A Catholic Look at Mormanism

[theidler]

theidler,

If you are indeed a writer and have a background in English literature and language usage, then I suggest that you have a better background for making your own literary and contextual analyses than doing the kinds of computer analyses that are included in those studies.

Parker, I didn’t “do” any computer analyses - I just found a link to what Khalid was talking about. There is no need to pick at my being a writer or my education.

 

[Khalid]

And they use computers to do that analysis. There are many types of computer analysis and stylometry: verb/noun/adverb, subject-verb-object order, passive/active voice, length of words, difficulty of words/vocabulary, range of vocabulary, reading level, approximate educational level, era active, combinations of words, so on and so forth, used to break the text in to blocks by certain authors. These methods have been used to verify Pauline authorship of seven of his epistles, but they run in to major problems when the document to be analyzed is short (such as the Pastorals). The Book of Mormon has no such problem. It is long - very long. The Doctrine and Covenenants is long. The Pearl of Great Price is decently long, longer than any of Paul’s letters. There are many distinct texts known to be authored by Joseph Smith that can be analyzed and compared, something that can’t be done with Shakespeare or Paul - yet computer analysis can still determine this:

“This group of seven epistles were written by the same author”. It can’t determine who that author was. The author may not have been “Paul” - it could have been Barnabas, or Simon Magus himself. That’s outside of the realm of computer analysis without other documents in other corpi known to be written by the analyzed author.

“This Book of Mormon was written by X authors”. It can not determine who those authors were, only their numbers. However, in comparison with other texts known to be written by Joseph Smith, it can determine that he was one of the authors, as there are JS writings outside of the BoM with which to compare.

“These four plays of Shakespeare were written by one man”. It can not determine if Shakespeare wrote those plays, only that a single individual did, or the same group of individuals. If five individuals work together for an entire book, with no divisions between the authors - that every author had (name removed by moderator)ut in every sentence, and shared responsibility equally (a situation nearly impossible in reality), the book will appear to be the work of one author, a composite of the voices of five.

Even when done by primitive hand analysis (which hasn’t been used since the invention of the computer), one can’t tell who the authors are, only their number: that’s why liberal critics of Mosaic authorship call the sources “J” (Jahwist), “E” (Elohist), “D” (Deuteronomist), and “P” (Priestly source), instead of “Moses, David, Ezra, and Judas Maccabeus”. The authors are identified by characteristics of their writing (i.e. J uses YHWH, E uses Elohim, D wrote the Book of Deuteronomy and Kings, P added “Priestly” material, such as massive genealogies and rituals, and emphasized the transcendence of God), not by their actual historical existence (although they must have existed, in order to have written), or their actual personalities.

Most of those seem to indicate that the Book of Mormon was written by three or four individuals: Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, “Joseph Smith” (or his associate), Spaulding, and/or Rigdon.

The only ones that can be certain are Isaiah (because we have another work known to be Isaiac to be compared, namely the Book of Isaiah), and possibly Spaulding (if Manuscript Found is extant).

 

[ParkerD]

How are children of the second marriage sealed to their whole ancestral line if they are sealed to only their mother and through her to the dead husband they are not related to??? Their whole ancestral line would have to include their father not some man they are not related to.

Zaffiroborant,

What happens in actuality is that they can do family history research on their mother’s ancestors, their father’s ancestors, and the ancestors of the father who had died and who is sealed to their mother, and they can submit for temple work to be done for any of those ancestral lines. I think they would feel a kinship to all three family lines of ancestry as they grow in their love for their grandparents, particularly if they are interacting with the grandparents on all three lines of ancestry if all happen to still be living. As they then see the “big picture” of their family history lines of ancestry, they can see that the sealing to parents fits into a tapestry of many, many ancestors going back through the generations. There is not a feeling of competition as to what ancestors are “theirs”–they would consider them “all theirs”.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

What happens in actuality is that they can do family history research on their mother’s ancestors, their father’s ancestors, and the ancestors of the father who had died and who is sealed to their mother, and they can submit for temple work to be done for any of those ancestral lines. I think they would feel a kinship to all three family lines of ancestry as they grow in their love for their grandparents, particularly if they are interacting with the grandparents on all three lines of ancestry if all happen to still be living. As they then see the “big picture” of their family history lines of ancestry, they can see that the sealing to parents fits into a tapestry of many, many ancestors going back through the generations. There is not a feeling of competition as to what ancestors are “theirs”–they would consider them “all theirs”.

But children of the second marriage will not be sealed to “parents” only to their mother. The father whose ancestry is theirs, the man that loved, nurtured, cared for them, the only man they’ve had a father child relationship with is outside that sealing. The mother, first husband, and the children of both men are sealed together as an eternal family. While the children’s real father (biological, emotional) is left without an eternal family, his place as father of his own children in an “eternal family” filled by the woman’s first husband.

 

[ParkerD]

But children of the second marriage will not be sealed to “parents” only to their mother. The father whose ancestry is theirs, the man that loved, nurtured, cared for them, the only man they’ve had a father child relationship with is outside that sealing. The mother, first husband, and the children of both men are sealed together as an eternal family. While the children’s real father (biological, emotional) is left without an eternal family, his place as father of his own children in an “eternal family” filled by the woman’s first husband.

Zaffiroborant,

The second husband knew that “going in”. He accepted that reality, and as I noted if he was guided by the Holy Ghost in that important decision, then I would expect that he will have an eternal companion whom he will be able to choose.

Perfect love really does mean perfect love, and it means our mortal imperfections no longer apply in the resurrection. Now we “look through a glass darkly”.

It is no doubt difficult for young children to try and understand what being "sealed’ means, but that doesn’t deprive them at all of the love of their biological father in every respect, and they will also know that they have another “father figure” in the spirit world who is watching what they do and is wishing for their happiness and well-being in life.

 

[Telstar]

Zaffiroborant,

The second husband knew that “going in”. He accepted that reality, and as I noted if he was guided by the Holy Ghost in that important decision, then I would expect that he will have an eternal companion whom he will be able to choose.

Perfect love really does mean perfect love, and it means our mortal imperfections no longer apply in the resurrection. Now we “look through a glass darkly”.

It is no doubt difficult for young children to try and understand what being "sealed’ means, but that doesn’t deprive them at all of the love of their biological father in every respect, and they will also know that they have another “father figure” in the spirit world who is watching what they do and is wishing for their happiness and well-being in life.

So, are you implying that the second husband will be able to be married to another woman in the ‘celestial kingdom’, ***after ***he dies? What about the whole Biblical concept that there will be no ‘marrying or giving in marriage’ in Heaven?

 

[zaffiroborant]

So, are you implying that the second husband will be able to be married to another woman in the ‘celestial kingdom’, ***after ***he dies? What about the whole Biblical concept that there will be no ‘marrying or giving in marriage’ in Heaven?

Yes there is a bit of consistency in this since LDS do say that marriage has to be done in “mortality”.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

The second husband knew that “going in”. He accepted that reality, and as I noted if he was guided by the Holy Ghost in that important decision, then I would expect that he will have an eternal companion whom he will be able to choose.

So you admit he will lose his children eternally to another man. Obviously his children are of little value to him if he so willingly gives them to someone else. Again I do not see where this “eternal family” of the LDS is so wonderful. It is hands down the ugliest view of the afterlife I’ve ever seen, and in light of the rest of Christianity’s view it boggles my mind that anyone would chose to believe such a family shattering doctrine.

 

[ParkerD]

So, are you implying that the second husband will be able to be married to another woman in the ‘celestial kingdom’, ***after ***he dies? What about the whole Biblical concept that there will be no ‘marrying or giving in marriage’ in Heaven?

Telstar,

That Biblical concept was the specific answer to the Sadducees’ question about a case of “one of their own”, in which case they were living the Mosaic law of marriage which allowed for “putting away” and which was not the eternal marriage covenant. Particularly, the Sadducees rejected Jesus as the Messiah, which means they lost the opportunity for receiving the Celestial kingdom because of their rejection of Him.

It is a different kind of case when one has accepted Christ, and I also noted that if they are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their decision-making, then they have followed what they felt impressed to do and would be allowed, I think, to have an eternal marriage since they earnestly sought to do God’s will. Since I’m not in their shoes, I don’t know the inspiration behind their decision, but am giving the benefit of any doubt about it.

 

[ParkerD]

So you admit he will lose his children eternally to another man.

Zaffiroborant,

It is not as though they were all going to live in one big house, anyway. The sealing of children to parents means they have eternal familial relationships including to other ancestors. But everyone in the Celestial glory will have other close relationship also including friends and other relatives, which means that the same love between that father and his biological children will still be efficacious, and be perfected.

 

[zaffiroborant]

It is a different kind of case when one has accepted Christ, and I also noted that if they are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their decision-making, then they have followed what they felt impressed to do and would be allowed, I think, to have an eternal marriage since they earnestly sought to do God’s will. Since I’m not in their shoes, I don’t know the inspiration behind their decision, but am giving the benefit of any doubt about it.

But not really an eternal family since his children would be given to another man as part of his eternal family.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

That Biblical concept was the specific answer to the Sadducees’ question about a case of “one of their own”, in which case they were living the Mosaic law of marriage which allowed for “putting away” and which was not the eternal marriage covenant. Particularly, the Sadducees rejected Jesus as the Messiah, which means they lost the opportunity for receiving the Celestial kingdom because of their rejection of Him.

It is a different kind of case when one has accepted Christ, and I also noted that if they are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their decision-making, then they have followed what they felt impressed to do and would be allowed, I think, to have an eternal marriage since they earnestly sought to do God’s will. Since I’m not in their shoes, I don’t know the inspiration behind their decision, but am giving the benefit of any doubt about it.

Luke 20:[34] And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: [35] But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

It is not as though they were all going to live in one big house, anyway. The sealing of children to parents means they have eternal familial relationships including to other ancestors. But everyone in the Celestial glory will have other close relationship also including friends and other relatives, which means that the same love between that father and his biological children will still be efficacious, and be perfected.

And now what you describe is just what every Christian believes about the world to come, so what is the point of sealings if they offer nothing more than what Christians already have?

 

[ParkerD]

But not really an eternal family since his children would be given to another man as part of his eternal family.

Zaffiroborant,

It was his choice to make, or not. He would have the same love for them, the same satisfaction that they “overcame” their own trials and challenges in life through following his example and teachings and support, whether they are counted in his “sealed children” or not. Love for others in that Celestial glory will be extended beyond family ties. It really is to become “one” in a far larger sense than immediate family ties other than the one large family of Adam and his posterity.

 

[ParkerD]

Luke 20:[34] And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: [35] But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.

Telstar,

Everyone who ever lives on this earth will be resurrected, as the New Testament attests. So that verse has a word “the” that would probably be better translated as “that” “resurrection from the dead”. Meaning, the specific glory for those in the kind of case that had been presented to the Savior. It still is referring to those who had rejected the Savior because they rejected the teaching that there was a resurrection and rejected Him as the Messiah.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

Everyone who ever lives on this earth will be resurrected, as the New Testament attests. So that verse has a word “the” that would probably be better translated as “that” “resurrection from the dead”. Meaning, the specific glory for those in the kind of case that had been presented to the Savior. It still is referring to those who had rejected the Savior because they rejected the teaching that there was a resurrection and rejected Him as the Messiah.

Parker, if everything Jesus said was only directed at the specific people in the Bible that He was talking to at the time that He spoke, then why would any of it apply to you or me? There are no more Sadducee nor Pharisees, so how does any of what He specifically said to them be relevant to anyone else in this day and age? Please, tell me who those people are, now. Because if what you’re saying is correct, then none of what He said to anyone in the past means diddlysquat to anyone else in this time period. Then, if you could explain to me how the Bible scholars translated “the” instead of “that”, I’d really appreciate it, because they are totally different articles. One is specific and the other is nonspecific.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

It was his choice to make, or not. He would have the same love for them, the same satisfaction that they “overcame” their own trials and challenges in life through following his example and teachings and support, whether they are counted in his “sealed children” or not. Love for others in that Celestial glory will be extended beyond family ties. It really is to become “one” in a far larger sense than immediate family ties other than the one large family of Adam and his posterity.

Like I said there is no difference then in what you say here and what the rest of Christianity believes about heaven. You are expecting the same as they, all of your sealings offer nothing unique or special, they are effectively unnecessary.

 

[theidler]

Good grief, watching the intellectual back-flips here about sealing and eternal families and whatever else is getting exhausting:hypno:

 

[Khalid]

So you admit he will lose his children eternally to another man. Obviously his children are of little value to him if he so willingly gives them to someone else. Again I do not see where this “eternal family” of the LDS is so wonderful. It is hands down the ugliest view of the afterlife I’ve ever seen, and in light of the rest of Christianity’s view it boggles my mind that anyone would chose to believe such a family shattering doctrine.

The Islamic conception of Heaven is equally disturbing in its own way. I like the Mormon conception of Hell (the Islamic conception puts Dante’s Inferno to shame) - even infidels get to one of the three heavens, only the vilest sinners get cast in to the “outer darkness”. At that, why should anyone convert to Mormonism (suspend your disbelief for a moment), as, compared to this life, even the lowest heaven must be incomparably great. Only in the third heaven do you get unlimited-range teleportation and your own world/universe to be a god of.

The Serpent told Adam and Eve that they would become as God - and thus death entered the world. See any parallels with the developed Mormon doctrine of today?

Jesus is God, and became as man - thus removing death, as the second Adam.

I have to admit, beyond being made a god, Mormonism was attractive to me for a bit, when I realized I was living in the same era of Mormonism that Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen lived in regards to Christianity: the possibility of exercising a strong, if not formative influence. However, they had much better material to work with, and actual historicity (unless what they really wanted was to become fantasy-fiction authors), and Mormon doctrine is mercurial. Maybe some concrete Mormon orthodoxy will win out in the future, as it did in Christianity, with the major heretical controversies behind it, but if any kind of “academic Mormonism” or “theological Mormonism” wins out, it will be the “neo-orthodoxy” that is essentially Arminian Protestantism with the Book of Mormon tacked on (ala RLDS) and the major problems will be in defending it.

 

[TexanKnight]

Telstar,

Everyone who ever lives on this earth will be resurrected, as the New Testament attests. So that verse has a word “the” that would probably be better translated as “that” “resurrection from the dead”. Meaning, the specific glory for those in the kind of case that had been presented to the Savior. It still is referring to those who had rejected the Savior because they rejected the teaching that there was a resurrection and rejected Him as the Messiah.

Ah…the old “change the words till they can be twisted into what we believe” trick…