Pre-Manifesto Mormonism and Modern 'Mormon Fundamentalism'

[Sparko]

So in effect, you follow the Islamic principle of abrogation which can be best summed up "out with the old in with the new, regardless of whether or not it makes sense".

JW's do this too. "new light" replaces "old light"

Seems that many cults do this as a way to keep power in the current crop of leaders so that they can "guide" their "flock" in any direction they want.

[nrajeff]

Neither were you guys before the Manifesto...

The Congress was just as good at passing un-Constitutional laws in the 19th century as it is in the 21st. Regardless, we figured out how to thrive, while the FLDS are not doing so well.

[OtherCheek]

So in effect, you follow the Islamic principle of abrogation which can be best summed up "out with the old in with the new, regardless of whether or not it makes sense".

Christ fulfilling the Law of Moses didn't make sense to the orthodox Jews, did it? What makes sense to an adherent of a Faith, may not always make sense to non-adherents of that Faith.

[Cerebrum123]

Christ fulfilling the Law of Moses didn't make sense to the orthodox Jews, did it? What makes sense to an adherent of a Faith, may not always make sense to non-adherents of that Faith.

Sorry OC, the comparison is invalid, and I'm going to tell you why. Islam self contradicts itself on it's own laws(kind of like LDS with polygamy), but Christianity doesn't contradict anything taught by the OT.

[Cow Poke]

Christ fulfilling the Law of Moses didn't make sense to the orthodox Jews, did it? What makes sense to an adherent of a Faith, may not always make sense to non-adherents of that Faith.

Stocking a religious institution up with explosives and excellerants and automatic weapons and tons of ammo didn't make a lot of sense to orthodox Christians, but it was perfectly normal for the folks at Mt. Carmel. What makes sense to an adherent of a Cult, may not always make sense to non-adherents of that Cult.

[OtherCheek]

Sorry OC, the comparison is invalid, and I'm going to tell you why. Islam self contradicts itself on it's own laws(kind of like LDS with polygamy), but Christianity doesn't contradict anything taught by the OT.

Is that what the orthodox Jews would say regarding Christianity?

[Cerebrum123]

Is that what the orthodox Jews would say regarding Christianity?

I don't know what orthodox Jews say regarding Christianity, but the usual complaint seems to be with typological prophecy, which was a valid method of exegesis in the 1st century A.D. Also do you have anywhere in the NT or OT, where you have things like both a and not a being true in both the same context, and regards to the same problem?

[OtherCheek]

I don't know what orthodox Jews say regarding Christianity, but the usual complaint seems to be with typological prophecy, which was a valid method of exegesis in the 1st century A.D. Also do you have anywhere in the NT or OT, where you have things like both a and not a being true in both the same context, and regards to the same problem?

All I have to do is point to something that happens but then doesn't happen.

How about the gathering and scattering and gathering and scattering and gathering of Israel. Israel is the problem. When Lord is ready they are scattered, when the Lord is ready they are gathered, and over and over again. In essence, the Lord has a timetable for things to happen. And plural marriage, as I see things, is one of those things that the Lord can command "for" if he chooses, or command "against" if he chooses. The circumstances may be the Lord's own timetable, or it may something else. I don't question Him on that.

[Sparko]

All I have to do is point to something that happens but then doesn't happen.

How about the gathering and scattering and gathering and scattering and gathering of Israel. Israel is the problem. When Lord is ready they are scattered, when the Lord is ready they are gathered, and over and over again. In essence, the Lord has a timetable for things to happen. And plural marriage, as I see things, is one of those things that the Lord can command "for" if he chooses, or command "against" if he chooses. The circumstances may be the Lord's own timetable, or it may something else. I don't question Him on that.

The scattering of Israel was a punishment. Are you saying that polygamy is a punishment?



...Sure sounds like one to me!

[Cerebrum123]

All I have to do is point to something that happens but then doesn't happen.

How about the gathering and scattering and gathering and scattering and gathering of Israel. Israel is the problem. When Lord is ready they are scattered, when the Lord is ready they are gathered, and over and over again. In essence, the Lord has a timetable for things to happen. And plural marriage, as I see things, is one of those things that the Lord can command "for" if he chooses, or command "against" if he chooses. The circumstances may be the Lord's own timetable, or it may something else. I don't question Him on that.

Well, since you seem so ready to defend both Islam's contradictions and your own, then explain these simple verses, and tell me if you see a contradiction.

And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed. There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and the command of Allah is a decree that is made absolute: S. 33:37-38 Shakir

Note that Mohammed is marrying the ex-wife of his adopted son in the above verse, then see what happens here.

God has not assigned to any man two hearts within his breast; nor has He made your wives, when you divorce, saying, 'Be as my mother's back,' truly your mothers, neither has He made your adopted sons your sons in fact. That is your own saying, the words of your mouths; but God speaks the truth, and guides on the way. Call them after their true fathers; that is more equitable in the sight of God. If you know not who their fathers were, then they are your brothers in religion, and your clients. There is no fault in you if you make mistakes, but only in what your hearts premeditate. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. S. 33:4-5

Now, I know that the words of the Quran are rather hard to understand, but in the above verse adoption it abolished completely(many Muslims still believe that adoption is a bad thing). Notice how it goes from permission to marry the ex-wife of an adopted son, to no adoption at all? This same kind of thing seems to be found in Mormonism, and God would have no hand in something like "abrogation". These verses show that the Quran is not from God, and the things on polygamy show that the BoM, and the Mormon "prophets" aren't from God either.

[OtherCheek]

The scattering of Israel was a punishment.

Not really relevant to the point that the Lord has his own timetable for doing things.

[Sparko]

Not really relevant to the point that the Lord has his own timetable for doing things.

it's relevant cuz you used it as an analogy to polygamy.

FAIL.

[OtherCheek]

Well, since you seem so ready to defend both Islam's contradictions and your own, then explain these simple verses, and tell me if you see a contradiction.

And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed. There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and the command of Allah is a decree that is made absolute: S. 33:37-38 Shakir

Note that Mohammed is marrying the ex-wife of his adopted son in the above verse, then see what happens here.

God has not assigned to any man two hearts within his breast; nor has He made your wives, when you divorce, saying, 'Be as my mother's back,' truly your mothers, neither has He made your adopted sons your sons in fact. That is your own saying, the words of your mouths; but God speaks the truth, and guides on the way. Call them after their true fathers; that is more equitable in the sight of God. If you know not who their fathers were, then they are your brothers in religion, and your clients. There is no fault in you if you make mistakes, but only in what your hearts premeditate. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. S. 33:4-5

Now, I know that the words of the Quran are rather hard to understand, but in the above verse adoption it abolished completely(many Muslims still believe that adoption is a bad thing). Notice how it goes from permission to marry the ex-wife of an adopted son, to no adoption at all? This same kind of thing seems to be found in Mormonism, and God would have no hand in something like "abrogation". These verses show that the Quran is not from God, and the things on polygamy show that the BoM, and the Mormon "prophets" aren't from God either.

I'm not interested in Islam.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm not interested in Islam.

Then why on earth have you been defending it? IMO, it's because they follow a similar way of thinking that you engage in, and you feel that since you do it too, then it must not be a bad thing when they do it.

[OtherCheek]

Then why on earth have you been defending it? IMO, it's because they follow a similar way of thinking that you engage in, and you feel that since you do it too, then it must not be a bad thing when they do it.

I only defend their freedom to practice their religion according to the dictates of their own conscience. Like I would for you too.