King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
Precepts
captain of 10
Posts: 28

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by Precepts »

innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:27 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 12:26 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:46 am Joseph F. Smith stated this and it was published in the Deseret Evening News on February 18, 1882. I trust his knowledge on the matter more than I trust yours. B. H. Roberts also wrote about it in volume 7 of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then, of course, there are all the well-documented wives of both Joseph and Hyrum. Again, you attempt to use your narrow understanding to condemn things you've obviously not studied.
Joseph's wives don't claim the Kirtland era.

BH Roberts simply speculated 1831 because of Joseph's working on the New Translation and here are some problems with that.
1. Joseph has just learned from the Lord that he referred to polygamy as an abomination. That would have ended any questions in his mind.
2. The New Translation actually has two changes that change David being justified to him not being justified. Joseph inserts the word "not".
3. The 1835 D&C declares polygamy a crime, something Joseph wouldn't canonize if he had just found out it wasn't.

You omitting the fact that it was his speculation is dishonest.

Joseph F. Smith Sr was born in 1838. What knowledge are you trusting there brother? Are you claiming his Uncle told him himself on his sixth birthday that he had a revelation on polygamy in 1831? And you say it's obvious I haven't studied. We'll let your reasoning stand on its own.
And your omitting the fact that both Joseph and Hyrum had multiple wives and that Joseph Smith's mother wrote about it is dishonest, as are all your arguments and condemnations against the church, its prophets, and its saints.

Regarding Joseph F. Smith's birthday and familial relationships, remind me of when your were born and what family members of yours restored the gospel again?
Can you reference where Joseph Smiths Mother wrote about it?

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2752
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by cab »

Precepts wrote: November 24th, 2022, 10:30 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:27 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 12:26 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:46 am Joseph F. Smith stated this and it was published in the Deseret Evening News on February 18, 1882. I trust his knowledge on the matter more than I trust yours. B. H. Roberts also wrote about it in volume 7 of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then, of course, there are all the well-documented wives of both Joseph and Hyrum. Again, you attempt to use your narrow understanding to condemn things you've obviously not studied.
Joseph's wives don't claim the Kirtland era.

BH Roberts simply speculated 1831 because of Joseph's working on the New Translation and here are some problems with that.
1. Joseph has just learned from the Lord that he referred to polygamy as an abomination. That would have ended any questions in his mind.
2. The New Translation actually has two changes that change David being justified to him not being justified. Joseph inserts the word "not".
3. The 1835 D&C declares polygamy a crime, something Joseph wouldn't canonize if he had just found out it wasn't.

You omitting the fact that it was his speculation is dishonest.

Joseph F. Smith Sr was born in 1838. What knowledge are you trusting there brother? Are you claiming his Uncle told him himself on his sixth birthday that he had a revelation on polygamy in 1831? And you say it's obvious I haven't studied. We'll let your reasoning stand on its own.
And your omitting the fact that both Joseph and Hyrum had multiple wives and that Joseph Smith's mother wrote about it is dishonest, as are all your arguments and condemnations against the church, its prophets, and its saints.

Regarding Joseph F. Smith's birthday and familial relationships, remind me of when your were born and what family members of yours restored the gospel again?
Can you reference where Joseph Smiths Mother wrote about it?

I would also like the reference. I assume he is speaking of her autobiography.
My understanding is that the twelve set out to remove all original copies of this book from circulation and republished an amended version…. I’d be curious to know the citation and how it would compare to the original.

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2752
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by cab »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 6th, 2022, 6:35 am
Mamabear wrote: November 6th, 2022, 5:52 am “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?
Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Please. I’m so sure going through some esoteric ritual in a synagogue would have totally changed Jesus’ response to this lady. She, in fact, was under the law of Moses which did prescribe such harsh treatment. Jesus came to turn that on its head. I’m so glad I worship Jesus and his infinite atonement rather than this polygamous being that would lovingly put a javelin through the heart of the adulteress…

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2752
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by cab »

Here’s the sick part…. I think it’s well documented enough that a fair number of the polygamous wives in Utah polygamy felt emotionally neglected by their “partner”. At times they lived in seclusion, seldom (if ever) seeing their husband…
On one hand you have the men who, in their positions of authority and notoriety, could easily seek out a new wife that was more pleasing and fulfilling to him. This was most certainly done. If, however, such a woman met a man who filled the emotional void that was created by her situation and she, heaven forbid, succumbed to the situation and became physically intimate with that man, then she would be liable to have her throat slit while her husband may have married a new girl 20 years younger than her just the week prior….
How is this not sick to the extreme? I reject anything in the ballpark of this situation and believe the cries of heart broken saintly women cry up from the ground against it.
Last edited by cab on November 25th, 2022, 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

innocentoldguy
captain of 100
Posts: 261

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by innocentoldguy »

Precepts wrote: November 24th, 2022, 10:30 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:27 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 12:26 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:46 am Joseph F. Smith stated this and it was published in the Deseret Evening News on February 18, 1882. I trust his knowledge on the matter more than I trust yours. B. H. Roberts also wrote about it in volume 7 of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then, of course, there are all the well-documented wives of both Joseph and Hyrum. Again, you attempt to use your narrow understanding to condemn things you've obviously not studied.
Joseph's wives don't claim the Kirtland era.

BH Roberts simply speculated 1831 because of Joseph's working on the New Translation and here are some problems with that.
1. Joseph has just learned from the Lord that he referred to polygamy as an abomination. That would have ended any questions in his mind.
2. The New Translation actually has two changes that change David being justified to him not being justified. Joseph inserts the word "not".
3. The 1835 D&C declares polygamy a crime, something Joseph wouldn't canonize if he had just found out it wasn't.

You omitting the fact that it was his speculation is dishonest.

Joseph F. Smith Sr was born in 1838. What knowledge are you trusting there brother? Are you claiming his Uncle told him himself on his sixth birthday that he had a revelation on polygamy in 1831? And you say it's obvious I haven't studied. We'll let your reasoning stand on its own.
And your omitting the fact that both Joseph and Hyrum had multiple wives and that Joseph Smith's mother wrote about it is dishonest, as are all your arguments and condemnations against the church, its prophets, and its saints.

Regarding Joseph F. Smith's birthday and familial relationships, remind me of when your were born and what family members of yours restored the gospel again?
Can you reference where Joseph Smiths Mother wrote about it?
I already did in a previous thread.

User avatar
Alexander
the Great
Posts: 4434
Location: amongst the brotherhood of the Black Robed Regiment; cocked hat and cocked rifle

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by Alexander »

Precepts wrote: November 24th, 2022, 10:30 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:27 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 12:26 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:46 am Joseph F. Smith stated this and it was published in the Deseret Evening News on February 18, 1882. I trust his knowledge on the matter more than I trust yours. B. H. Roberts also wrote about it in volume 7 of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then, of course, there are all the well-documented wives of both Joseph and Hyrum. Again, you attempt to use your narrow understanding to condemn things you've obviously not studied.
Joseph's wives don't claim the Kirtland era.

BH Roberts simply speculated 1831 because of Joseph's working on the New Translation and here are some problems with that.
1. Joseph has just learned from the Lord that he referred to polygamy as an abomination. That would have ended any questions in his mind.
2. The New Translation actually has two changes that change David being justified to him not being justified. Joseph inserts the word "not".
3. The 1835 D&C declares polygamy a crime, something Joseph wouldn't canonize if he had just found out it wasn't.

You omitting the fact that it was his speculation is dishonest.

Joseph F. Smith Sr was born in 1838. What knowledge are you trusting there brother? Are you claiming his Uncle told him himself on his sixth birthday that he had a revelation on polygamy in 1831? And you say it's obvious I haven't studied. We'll let your reasoning stand on its own.
And your omitting the fact that both Joseph and Hyrum had multiple wives and that Joseph Smith's mother wrote about it is dishonest, as are all your arguments and condemnations against the church, its prophets, and its saints.

Regarding Joseph F. Smith's birthday and familial relationships, remind me of when your were born and what family members of yours restored the gospel again?
Can you reference where Joseph Smiths Mother wrote about it?
He’s bullsh*tting you.

Precepts
captain of 10
Posts: 28

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by Precepts »

https://hemlockknots.com/monogamy-polygamy-timeline/

This is a rabbit hole read but really lays it out.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 450

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 6th, 2022, 6:35 am
Mamabear wrote: November 6th, 2022, 5:52 am “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?
Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Are you arguing that Brigham was correct, and that Christ's grace is not sufficient, nor his atonement infinite?

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

cab wrote: November 24th, 2022, 11:51 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 6th, 2022, 6:35 am
Mamabear wrote: November 6th, 2022, 5:52 am “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?
Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Please. I’m so sure going through some esoteric ritual in a synagogue would have totally changed Jesus’ response to this lady. She, in fact, was under the law of Moses which did prescribe such harsh treatment. Jesus came to turn that on its head. I’m so glad I worship Jesus and his infinite atonement rather than this polygamous being that would lovingly put a javelin through the heart of the adulteress…
Why are reducing the ordinances of the temple and the sacred and solemn covenants made there to "some esoteric ritual in a synagogue?"

Covenants made before God in his holy house are serious business and you know it.

Which God you choose to worship is entirely up to you, but the God of the Bible is the one who commanded the death penalty for adultery and other sins. And there was obviously a reason for why he commanded this. The punishment obviously served some purpose other than as a deterrent to sin.

And you'll notice that Jesus didn't say that it would be unjust or contrary to God's law to put the woman taken in adultery to death. He simply pointed out that none of her accusers were worthy to carry out the sentence and then told her to go and sin no more.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: November 25th, 2022, 3:57 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 6th, 2022, 6:35 am
Mamabear wrote: November 6th, 2022, 5:52 am “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?
Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Are you arguing that Brigham was correct, and that Christ's grace is not sufficient, nor his atonement infinite?
I'm arguing that it isn't an apples to apples comparison because it isn't.

Christ said that there were sins that his blood could not remitt and that if people didn't access his atonement they would have to suffer for their sins themselves.

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2752
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by cab »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:19 pm
cab wrote: November 24th, 2022, 11:51 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 6th, 2022, 6:35 am
Mamabear wrote: November 6th, 2022, 5:52 am “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?
Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Please. I’m so sure going through some esoteric ritual in a synagogue would have totally changed Jesus’ response to this lady. She, in fact, was under the law of Moses which did prescribe such harsh treatment. Jesus came to turn that on its head. I’m so glad I worship Jesus and his infinite atonement rather than this polygamous being that would lovingly put a javelin through the heart of the adulteress…
Why are reducing the ordinances of the temple and the sacred and solemn covenants made there to "some esoteric ritual in a synagogue?"

Covenants made before God in his holy house are serious business and you know it.

Which God you choose to worship is entirely up to you, but the God of the Bible is the one who commanded the death penalty for adultery and other sins. And there was obviously a reason for why he commanded this. The punishment obviously served some purpose other than as a deterrent to sin.

And you'll notice that Jesus didn't say that it would be unjust or contrary to God's law to put the woman taken in adultery to death. He simply pointed out that none of her accusers were worthy to carry out the sentence and then told her to go and sin no more.
Nope…. The law of Moses was a direct result of God’s people provoking the Lord to anger. Have gave them what they asked for. Instead of obtaining the rest of the Lord, they received a strict and impossible law of outer ordinances and commands. Likewise today, you can continue thinking you have the “fullness” in your outward temple ordinances, but you don’t. We fell short. We did not receive the endowment from on high we hoped for. Instead of an Acts 2/ Mosiah 4-5 outpouring, we received rituals. Look to Christ and live. Depend on the deadness of the law and you walk in darkness at noonday Outward ordinances in “his house” ought to teach that YOU are to be his house, the dwelling place of the Most High. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? If you aren’t born of the spirit you will never see the kingdom of God no matter how many endowment sessions you do.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

cab wrote: November 29th, 2022, 10:50 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:19 pm
cab wrote: November 24th, 2022, 11:51 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 6th, 2022, 6:35 am

Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Please. I’m so sure going through some esoteric ritual in a synagogue would have totally changed Jesus’ response to this lady. She, in fact, was under the law of Moses which did prescribe such harsh treatment. Jesus came to turn that on its head. I’m so glad I worship Jesus and his infinite atonement rather than this polygamous being that would lovingly put a javelin through the heart of the adulteress…
Why are reducing the ordinances of the temple and the sacred and solemn covenants made there to "some esoteric ritual in a synagogue?"

Covenants made before God in his holy house are serious business and you know it.

Which God you choose to worship is entirely up to you, but the God of the Bible is the one who commanded the death penalty for adultery and other sins. And there was obviously a reason for why he commanded this. The punishment obviously served some purpose other than as a deterrent to sin.

And you'll notice that Jesus didn't say that it would be unjust or contrary to God's law to put the woman taken in adultery to death. He simply pointed out that none of her accusers were worthy to carry out the sentence and then told her to go and sin no more.
Nope…. The law of Moses was a direct result of God’s people provoking the Lord to anger. Have gave them what they asked for. Instead of the Spirit and gospel of peace they received a strict and impossible law of outer ordinances and commands. Likewise today, you can continue thinking you have the “fullness” in your outward temple ordinances, but you don’t. Darkness at noonday. Look to Christ and live. Deadness of the law. Outward ordinances in “his house” ought to teach that YOU are to be his house, the dwelling place of the Most High. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? If you aren’t born of the spirit you will never see the kingdom of God no matter how many esoteric endowment sessions you do.
That doesn't make any sense. God didn't just command that people be put to death for certain sins for generations because one group of people were partying and worshipping a golden calf one time.

Also, the law of Moses was in full force and strictly followed by the Nephites in the Book of Mormon and they most certainly had the "Spirit and the gospel of peace" simultaneously.

As for the ordinances of the temple and their significance, I suggest you read what D&C 124 and Joseph Smith had to say about it. Referring to them as darkness at noon day couldn't be further from truth.

God expects us to keep our covenants. If we solemnly covenant not to commit adultery in his Holy house and then break that covenant, that's serious business. God will not be mocked.

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2752
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by cab »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 29th, 2022, 11:05 pm
cab wrote: November 29th, 2022, 10:50 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:19 pm
cab wrote: November 24th, 2022, 11:51 pm

Please. I’m so sure going through some esoteric ritual in a synagogue would have totally changed Jesus’ response to this lady. She, in fact, was under the law of Moses which did prescribe such harsh treatment. Jesus came to turn that on its head. I’m so glad I worship Jesus and his infinite atonement rather than this polygamous being that would lovingly put a javelin through the heart of the adulteress…
Why are reducing the ordinances of the temple and the sacred and solemn covenants made there to "some esoteric ritual in a synagogue?"

Covenants made before God in his holy house are serious business and you know it.

Which God you choose to worship is entirely up to you, but the God of the Bible is the one who commanded the death penalty for adultery and other sins. And there was obviously a reason for why he commanded this. The punishment obviously served some purpose other than as a deterrent to sin.

And you'll notice that Jesus didn't say that it would be unjust or contrary to God's law to put the woman taken in adultery to death. He simply pointed out that none of her accusers were worthy to carry out the sentence and then told her to go and sin no more.
Nope…. The law of Moses was a direct result of God’s people provoking the Lord to anger. Have gave them what they asked for. Instead of the Spirit and gospel of peace they received a strict and impossible law of outer ordinances and commands. Likewise today, you can continue thinking you have the “fullness” in your outward temple ordinances, but you don’t. Darkness at noonday. Look to Christ and live. Deadness of the law. Outward ordinances in “his house” ought to teach that YOU are to be his house, the dwelling place of the Most High. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? If you aren’t born of the spirit you will never see the kingdom of God no matter how many esoteric endowment sessions you do.
That doesn't make any sense. God didn't just command that people be put to death for certain sins for generations because one group of people were partying and worshipping a golden calf one time.

Also, the law of Moses was in full force and strictly followed by the Nephites in the Book of Mormon and they most certainly had the "Spirit and the gospel of peace" simultaneously.

As for the ordinances of the temple and their significance, I suggest you read what D&C 124 and Joseph Smith had to say about it. Referring to them as darkness at noon day couldn't be further from truth.

God expects us to keep our covenants. If we solemnly covenant not to commit adultery in his Holy house and then break that covenant, that's serious business. God will not be mocked.

If you are aware of how God deals with his disobedient people it all makes perfect sense. Same as in our time. We were called to put on the beautiful garments of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Instead we turned to alternative teachings, doctrines, and creeds.
Look to Jesus. Submit wholly to him. Receive the baptism that only Jesus offers.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

cab wrote: November 30th, 2022, 6:20 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 29th, 2022, 11:05 pm
cab wrote: November 29th, 2022, 10:50 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:19 pm

Why are reducing the ordinances of the temple and the sacred and solemn covenants made there to "some esoteric ritual in a synagogue?"

Covenants made before God in his holy house are serious business and you know it.

Which God you choose to worship is entirely up to you, but the God of the Bible is the one who commanded the death penalty for adultery and other sins. And there was obviously a reason for why he commanded this. The punishment obviously served some purpose other than as a deterrent to sin.

And you'll notice that Jesus didn't say that it would be unjust or contrary to God's law to put the woman taken in adultery to death. He simply pointed out that none of her accusers were worthy to carry out the sentence and then told her to go and sin no more.
Nope…. The law of Moses was a direct result of God’s people provoking the Lord to anger. Have gave them what they asked for. Instead of the Spirit and gospel of peace they received a strict and impossible law of outer ordinances and commands. Likewise today, you can continue thinking you have the “fullness” in your outward temple ordinances, but you don’t. Darkness at noonday. Look to Christ and live. Deadness of the law. Outward ordinances in “his house” ought to teach that YOU are to be his house, the dwelling place of the Most High. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? If you aren’t born of the spirit you will never see the kingdom of God no matter how many esoteric endowment sessions you do.
That doesn't make any sense. God didn't just command that people be put to death for certain sins for generations because one group of people were partying and worshipping a golden calf one time.

Also, the law of Moses was in full force and strictly followed by the Nephites in the Book of Mormon and they most certainly had the "Spirit and the gospel of peace" simultaneously.

As for the ordinances of the temple and their significance, I suggest you read what D&C 124 and Joseph Smith had to say about it. Referring to them as darkness at noon day couldn't be further from truth.

God expects us to keep our covenants. If we solemnly covenant not to commit adultery in his Holy house and then break that covenant, that's serious business. God will not be mocked.

If you are aware of how God deals with his disobedient people it all makes perfect sense. Same as in our time. We were called to put on the beautiful garments of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Instead we turned to alternative teachings, doctrines, and creeds.
Look to Jesus. Submit wholly to him. Receive the baptism that only Jesus offers.
This doesn't address the issue at hand at all.

Based on your last statement I quoted and responded to (before you made some edits), you seem to completely misunderstand the nature of the law of Moses. God gave that law and it didn't prevent anyone from having the Spirit or obtaining salvation.

And God didn't just declare the death penalty for certain sins for generations without this serving a useful and necessary purpose because he was angry at one group of people for partying and worshipping a golden calf one time.

God also decreed the death penalty for certain sins under certain circumstances before and after the law of Moses.

You also appear to have a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of temple ordinances and the seriousness of keeping the covenants we make with God.

Receiving the baptism of fire isn't some trump card that overrules and supercedes everything else God has said and established, either.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6973

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by nightlight »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 29th, 2022, 11:05 pm
cab wrote: November 29th, 2022, 10:50 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:19 pm
cab wrote: November 24th, 2022, 11:51 pm

Please. I’m so sure going through some esoteric ritual in a synagogue would have totally changed Jesus’ response to this lady. She, in fact, was under the law of Moses which did prescribe such harsh treatment. Jesus came to turn that on its head. I’m so glad I worship Jesus and his infinite atonement rather than this polygamous being that would lovingly put a javelin through the heart of the adulteress…
Why are reducing the ordinances of the temple and the sacred and solemn covenants made there to "some esoteric ritual in a synagogue?"

Covenants made before God in his holy house are serious business and you know it.

Which God you choose to worship is entirely up to you, but the God of the Bible is the one who commanded the death penalty for adultery and other sins. And there was obviously a reason for why he commanded this. The punishment obviously served some purpose other than as a deterrent to sin.

And you'll notice that Jesus didn't say that it would be unjust or contrary to God's law to put the woman taken in adultery to death. He simply pointed out that none of her accusers were worthy to carry out the sentence and then told her to go and sin no more.
Nope…. The law of Moses was a direct result of God’s people provoking the Lord to anger. Have gave them what they asked for. Instead of the Spirit and gospel of peace they received a strict and impossible law of outer ordinances and commands. Likewise today, you can continue thinking you have the “fullness” in your outward temple ordinances, but you don’t. Darkness at noonday. Look to Christ and live. Deadness of the law. Outward ordinances in “his house” ought to teach that YOU are to be his house, the dwelling place of the Most High. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? If you aren’t born of the spirit you will never see the kingdom of God no matter how many esoteric endowment sessions you do.
That doesn't make any sense. God didn't just command that people be put to death for certain sins for generations because one group of people were partying and worshipping a golden calf one time.

Also, the law of Moses was in full force and strictly followed by the Nephites in the Book of Mormon and they most certainly had the "Spirit and the gospel of peace" simultaneously.

As for the ordinances of the temple and their significance, I suggest you read what D&C 124 and Joseph Smith had to say about it. Referring to them as darkness at noon day couldn't be further from truth.

God expects us to keep our covenants. If we solemnly covenant not to commit adultery in his Holy house and then break that covenant, that's serious business. God will not be mocked.
The law Moses was practice in a different manner among the Nephites.

There could have been no Korihor in Jerusalem...he would have been killed, but the Nephites had a strict law from God that protected freedom of thought/religion

Alma 30
"7 Now there was no law against a aman’s bbelief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

------------
compare with:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
King James Version
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
--------------

Why?

Did the Jews of old alter like the Mormons of yesterday?

Is it that this Promised Land comes with more accountability/freedom and Sonship?

Idk

But it's off the mark to use old Jewish authoritarianism (old wine) as the measuring stick for the New Covenant(New wine).....

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 8:22 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 29th, 2022, 11:05 pm
cab wrote: November 29th, 2022, 10:50 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:19 pm

Why are reducing the ordinances of the temple and the sacred and solemn covenants made there to "some esoteric ritual in a synagogue?"

Covenants made before God in his holy house are serious business and you know it.

Which God you choose to worship is entirely up to you, but the God of the Bible is the one who commanded the death penalty for adultery and other sins. And there was obviously a reason for why he commanded this. The punishment obviously served some purpose other than as a deterrent to sin.

And you'll notice that Jesus didn't say that it would be unjust or contrary to God's law to put the woman taken in adultery to death. He simply pointed out that none of her accusers were worthy to carry out the sentence and then told her to go and sin no more.
Nope…. The law of Moses was a direct result of God’s people provoking the Lord to anger. Have gave them what they asked for. Instead of the Spirit and gospel of peace they received a strict and impossible law of outer ordinances and commands. Likewise today, you can continue thinking you have the “fullness” in your outward temple ordinances, but you don’t. Darkness at noonday. Look to Christ and live. Deadness of the law. Outward ordinances in “his house” ought to teach that YOU are to be his house, the dwelling place of the Most High. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? If you aren’t born of the spirit you will never see the kingdom of God no matter how many esoteric endowment sessions you do.
That doesn't make any sense. God didn't just command that people be put to death for certain sins for generations because one group of people were partying and worshipping a golden calf one time.

Also, the law of Moses was in full force and strictly followed by the Nephites in the Book of Mormon and they most certainly had the "Spirit and the gospel of peace" simultaneously.

As for the ordinances of the temple and their significance, I suggest you read what D&C 124 and Joseph Smith had to say about it. Referring to them as darkness at noon day couldn't be further from truth.

God expects us to keep our covenants. If we solemnly covenant not to commit adultery in his Holy house and then break that covenant, that's serious business. God will not be mocked.
The law Moses was practice in a different manner among the Nephites.

There could have been no Korihor in Jerusalem...he would have been killed, but the Nephites had a strict law from God that protected freedom of thought/religion

Alma 30
"7 Now there was no law against a aman’s bbelief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

------------
compare with:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
King James Version
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
--------------

Why?

Did the Jews of old alter like the Mormons of yesterday?

Is it that this Promised Land comes with more accountability/freedom and Sonship?

Idk

But it's off the mark to use old Jewish authoritarianism (old wine) as the measuring stick for the New Covenant(New wine).....
I don't really see anything here that suggests that the Nephites didn't strictly follow the law of Moses. The Book of Mormon makes a point to repeatedly state that they followed it and they appear to have had the full blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ at the same time that they were under this law and following it.

The laws of God really don't change. They are pretty much the same before and after the coming of Christ. The law actually became stricter during and after Christ's mortal ministry, not more lenient. The sermon on the mount is a perfect example of this.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6973

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by nightlight »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 8:36 pm
nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 8:22 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 29th, 2022, 11:05 pm
cab wrote: November 29th, 2022, 10:50 pm

Nope…. The law of Moses was a direct result of God’s people provoking the Lord to anger. Have gave them what they asked for. Instead of the Spirit and gospel of peace they received a strict and impossible law of outer ordinances and commands. Likewise today, you can continue thinking you have the “fullness” in your outward temple ordinances, but you don’t. Darkness at noonday. Look to Christ and live. Deadness of the law. Outward ordinances in “his house” ought to teach that YOU are to be his house, the dwelling place of the Most High. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? If you aren’t born of the spirit you will never see the kingdom of God no matter how many esoteric endowment sessions you do.
That doesn't make any sense. God didn't just command that people be put to death for certain sins for generations because one group of people were partying and worshipping a golden calf one time.

Also, the law of Moses was in full force and strictly followed by the Nephites in the Book of Mormon and they most certainly had the "Spirit and the gospel of peace" simultaneously.

As for the ordinances of the temple and their significance, I suggest you read what D&C 124 and Joseph Smith had to say about it. Referring to them as darkness at noon day couldn't be further from truth.

God expects us to keep our covenants. If we solemnly covenant not to commit adultery in his Holy house and then break that covenant, that's serious business. God will not be mocked.
The law Moses was practice in a different manner among the Nephites.

There could have been no Korihor in Jerusalem...he would have been killed, but the Nephites had a strict law from God that protected freedom of thought/religion

Alma 30
"7 Now there was no law against a aman’s bbelief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

------------
compare with:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
King James Version
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
--------------

Why?

Did the Jews of old alter like the Mormons of yesterday?

Is it that this Promised Land comes with more accountability/freedom and Sonship?

Idk

But it's off the mark to use old Jewish authoritarianism (old wine) as the measuring stick for the New Covenant(New wine).....
I don't really see anything here that suggests that the Nephites didn't strictly follow the law of Moses. The Book of Mormon makes a point to repeatedly state that they followed it and they appear to have had the full blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ at the same time that they were under this law and following it.

The laws of God really don't change. They are pretty much the same before and after the coming of Christ. The law actually became stricter during and after Christ's mortal ministry, not more lenient. The sermon on the mount is a perfect example of this.
I just showed you that what they practiced was fundamentally different.
Freedom of thought/religion vs vs no freedom of thought/religion

Lol you can't get much different than that....lol put yourself in each life and tell me then tell me you see no difference in the structure of a society

Do you think there's not much difference in the Higher and Lower law?

The higher law is stricter on an individual level, but comes with freedom of thought

The lower law is stricter on a societal level....but comes with a lower ceiling but higher floor

You think Jesus wants us to execute the apostate?
He doesn't. He outlined what we should do with those who apostatized. We separate...

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:00 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 8:36 pm
nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 8:22 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 29th, 2022, 11:05 pm

That doesn't make any sense. God didn't just command that people be put to death for certain sins for generations because one group of people were partying and worshipping a golden calf one time.

Also, the law of Moses was in full force and strictly followed by the Nephites in the Book of Mormon and they most certainly had the "Spirit and the gospel of peace" simultaneously.

As for the ordinances of the temple and their significance, I suggest you read what D&C 124 and Joseph Smith had to say about it. Referring to them as darkness at noon day couldn't be further from truth.

God expects us to keep our covenants. If we solemnly covenant not to commit adultery in his Holy house and then break that covenant, that's serious business. God will not be mocked.
The law Moses was practice in a different manner among the Nephites.

There could have been no Korihor in Jerusalem...he would have been killed, but the Nephites had a strict law from God that protected freedom of thought/religion

Alma 30
"7 Now there was no law against a aman’s bbelief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

------------
compare with:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
King James Version
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
--------------

Why?

Did the Jews of old alter like the Mormons of yesterday?

Is it that this Promised Land comes with more accountability/freedom and Sonship?

Idk

But it's off the mark to use old Jewish authoritarianism (old wine) as the measuring stick for the New Covenant(New wine).....
I don't really see anything here that suggests that the Nephites didn't strictly follow the law of Moses. The Book of Mormon makes a point to repeatedly state that they followed it and they appear to have had the full blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ at the same time that they were under this law and following it.

The laws of God really don't change. They are pretty much the same before and after the coming of Christ. The law actually became stricter during and after Christ's mortal ministry, not more lenient. The sermon on the mount is a perfect example of this.
I just showed you that what they practiced was fundamentally different.
Freedom of thought/religion vs vs no freedom of thought/religion

Lol you can't get much different than that....lol put yourself in each life and tell me then tell me you see no difference in the structure of a society

Do you think there's not much difference in the Higher and Lower law?

The higher law is stricter on an individual level, but comes with freedom of thought

The lower law is stricter on a societal level....but comes with a lower ceiling but higher floor

You think Jesus wants us to execute the apostate?
He doesn't. He outlined what we should do with those who apostatized. We separate...

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
No, you really didn't show any difference in how the law of Moses was applied at all. The verse in the Old Testament doesn't say that people don't have freedom of thought. It has to do with putting people to death who actively try to lead people to worship false Gods.

As for your claim that Jesus was opposed to killing apostates, why is he going to kill the wicked and sprinkle his garments with their blood? Why did he destroy the Nephites? Why did he kill the couple who lied and kept back some of the money they were supposed to consecrate? Why did he say the following:

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

There's also this example in the Book of Mormon of Nehor being put to death for priestcraft and defending it by the sword:


11 And it came to pass that he stood before Alma and pled for himself with much boldness.
12 But Alma said unto him: Behold, this is the first time that priestcraft has been introduced among this people. And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.
13 And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance.
14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.
15 And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6973

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by nightlight »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:15 pm
nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:00 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 8:36 pm
nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 8:22 pm

The law Moses was practice in a different manner among the Nephites.

There could have been no Korihor in Jerusalem...he would have been killed, but the Nephites had a strict law from God that protected freedom of thought/religion

Alma 30
"7 Now there was no law against a aman’s bbelief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

------------
compare with:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
King James Version
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
--------------

Why?

Did the Jews of old alter like the Mormons of yesterday?

Is it that this Promised Land comes with more accountability/freedom and Sonship?

Idk

But it's off the mark to use old Jewish authoritarianism (old wine) as the measuring stick for the New Covenant(New wine).....
I don't really see anything here that suggests that the Nephites didn't strictly follow the law of Moses. The Book of Mormon makes a point to repeatedly state that they followed it and they appear to have had the full blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ at the same time that they were under this law and following it.

The laws of God really don't change. They are pretty much the same before and after the coming of Christ. The law actually became stricter during and after Christ's mortal ministry, not more lenient. The sermon on the mount is a perfect example of this.
I just showed you that what they practiced was fundamentally different.
Freedom of thought/religion vs vs no freedom of thought/religion

Lol you can't get much different than that....lol put yourself in each life and tell me then tell me you see no difference in the structure of a society

Do you think there's not much difference in the Higher and Lower law?

The higher law is stricter on an individual level, but comes with freedom of thought

The lower law is stricter on a societal level....but comes with a lower ceiling but higher floor

You think Jesus wants us to execute the apostate?
He doesn't. He outlined what we should do with those who apostatized. We separate...

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
No, you really didn't show any difference in how the law of Moses was applied at all. The verse in the Old Testament doesn't say that people don't have freedom of thought. It has to do with putting people to death who actively try to lead people to worship false Gods.

As for your claim that Jesus was opposed to killing apostates, why is he going to kill the wicked and sprinkle his garments with their blood? Why did he destroy the Nephites? Why did he kill the couple who lied and kept back some of the money they were supposed to consecrate? Why did he say the following:

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)
My friend, It seems you're not being objective

Me being able the lead people to false gods IS freedom of thought.

And I asked if you think Jesus wants US to kill the apostate....

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
--------------

Just food for thought, brother

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6973

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by nightlight »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:21 pm There's also this example in the Book of Mormon of Nehor being put to death for priestcraft and defending it by the sword:


11 And it came to pass that he stood before Alma and pled for himself with much boldness.
12 But Alma said unto him: Behold, this is the first time that priestcraft has been introduced among this people. And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.
13 And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance.
14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.
15 And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death.
You error again

He was put to death for trying to ENFORCE it by the sword.....not "defending"

And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.
13 And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance.
14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:23 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:15 pm
nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:00 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 8:36 pm

I don't really see anything here that suggests that the Nephites didn't strictly follow the law of Moses. The Book of Mormon makes a point to repeatedly state that they followed it and they appear to have had the full blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ at the same time that they were under this law and following it.

The laws of God really don't change. They are pretty much the same before and after the coming of Christ. The law actually became stricter during and after Christ's mortal ministry, not more lenient. The sermon on the mount is a perfect example of this.
I just showed you that what they practiced was fundamentally different.
Freedom of thought/religion vs vs no freedom of thought/religion

Lol you can't get much different than that....lol put yourself in each life and tell me then tell me you see no difference in the structure of a society

Do you think there's not much difference in the Higher and Lower law?

The higher law is stricter on an individual level, but comes with freedom of thought

The lower law is stricter on a societal level....but comes with a lower ceiling but higher floor

You think Jesus wants us to execute the apostate?
He doesn't. He outlined what we should do with those who apostatized. We separate...

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
No, you really didn't show any difference in how the law of Moses was applied at all. The verse in the Old Testament doesn't say that people don't have freedom of thought. It has to do with putting people to death who actively try to lead people to worship false Gods.

As for your claim that Jesus was opposed to killing apostates, why is he going to kill the wicked and sprinkle his garments with their blood? Why did he destroy the Nephites? Why did he kill the couple who lied and kept back some of the money they were supposed to consecrate? Why did he say the following:

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)
My friend, It seems you're not being objective

Me being able the lead people to false gods IS freedom of thought.

And I asked if you think Jesus wants US to kill the apostate....

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
--------------

Just food for thought, brother
Leading people to false Gods is an action not a thought. Believing in a false God oneself is a thought.

Your trying to put two different scriptures at odds with each other, when they aren't actually at odds with each other.

When the Book of Mormon says that the people followed the law of Moses, it means what it says.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:26 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:21 pm There's also this example in the Book of Mormon of Nehor being put to death for priestcraft and defending it by the sword:


11 And it came to pass that he stood before Alma and pled for himself with much boldness.
12 But Alma said unto him: Behold, this is the first time that priestcraft has been introduced among this people. And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.
13 And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance.
14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.
15 And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death.
You error again

He was put to death for trying to ENFORCE it by the sword.....not "defending"

And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.
13 And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance.
14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.
Yeah he was put to death for priestcraft AND attempting to enforce it.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6973

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by nightlight »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:31 pm
nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:23 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:15 pm
nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:00 pm

I just showed you that what they practiced was fundamentally different.
Freedom of thought/religion vs vs no freedom of thought/religion

Lol you can't get much different than that....lol put yourself in each life and tell me then tell me you see no difference in the structure of a society

Do you think there's not much difference in the Higher and Lower law?

The higher law is stricter on an individual level, but comes with freedom of thought

The lower law is stricter on a societal level....but comes with a lower ceiling but higher floor

You think Jesus wants us to execute the apostate?
He doesn't. He outlined what we should do with those who apostatized. We separate...

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
No, you really didn't show any difference in how the law of Moses was applied at all. The verse in the Old Testament doesn't say that people don't have freedom of thought. It has to do with putting people to death who actively try to lead people to worship false Gods.

As for your claim that Jesus was opposed to killing apostates, why is he going to kill the wicked and sprinkle his garments with their blood? Why did he destroy the Nephites? Why did he kill the couple who lied and kept back some of the money they were supposed to consecrate? Why did he say the following:

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)
My friend, It seems you're not being objective

Me being able the lead people to false gods IS freedom of thought.

And I asked if you think Jesus wants US to kill the apostate....

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
--------------

Just food for thought, brother
Leading people to false Gods is an action not a thought. Believing in a false God oneself is a thought.

Your trying to put two different scriptures at odds with each other, when they aren't actually at odds with each other.

When the Book of Mormon says that the people followed the law of Moses, it means what it says.
Not according to the BoM

Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on aequal grounds.

12 And this aAnti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be bno Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:

13 O ye that are bound down under a afoolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can bknow of anything which is to come.

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7219
Contact:

Re: King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

Post by LDS Watchman »

nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:34 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:31 pm
nightlight wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:23 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 30th, 2022, 9:15 pm

No, you really didn't show any difference in how the law of Moses was applied at all. The verse in the Old Testament doesn't say that people don't have freedom of thought. It has to do with putting people to death who actively try to lead people to worship false Gods.

As for your claim that Jesus was opposed to killing apostates, why is he going to kill the wicked and sprinkle his garments with their blood? Why did he destroy the Nephites? Why did he kill the couple who lied and kept back some of the money they were supposed to consecrate? Why did he say the following:

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)
My friend, It seems you're not being objective

Me being able the lead people to false gods IS freedom of thought.

And I asked if you think Jesus wants US to kill the apostate....

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
--------------

Just food for thought, brother
Leading people to false Gods is an action not a thought. Believing in a false God oneself is a thought.

Your trying to put two different scriptures at odds with each other, when they aren't actually at odds with each other.

When the Book of Mormon says that the people followed the law of Moses, it means what it says.
Not according to the BoM

Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on aequal grounds.

12 And this aAnti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be bno Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:

13 O ye that are bound down under a afoolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can bknow of anything which is to come.

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
Yes according to the Book of Mormon.

What happened to Korihor, Nehor, Sherem, etc.? They were put to death either by the hand of God or by execution.

Post Reply