Did God Create This ???

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

I'll answer that for Apex...

Do you not take the Mosaic law seriously as well ???

Do you not take the Old Testament law seriously ?????

Abraham had more than one wife. Abraham was a Polygamist and so was his grandson Jacob, otherwise there would be no such thing as the 12 tribes of Israel.

People seem to forget this one HUGE part of Biblical history.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 (LDS scripture/doctrine)
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Habar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

And your point? I just asked if they took it seriously because I was asked if I was serious. LOL. Oh, and by the way, its still law. Nothing has changed. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

We are going to make this go to page 100 if it kill's us. LOL

 

[FFH]

O.k. I stand to be corrected. I should have known that there was a command and now it has been taken away. Where is it that the command was revoked other than by preasure from the US government? I would like to see what prophet LDS follows other than the one claimed as Joseph Smith. Excuse my ignorence as I am hearing all this for the first time. I always thought ending a practice from the founder and a elect at the same time as a government is threating taking away land and funds was such a large stretch to say the least when trying to make the argument that it was a divine revocation and not that of the US Government making it a law of the land by the disgust and power of the ruling theologians of the various christian denominations of that time. Then again I have been wrong before. Please enlighten me.

Here is the complete address to the LDS Church commanding them to stop the practice of polygamy, which previously and temporarily had been commanded of them to take more than one wife to "raise up seed" unto the Lord, as the Book of Mormon states is the only time the Lord commands it to be practiced and in no other time in history is it or has it been allowed, only to "raise up seed" unto the Lord, as was the case with Abraham and Joseph, otherwise there would be no 12 tribes of Israel.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1 (October 6, 1890)

Also in an earlier revelation given to Joseph Smith this was stated.

Doctrine and Covenants 49 (May 1831)
16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;


Now I just need to transfer all this stuff into another thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...urch-jesus-christ-latter-day.html#post1393894

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Doctrine and Covenants 132 (LDS scripture/doctrine)
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Habar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...............

Just where, pray tell, is this law that Yah commanded Abraham that made Sarah give Hagar to be his wife? Don't even come up with something lame like they were commanded as all men to be fruitful and multiply because we would be like rabbits and you know it.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Here is the complete address to the LDS Church commanding them to stop the practice of polygamy, which previously and temporarily had been commanded of them to take more than one wife to "raise up seed" unto the Lord, as the Book of Mormon states is the only time the Lord commands it to be practiced and in no other time in history is it or has it been allowed, only to "raise up seed" unto the Lord, as was the case with Abraham and Joseph, otherwise there would be no 12 tribes of Israel.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1 (October 6, 1890)

Also in an earlier revelation given to Joseph Smith this was stated.

Doctrine and Covenants 49 (May 1831)
16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

Are you saying old Woodrow was the new prophet?

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Are you saying old Woodrow was the new prophet?

Are you sure this wasn't from the preasure of death and war and loosing land and money and etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[ruejacobs]

as i am wont to say when someone tells me i am pretty,

"Maybe it's Maybelline."

 

[FFH]

And your point? I just asked if they took it seriously because I was asked if I was serious. LOL. Oh, and by the way, its still law. Nothing has changed. There is nothing new under the sun.

Only when God commands it, otherwise we are under the law to take "save it be one wife" and "concubines ye shall have none".

 

[DallasApple]

Only when God commands it, otherwise we are under the law to take "save it be one wife" and "concubines ye shall have none" as was in the case of Solomon who "took unto himself concubines" which the Lord has commanded him and us not to do.

No..Only when a man SAYS God commanded it..When he wants a free ticket to screw multiple women at the same time and act like its "righteous".Or something Holy.

Love

Dallas

 

[FFH]

Are you sure this wasn't from the preasure of death and war and loosing land and money and etc. etc. etc. etc.

I'm gonna need a mod to delete these discussions from this thread.

Here's the new thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...urch-jesus-christ-latter-day.html#post1393894

I've transferred all I want out of this thread, concerning polygamy, and into another thread, so I'll delete my posts concerning polygamy and I hope others would do the same thanks.

 

[FFH]

But who is actually trying to claim that Niagara Falls is equally as old as the earth? That's like saying the earth can only be 28 years old because I'm only 28 years old. Do you honestly think streams, rivers and bodies of water are static? They form, shift, expand, and recede just like everything else. The fact that Niagara Falls is much, much younger than the earth itself simply means it just has something in common with every single other feature on earth's surface. Ever heard of plate tectonics, for example? Just because you're incapable of grasping and comprehending things doesn't make them untrue. The world is not bound by the limitations of your mind.

Show me any "time piece" on earth that is more accurate than this one, for determining the age of the earth, or ANY "time piece" on earth that PROVES the earth is OLDER than 13,000 years.

You can't find one, only theories.

My "time piece" is proof that the age of the earth is no more than 13,000 years old, simply because there is NO OTHER proof that ANY river has been eroding for LONGER than 13, 000 years.

Cry ice age all you want, THERE IS NO PROOF.

I've got proof, where's yours ????

Don't give me theories, give me PROOF !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Apex]

Show me any "time piece" on earth that is more accurate than this one, for determining the age of the earth, or ANY "time piece" on earth that PROVES the earth is OLDER than 13,000 years.

You can't find one, only theories.

My "time piece" is proof that the age of the earth is no more than 13,000 years old, simply because there is NO OTHER proof that ANY river has been eroding for LONGER than 13, 000 years.

Cry ice age all you want, THERE IS NO PROOF.

I've got proof, where's yours ????

Don't give me theories, give me PROOF !!!!!!!!!!!!

Radioactive decay is a pretty accurate time piece. In fact, it is used in the most accurate time piece on the planet.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm gonna need a mod to delete these discussions from this thread

I think we would all be better off if mods deleted the whole thread.

 

[Father Heathen]

Show me any "time piece" on earth that is more accurate than this one, for determining the age of the earth, or ANY "time piece" on earth that PROVES the earth is OLDER than 13,000 years.

You can't find one, only theories.

My "time piece" is proof that the age of the earth is no more than 13,000 years old, simply because there is NO OTHER proof that ANY river has been eroding for LONGER than 13, 000 years.

Ever heard of the grand canyon? Or stars? Most stars are millions of light years away, meaning that it takes the light from those stars that long to reach the earth. If "creation' was only 12,000 years old, the sky would be pitch black with no stars visible because their light wouldn't have have reached us, yet.

Cry ice age all you want, THERE IS NO PROOF.

I've got proof, where's yours ????

Don't give me theories, give me PROOF !!!!!!!!!!!!

Fossils. I win. Thanks for playing. You say you have proof, but we're still waiting for you to present it, so what are you waiting for?

 

[FFH]

Ever heard of the grand canyon?

Doesn't take millions of years to erode sandstone.

Or stars? Most stars are millions of light years away, meaning that it takes the light from those stars that long to reach the earth. If "creation' was only 12,000 years old, the sky would be pitch black with no stars visible because their light wouldn't have have reached us, yet.

I'm not disputing the age of the stars, only the age of the earth. One has nothing to do with the other. The age of the stars does not determine/prove the age of the earth.

Fossils. I win. Thanks for playing. You say you have proof, but we're still waiting for you to present it, so what are you waiting for?

Fossils are no more proof of the age of the earth than a rock.

You still haven't given me any proof that the age of the earth is more than 13,000 years old.

Try again.

 

[FFH]

Radioactive decay is a pretty accurate time piece. In fact, it is used in the most accurate time piece on the planet.

It cannot be proven to be accurate, in the millions, since there is no way to verify it's accuracy, in the millions.

Try again.

 

[FFH]

Show me ONE thing on earth that has been eroding for more than 13,000 years and I'll believe the earth is more than 13,000 years old, otherwise there is no concrete proof, only theories.

 

[Apex]

It cannot be proven to be accurate in the millions, since there is no way to verify it's accuracy in the millions.

Try again.

Uh, yes, there is. Radioactive decay is not something that just decides to throw off a subatomic particle on just a whim. It can be boiled down to exact mathematical formulas. If you have issues with this then you need to prove that there is a real error in these formulas with scientific or mathematical evidence.

 

[Father Heathen]

Doesn't take millions of years to erode sandstone.

I'm not disputing the age of the stars, only the age of the earth. One has nothing to do with the other. The age of the stars does not determine/prove the age of the earth.

Fossils are no more proof of the age of the earth than a rock.

You still haven't given me any proof that the age of the earth is more than 13,000 years old.

Try again.

If you outright reject the fields of biology, geology and paleontology, I then don't see the point of "trying again". Your mind was already concluded regardless of what facts, data, evidence or logic is presented. Even if I were to grab you by the scruff of the neck and drag you along on a time traveling adventure you would still try to grasp at straws in futile desperation to defend your laughable young earth creationist stance. If you want to wallow in willful ignorance and self deceit then that is your prerogative, just don't expect any honest, self-respecting people to join you. No amount of half-witted cross licking can dispel sound and solid science.

 

[Father Heathen]

Show me ONE thing on earth that has been eroding for more than 13,000 years and I'll believe the earth is more than 13,000 years old, otherwise there is no concrete proof, only theories.

Again, The Grand Canyon. When it comes to geology, I think I'll have to trust the educated geologists over kooky, dishonest bible thumpers. They know more and better than you do. Sorry.