A Catholic Look at Mormanism

[Telstar]

I’ll even add the Douay-Rheims from 1-6, because the first sentence has a bearing on the entire meaning of the whole passage.

*Romans 7:[1] Know you not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) that the law hath dominion over a man, as long as it liveth? [2] For the woman that hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man: but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of her husband; so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man. [4] Therefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ; that you may belong to another, who is risen again from the dead, that we may bring forth fruit to God. [5] For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death. [6] But now we are loosed from the law of death, wherein we were detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.*If Jesus had really taught the Apostles that marriage is eternal (according to LDS belief), then why wouldn’t the Apostles teach that a woman would be an adulteress if she gets married to any other man, even when her husband dies? Why didn’t Jesus say that in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels, too? Why don’t LDS also teach that, if they really think any marriage is ‘eternal’? Wouldn’t the wife still be subject to the law of her ‘eternal’ husband if the marriage never ends? Wouldn’t she be cheating on him by marrying someone else? These are the kinds of things that cause it not to make any sense whatsoever, in my mind.

 

[Leegal]

I am looking for this booklet written by Fr. Bill Mitchell. The Kings House here in Phoenix is looking for me. We have a 18 year old son contemplating getting baptized Morman.
We are in agony and grasping for infomation.

I think this is the book you are looking for. It’s called “A Christian Looks at Mormonism”, by William J. Mitchell. The booklet (about 53 pps. was written in 1977 and is now over 17 or 18 printings), sells on Amazon for $45, pretty steep for a booklet. Biblio.com also sells it for $45.

Here’s a link to the text, if this is what you are looking for. I think it’s complete; it’s a Catholic site.

A Christian Looks at Mormonism

 

[Miriam1947]

Hi, Icamay,

If you come back, will you go ahead and post verses 3 and 4 of Romans 7 so that a reader can see the context as we can then consider what Paul was teaching about the “law” (meaning the law of Moses) and about Christ as the “new marriage” (or new covenant)?" (I could, but this is so that I will have seen that you have also looked at those verses and considered their meaning.)

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 7:1-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Parker, what is your point here?

 

[Miriam1947]

I think this is the book you are looking for. It’s called “A Christian Looks at Mormonism”, by William J. Mitchell. The booklet (about 53 pps. was written in 1977 and is now over 17 or 18 printings), sells on Amazon for $45, pretty steep for a booklet. Biblio.com also sells it for $45.

Here’s a link to the text, if this is what you are looking for. I think it’s complete; it’s a Catholic site.

A Christian Looks at Mormonism

Oh no, another page I have to save. Thanks for the link.

Sometimes I think the links on my computer are like the books in all my bookcase. Way too many but, I just can’t seem to let go. I hope that is not a sin.

 

[ParkerD]

You bet. I’ll go as far as verse 6:

And we’ll look at that comparison to NASB:

and NIV:

Icamay,

Paul was using an analogy as a Jew writing to Jews, each of them familiar with the law of Moses. You seem to have taken the analogy to mean that marriage is done away in heaven, but what was done away was the law of Moses through its fulfillment through the mission of Jesus Christ and through His atoning sacrifice; and there is a new covenant gospel that Paul was teaching about.

Under the law of Moses, a second marriage of a woman whose husband had died was permitted, and Paul used that analogy to try and encourage the Roman members, who were predominantly Jews, to live by the new covenant gospel, given to the world by Jesus Christ and fulfilled through Him. (The law of Moses in the analogy was the “husband who had died”.)

 

[Khalid]

If Jesus had really taught the Apostles that marriage is eternal (according to LDS belief), then why wouldn’t the Apostles teach that a woman would be an adulteress if she gets married to any other man, even when her husband dies? Why didn’t Jesus say that in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels, too? Why don’t LDS also teach that, if they really think any marriage is ‘eternal’? Wouldn’t the wife still be subject to the law of her ‘eternal’ husband if the marriage never ends? Wouldn’t she be cheating on him by marrying someone else? These are the kinds of things that cause it not to make any sense whatsoever, in my mind.

Defeater! That’s one of the most memorable pieces of logic-rhetoric that I’ve seen on this forum. Way to go!

 

[Telstar]

Defeater! That’s one of the most memorable pieces of logic-rhetoric that I’ve seen on this forum. Way to go!

Why, thank you!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[icamay]

Icamay,

Paul was using an analogy as a Jew writing to Jews, each of them familiar with the law of Moses. You seem to have taken the analogy to mean that marriage is done away in heaven, but what was done away was the law of Moses through its fulfillment through the mission of Jesus Christ and through His atoning sacrifice; and there is a new covenant gospel that Paul was teaching about.

Under the law of Moses, a second marriage of a woman whose husband had died was permitted, and Paul used that analogy to try and encourage the Roman members, who were predominantly Jews, to live by the new covenant gospel, given to the world by Jesus Christ and fulfilled through Him. (The law of Moses in the analogy was the “husband who had died”.)

So this text is speaking to the Jews, and the Matthew and Luke texts were speaking to the Sadducees.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Icamay,

Paul was using an analogy as a Jew writing to Jews, each of them familiar with the law of Moses. You seem to have taken the analogy to mean that marriage is done away in heaven, but what was done away was the law of Moses through its fulfillment through the mission of Jesus Christ and through His atoning sacrifice; and there is a new covenant gospel that Paul was teaching about.

Under the law of Moses, a second marriage of a woman whose husband had died was permitted, and Paul used that analogy to try and encourage the Roman members, who were predominantly Jews, to live by the new covenant gospel, given to the world by Jesus Christ and fulfilled through Him. (The law of Moses in the analogy was the “husband who had died”.)

Marriage is analogous to the law and covenants, that’s why it’s used.
The law or covenant (marriage) is fulfilled (ended) by Christ’s sacrifice (the husbands death) and the Roman Jews (widow) are free to enter a new covenant (marriage)

 

[Telstar]

I’ll even add the Douay-Rheims from 1-6, because the first sentence has a bearing on the entire meaning of the whole passage.

Romans 7:[1] Know you not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) that the law hath dominion over a man, as long as it liveth? [2] For the woman that hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man: but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of her husband; so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man. [4] Therefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ; that you may belong to another, who is risen again from the dead, that we may bring forth fruit to God. [5] For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death. [6] But now we are loosed from the law of death, wherein we were detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.If Jesus had really taught the Apostles that marriage is eternal (according to LDS belief), then why wouldn’t the Apostles teach that a woman would be an adulteress if she gets married to any other man, even when her husband dies? Why didn’t Jesus say that in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels, too? Why don’t LDS also teach that, if they really think any marriage is ‘eternal’? Wouldn’t the wife still be subject to the law of her ‘eternal’ husband if the marriage never ends? Wouldn’t she be cheating on him by marrying someone else? These are the kinds of things that cause it not to make any sense whatsoever, in my mind.

I’m bumping this thread because I never got any answers to my questions, from any LDS posters. It seems that it slowly faded away and was completely ignored. IMHO, they’re all valid questions that must have logical answers if any religion is preaching that any marriage is eternal, even if they only believe that certain ones are eternal. Since the LDS church believes that men are forever allowed to have more than one wife, in this world or in the next (as soon as the law of the land is OK with it), but women are only allowed to have one husband (which apparently JS & BY made special exceptions for themselves, even though, secretly), that just makes the issue all the more relevant.

How can any LDS woman remarry in this life, even if her husband dies, if she is ‘sealed’ to another man, forever? A solemn ‘covenant’ (vow) must never be broken by either party, correct? How does that belief sit with, “What God has joined together, let no man (or woman) tear asunder.”, even for men? Is it the fact that there’s no possible way to answer the questions, because it doesn’t make any sense for both of these things to be true, and that’s the reason why LDS haven’t even tried to answer them? Or, is it just because it creates an unresolvable paradox that they can’t easily explain away? I’m expecting the only answer to be something along the lines of, “God (via JS or BY) told us to do it, so it must be true.”.

 

[theidler]

I am looking for this booklet written by Fr. Bill Mitchell. The Kings House here in Phoenix is looking for me. We have a 18 year old son contemplating getting baptized Morman.
We are in agony and grasping for infomation.

Well, if you wish to disprove Mormonism, all you need to do is read its scriptures. The Book of Mormon is supposedly written by several prophets over several centuries, and yet the narrative voice is IDENTICAL throughout the entire book. Ask yourself why…
Almost everything under the sun disproves Mormonism - Joseph Smiths dubious history, the BoMs historical innacuracies and lifting from the King James Version of the Bible, the blatant ripping off of freemason practices, the continual revision of doctrine…good grief the list is endless, haha.

 

[Miriam1947]

I am looking for this booklet written by Fr. Bill Mitchell. The Kings House here in Phoenix is looking for me. We have a 18 year old son contemplating getting baptized Morman.
We are in agony and grasping for infomation.

Read Inside Mormonism by Isaiah Bennett . And When Mormons Call by the same author.

As amazing as it seems this is a book by a former Catholic priest. Who became a Mormon. How that could happen is beyond me but as a form of penance he wrote these books after he returned to the One True Church.

Pray, and then pray some more that your son will come to his senses.

I am so sorry you are going through this. I will pray for you and your family.

Just so you know, I am co-owner of a Catholic book store. One day a man came in with his wife, she is in RCIA. They have been married for 30 years and she is converting to the Catholic Church . She was born and raised Mormon.

We talked about the first cause and how Mormonism cannot reach the first cause because they do not believe that the God we believe in created everything. They believe he was created by another God and that by progressing in exaltation he somehow became God of us. This is a powerful argument against their heretical teachings.

 

[TheExorcist]

Well, if you wish to disprove Mormonism, all you need to do is read its scriptures. The Book of Mormon is supposedly written by several prophets over several centuries, and yet the narrative voice is IDENTICAL throughout the entire book. Ask yourself why…
Almost everything under the sun disproves Mormonism - Joseph Smiths dubious history, the BoMs historical innacuracies and lifting from the King James Version of the Bible, the blatant ripping off of freemason practices, the continual revision of doctrine…good grief the list is endless, haha.

Yes, but Mormons and Mormon missionaries prey on potential convert’s emotions. There is no reason in the conversion process to the LDS church and actually very little education. The missionary “discussions” consist of very shallow church doctrine and then after about 6 lessons you can be baptized. In fact, most missionaries try to commit the potential convert to baptism by their second meeting with them. When I converted it took like 6 weeks and I was baptized.

 

[ParkerD]

How can any LDS woman remarry in this life, even if her husband dies, if she is ‘sealed’ to another man, forever? …

Hi, Telstar,

A woman can make that choice as a Latter-day Saint, and some do and some don’t. They marry for “time only”, meaning that the marriage is not sealed in heaven.

Women who choose a second marriage after their husband has died, will no doubt have prayed about such an important decision, and sometimes they will have discussed this kind of thing with their first husband if he had a lingering illness, particularly if they had young children in the home. A father figure in the home is a good thing, as our society now realizes–so for God to answer a woman’s prayer that it is OK for her to marry a second time for “time only” if her first husband had died, makes complete sense to me. It is also true that some women would not feel that they should remarry, and thus the inspiration could go either way and be right for that particular woman and her family. I know personally one who did (a friend of ours years ago), and one who didn’t remarry (my wife’s mom didn’t remarry, though her husband died at age forty two and that left a young boy–my wife’s younger brother–still at home, and he certainly missed his dad and it left a void in his life but it has balanced out years later).

 

[Khalid]

It still ends up with male celestial bigamy, and it comes back to Telstar’s (?) defeater of your eisegesis.

 

[chepner3]

My husband was married in the LDS church and sealed to his first wife. When she married for the third time she decided to seal to that husband. She wrote and asked my husband for an LDS divorce (akin to an annulment in the Catholic religion). He readily agreed.

 

[Miriam1947]

My husband was married in the LDS church and sealed to his first wife. When she married for the third time she decided to seal to that husband. She wrote and asked my husband for an LDS divorce (akin to an annulment in the Catholic religion). He readily agreed.

Is your husband still Mormon?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi, Telstar,

A woman can make that choice as a Latter-day Saint, and some do and some don’t. They marry for “time only”, meaning that the marriage is not sealed in heaven.

Women who choose a second marriage after their husband has died, will no doubt have prayed about such an important decision, and sometimes they will have discussed this kind of thing with their first husband if he had a lingering illness, particularly if they had young children in the home. A father figure in the home is a good thing, as our society now realizes–so for God to answer a woman’s prayer that it is OK for her to marry a second time for “time only” if her first husband had died, makes complete sense to me. It is also true that some women would not feel that they should remarry, and thus the inspiration could go either way and be right for that particular woman and her family. I know personally one who did (a friend of ours years ago), and one who didn’t remarry (my wife’s mom didn’t remarry, though her husband died at age forty two and that left a young boy–my wife’s younger brother–still at home, and he certainly missed his dad and it left a void in his life but it has balanced out years later).

And what an ugly situation this creates later if the wife marries a second husband for time and they go on to have more children. Who are those children sealed to? They can’t be sealed to the newly formed couple since they aren’t even sealed together. Mom could ask to have the previous sealing cancelled leaving the first husband dangling in the after life. The whole families can be forever is a mess and in reality breaks up families for eternity. The LDS church came up with a “solution” for a problem that the rest of Christianity never had.

 

[KathleenGee]

Khalid…

The great mission to hold on to the truth of Jesus Christ, to appoint those who will be faithful to this mission of Christ, the documented history, the work of the Church in establishing the civilization of the West…and the theological points…based on consistent teachings…are proof in themselves that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ.

Like I said before, the Mormons believe in this great apostasy…with the death of the last apostle…then it changed to some time some where later…then it came about because the Church’s administration was illicit…but we do not see how or where or what were the reasons why the Catholic priesthood is ilicit and corrupt…that the apostles were incapable of appointing successors…and the disappearance of the Holy Spirit, and subsequently the failure of Christ Himself to establish His church, in spite of the truth of Scripture that He came at the fulfilled time.

But all this is not enough. Mormons can create new books 1800 years later, and are better than the apostles to appoint successors and 13 year old boys can become priests…

You can provide documents, early church fathers’ teachings, historical proof of apostolic succession…but it means nothing.

 

[Telstar]

Hi, Telstar,

A woman can make that choice as a Latter-day Saint, and some do and some don’t. They marry for “time only”, meaning that the marriage is not sealed in heaven.

Women who choose a second marriage after their husband has died, will no doubt have prayed about such an important decision, and sometimes they will have discussed this kind of thing with their first husband if he had a lingering illness, particularly if they had young children in the home. A father figure in the home is a good thing, as our society now realizes–so for God to answer a woman’s prayer that it is OK for her to marry a second time for “time only” if her first husband had died, makes complete sense to me. It is also true that some women would not feel that they should remarry, and thus the inspiration could go either way and be right for that particular woman and her family. I know personally one who did (a friend of ours years ago), and one who didn’t remarry (my wife’s mom didn’t remarry, though her husband died at age forty two and that left a young boy–my wife’s younger brother–still at home, and he certainly missed his dad and it left a void in his life but it has balanced out years later).

Hello, Parker,

No offense, but none of that convoluted explanation changes the fact that Jesus said that any woman that marries another man, when she already has a husband, is an adulteress. And, any man that marries another woman, also makes his first wife an adulteress. If He was truly teaching that marriage is ‘eternal’, then how can any man override what He taught by creating exceptions to His rule? Especially if He taught that marriage is eternal because of the joining of Adam and Eve, because that would mean all marriages would be eternal, with no possible exceptions. Basically, you’re just saying that in Mormonism marriage is never really ‘eternal’ in the true sense of the word. Men and women are free to do whatever they like with a clear conscience, according to LDS doctrine, including getting a divorce and remarrying someone else, as long as it’s done by LDS prescribed methods. Your description of an LDS marriage for “time only”, is nothing more than an example of giving someone a “temporary license” to live in sin, since it’s not even a real marriage because it’s not an eternal marriage, by the LDS definition!

It shouldn’t make any difference if someone ‘prays about it’ and believes they got a personal approval from God, because right is always right, and wrong is always wrong. There is no ‘maybe’, and no exception. An annulment in the Catholic Church is an extremely serious matter that has definite rules to be followed. It’s always based on actual facts, and not on our personal ‘feelings’. It’s certainly never granted based on someone claiming that they, “prayed about it, and God said it was OK with Him”.

Can a man desire to kill another man, and just ‘pray about it’ to get God’s approval of his actions? Can he just pray about breaking any of the other commandments and truly believe that he has God’s approval to do that, too? That’s an icy slope that has no means to stop the insanity of believing that we can do anything we like, as long as we ‘pray about it’ and believe that we are justified with God’s personal ‘OK’. Where would we ever draw the line and decide that God would not approve of anything we want to do?