Aaron32-ism: A Perspective of Mormonism

[Aaron32]

The fantasies of our critics. Really cracks me up.

And yet you confuse people by wholly agreeing with our critics on our acceptance of polygamy, when they think of how Mags explains it. Pick a side, bro.

 

[Aaron32]

The very nature of eternal marriage creates a situation where polygamy is unavoidable.

It's not completely unavoidable. The question is, what does it look like? We're all of Joseph Smith plural marriages sexual? Are they valued to the same degree as regular marriages? No, not hardly. In many cases it was marriage in name only, much like you describe faith in "faith alone".

 

[Magdalena]

I guess we'll have a clear picture of marriage in the next life, and then I'll either explain how polygamy there is different from polygamy here, and say I told you so, or concede my point.
I'm just saying, I don't think it's going to be like Big Love or Sister Wives. When you say "polygamy" that's what the general public thinks of. Notice, the church rarely used the term also and often uses the term "plural marriage" instead. Why do you think that is?

They’re trying to make it sound less offensive or more politically correct.

 

[Aaron32]

They’re trying to make it sound less offensive or more politically correct.

Or your trying to make it sound more offensive and incorrect. There's two sides to that coin.

 

[Magdalena]

Or your trying to make it sound more offensive and incorrect. There's two sides to that coin.

You’re only willing to see one. I’ve seen them both.

 

[Markk]

I guess we'll have a clear picture of marriage in the next life, and then I'll either explain how polygamy there is different from polygamy here, and say I told you so, or concede my point.
I'm just saying, I don't think it's going to be like Big Love or Sister Wives. When you say "polygamy" that's what the general public thinks of. Notice, the church rarely used the term also and often uses the term "plural marriage" instead. Why do you think that is?

The reason they don’t expound on it , and yet do not condemn it is apparent.

It is a doctrine, it is central to exaltation and eternal life. There is absolutely no denying that. Yet because it was banned temporarily, the need for it and the understanding of how doctrinal it actually was and is, has changed assimilated. The membership today for the most part don’t want any part of it. So they are between a rock and a hard place on what to teach, or put otherwise how much to expose as doctrine. Basically a what do you say thing. If they say it is necessary and doctrinal they take flack, if they say it is no doctrinal they totally destroy LDS thought and the D&C,

 

[organgrinder]

Essentially the question is of the truthfulness of "Sola Scriptura". I believe that to be unbiblical.
We are taught of God's will not only by scripture, but by the Holy Ghost (John 14:26) and the Church (Eph 4:11-13).
It's the Holy Ghost that tells me the the Bible is true, along with the BoM, D&C, PGoP, and teachings of Church leaders. It's the alignment of those sources that helps me provide correct interpretation of each sources.
Your lack of understanding of Eternal Marriage stems for your lack of understanding and acceptance of gospel dispensations. There's a reason we study the six days of creation in the temple. That's the key to understand to Biblical full story of the gospel from beginning to end. The story of Abraham's family is just a random case study in the Old Testament to non-Mormon Christians, if you can't see how the story is congruent from beginning to end, and how God's pattern of creation explains man's origins and collective destiny then you will never grasp my understanding and the Mormon position, and why you'll always see Mormonism as a cult.

My faith is not founded in Joseph Smith, but the fruits of the Spirit.

Thank you! You as well.
I have special plans for the next week. Be sure to see the PM I'm sending you.

Knowing God's will will come primarily from understanding the biblical scriptures. The Holy Spirit will teach us individually and collectively (the ekklesia). If one hears the voice of the Holy Spirit properly, it will NEVER contradict or oppose or invalidate with written biblical word of God. When a person teaches something, that teaching is to be always measured against the written word of God. That is what the Bereans did when Paul spoke and taught. Apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers are not exempt from biblical scrutiny. The Bible is the standard by which everything else is measured. If someone says the Holy Spirit says... and it doesn't measure up to scripture then it is a false word and should be discarded. Similarly, if a pastor or a group of elders teach something other than what the scriptures say, that also is to be discarded.

In the LDS church, the Bible is not the standard because it is considered corrupt, especially where it disagrees with the BOM, D&C, POGP and pronouncements of the living LDS apostles and teachers. Joseph Smith even re-wrote portions of it, adding words, deleting words and adding entire paragraphs about himself. No Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic documents to back it up. New revelation that doesn't jive with the written word which has been settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89). He has given us His written word and there are many many manuscripts and fragments-- more than any other in antiquity-- that shows the written word has not been corrupted as the LDS must believe.

The first thing Satan did in the Garden with Eve was to interject doubt in what God said. It is the same thing now. LDS believe the Bible to be true inso far as it is translated correctly. The belief is also a giant conspiracy that many plain and precious things were removed from the scriptures, even though there is no substantive evidence this occurred. It is based on Joseph Smith saying God said so therefore it must be so. Those words were weighed against scripture and found wanting. God's word is sure (stable). It doesn't change. We can bank on it. Sola Scriptura is the only infallible authority, for God has given it to us. Churches may get incidentals wrong based on reading scripture, but first level doctrines such as the nature of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, faith alone, salvation by grace, etc. will be held to the biblical standard. Those are salvational issues.

It is these salvational issues we Christians differ from the official LDS line of theology and something Christians may not compromise. Itching ears or teaching on a palatable "gospel" is not a gospel at all. Paul instructed Timothy to adhere to the doctrine he received. That is what we do.

Concerning dispensations.... I believe in dispensational ages and I believe the seven days of creation, coupled with the seven stages of Old Testament temple ceremonies and the Seven Feasts of the Lord give a perfect of how God made His creation and what happened after. Over day One of Creation with the first OT Temple requirement and overlay the first Biblical Feat of the Lord and see what you get. Fascinating study.

Eternal marriage biblically is the bride of Christ married to the Lamb of God. There is no other.

 

[Aaron32]

Knowing God's will will come primarily from understanding the biblical scriptures. The Holy Spirit will teach us individually and collectively (the ekklesia). If one hears the voice of the Holy Spirit properly, it will NEVER contradict or oppose or invalidate with written biblical word of God. When a person teaches something, that teaching is to be always measured against the written word of God. That is what the Bereans did when Paul spoke and taught. Apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers are not exempt from biblical scrutiny. The Bible is the standard by which everything else is measured. If someone says the Holy Spirit says... and it doesn't measure up to scripture then it is a false word and should be discarded. Similarly, if a pastor or a group of elders teach something other than what the scriptures say, that also is to be discarded.

What part of the Bible do you think I reject? I just interpret it differently than you do.

In the LDS church, the Bible is not the standard because it is considered corrupt, especially where it disagrees with the BOM, D&C, POGP and pronouncements of the living LDS apostles and teachers. Joseph Smith even re-wrote portions of it, adding words, deleting words and adding entire paragraphs about himself. No Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic documents to back it up. New revelation that doesn't jive with the written word which has been settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89). He has given us His written word and there are many many manuscripts and fragments-- more than any other in antiquity-- that shows the written word has not been corrupted as the LDS must believe.

There are a lot of translations of the Bible, and equally different churches based on it. If the Bible was infallible in what God said and it was communicated clearly, then CARM itself wouldn't need to exist. Moreover, I don't think it's about what's been mistranslated, but rather what's been omitted over time.

The first thing Satan did in the Garden with Eve was to interject doubt in what God said. It is the same thing now. LDS believe the Bible to be true inso far as it is translated correctly.

If you notice, the LDS doubt in what leaders have taught inasmuch as what was spoken correctly also. Mormonism is about trusting fruits of the Spirit, our conscience, and fruits of our actions. In Jesus words "If any man will do His will he shall know of the doctrine."

The belief is also a giant conspiracy that many plain and precious things were removed from the scriptures, even though there is no substantive evidence this occurred.

We have plenty of evidence. Compare the Catholic Bible with the protestant Bible. If books can be added or removed willy-nilly, then what else is missing?

It is based on Joseph Smith saying God said so therefore it must be so. Those words were weighed against scripture and found wanting. God's word is sure (stable). It doesn't change. We can bank on it. Sola Scriptura is the only infallible authority, for God has given it to us. Churches may get incidentals wrong based on reading scripture, but first level doctrines such as the nature of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, faith alone, salvation by grace, etc. will be held to the biblical standard. Those are salvational issues.

No. I 100 percent disagree. If everything was based on the written word never to be challenged, you would have rejected Christianity, as the Pharisees did.

Biblical Contradictions

It is a central dogma of all fundamental Christians that the Bible is without error. They teach this conclusion by “reasoning” that god cannot be the author of false meaning and he cannot lie. Is this true? If written by a perfect being, then it must not contradict itself, as a collection of...

www.atheists.org

Moreover, on what basis do you get to decide what is incidental and what is not, if going strictly by the written word?

It is these salvational issues we Christians differ from the official LDS line of theology and something Christians may not compromise.

And yet they do. There are many other people believe in Christ, you just remove the "Christian" label. If we were being honest, you'd be called "Trinitarian", and anyone who professed that Christ died and resurrected would be Christian.

Itching ears or teaching on a palatable "gospel" is not a gospel at all. Paul instructed Timothy to adhere to the doctrine he received. That is what we do.

And yet, councils were required to interpret the written word. If you step back and look at the big picture, our beliefs aren't much different, you just trust different authorities than I do.

Concerning dispensations.... I believe in dispensational ages and I believe the seven days of creation, coupled with the seven stages of Old Testament temple ceremonies and the Seven Feasts of the Lord give a perfect of how God made His creation and what happened after. Over day One of Creation with the first OT Temple requirement and overlay the first Biblical Feat of the Lord and see what you get. Fascinating study.

Very cool. I'll be sure to look at that. Thanks for the insight.

Eternal marriage biblically is the bride of Christ married to the Lamb of God. There is no other.

Agreed. How can one ever know how Christ loved the Church and know how to become one, if a person is never married? Marriage is a perfecting ordinance. Why would God institute marriage before death came into the world? The body of Christ must be "one", and sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Just read the book of Ephesians. Along with the full armor of God. The congruency and symbolism is amazing when compared to temple ordinances.

 

[Aaron32]

The reason they don’t expound on it , and yet do not condemn it is apparent.

It is a doctrine, it is central to exaltation and eternal life. There is absolutely no denying that. Yet because it was banned temporarily, the need for it and the understanding of how doctrinal it actually was and is, has changed assimilated. The membership today for the most part don’t want any part of it. So they are between a rock and a hard place on what to teach, or put otherwise how much to expose as doctrine. Basically a what do you say thing. If they say it is necessary and doctrinal they take flack, if they say it is no doctrinal they totally destroy LDS thought and the D&C,

Polygamy is central for exaltation and eternal life? How do you figure?

 

[Aaron32]

You’re only willing to see one. I’ve seen them both.

You don't know what I see. It's interesting, the only line of defense you use for defense is a character attack on me. That should tell you something.

 

[Magdalena]

You don't know what I see. It's interesting, the only line of defense you use for defense is a character attack on me. That should tell you something.

No, it isn’t. That’s just all you choose to see.

 

[brotherofJared]

How many times must we address this?

Seemingly into perpetutity.

Salvation comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in the works is legalism. I don't believe in legalism.

It doesn't matter what you believe in. If faith without works is dead, faith needs that legalism or it doesn't exist. Again, faith and works are two sides of the same coin.

If I have faith in Jesus Christ I try to do the best to fulfill his commandments,

I understand that. What you don't seem to understand is that if you don't try to do the best to fulfill his commandments, then you don't have any faith in Jesus Christ. If you don't have any faith in Jesus Christ, then salvation isn't coming your way.

To the question: if you have faith that baptism is a sign of accepting Christ into your life and you don't get baptized, did you accept Christ into your life? No, because your putting faith in your works BEFORE Christ.

I'm sorry, I just can't wrap my mind around that concept. How is one putting works before Christ if they didn't even know about baptism until they learned about Christ? Or let's put it in modern terms and this person knew about Christ all along and discovered that Christ's true church actually does exist but they felt that their baptism from another church was sign enough, so they refused to be baptized. Can they be saved? How much legalism don't you believe in?

It's does not reflect the attitude of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Again, I don't believe that's attitude is required to join the church. It's not even required to partake of the sacrament.

It's not humbly submitting to God in all things out of love, it's acting out of fear out of self-preservation.

I also don't believe that anyone gets baptized out of fear or self-preservation. I think they get baptized simply because they believe it's true. It has nothing to do with self-preservation nor does it have anything to do with being humble, contrite, or broken-hearted.

To answer: If you have faith that, as promised, your wife will get pregnant and you don't do anything about it, a. Will she get pregnant? If I had faith in immaculate conception, then maybe.

The immaculate conception has to do with Mary, not Jesus. But I know what you mean.

Ironically, infertility is something I can relate to. I was promised that I'd have kids in my patriarchal blessing, but unfortunately medical reasons said otherwise. So, we had to adopt. By seeking the Lord's will, we experienced miracles. We became foster parents, and had the easiest case in history, basically we got a baby left at the hospital. We had to be selective and inspired to have such an outcome. We had to say "no" to some cases because it didn't feel right. Other people we knew in foster care and wanted to adopt, and they just took anything that came along because they were so desperate to get a child in their home, and spent the next 6 years battling the system. That's the difference between having faith in the works we think will get us there, and having full faith and trust in God. Faith in works is burdensome and exhausting, faith in God is effortless and edifying. Anyway, we adopted 3 kids, and then received an anonymous check in the mail so we could do IVF. Can I claim that it was because of what I did? Heck no. I just tried my best, but God made it happen.

Uh huh. Yea. Sure.

I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to Abraham and Zechariah. There was no virgin birth there, but the fact is, could they have had children if they didn't actually do what was required to have children? The answer to these questions is obvious but you refuse to answer them and then claim that you did. The fact remains, regardless of your preference for legalism, if you don't do the work your faith is useless.

Yet, works can exist without faith

Yes, when we do works out of knowledge, it is no longer faith. The work is still required.

If you truly understand what faith is, in terms of real salvation, it encompasses everything that follows.

When you truly understand what faith is, then you'll understand that faith is never alone.

You could say we are saved by grace through faith through repentance through baptism through the the gift of the Holy Ghost. It's one layer on top of the other. It's a natural progression.

You can say whatever you want, but the fact remains that we are saved by grace through faith and that faith is none existent if it is not accompanied by works. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin.

If, by some reason, we can't make it to the end of that process due to circumstances outside of our control, God is merciful and knows our hearts.

This is great. It might even resemble some progress, so if you make it to the end and manage to do everything you can that is within your control, will you be saved? Alternatively, if you make it to the end and didn't manage to do things that were in your control, will you be saved?

Thus, explaining the salvation of the thief on the cross, and Alvin Smith, and the multitude of all people who claimed salvation in the scriptures without (or before) getting baptized.

The thief on the cross wasn't saved. Alvin was baptized, but there are a lot of people who never even heard of Christ, much less lived the commandments who will be resurrected to exaltation. Yes, God is merciful to them that merit mercy. I would say he'd be less merciful to those who knew better and still cheated.

 

[brotherofJared]

I guess we'll have a clear picture of marriage in the next life, and then I'll either explain how polygamy there is different from polygamy here, and say I told you so, or concede my point.
I'm just saying, I don't think it's going to be like Big Love or Sister Wives. When you say "polygamy" that's what the general public thinks of. Notice, the church rarely used the term also and often uses the term "plural marriage" instead. Why do you think that is?

It's politically correct to say plural marriage since, in reality, we aren't practicing polygamy. No one is married to two living wives at the same time in our church and gets away with it, well, there may be some, but not many.

Again, I don't see how you think there will be a difference between having more than one wife there and having more than one wife here. The husband will have children with as many wives as he has and I don't see that there'd be any difference between the way we do it here and the way we'll do it there.

 

[brotherofJared]

And yet you confuse people by wholly agreeing with our critics on our acceptance of polygamy, when they think of how Mags explains it. Pick a side, bro.

Bro. I don't think you're paying attention to my posts on the subject or you wouldn't say that. Polygamy as we address it is one husband many wives. I believe that that's exactly what it'll be in the resurrection. I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion except to claim that the church's teachings on the subject are false, which I think you do, so, "Pick a side, bro."

 

[brotherofJared]

It's not completely unavoidable.

It may not be unavoidable to you, but it is unavoidable for many. The fact that it exists creates this situation and your ignorance concerning the subject isn't going to change that.

The question is, what does it look like?

Answer, 1 husband, many wives. That's what it looks like.

We're all of Joseph Smith plural marriages sexual?

I don't know. Some of them were. Some of them were dead and some of them were married to other men.

Are they valued to the same degree as regular marriages?

Do you mean valued enough to have children with them? Yes.

No, not hardly. In many cases it was marriage in name only, much like you describe faith in "faith alone".

Ok.

 

[brotherofJared]

The reason they don’t expound on it , and yet do not condemn it is apparent.

Yes. It's quite apparent. They still practice it.

It is a doctrine

It is.

it is central to exaltation and eternal life.

It is not.

There is absolutely no denying that.

This is, apparently, false.

 

[organgrinder]

Aaron and BOJ......just to clarify a point. The Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was conceived without original sin. You and many non-Catholic Christians confuse that with the Virgin birth of Jesus. They are different.

 

[Theo1689]

What part of the Bible do you think I reject? I just interpret it differently than you do.

You "just interpret it differently"?!
That is wrong, on just so many levels.

If the Bible can be "interpreted differently" by different people, then you make it meaningless and worthless. But then again, Mormonism DOES make the Bible meaningless and worthless.

You remind me of a "Change My Mind" video by Steven Crowder I rewatched yesterday. It was about Confirming Amy Coney Barrett, and Steven and the student were discussing the role of the Supreme Court. The student was arguing in favour of "packing the court", to provide "more diversity" in the SC to give more diversity in interpreting the law TO REPRESENT THE DIVERSE POPULATION.

But that is not the role of the SC.
The role of the SC is to study the founding documents (such as the Constitution), and to determine the ONE meaning it intended to convey, to make sure subsequent laws are not contrary to what was set down in the Constitution.

The Constitution had only ONE meaning when it was penned.
It has that SAME meaning today.

Likewise, the Bible had ONE meaning when it was penned.
It has that SAME meaning today.

When you say you "just interpret [the Bible] differently, all you're doing is making up excuses for rejecting what the Bible ACTUALLY says.

There are a lot of translations of the Bible, and equally different churches based on it.

Another false claim without ANY evidence whatsoever.
I don't know where this false idea came from, and I can only assume that it is taught WITHIN Mormonism.

One would think there is a "Baptist Bible", and an "Anglican Bible", and a "Methodist Bible", and a "Presbyterian Bible", etc. etc. But that is COMPLETELY FALSE.

There are only two factors in which mainstream Bibles are in ANY way different, and that is

(1) Catholic Bibles (with 7 extra books) vs. Protestant Bibles (not containing the Apocrypha), but there is INSIGNIFICANT difference in the text of the 66 books the two Bibles have in common;

(2) KJV (Textus Receptus-based) vs. modern translations (Critical Text-based). And even with the difference in the underlying texts, there is NO significant difference in the meaning (John 11:35 might say, "Jesus wept", or "Jesus sobbed", or "Jesus cried". They all mean the same thing).

You really shouldn't try commenting on things of which you are completely ignorant about.

If the Bible was infallible in what God said and it was communicated clearly, then CARM itself wouldn't need to exist.

That's simply false.
There are MANY factors, other than the infallibility of the Biblical text, which account for disagreements. And if you want to go tot an appropriate forum, we can discuss them.

One major factor is the need to twist the Bible to fit the message of external texts (eg. PoGP, D&C), and false teachers (eg. false Mormon prophets).

Moreover, I don't think it's about what's been mistranslated, but rather what's been omitted over time.

And again, that is a FALSE claim by you, with ZERO evidence to support it. And in fact, you inadvertently make my point. Your false accusation above doesn't come from actual evidence, it comes from the need to TWIST the Bible according to your external teachings, that there "have been plain and precious parts removed".

In point of fact, anyone who has studied textual criticism (as I have) knows that most Biblical scribes were devout Christians, and they were very concerned about NOT "losing" any of God's word. If they found a marginal note in a manuscript they were copying, and it was possible that it was part of Scripture, rather than a commentary note, they would include it in their copy ("better safe than sorry") to avoid possibly losing Scripture. That's why the corpus of Scripture as GROWN over the centuries, rather than shrunk.

We have plenty of evidence. Compare the Catholic Bible with the protestant Bible. If books can be added or removed willy-nilly, then what else is missing?

What is sad is that comments like this PROVE that Mormons don't care about the truth. They use the Apocrypha as "evidence" that "books have been removed" (what is your PROOF that they were ever Scripture in the first place?!), but Mormons don't even ACCEPT the Apocrypha as Scripture, so they have to depend on a false premise to argue their point.

Let THAT sink in...

No. I 100 percent disagree. If everything was based on the written word never to be challenged, you would have rejected Christianity, as the Pharisees did.

Another false and self-serving ASSUMPTION by you.

And what are we doing here?
Mormons are (as usual) ATTACKING the Bible, because they know the Bible is NOT their friend.

And yet, councils were required to interpret the written word.

Another false claim by you.
You really need to actually STUDY church history, instead of making up false claims like this.

Councils didn't "interpret the written word".
Councils were formed to (1) formally condemn heretics, and (2) revise the WORDING of confessions and creeds to make sure future heretics would not be able to twist words. The "interpretation" of Scripture was ALREADY determined.

What evidence do you have to support your FALSE claim?

If you step back and look at the big picture, our beliefs aren't much different, you just trust different authorities than I do.

Yeah, they are COMPLETELY different:

Bible: only one God
LDS: "Plural gods"

Bible: salvation by faith alone;
LDS: Works required for salvation;

Bible: Monogamy;
LDS: polygamy;

Bible: marriage ends at death;
LDS: marriage continues for eternity;

Bible: Elders/deacons are to be elder, mature, married, with children, monogamous
LDS: Elders/deacons can be unmarried rude single teenagers.

etc.
etc.

Agreed. How can one ever know how Christ loved the Church and know how to become one, if a person is never married?

How can one ever know that murder is evil, if they have never been murdered?
Ridiculous question.

Why would God institute marriage before death came into the world?

"Be fruitful and multiply".
Do you even own a Bible?

 

[Theo1689]

There are a lot of translations of the Bible, and equally different churches based on it.

Okay, Aaron, I would like to challenge you on this ridiculous claim of yours.

Since I was just discussing John 6:29 in another discussion, I will use that as the verse for discussion:

Jesus answered and said unto them, “This is the work of God: that ye believe in Him whom He hath sent.” (KJ21)
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (ASV)
Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom *he* has sent. (Darby)
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (ESV)
Jesus answered, and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him, whom he hath sent. (GNV)
Jesus replied, “This is the work of God—that you believe in the One He has sent.” (HCSB)
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (KJV)
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” (NASB)
Jesus replied, “This is the deed God requires—to believe in the one whom he sent.” (NET)
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (NIV)
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” (NKJV)
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (NRSV)
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (WEB)
Jesus answered and said to them, `This is the work of God, that ye may believe in him whom He did send.' (YLT)


Now, if you would, could you please:

1) explain to us the different meanings you think exist between those translations?
2) Identify which of those translations are allegedly the "official" translation for each of the following denominations:
a) Anglican
b) Baptist;
c) Christian Science;
d) Episopalian;
e) Lutheran;
f) Mennonite;
g) Methodist;
h) Pentecostal;
i) Presbyterian;
j) Quaker
k) Seventh-Day Adventist;

 

[Theo1689]

No. I 100 percent disagree. If everything was based on the written word never to be challenged, you would have rejected Christianity, as the Pharisees did.

Biblical Contradictions

It is a central dogma of all fundamental Christians that the Bible is without error. They teach this conclusion by “reasoning” that god cannot be the author of false meaning and he cannot lie. Is this true? If written by a perfect being, then it must not contradict itself, as a collection of...

www.atheists.org

It's sad, but not unexpected, to see Mormons attacking the Bible.
I just wish they were more open and honest about it.
And to simply do a 3-second Bible search to find a "contradictions" list on an atheist website seems lazy to the extreme.

I think it's pretty clear that you didn't even bother to read the website (I did), to see if there were any valid points in it.

So let's look at some of these imaginary "contradictions", and see how they prove MORMONISM false, since Mormon defends these, and claims they are NOT "contradictions at all. But if Aaron insists that they are, then he is arguing against the LDS church, and the LDS church (according to him) must be false, or at least have ZERO authority.

The first one:

Family Relationships​

“Honor thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus 20:12

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26

The LDS website, when it cites Luke 14:26, links to another verse, Matt. 10:37, which reads:

Matt. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that lovethson or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

So this is suggesting that the "hate" in Luke 14:26 is not on an absolute scale, but simply relative, in relation to how much one is to love Jesus.

Personal Injury​

“…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25

“…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39

I'm not even going to bother looking for LDS sources to see how they addressed this, since this is CLEARLY not a "contradiction". Ex. 21 is giving the Mosaic Law, and showing the severity and the consequences. But the point that Jesus is teaching is that we don't have to DEMAND justice when we are offended, but can offer mercy instead.


Like I said, it's sad when Mormons get in bed with atheists.
But at least it more honestly shows the true relationship.