevailing religious view of the people generally. Without doubt Jesus, the apostles, the seventies, and the disciples generally had discussed this doctrine.

The Sadducean effort here is based on the assumption that Jesus and the Jews generally believe in marriage in heaven. They are using this commonly accepted concept to ridicule and belittle the fact of the resurrection itself. They are saying:'How absurd to believe in a resurrection (and therefore in the fact that there is marriage in heaven) when everybody knows that a woman who has had seven husbands could not have them all at once in the life to come.'

A most instructive passage showing that the Jews believed there should be marriage in heaven is found in Dummelow. "There was some division of opinion among the rabbis as to whether resurrection would be to a natural or to a supernatural (spiritual) life," he says. "A few took the spiritual view, e.g. Rabbi Raf is reported to have often said,'In the world to come they shall neither eat, nor drink, nor beget children, nor trade. There is neither envy nor strife, but the just shall sit with crowns on their heads, and shall enjoy the splendor of the Divine Majesty.' But the majority inclined to a materialistic view of the resurrection. The pre-Christian book of Enoch says that the righteous after the resurrection shall live so long that they shall beget thousands. The received doctrine is laid down by Rabbi Saadia, who says,'As the son of the widow of Sarepton, and the son of the Shunamite, ate and drank, and doubtless married wives, so shall it be in the resurrection'; and by Maimonides, who says,'Men after the resurrection will use meat and drink, and will beget children, because since the Wise Architect makes nothing in vain, it follows of necessity that the members of the body are not useless, but fulfill their functions.' The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that 'a woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.'" (Dummelow, p. 698.)

How much nearer the truth were these Jews, on this point, than are the modern professors of religion who suppose that family love, felicity, and unity cease simply because the spirit steps out of the body in what men call death!
Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary

Continued...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19370 Dec 14, 2012
Continued...
--
The very first problem to present itself is one of chronology. Saadia Gaon was born in 882 AD and died in 942. If we assume that Jesus died somewhere between AD 28-33, then Saadia is separated from him by almost eight hundred and fifty years! Maimonides was a couple of centuries later even than that, from 1138-1204.
Such late sources by themselves are very poor indicators of what beliefs 1st-century Jews would have held.
If this was the extent of the problems posed by this source, then things might not be so bad. My blog post would certainly be shorter.
No such luck.
I might be a little hard on McConkie. Most of this is not so much his fault as the fault of his source- Dummelow's commentary.
The whole thing is available for free through google books.
The Reverend John Roberts Dummelow in 1908 had edited a work entitled "The One Volume Bible Commentary." This was a fairly critical work for 1908, but in terms of Jewish and New Testament scholarship anything that old tends to be positively primeval. So many new directions and, indeed, new sources had opened up since then that our understanding of those topics is vastly improved.
Dummelow's provides no citations for the quotes listed above. By modern standards that is entirely unforgiveable in a scholarly source. I did however manage to track down the sources used.
The first source is the only one to predate Jesus' mortal ministry.
I shall destroy all iniquity from upon the face of the earth, and every evil work shall come to an end; and there shall appear the plant of righteousness; and it shall be a blessing, and deeds of righteousness shall be planted with joy for ever.
And now all the righteous shall escape, and shall live till they beget thousands; and all the days of your youth and of your old age you shall fulfil in peace. Then shall the whole earth be tilled in righteousness, and it shall all be planted with trees, and filled with blessing. And all luxuriant trees will be planted in it; and they will plant vines in it, and the vine which they plant will produce a thousand measures of wine, and of all seed which is sown upon it.
Each seah will produce a thousand seah; and every seah of olives will produce up to ten baths of oil. And as for you. cleanse the earth from all uncleanness, and from all injustice and from all sinfulness and godlessness; and all the unclean things that have been wrought 'on the earth' remove from the earth. And all the children of men are to become righteous and all nations shall serve and bless me, and all shall worship me.
And the whole earth shall be freed from all defilement and from all uncleanness, and wrath and castigation: and I shall not again send a Deluge upon it unto generations of generations and for ever.
-1 Enoch 10:16-22, trans. Matthew Black.

Continued...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19371 Dec 14, 2012
Continued...
--
This passage does not imply eternal marriage in the LDS understanding of the term.
As William R. G. Loader wrote, "the images of the future do not include sexuality as a theme, although some statements imply it. The abundant fruitfulness to which 10:17-19 looks forward, when Michael rejuvenates the earth, will include that people “will live and beget thousands and all the days of their youth and their old age will be completed in peace”(10:17). This means that the author does not envisage that human beings will live like undying angels, without further need for procreation, nor that they will be in the kind of holy context where sexual activity would be out of place."[1]
Likewise, Nicklesburg, in page 49 of his commentary on 1 Enoch, explained the biblical imagery underlying 1 Enoch's concept of the future, "most of the major sections of 1 Enoch– drawing on Isaiah 65-66 for their inspiration– envision a renewed earth and a restored Jerusalem as the setting for the long life that the righteous will enjoy after the judgment."
What presents us here, then, is an ideal, rejuvenated earth in which the righteous will live as long as the antediluvian patriarchs, if not longer, and will beget thounds of children. The trees will be just as productive, yielding colossal quantities of fruit and oil. After living a long life, the righteous will die.
Nothing so far about eternal marriage.
As for the so-called Rabbi Raf, he seems to be Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, known by the honorific Rav. Rav was the chief (though not the only) compiler and redactor of the Mishnah and one of the most significant authorities among the ancient sages. Rabbi Raf is pointless tautology, much like saying Rabbi Rabbi.
In the world to come there is no eating nor drinking nor begeting nor give and take nor jealousy nor hatred nor competition, but the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads feasting on the brightness of the divine presence (Shekhinah), as it says, "And they beheld God, and did eat and drink (Ex. 24:11)."
-Babylonian Talmud, t. Berachot 17a.

This talmudic passage is a little ambiguous. Rav might have been referring to a corporeal state or he might have meant a bodiless one. Be that as it may, Rav is saying that the existence of the righteous in the world to come will be extremely different than what we know from earthly experience. The prooftext is meant to show that basking in God's splendour is what replaces physical meat and drink.
Or shall he ponder and say,'Those in this world, shall they eat, drink and be married, or no?'
We should know that they will eat and drink like us, and be married, as is elucidated by the Sareptan widow's son and the Shunamite's son, who lived in this world, ate, drank and were worthy of marriage. One of the sages said that he was of the seed of one of them.
-Saadia Gaon, the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, the seventh article, chapter five.

Continued...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19372 Dec 14, 2012
Continued...
--

I've rendered a fairly literal translation, following R. Yosef Qafih's first-rate Hebrew translation. Saadia Gaon, one of the most influential figures in Judaism, was embroiled in a polemic against those who denied the resurrection and particularly against those who spiritualised it. Any brief sketch According to Saadia, the resurrection takes place in this world. Here on earth, not in heaven. Not a general principle, the resurrection is restricted to the righteous and penitent among the children of Israel. It is a reward for the righteous. For him the resurrection is also an indication of God's power and preeminence, because if he once created us ex nihilo, then he can certainly recreate us from the same even after our bodies have entirely decayed away. This world, the world of the resurrection, is a transient and corporeal one and we will be transfered from it into the world to come, which is in heaven. There we neither eat, drink, nor live a married life. Saadia uses Moses as an example. Moses ate and drank before ascending Mt. Sinai, but while there he went without those things. Moses' experience symbolises what is to come. When he ascended Mt. Sinai and was directly, but temporarily, in the presence of God then eating, drinking and sex were a non-issue for him. They played no part at all in that experience. If that held true for the mortal Moses the more so when we will live permanently in God's presence.
Yosef Qafih says that he couldn't find a source for Saadia's statement regarding the two sons, but thinks that it might be emmendated to read "as is elucidated by the Sareptan widow's son and the Shunamite's son, and the dead which Ezekiel brought to life." The sage mentioned by Saadia is R. Judah b. Bathira, who declared that he was descended from the dead in Ezekiel's vision.[2]
At any rate, Saadia's concept of marriage was not eternal marriage. Marriage was a condition of this world. It lasted as long as people were in this world.
Saadia was very insistent that resurrection was part of this world, not the one to come.
Marriage was what legitimised sexual activity. Sexual activity was a bodily function (or appetite), like eating and drinking. Resurrection, after all, related first and foremost to the body. Eating, drinking and sex were (indeed, are) the epitome of earthly life.[3]
The last quote is the most problematic of all. It is distorted almost beyond recognition.
We can see from those treatises that the people whose souls shall return to their bodies will eat, drink, copulate, beget children and die after a very long life, a life as long as life is in the days of the Messiah. Indeed, the life after which there is no death is the life in the world to come, since there is no body in it. We believe, as any man of understanding verily does, that in the world to come souls are bodiless as the angels are. This explanation, that the body is the sum of instruments required for the soul's actions, has already been explained in an examplary fashion... Here it has been explained that the entire purpose of the body is the recption of food for sustaining the body, and begeting similar ones for the continuance of that body's kind. When that purpose is removed then it [the body] becomes unnecessary. That is, in the world to come, which is what our sages of blessed memory have elucidated, that in it is neither eating, nor drinking, nor usage[4], which is explained by the absence of a body. The Blessed One would not invent things in order for them to remain unused, and would not do anything without a reason, and heaven forbid that his acts would be like those who worship idols, "Eyes have they, but they see not, they have ears, but they hear not; noses have they, but they smell not (Ps 115:5-6)."
-Maimonides, the Treatise on Resurrection.

Continued...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19373 Dec 14, 2012
Continued ...
--
Maimonides had written a book entitled The Guide of the Perplexed. This book reconciled traditional Jewish beliefs with the mysteries of Aristotelian philosophy.
His book inspired many who were far more radical than he himself. They were embroiled in a sharp disoute with the traitionalists, who assumed that Maimonides was just as radical and that he denied the reality of the resurrection. He wrote the Treatise on Resurrection in order to defend himself from those charges.
Maimonides was not only a reknowned philosopher but also a gifted physician. I ommited the passage describes the three groups of functions the body is divided into.
For Maimonides, like Saadia, marriage wasn't eternal. It lasted only until man went to the heavenly realm, which is entirely bodiless. The resurrection isn't permanent. It is followed by another death, and then entry into perfect world which is that of the disembodied spirit.
None of what McConkie used support his claim.
This is not to say that there aren't Jewish sources indicating a belief in an eternal marriage.
There are some, but Dummelow's didn't include them. For the sake of fairness, I'll dedicate a future blog post to at least one of them.
My post though is more about the use of sources than eternal marriage in ancient Judaism.
To sum up my post, never use Dummelow's, there are far too many better ones out there, and McConkie's commentary should be used only with great caution. Elder McConkie being an apostle of the Lord had many good spiritual insights and he could bear powerful witness of the atonement, but he was not a great New Testament scholar.

[1]Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on sexuality: attitudes towards sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees, pg. 80.

[2]Babylonian Talmud, t. Sanhedrin 92b.

[3]I'm indebted to my friend Walker for that phrase.

[4]Usage was a rabbinic euphemism for sex.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19374 Dec 14, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
No you don't, or you wouldn't be doing temple work for the dead. Temple work for the dead is a statement that the Mormon church doesn't believe the blood of Christ covers all sin and is sufficient for our salvation. You are saying his work wasn't enough.


Mind a suggestion? Understand the doctrine first before you attack it.
Temple work for the dead isn't done to forgive a single solitary sin. So you're incorrect to think that is what the procedures are for.
Jesus said in various ways, if you seek salvation do as he did. A plain and simple command from Jesus Christ himself. Do as he did.
Jesus had himself immersed in water as part of a baptismal rite he subjected himself to doing.
Remember Jesus said to do as he did, to follow him in what he did and believed. Immersion in water is something he did. He commanded us to follow him and do as he did. What do you think will happen at the time of judgement to those that will be asked, "Have you followed my commandments? Have you did as I did? Have you believed as I believed? Have you loved as I loved? Have you forgiven as I have forgiven?
When people answer no I haven't for this reason or that reason, what do you think will happen to them? What will happen to those who purposefully for whatever reasoning didn't do as Jesus did and made exceptions to which commands they'd follow and which they wouldn't? What do you think will happen to those who didn't know about everything that Jesus did and thus weren't able to do as he did? What do you think will happen to those that didn't have the teachings of Jesus at all in their lives?
Do you really think God gave commands to be followed and if you didn't follow them for whatever reason/excuse, he's going to say it's okay? That you're an exception to the commands you didn't obey?

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#19375 Dec 14, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Mind a suggestion? Understand the doctrine first before you attack it.
Temple work for the dead isn't done to forgive a single solitary sin. So you're incorrect to think that is what the procedures are for.
Jesus said in various ways, if you seek salvation do as he did. A plain and simple command from Jesus Christ himself. Do as he did.
Jesus had himself immersed in water as part of a baptismal rite he subjected himself to doing.
Remember Jesus said to do as he did, to follow him in what he did and believed. Immersion in water is something he did. He commanded us to follow him and do as he did. What do you think will happen at the time of judgement to those that will be asked, "Have you followed my commandments? Have you did as I did? Have you believed as I believed? Have you loved as I loved? Have you forgiven as I have forgiven?
When people answer no I haven't for this reason or that reason, what do you think will happen to them? What will happen to those who purposefully for whatever reasoning didn't do as Jesus did and made exceptions to which commands they'd follow and which they wouldn't? What do you think will happen to those who didn't know about everything that Jesus did and thus weren't able to do as he did? What do you think will happen to those that didn't have the teachings of Jesus at all in their lives?
Do you really think God gave commands to be followed and if you didn't follow them for whatever reason/excuse, he's going to say it's okay? That you're an exception to the commands you didn't obey?
Dana, all that he said ^ up there ^, I'm on that boat.:-)

Thanks for the bail out No Surprise.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19376 Dec 15, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you information on this topic before to consider. No matter what Paul's personal opinion is, Jews 2000 years ago did teach eternal marriage and being a priest, he knew of those teachings.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid...
The eternal Jewish future depends on the old Jewish past, which gives ample evidence that Jews who relate to G&#8209;d survive. The words of the betrothal blessing are important in this context: He forbade relations for the betrothed, and permitted it for the married. These are declarations of G&#8209;d who created man and woman and ordained marriage. Given true love and a man and woman who follow religious and ethical precepts, life holds the possibility of being as close to paradise as is possible in this world. But if they violate G&#8209;d's commands, they must repeat the experience of Adam and Eve in paradise lost. Judaism teaches that every bride and groom must go back to Adam and Eve, and reenact that physical and spiritual drama of community as "one flesh."
Yes, a tired old statement proven wrong by the fact that Paul certainly new the law of the Jews, that not one scripture in the Old Testament backs up your claim, and lastly, we are talking about what Jesus taught what the why he said it was going to be. Now I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not Jewish traditions. And the LDS church claims to be "the church of Jesus Christ", not "The Church of Jewish Traditions." When it comes to what Jesus taught, I'll stick with the expert, Jesus Christ.

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.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ben Affleck: Republicans 'had a chance' (Oct '12) 1 hr Niece of Soros 80
News Church: Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (Apr '13) 3 hr Mork 17
News PICTURES: Triumphant homecoming for Glaswegian ... (Nov '12) 5 hr Scotch Irish 9
News Supreme Court hands President Obama a major vic... (Jun '12) Wed swedenforever 3,703
News Santorum, Gingrich tote Etch A Sketch toys (Mar '12) Tue swedenforever 26
News Trump's Newest Ad Is So Frickin' WeirdBy Olivia... Tue Captain Yesterday 64
News Romneyites Think the 47% Are Parasites (Oct '12) Tue Bravo Uniform Mike 54
More from around the web