The Truth about Mormons

[Agnapostate]

Thanks, I didn't know that. I thought you were giving an example of a fictional story, saying that the Bible is the same kind of thing.

Large sections of it are.

 

[rpfargone]

No i dont thank you i just don t know how

 

[Agnapostate]

Use the quote button at the bottom right hand corner of a user's post.

 

[Eightball]

If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.

Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.

It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.

If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.

So untrue...........Truthspeaker when pressed by one of the posters said that if his LDS doctrine is false, no other churches are correct/right either. In other words, he/Truthspeaker will embrace LDS doctrine to the end, and will never consider any other. That's ok. That is is God-given free-will in action.
*******
Also, to start a thread alleging to clarify or clear misconceptions of LDS doctrine, is also a covert, but obvious way of evangelizing. I have no "beefs" about doing it that way, but lets not fool ourselves and accept that Truthspeaker's ultimate goal was to introduce/ or enlighten, Mormonism to posters through this thread and not covertly hoping that it would bring some new members into the LDS fold.

 

[Avatar4321]

So untrue...........Truthspeaker when pressed by one of the posters said that if his LDS doctrine is false, no other churches are correct/right either. In other words, he/Truthspeaker will embrace LDS doctrine to the end, and will never consider any other. That's ok. That is is God-given free-will in action.
*******

I dont believe you are accurate. If your paraphrase of TS is accurate, then what he is saying is if he ever found Mormonism to be false, then he wouldnt believe anything else either.

I can whole heartily agree. If God has lied to me about it being true, then what doctrine could there possibly be from God? And how on earth would anyone know it?

You also falsely assume that he has never considered anything in the past. Ive explored countless religions personally. I am a Latter-day Saint because thats what God has told me.

And thats what it all comes down to isnt it? I believe we can trust God, you would prefer to lean on your own understanding of what God has said in the past. I dont say that to imply that I am better than you or anything, just that we have completely different approaches.

Also, to start a thread alleging to clarify or clear misconceptions of LDS doctrine, is also a covert, but obvious way of evangelizing. I have no "beefs" about doing it that way, but lets not fool ourselves and accept that Truthspeaker's ultimate goal was to introduce/ or enlighten, Mormonism to posters through this thread and not covertly hoping that it would bring some new members into the LDS fold.

And what exactly is wrong with enlightening people with the truth? Id love to have everyone embrace the Doctrines of Christ. However, if they are not going to fine. I atleast want them to actually know the doctrines correctly and not the cut and paste nonsense you're posting.

See I want people to see things as they are. I dislike lies. I dislike misdirection. I would make sure that make sure that anyone else also has the right to speak and declare what they actually believe. I would be against the misrepresentation of anyones faith. Clarity is always better than confussion.

 

[Avatar4321]

Couple things I wanted to respond to in this post that I didnt get a chance to since ive been busy lately

its funny that you more or less battle with words over WHOS book is right . when it could very well be thay are both wrong or right..

Im not sure you are completely framing the discussion correctly. The LDS position here is that the Bible and Book of Mormon are both correct. So its no really a battle of whose book is right. We are the ones saying they both are.

The opposing view seems to be that only the Bible can be right. And quite frankly I dont see any justification for this issue. For one, the Bible never claims exclusivity. God never declared that He is done speaking. In fact, the scriptures seem clear that God will continue to be the same till the end of time. So why on earth would He stop speaking and interacting with men? The simple truth is He hasnt. Men may not be listening. But God hasnt stopped His work.

Now I know the counter argument is that Christ has said "It is finished" No one is disputing that. The only question is what did Christ say was finished. And it's clear from the context that He was declaring His mortal life and ministry, as well as the Atoning sacrifice completely. That doesnt mean God is done interacting with men. If it did there would be no new Testament and we would be forced to throw it out because it shows that God continued to teach the people through His called servants. The people continued to work. The Prophecies are clear that God still has a work to do. He is going to gather Israel together. He is going to come again.

There is no possible way revelation has ceased. Neither have the gifts of the Spirit. God will continue to work until everyone who will be Redeemed is Redeemed. The price may be paid but not everyone has been convinced to accept the gift yet. And until judgment their is work to do.

the book of morman was writer by a a farm boy with a golden book and the bible was writen by many authors and brought together by a nation that persicuted them and who leader was a pagon.

The Book of Mormon was also written by many authors. It was abridged by another and then Translated by that farmboy.

if you ask me all religion is a angle of light leading you astray from the truth. CHRIST never in any writen word said make a religion and set a bunch of rules for all to follow

You have the right to opinion. But I dont see how that position can be supported through the Bible or any other scripture. The Sermon on the Mount jumps to my mind of Christ revealing principles for all to follow. The Apostles taught rules. Paul specifically articulated the Doctrines of Christ which is Faith in Christ, Repentence, Baptism and the laying on of hands. There are rules and ordinances to follow. God has been the same since the beginning.

he more or less wonted all HIS FOLLOWERS to gather in his name and keep him in our hearts and love one another and not be devided in our faith in god and Jesus christ . if you are not reading the words in red then your not hearing what Jesus said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! remember this

I dont disagree that He wants His Saints to be gathered and to love one another. He doesnt want contention among those that follow Him.

Of course that demands the question, who really follows Christ? Can you follow Christ and reject what He says today?

On a side note, not every Bible has Christ's statements in red. So your last comment really isnt necessarily true.

john said to him, teacher we saw a man who was driving out demonds in your name and we told him to stop becouse he dose not belong to are group and jesus told them becouse no one who performs a miracle in my name will be able to after words say evil things about me .FOR WHOEVER IS NOT AGAINST US IS FOR US........ MARK9:38-40

Again, not seeing a problem here. I hope I was clear in my points.

 

[Truthspeaker]

But that's the rub isn't it? "official doctrine"

I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong. Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong". In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official". It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.

Not true at all. Official doctrine is based on Divine Revelation. If there is any question it can be clarified by an appeal to the source. At least it can in a living faith.

If all you have is a book and no revelation, then there will always be countless interpretations. When you go to the source, IE God, all contention ceases.

How can you prove that your divine revelation is just that, "divine"?

Paul said beware of people teaching false gospels.

How do you know that your doctrine doesn't fall into that category, of "false gospel".

Paul said that you can't depend on visions, burning bosom experiences, alleged angelic visitations, but only the scriptures to stay on the right path.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" Romans
(Pretty clear instructions from one of Christ's Apostles) author Paul.

Bereans followed suit too, and even when Paul taught/preached to them, they would go to the scriptures to make sure he wasn't teaching "another gospel".

Your church asks folks at the door to "pray" and ask God if Mormonism is the truth. That is very dangerous ground. No where in the bible did Jesus nor His disciples ever teach that. There are two spiritual worlds unseen to the eye. One is headed by Satan, and the other by our Creator. Satan is well qualified to present himself as an angel of light, as Christ and the disciples taught us in the bible scriptures.

Your church hinges it's whole foundations of validity on non-scriptural, post crucifixion/ressurrection/ascension visions, visitations, dreams, and alleged prophecies to dead and living latter day LDS presidents/prophets.

When one prays and asks God to prove His existence, Lucifer does a great job of hood-winking humanity at that point. God almost 2,000 years ago laid down a safe and reliable method of knowing when your visitation, vision is of His authorship, or from the "Darkside", namely Satan's principalities.

Sadly, most folks don't realize that a simple prayer, like, "God is Mormonism the truth?", is no guarantee that one's answer will be from God. That's why God gave us His written Word, and it is still the number one best seller in the world.

James chapter 1 verse 5. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God which giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.

 

[Truthspeaker]

If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.

Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.

It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.

If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.

Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.

In case you didn't know.

I am sure that some people have drawn that conclusion and that's fine because Gandalf was kind of a saviour to the people of middle earth and he resurrected from the dead as well, but I don't think Tolkien was really pushing the christian agenda with his tales. Just my opinion though.
Great book.

 

[N4mddissent]

Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.

In case you didn't know.

Actually I've never seen any documentation that suggests Tolkein intended LotR as a christian or biblical allegory. Most of the material I've seen, including old interviews with Tolkein, state that he did not intend LotR to be any sort of allegory at all. As a matter of fact I think Tolkein's response to such suggestions was that people too often mistake applicability for allegory. It has also been suggested that it was an allegory for the political and social dynamics leading up to and during the world wars. He denied this as well. Anytime one deals with large universal themes like LotR does, people will be able to find portions that seem symbolic or relevant to something they are familiar with, but that does not translate into intent by the author. C.S. Lewis, however, was writing a blatant allegory.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.

In case you didn't know.

Actually I've never seen any documentation that suggests Tolkein intended LotR as a christian or biblical allegory. Most of the material I've seen, including old interviews with Tolkein, state that he did not intend LotR to be any sort of allegory at all. As a matter of fact I think Tolkein's response to such suggestions was that people too often mistake applicability for allegory. It has also been suggested that it was an allegory for the political and social dynamics leading up to and during the world wars. He denied this as well. Anytime one deals with large universal themes like LotR does, people will be able to find portions that seem symbolic or relevant to something they are familiar with, but that does not translate into intent by the author. C.S. Lewis, however, was writing a blatant allegory.

Very true words. I couldn't have said it any better. Perhaps I will start a thread about LOTR, my favorite book series. Now about those mormons:

I am surprised I haven't heard more from people complaining or asking about the tithing we pay or the law of health that we follow. Come on people, I am trying to brush up here.

 

[N4mddissent]

Very true words. I couldn't have said it any better. Perhaps I will start a thread about LOTR, my favorite book series. Now about those mormons:

I am surprised I haven't heard more from people complaining or asking about the tithing we pay or the law of health that we follow. Come on people, I am trying to brush up here.

I enjoy LotR also. I don't see any problem with the specifics. Usually what I've found is that many of the idiosyncracies that distinguish various beliefs have a fairly resonable explanation and logically follow- if you accept the initial premise. I am afraid I have to get past the larger issue before disputing all the niggling details.

 

[AllieBaba]

Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.

It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.

If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.

Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.

In case you didn't know.

I am sure that some people have drawn that conclusion and that's fine because Gandalf was kind of a saviour to the people of middle earth and he resurrected from the dead as well, but I don't think Tolkien was really pushing the christian agenda with his tales. Just my opinion though.
Great book.

Tolkein said he didn't like allegory, but C.S. Lewis compared The Lord of the Rings to the Odyssey.

"Many times people have tried to interpret The Lord of the Rings as an allegory. Tolkien himself renounced that claim, stating he disliked allegory and that the The Lord of the Rings was not an allegory, which he also explained in the foreword to the book's second edition. Instead of being allegorical, he said that the book had a quality he called "applicability": because it was a story about universal themes and struggles, it could be likened to almost any situation in real life.[1] This universality would result in it often being interpreted as an allegory, sometimes ironically from opposing ideological sides. An example for such an interpretation would be the claim for the book being an allegory of the struggle between Communism and Capitalism."
The Lord of the Rings - Conservapedia

 

[AllieBaba]

Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.

In case you didn't know.

Actually I've never seen any documentation that suggests Tolkein intended LotR as a christian or biblical allegory. Most of the material I've seen, including old interviews with Tolkein, state that he did not intend LotR to be any sort of allegory at all. As a matter of fact I think Tolkein's response to such suggestions was that people too often mistake applicability for allegory. It has also been suggested that it was an allegory for the political and social dynamics leading up to and during the world wars. He denied this as well. Anytime one deals with large universal themes like LotR does, people will be able to find portions that seem symbolic or relevant to something they are familiar with, but that does not translate into intent by the author. C.S. Lewis, however, was writing a blatant allegory.

Very true words. I couldn't have said it any better. Perhaps I will start a thread about LOTR, my favorite book series. Now about those mormons:

I am surprised I haven't heard more from people complaining or asking about the tithing we pay or the law of health that we follow. Come on people, I am trying to brush up here.

You damn healthy, civic minded, poor people helping Mormons, stop it, you're messing up the world....and making the government look bad.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Actually I've never seen any documentation that suggests Tolkein intended LotR as a christian or biblical allegory. Most of the material I've seen, including old interviews with Tolkein, state that he did not intend LotR to be any sort of allegory at all. As a matter of fact I think Tolkein's response to such suggestions was that people too often mistake applicability for allegory. It has also been suggested that it was an allegory for the political and social dynamics leading up to and during the world wars. He denied this as well. Anytime one deals with large universal themes like LotR does, people will be able to find portions that seem symbolic or relevant to something they are familiar with, but that does not translate into intent by the author. C.S. Lewis, however, was writing a blatant allegory.

Very true words. I couldn't have said it any better. Perhaps I will start a thread about LOTR, my favorite book series. Now about those mormons:

I am surprised I haven't heard more from people complaining or asking about the tithing we pay or the law of health that we follow. Come on people, I am trying to brush up here.

You damn healthy, civic minded, poor people helping Mormons, stop it, you're messing up the world....and making the government look bad.

That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.

 

[DavidS]

That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.

What?

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery???

In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.

Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.

The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.

 

[Truthspeaker]

That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.

What?

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery???

In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.

Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.

The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.

My poor dear David,
you are comparing apples with buffaloes. If you are going to quote the Book of Mormon, you had better know the context of the scriptures. In 3 Nephi chapter 2 verse 14-15 you will read that the curse was lifted from the people and there was no more black skin curse.

That curse has been gone for a long time.

Why don't you also read the part in 2 Nephi: He [meaning JEHOVAH, who is the Lord God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).

 

[Avatar4321]

That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.

What?

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery???

In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.

Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.

The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.

Not sure what the lamanites have to do with slavery. Perhaps you should actually read the Book of Mormon. Because its pretty darn clear that slavery is not acceptable.

 

[Truthspeaker]

That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.

What?

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery???

In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.

Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.

The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.

Funny that you should be trying to hammer me David. Of all people, the Jews have never had better friends than us. It seems like we are the only ones that like you.

 

[Eightball]

That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.

What?

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery???

In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.

Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.

The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.

Funny that you should be trying to hammer me David. Of all people, the Jews have never had better friends than us. It seems like we are the only ones that like you.

Glad your church caught up with the 20th-21st century and gave equality to people of the Negroid race.

Paul said 2,000 years ago that with Christ their is no distinction between nationalities, races, Jew or Gentile........All our one in Christ.

Though your priesthoods are unbiblical, and create a type of heirarchy amongst Mormon believers, it's nice to know that Africa Americans finally were allowed equal access to your priesthood.

It amazes me that any people of the black race would have anything to do with Mormonism back in the near past when they were considered cursed and from Caine's lineage.

How convenient that when the LDS church came under fire for this violation of human rights that your presiding president/prophet had an epiphany/vision/revelation that the banning of black members from the priesthood no longer was in effect?

To call the American Indian part of the tribes of Isael, is both insulting to the Jews as well as the indigenous American Indians.

DNA studies positively prove that the pure American Indian, is of Asian ancestry that does not connect in anyway with the 13, yes, 13 tribes of Israel(Check it out in the O.T..book of Numbers.....13 tribes not 12).

Why sure you can take DNA lineage of every man and woman back to Adam and Eve, by just saying that we are all of human species DNA-wise.
******
Truthspeaker......Though you overtly present an "innocent" image of just imforming us infidels of who the real church is, you have been taught from day one in your church to use covert methods to evangelize, yet disguise it as "inform" people.

Jehovah's Witnesses use the same methodology as your missionarys do at the door.
******
The number one trait of the occult and of Christian cults is how they change the nature of Christ from how the Holy bible reveals His identity, and nature.
*****
The Celestial sexual intercourse after death for the most righteous of Mormon males, hints so closely of the fleshly, humanistic, manmade religion of Islam that promises beautiful virgins in heaven for all good Muslim men.

The gall, that a belief system would give the male species the power to ressurrect their wives, is blasphemous.

Oh, friend of the Jews.........Your religion is most, male biased and based in your favor. Women must be subservient, though Jesus said in heaven, that their is no marriage, yet the relationship between saved believers will trump any and all earthly relationships beyond belief. No where in the bible is sexual intercourse after death indicated, nor did Paul teach that we could somehow baptize those who have died. Jesus gave a very direct parable/story of a rich man(not his friend who had sisters Mary and Martha), but a fictitional man who lived a life of selfish greed, and ignored the pleadings of a suffering man(Lazarus) at his doorstep. Jesus said that the vast "gulf" would separate this rich man from the poor man/Lazarus in heaven who would be mercifully loved, and nourished by God. The rich man pleaded for just a drop of water that the poor man/Lazarus was receiving, and Jesus said........."Nope!". "What the rich man did while on planet earth, sealed his fate.". "The unloving, unmerciful rich man wasn't even given permission to warn his still-living relatives of what fate trully lie ahead for the unrighteous.". No, baptising the rich man in the name of Jesus after his departing earthly bounds would not change his fate......Author Jesus Christ.

Mormonism just exudes of manmade, fleshly, ideas, and directions of living, that do not enhance or help one to see the humility, nor the humbleness that exemplifies the true biblical, Christian life while on earth.

J.S. jr. and Brigham Young both preached sermons that diametrically opposed God's very clear and emphatic teachings both by Jesus Himself and His disciples who wrote numerous epistles.

Polygamy was not approved of by God, though some of the well known folks of the O.T. did it anyway. Interestingly, they all seemed to fall into polygamy at times when they were straying from God's commandments, were making decisions without including God's help, and started to worship pagan dietys. Solomon was a monogamous man, until he fell into temptation and married the Non-Jewish Queen of Sheba. From thence onward he allowed her polytheistic beliefs to be observed in Israel. Outcome: Solomon's life became hellish, and you just have to read the book of Ecclesiastes to understand how he so much regretted his back-slide of faith from Jehovah.
*****
Joseph and Brigham lived lives that were not even close to the exemplary lives of the prophets of the O.T.. They taught fleshly humanistic teachings that fed the fleshly side of humanity, rather than the Spiritual. It of course was popular, as the human race likes validation for sin, and fleshly, and unGodly living.
*******

 

[ABikerSailor]

Interesting.........Moronism is a cult based on racial beliefs..........

And people say they are such nice folks........