Is this more so than the most correct book ever written? Is this true even though you don’t always trust it because it was not always translated correctly? Is this true even though it contains a bunch of the writers’ own opinions?

Because you say that the BoM is the most correct book ever written, that the Bible is corrupt through too many errors in translation, and because you dismiss much of it as simply opinion, it seems odd that you write that it is the greatest standard scripture. That sounds to me like you don’t trust it much, and that it is secondary to the BoM.

Add to that that you ask potential converts to read from the BoM and you really put some serious questions in your comment. I’ll grant you the possibility that it just might be true, but given how you treat it, serious problems arise in buying your claim.

And if it is true, one has to ask what you really think about your other books because of how you treat the Bible.

Now, I know you view all of those as supplementing the Bible, but I hope you see why we seriously question your commitment to the Bible, since you don’t seem to dismiss the D&C as mere opinion or prone to translation errors, and while you ignore the myriad of changes to the BoM in just its approx. 150 years of existence.

Again, you have to start from a very different place to reach your conclusions…

Again, this is the troube with you guys… you do not argue from a single standard, and thus can shift around as you see fit. And again, your words were very clear. You accuse us of not allowing a fair answer, but this is dodging the issue because it does not address our concerns and is playing the role o victim. You have to twist it to come close to answering. And again, my comments stand– if I have to ignore the plain words of the Bible, I am telling it to conform to what I want it to be.

Actually, do I need to remind you the words of Christ, who said what about his role in connection with the law? And should we look back through the OT to see examples of faith as a saving power, even to non-Jews? Should we talk about the one constant through all of the rules and why the rules were necessary? Then, shall we look at Christ and what he did? And should I remind you again of Christ’s own words regarding his relation to the law?

This supposed changing of God’s mind is a common theme among non-believers, yet it ignores these aspects and the consistency of it all. I’d even add that someone today who could follow all of the OT laws would be saved, and that someone pre-Christ who called upon his name would also be saved.

All of that to say that no, our God has not changed his doctrine nor his practices. You cannot say this, because you cannot define the reasons for polygamy, except to say that some in the OT did it, and your god commanded you at the time. Or, another issue– the seed of Cain and blacks. Any reason fo the change? Can you honestly say that blacks are any more clean today than they were 30 years ago?

All of what I have written is supported clearly in the Bible without having to start from another place.

First, as it comes to doctrine if you are going to use your very broad definitions then you must accept that God himself changes doctrine, as he did just that in the Bible. As such, to say the LDS church does so means nothing. I am all for this approach, but you want to apply this only to the LDS church and not to other Christian denominations, and that is why I gave a veried definition of doctrine.

God commanded men to Sacrifice animals. Once Christ came this command was ended. Thus what was taught in the Law of Moses (and even from the time of Adam) was changed. Abraham was commanded to circumsize all the male members of his house, and that command continued throughout his descendants, unitl the gospel was taken to the gentiles, at which point it was ended. Another change in doctrine. Even taking the gospel to the gentiles was a change in doctrine.
Thus, by Biblical proof God changes his doctrine. If the LDS church is going to be condemned for this you must condemn the God of the Bible as well, and that is my point.

As to my question about seeing the logic of the doctrine and how I apply it to the Bible, you misunderstand me. Yes, it is because of the Logic behind it that I am able to see it in the text, but this is in reference to the deep doctrine, or the mysteries. The basics of the gospel I get from the Bible.

I asked what I did, and in the way I did, for only one reason. To show that the doctrine is logical and get you to stop telling me that it isn’t. I said to not think of the words refering only to the Bible because we have such different interpretations of the text. I can’t show you the logic of the actual doctrine through the Bible because you will simple say that I am misinterpreting the text. However, if I simple tell you the doctrine then you will be able to see the logic of it, and that is all I wanted.

The Bible is still the greatest of the standard scriptures, and the source of more great truth than any other

Also, I love this quote of yours: “Concider only what is taught, and not the actual words.” Huh? Sorry, but what you are asking me to do is to ignore the plain and simple truths that words speak in favor of a sentiment behind them. I cannot do this, because words have meanings and are important.

I also know that you have to look at LDS doctrine apart from the Bible because it is not biblical. But therein lies the problem at its heart– it is not Biblical, even though the purpose of the BoM and other LDS scripture is to supplement it, the Bible is virtually taken out of the picture. You have to form your doctrine before you can apply it to the Bible, and not taking your doctrine from the Bible. This is exactly what you just told me when you said, “Once I have this I can then go to the Bible and these things seem clear to me in the text.”

This is not how we are to approach the Bible. We are to approach it as a primary source, not secondary like you make it. It is secondary because it follows revelation, and then you go to the Bible to make the revelation fit. Revelation should come from the Bible, and then it should fit what is in the Bible. The Bible should not be distorted so that it fits revelation.

I know you don’t want to convince me, but you must understand why we object to your faith. It is because it is not logical and turns the Bible on its head. Your logic starts from a very different place.

To see the logic of LDS doctrine try looking at it without the references to Bible. Concider only what is taught, and not the actual words. Is there logic is the doctrine itself as it relates to itself.

I can see the things I see in the Bible because the doctrine itself is logical. When the doctrine is compared to itself there is no contradiction, only a easily flowing thought. Once I have this I can then go to the Bible and these things seem clear to me in the text.

I do not ask this to convince you of anything, and I really don’t want to discuss how you can’t consider it without the Bible. This is a simple question.

I understand what you believe, and I understand the logic behind it. My point is that what we believe is just as logical, and so to claim otherwise is rediculous.

As to doctrine and command, you are not truly understanding me, and have misquoted what I said. Doctrine is what is taught as truth. Doctrine is what you believe is, and cannot change. Commands are taught, but they are not truth, simply guidelines to bring us to a full understanding of the truth on which they are based. Thus a command is not a doctrine, as it is not a teaching of truth. So changing a command does not change doctrine.
If they were both simply teachings I would agree with you, but they are very different types of teachings. (Like changing History doesn’t change math.)

I accept that you believe differently, and I respect that, but I just wish you would try a little harder to see the logic in what I believe.

I hope you understand what is sweet sounding about your faith, but if you need examples, I’m happy to expound. Traditions of men? What did I just say about putting God in a box that we humans can understand?

So, on that issue, I would simply say at its core is this understanding of God: do we try to view from a point of view that we like, or one that is true to what is found in a full view of the Bible? And by a full view of the Bible, it requires the context found in reading it fully (not picking and choosing–see Col. 2 and your quote if you need an example of how that works).

As to polygamy, you state that your goal is to show how it is logical and how it shows a non-changing view of doctrine from Mormons. Trouble is, this is not how it has been applied, and the interpretation only opens the door to change. This comes back to the very definition of doctrine, which is at issue. If a doctrine is something that is a teaching, and a command is something that a church teaches is OK, then the command is also doctrine. When the command changes, the doctrine changes. What this means about your doctrine is that it is set up to change, even if that exact aspect remains the same. The change is built in to the basic doctrine.

What that allows you to do is to do exactly what you have done: say your doctrine doesn’t change (after all, change is built in to the doctrine because it is differentiated as command/practice) even when it changes.

As to 132, I prefer that the disclosure at the beginning applies to it all. The change in subject is irrelevant if there is no clause changing the applicability. Because there is no differentiation, it is very fair to state, and even right, I think, that all of it is under the disclosure that it is required. After all, why would God be that vague if he is not the author of confusion?

In the end, I respect that you see things differently.

I had written a more detailed response that seems to have been lost, but I think this is about over, but a trait of mine that needs improvement is my desire to have the last word:) So, here comes a quick response. First, ast to the Trinity, believe me, I understand your hold up on it, but you miss an option: it could be right. See, based on a different understanding of God it is very logical (see Acts 17:29, one you just quoted). That understanding of God is that we ought not to put him in a box we humans think Gid should fit in. Put another way, since we say God is all powerful, then the Trinity’s explanation of how he presents himself and interacts with us fits quite nicely, and certainly fits with God’s statement that there is but one. In fact, this makes more sense than your attempt to put God in a box that we humans will completely understand.

The verses you present are poorly presented as supporting your argument, and actually better support my theory. Read the context of all of them, especially all of Col. 2. (to start: “2My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.” and “8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”

The interpretation you have may be logical, but it is wrong because it is based on a faulty assumption of God. Notice how the writer says he wants them to know the mystery of God, namely Christ. He’s writing as if they are the same. Second, he warns against following sweet sounding arguments based on the traditions of men. This hardly supports your theory.

For sake of brevity, I quote only two. Ephesians 4: 4-6 “There is one body, and one Spirit… One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Here we also have the separation of the verious callings. One Spirit, which is different than the one Lord, which is separate from the One God (Father) who is above all.

Then, in 1 Timothy 2: 5 it says “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Again the Father and the Son are made separate, as the Son is called the mediator (or savior).

Now, we also have three references to the Godhead, which term indicates a leader (or leaders) of gods. In other words “The Head of the Gods.”
These references are Acts 17: 29; Romans 1: 20; and Colossians 2: 9.

As I said before, I am not trying to convince you I am right. With this my only hope it to show you that our doctrine is logical, and supported in the Bible. You can interpret the same verses anyway you want, but the interpretation we have is a logical one.

As to what you say concerning section 132, verse 58: You seem to be missing the point I am making with this verse.
The New and Everlasting Covenant is the covenant of marriage, or the sealing power. This is easily demonstrated in the text of section 131. In this same text it calls this an Order of the Priesthood. This is only one order of the Priedthood.
So, in section 132 we get a great explanation of this Order, then in verse 58 we are told we are getting more information concerning the Priesthood, not the New and Everlasting Covenant.
You are right that it does not states these things optional, but since it is a new topic, and it does not state that they are required, technically you cannot use this text by itself to say either way.

Finally, speaking of the Trinity: I understand the logic you use to reach this conclusion. However, no matter how good teh logic is, if the conclusion is illogical it does not matter.
As you say, the Bible does say there is only one God, but then calls the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost God. True logic would say that either the Bible is in error, or the passages have a different meaning than the obvious one.
In the Old Testiment there are only two references (that I can find right now) stating there is only one God. In Isaiah 43: 10, and Malachi 2: 10. Now, if we read in Isaiah, and continue to verse 11, we read that there is only one savior. Thus, this quote is easily seem as a reference to the unique calling of Christ. In Malachi it is stated with “Have we not all one father,” so this is again easily seen as a reference to the Father’s unique position. Thus, in the Old Testiment we can see that the references can be refering to two different gods, each with a unique position and relation to us.