Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament?

[_Drifting]

So gdemetz and Franktalk,

Do you still believe that Catholics, Protestants, Methodists etc are an 'abomination' in the eyes of God and that their organizations are 'corrupt'?

Separately, do you believe that the Celestial Kingdom will only be populated with Mormons?

[_consiglieri]

That's the problem with apostate Christendom; they are ignorant and dumb! That why it was necessary for a restitution of all things!!!

What you call "apostate Christendom" is neither ignorant nor dumb. Some of the greatest thinkers in western civilization have been members of "apostate Christendom."

But while I recognize eternal marriage is nowhere explicitly taught in the New Testament, I do think it may be implicit in this passage.

Contextually, this is a trap laid for Jesus by the Sadducees. It comes in a chapter devoted to three such traps. One trap is asking Jesus what the greatest commandment is in the law. Jesus avoids the trap by giving not one commandment, but two. (His kung-fu is very strong.)

A second trap is asking if it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus avoids the trap by saying to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

I think it by looking at the context of the third question by the Sadducee as a trap that we are best able to figure out what is going on.

First, I note that if the Sadducees did not believe Jesus to be teaching marriage in heaven, there is no point to the trap. Where is the catch? Jesus just says "no" and moves on.

The trap lies in the hypothetical (probably drawn from the Apocrypha) of one woman married to seven men. It is important to the trap that it is not one man married to seven woman, but the reverse.

Now, if the Sadducees believe Jesus is teaching marriage in heaven, the trap is clear--how can one woman be married to seven men? Here on earth, she is following the law of Moses, but if each of those marriages continues in heaven, then Jesus, you have a problem.

Jesus gets out of the trap in a similar manner to the way he gets out of the other two traps. He doesn't answer their question precisely. He first parses the question by focusing on "they" (i.e., the Sadducee woman and seven husbands of the hypothetical) who are not married or given in marriage in heaven, and then immediately accuses the Sadducees of hypocrisy because they don't believe in the resurrection anyway.

In other words, Jesus acts like an apologist.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Albion]

It was a custom often practiced under Jewish culture of the time for a brother to assume responsibility for a dead brother's widow by marrying her. Additionaly, you overlook the fact the the Sadduccees as a sect did not believe in any kind of resurrection so really their question was to get Jesus to commit himself on the subject of resurrection and not specifically the subject of marriage. To repeat the old joke...that's why they were sadd u cee.

[_gdemetz]

Hello Albion?! You should read the above post! The question was about which husband would be hers! Is there anything that you understand correctly in the Bible?! I guess that this is the result of some of those great thinkers!

[_Albion]

I read all the posts, gdemetz, but it is clear that you have selective reading which triggers your responses. In reality, I don't have to defend anything. It is Mormonism that is preaching a "different gospel" and the onus is on Mormonism to prove its point which you clearly fail to do.

[_Franktalk]

So gdemetz and Franktalk,

Do you still believe that Catholics, Protestants, Methodists etc are an 'abomination' in the eyes of God and that their organizations are 'corrupt'?

Separately, do you believe that the Celestial Kingdom will only be populated with Mormons?

I use Paul as an example for this analysis. Saul / Paul was on the road to Damascus when he received a vision. The vision of course changed his life. But I ask if he was saved already before the vision. I think he was because he was righteous in his belief even though it was wrong. He loved God and thought he was doing the right thing. His righteous was counted on his belief. The same is true of all people who lived before the Gospel period. We are all accounted for what we believe to be true. But the love of God must be there even if the details may be off exactly who God is.

So only those who know better will be held accountable. This is one of the reasons I try and stick with talks dealing with the Holy Spirit and a casting off of this world. What I say means nothing but if someone gets to the point where they can have the Spirit then they too can be a tool for God. It is the love of God that I have hope of for my fellow man. Doctrine means little.

[_Franktalk]

I read all the posts, gdemetz, but it is clear that you have selective reading which triggers your responses. In reality, I don't have to defend anything. It is Mormonism that is preaching a "different gospel" and the onus is on Mormonism to prove its point which you clearly fail to do.

It is not the task of Mormons to bring people to God. No one in the flesh can do that. But if someone is seeking then it is always nice to speak to someone who loves God. But in seeking God you carry the world with you then your path is short and not very rewarding. You may love the idea of God but without the Spirit you will not know Him.

[_Albion]

Of course, the Great Commission is incumbent on all disciples of Christ and I would agree that the Spirit is an essential element of this since the HS is God's promised gift for all believers. It comes to all believers the moment they come to Christ and accept his saving grace and it comes direct from God. There is no intermediary. Tell me, what have you seen in Joseph Smith's life, not the things you claim he has restored, but the actual life he lived, the way he spoke, his deeds, his compassion, his heart and such, that would demonstrate to you that he was really moved by the Holy Spirit. In all my reading on the man, and it has been extensive, I see only self angrandizing, boastfulness, and self indulgence.

[_Franktalk]

Albion,

Why would I care about the man Joseph Smith? He was either weak or strong like the rest of us. Just a rough check of scripture shows the weakness of prophets. Peter denied Christ three times in one night, Jonah ran the other way when God had a mission for him, one prophet was told to marry a harlot as a similitude for Israel. So the personal life of a prophet means nothing to me.

I already told you that I think Peter indicated that he would be involved in restoring the church. You can accept or reject that interpretation. But check this out.

2 Peter 3

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

This may be an illusion to the second Church and the remembrance of the present truth

2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Here Peter is setting a date for the last days. For in those days scoffers will be saying the following.

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

This is a key verse for setting the date for the last days. This verse states that a belief will come along in which some people (scoffers) will believe that each day is like all days before it. And what we see today is the same as we go back in time. In science this is called uniformitarianism and it was popularized by Charles lyell. He wrote a book called Principles of Geology published Jan 1830. This sets the start date of the last days at Jan 1830. Also published Jan 1830 was the Book of Mormon. So the Book of Mormon was published at the start of the last days according to this prophecy. So Peter was telling us when his work (in death) would re-establish the present truth.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

The ideas of men (scoffers) in the form of scientific theories has taken many people away from the historical truth of scriptures. Once people accept that uniformitarianism is a guiding principle for them then they view the past through natural eyes. In this they deny the flood of Noah. In this they deny that God has performed miracles in the past and the earth has changed many times in supernatural ways. This has gotten so bad that many churches now accept the scientific view and then deny the flood of Noah.

You of course may see things different than I do. Like I see a non-linear past filled with supernatural events. I see the flood as a world wide event. So maybe you and I just read the words differently.

[_gdemetz]

Hello Albion?! Wake up! LDS doctrine is the New Testament Christian doctrine! It is the gospel! What you have is another gospel! How many references will it take to wake you up about this?! I quote the Bible exactly as it is written, and you put ANOTHER GOSPEL spin on it and try to change the meaning of what it clearly states! How many examples and references will it take before you wake up to the truth?!