Polygamy and levirate marriage

[Bill the Cat]

Well, I can see I will get nowhere with the 4 of you campus "elite." You apparently have no qualms about breaking your own campus rules or rule of no name-calling. When Jesus returns and resorts to name-calling, Sparko, it will be a sad day indeed. Jesus was not deriding the Jews - he was sent to them. He was teaching them. One day you will learn that.

The Book of Mormon has no trinitarian language in it. God is not a name - it is a title. I will analogize it to one family. There is one family with a Father and a Son. They spread their love, and it bears sons and daughters through the Son who become part of the family. 2 Corinthians 6:18 says God "will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." At this point trinitarians are screaming no, no, no, but your Bible says yes, yes, yes. No "one substance," "consubstantiality" or "one being" gobbledygook (trinitarian language) which are all ideas imposed on God by man and are NOT scriptural - like the word trinity is not scriptural. If God wanted to teach such trinity doctrine, don't you think out of the hundreds of pages of scripture, he would have managed it? Jesus came to teach the way to the holiest of all (Hebrews 9:8), but trinitarians deny themselves of it. Christ says too many things which conflict with the doctrine of the trinity. "To sit on my right-hand and on my left is not mine to give, but shall be given to them for whom it is prepared." If Jesus was "co-equal" (another trinitarian doctrine) to the Father, it would be his to give. This also reveals God's preparation of his servants from the foundation of the world even before the physical creation - from our preexistence. See Jeremiah 1 (Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee and ordained thee a prophet to the nations.) He said no man knoweth when I return, neither the Son, but the Father only. Unlike the Father Jesus did not know all things before they transpired, but the Bible teaches that "the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them." Isaiah 42:9

Well those are my "non-scriptural" anti-trinitarian thoughts for the day. Why don't you boys show me where the scriptures teach more than the oneness of God ie where they contain the words "one substance," "one being", "co-equal," or "trinity." If you can find those words in the inspired word of God, maybe you will convert me to the doctrine of the trinity. There are also some non-scriptural ideas of the begotten nature of the Son in there.(there was never a time when Jesus was begotten, even though the scriptures say he begotten by the oath of his Father: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.) While you are at it, why don't you inform the readers how many hundreds of years after the scriptures were finished these words were added to the "canon" or "law" by councils, which councils your churches no longer recognize. Have a nice day.

This is the biggest load of strawmen I have ever seen on this board.

[Cow Poke]

Well, I can see I will get nowhere with the 4 of you campus "elite." You apparently have no qualms about breaking your own campus rules or rule of no name-calling.

Where have I called you any names?

Perhaps you're better suited to Home Economics?

[Sparko]

Well, I can see I will get nowhere with the 4 of you campus "elite." You apparently have no qualms about breaking your own campus rules or rule of no name-calling. When Jesus returns and resorts to name-calling, Sparko, it will be a sad day indeed. Jesus was not deriding the Jews - he was sent to them. He was teaching them. One day you will learn that.

The Book of Mormon has no trinitarian language in it. God is not a name - it is a title. I will analogize it to one family. There is one family with a Father and a Son. They spread their love, and it bears sons and daughters through the Son who become part of the family. 2 Corinthians 6:18 says God "will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." At this point trinitarians are screaming no, no, no, but your Bible says yes, yes, yes. No "one substance," "consubstantiality" or "one being" gobbledygook (trinitarian language) which are all ideas imposed on God by man and are NOT scriptural - like the word trinity is not scriptural. If God wanted to teach such trinity doctrine, don't you think out of the hundreds of pages of scripture, he would have managed it? Jesus came to teach the way to the holiest of all (Hebrews 9:8), but trinitarians deny themselves of it. Christ says too many things which conflict with the doctrine of the trinity. "To sit on my right-hand and on my left is not mine to give, but shall be given to them for whom it is prepared." If Jesus was "co-equal" (another trinitarian doctrine) to the Father, it would be his to give. This also reveals God's preparation of his servants from the foundation of the world even before the physical creation - from our preexistence. See Jeremiah 1 (Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee and ordained thee a prophet to the nations.) He said no man knoweth when I return, neither the Son, but the Father only. Unlike the Father Jesus did not know all things before they transpired, but the Bible teaches that "the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them." Isaiah 42:9

Well those are my "non-scriptural" anti-trinitarian thoughts for the day. Why don't you boys show me where the scriptures teach more than the oneness of God ie where they contain the words "one substance," "one being", "co-equal," or "trinity." If you can find those words in the inspired word of God, maybe you will convert me to the doctrine of the trinity. There are also some non-scriptural ideas of the begotten nature of the Son in there.(there was never a time when Jesus was begotten, even though the scriptures say he begotten by the oath of his Father: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.) While you are at it, why don't you inform the readers how many hundreds of years after the scriptures were finished these words were added to the "canon" or "law" by councils, which councils your churches no longer recognize. Have a nice day.

This thread is about polygamy not the trinity. I gave you a link to a thread about the Trinity here in the LDS forum. If you want to discuss the trinity, first read through that, and if you have any questions, then post them there. But your objections show that you don't have a clue about what the doctrine even is and you don't seem to care enough to actually learn. You just want to bring up objections without even knowing what you are talking about.

You seem to be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Sparko]

PS there is no rule about "no name calling" besides I just called you "dummy" - if THAT is too strong for you, then you are in the wrong place.

Rule #1
Many areas of our forum are designated for debates, which at times can get aggressive. Our open debate forums, in which persons holding opposing worldviews are encouraged to participate, are not designed for persons who are easily offended or insist upon Moderator-enforced politeness at all costs. While we strongly ask that our members use discretion and tailor their responses appropriately, we recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position or faith that may at times offend some.

[Cow Poke]

PS there is no rule about "no name calling" besides I just called you "dummy" - if THAT is too strong for you, then you are in the wrong place.

Rule #1
Many areas of our forum are designated for debates, which at times can get aggressive. Our open debate forums, in which persons holding opposing worldviews are encouraged to participate, are not designed for persons who are easily offended or insist upon Moderator-enforced politeness at all costs. While we strongly ask that our members use discretion and tailor their responses appropriately, we recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position or faith that may at times offend some.

Besides, poopiehead, I only call my FRIENDS Friends in the Gospel names!

[Sparko]

Besides, poopiehead, I only call my FRIENDS Fiends in the Gospel names!

fify

[RevTestament]

From the Campus Decorum

Disruptive behavior will be moderated at our discretion. There may be certain instances when behavior or comments which are technically allowable will be censored if they are used to such a degree or are of such a nature that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog. Behavior which becomes, or can be, disruptive, such as but not limited to, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, trolling, or blatant rudeness for its own sake, will not be tolerated.

When you don't even know your own rules, nor have common decency, I don't know how I ever hoped to teach you about something as wonderful as the oneness of God. Nevertheless, your rules also say "While we strongly ask that our members use discretion and tailor their responses appropriately, we recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position or faith that may at times offend some." I apologize Sparko for obviously offending you with my overwhelming scriptural position and logic so that you felt the need to call me dummy. I am sure you are a reasonably bright individual, so obviously realized the futility of your position and felt a resulting need to distract the reader with rude nonresponsive diatribe. I should have foreseen this would be your response to your plight, and given you a way to save face. Well, there is always next time.

[Sparko]

From the Campus Decorum


When you don't even know your own rules, nor have common decency, I don't know how I ever hoped to teach you about something as wonderful as the oneness of God. Nevertheless, your rules also say "While we strongly ask that our members use discretion and tailor their responses appropriately, we recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position or faith that may at times offend some." I apologize Sparko for obviously offending you with my overwhelming scriptural position and logic so that you felt the need to call me dummy. I am sure you are a reasonably bright individual, so obviously realized the futility of your position and felt a resulting need to distract the reader with rude nonresponsive diatribe. I should have foreseen this would be your response to your plight, and given you a way to save face. Well, there is always next time.

maybe I should have called you "cry baby" instead?

[RevTestament]

pfffff

[Sparko]

pfffff

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

RT, I wasn't calling you a gratuitous name when I called you "dummy" -- I was making a point. I pointed that out to you in a previous post.

You really need to lighten up.

[RevTestament]

the last word is not necessarily the right word

[Sparko]

the last word is not necessarily the right word

well like they say: two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

[Bill the Cat]

From the Campus Decorum

We are a lightly moderated board. Had you read the ENTIRE rule, you would see that it says behavior that BECOMES disruptive. We only apply this rule when the conversation is nothing more than a flame fest. A single, or even a few, invectives used to make a point are well within the rules. Just because YOU think that a single insult is not within common decency, doesn't mean that it violates decorum.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know how I ever hoped to teach you about something as wonderful as the oneness of God.

Vivian?

I apologize Sparko for obviously offending you with my overwhelming scriptural position and logic so that you felt the need to call me dummy.

FRANK!?!?!

I am sure you are a reasonably bright individual,

Not Sparko! He's a POOPIEHEAD!

so obviously realized the futility of your position and felt a resulting need to distract the reader with rude nonresponsive diatribe.

[ChurchLady] "We like ourselves, don't we?" [/ChurchLady]

I should have foreseen this would be your response to your plight, and given you a way to save face. Well, there is always next time.

Perhaps you can dispense with the drama, put on your BIG GIRL panties, and just try to make your point?

[Cerebrum123]

my overwhelming scriptural position and logic