any former mormons out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mwashabaugh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, let’s leave that alone for now.

It remains that ZERINUS teaches polygamy. ZERINUS is a big believer in it, he supports it, he studies it, he knows all about it, but apparently he is not able to provide us any evidence from the NT or from history that Jesus practiced polygamy, that his disciples practiced it, or that the apostles practiced it, or that it was practiced among the Jews of Jesus’ day, or anywhere along the way in Christendom over a period of two thousand years.
There is plenty of historical evidence that the Jews practised polygamy in the time of Christ, and and for several centuries thereafter. Here are a couple of references I have found for you:

Polygamy was still practiced by Jews in New Testament times. Flavius Josephus (A.D. 93) a Jewish historian stated “for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17). A Roman law passed in 212 A.D. tolerating polygamy among Jews, was abolished in 285 A.D. by Emperor Diocletian. Augustine, a Roman Catholic theologian, writing in the 4th century stated that in his time and in keeping with Roman custom it was no longer allowed to take another wife so as to have more than one wife living. The Church accepted and promoted the Roman understanding and structure of marriage instead of Biblical models e.g. polygamy. Source.

Judaism – Polygyny is widely and explicitly condoned and practiced throughout the Old Testament, and is still permitted to non-Ashkenazi Jews, who never accepted the decrees of Rabenu Gershom (965-1023?) ending polygamy. In certain rare cases even Ashkenazi Jews are religiously permitted polygamy. However, polygamy is rarely practiced, as there are few places welcoming to Jews where the civil laws will permit it.

Christianity – Of course, all contemporary mainstream Christian denominations now prescribe monogamy as a matter of doctrine or dogma. However, with the exception of 1 Timothy 3, which is directed toward church “leaders” and “helpers”, the New Testament does not address monogamy per se. The consensus among Biblical scholars is that the Book of Timothy was not authored by St. Paul, but rather added significantly later by other early church fathers. It can be strongly argued that neither Paul (whose real preference was for celibacy) nor the leaders of the early church who actually authored the passage in question, would have felt the need to specify monogamy for these individuals unless it were unusual among believers of the era.

Old Testament references frequently cited to justify monogamy, such as Genesis 2:24, obviously were not viewed as prohibitive by Judaism, which continued its historic sanction of polygamy for over a millennium after the time of Christ. Likewise the Seventh and Ninth Commandments, forbidding “adultery” and “coveting neighbors’ wives” were both viewed as admonitions against transgressing on the property of others, i.e., the female “possessions” of men. Neither Commandment was interpreted by Hebrew scholars as forbidding polygyny, nor even relationships between men (married or not) and unmarried women.

It was not until the writings of Tertullian (A.D. 160?-220?), over two centuries after the death of Christ, that the “institutional” case for monogamy within what became the Catholic Church was set forth. This was in response to the “heresy” of the Psychics, who in part followed the same logic of a “strict constructionist” interpretation of Paul’s writings noted above. Strangely enough, this doctrine was written by Tertullian after he became a heretic himself, having rejected his earlier Christian beliefs and having been excommunicated. Tertullian’s “psychics” actually were the lineal ancestors of the Catholic Church he had abandoned. Marriage would not even be recognized as a sacrament for another 1,000 years; divorce would not be absolutely proscribed for another 500 years after that. Source.

All the emphasis that are in bold italics belong to the original text. The rest are mine.

zerinus
 
What I am getting at is this: Polygamy is, and always has been, a crime in Christendom.
What you are getting is always wrong! Polygamy was not “always” a crime in Christendom. Here is a reference:

1 Timothy 3:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.

Paul would not have needed to give that instruction to the Christians if polygamy was not permissible and practiced in the Christian church. Paul is not condemning polygamy. He is merely saying that if somebody wants to be a bishop, it is preferable that he be monogamous—the implication being that other than that, it was permissible and practised in the church.
Absent any evidence to the contrary, I’m certain it was a moral crime within Judaism well before Jesus’ day.
You are very wrong. See my previous post.
It has been a crime in the United States, was a crime in 1843.
That is irrelevant.
The claimed JS revelation was therefore a deviant thing, not in conformity with what is known about Jesus, or the disciples, or the Apostles, or the Church. Therefore, it cannot be considered valid. It is a false revelation, and the revelator that gave it is a false revelator.
Wrong again. It did not contradict anything that they believed, taught, or “revealed”.
This gets back to #67 of the Catechism, which we were talking about earlier.
And wrong again twice over. The early Christian church apostatized long ago, and the Catholic Church or Catechism has no divine authority to mandate Christian doctrine.

zeromis
 
Wait a minute. Before, you were going on and on about how scripture proves this and scripture proves that. Now, you say you don’t need scripture. Which is it? Do you see how you wiggle? When scripture can be used, you use it, even if incorrectly. When it can’t be used, you say, we don’t need it anyway, we’ve got ongoing revelation.
Wrong! What I am saying is that:
  1. LDS doctrine does not contradict biblical scripture.
  2. Everything that LDS doctrine teaches does not have to be proved from biblical scripture for it to be valid.
These two statements are not contradictory.
Also, what is this about a “completely new dispensation of the gospel”?? I thought this was a restoration of the lost gospel, not something entirely new. Which is it? Restoration of that which was lost thru apostasy? Or something entirely new? Or both?
It is both. It is the dispensation of the fullness of time. It is a dispensation in which all the truths that had been revealed in previous dispensations will be revealed; and also many things will be revealed that had been hidden from the foundation of the world.
But the REAL question is, if polygamy is taught according to this new dispensation, and it is valid without reference to what has been revealed by the DEFINITIVE REVELATION OF CHRIST, then why does the LDS church not practice it today?
Because it is currently contrary to the law of the land, and one of the doctrines of the Church is that we must abide by the laws of the land.

zerinus
 
Basic definition of God: God is eternal. Eternity is part of the essence of God.

Nan
If that is true, then all eternal beings, such as spirits which we know are eternal (and also our bodies after the resurrection), are either part of God’s essence, which is a nonsensical concept; or else they are like God—i.e. eternity is part of their essence.

Which one is it?

zerinus
 
1 Timothy 3:

2 “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”

Paul would not have needed to give that instruction to the Christians if polygamy was not permissible and practiced in the Christian church. Paul is not condemning polygamy. He is merely saying that if somebody wants to be a bishop, it is preferable that he be monogamous—the implication being that other than that, it was permissible and practised in the church.

zeromis
Real quick, since I am short on time. I will chew on the other material you gave later today or tomorrow and respond.

My understanding, and I’m sure the understanding of all orthodox Christianity, including all, or virtually all, Protestants, is that Paul is not referring to polygamy, but to divorce. In Catholic teaching for sure, and probably throughout most of Protestantism as well, civil divorce does not affect the sacramental or religious aspect of marriage. If a man divorces a wife through civil court, he remains married to her in the eyes of God, and therefore any subsequent marriage would be invalid, adulterous. This is derived from the clear teachings of Jesus regarding marriage. Jesus makes no reference whatever to polygamy. Surely, if polygamy were approved, Jesus would have had SOMETHING to say about it, especially in view of his teachings on adultery. Moreover, even if the marriage were annulled via religious action, a candidate for Bishop probably would not be considered worthy in view of that failed marriage.

Moreover, the use of the term “blameless” in line with the other things, “husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach” suggests that shortcomings in any of these areas makes a candidate subject to “blame.”

If in fact this refers to polygamy and not to divorce, why is it that a Bishop would be held to a monogamous marriage, if polygamy were OK for NT era peoples? Why would it be disreputable for a church leader to have more than one wife, if polygamy were OK.

And, why exactly is it that polygamy was prohibited at all, either in the secular realm or the religious? If it is such a great thing, and was, as you claim, widespread, or at least permissable, why did it get prohibited along the way?
 
If in fact this refers to polygamy and not to divorce, why is it that a Bishop would be held to a monogamous marriage, if polygamy were OK for NT era peoples? Why would it be disreputable for a church leader to have more than one wife, if polygamy were OK.

And, why exactly is it that polygamy was prohibited at all, either in the secular realm or the religious? If it is such a great thing, and was, as you claim, widespread, or at least permissable, why did it get prohibited along the way?
👍 👍 👍
 
Real quick, since I am short on time. I will chew on the other material you gave later today or tomorrow and respond.

My understanding, and I’m sure the understanding of all orthodox Christianity, including all, or virtually all, Protestants, is that Paul is not referring to polygamy, but to divorce. In Catholic teaching for sure, and probably throughout most of Protestantism as well, civil divorce does not affect the sacramental or religious aspect of marriage. If a man divorces a wife through civil court, he remains married to her in the eyes of God, and therefore any subsequent marriage would be invalid, adulterous. This is derived from the clear teachings of Jesus regarding marriage. Jesus makes no reference whatever to polygamy. Surely, if polygamy were approved, Jesus would have had SOMETHING to say about it, especially in view of his teachings on adultery. Moreover, even if the marriage were annulled via religious action, a candidate for Bishop probably would not be considered worthy in view of that failed marriage.

Moreover, the use of the term “blameless” in line with the other things, “husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach” suggests that shortcomings in any of these areas makes a candidate subject to “blame.”

If in fact this refers to polygamy and not to divorce, why is it that a Bishop would be held to a monogamous marriage, if polygamy were OK for NT era peoples? Why would it be disreputable for a church leader to have more than one wife, if polygamy were OK.

And, why exactly is it that polygamy was prohibited at all, either in the secular realm or the religious? If it is such a great thing, and was, as you claim, widespread, or at least permissable, why did it get prohibited along the way?
I don’t think it is very nice of you to destroy Zerinius’ fantasy of hundreds of wives with whom he can make love all the time while creating spirit bodies for his many planets for all eternity.
 
I don’t think it is very nice of you to destroy Zerinius’ fantasy of hundreds of wives with whom he can make love all the time while creating spirit bodies for his many planets for all eternity.
That just made me smile, what a great answer.👍
 
I don’t think it is very nice of you to destroy Zerinius’ fantasy of hundreds of wives with whom he can make love all the time while creating spirit bodies for his many planets for all eternity.
well somebody had to burst his little bubble of a fanatsy and bring him back to the real world;)
 
My understanding, . . .
It is not “your understanding” at all. That is your way of wriggling out of a very difficult verse, which if you were to accept would drives a coach and horses, followed by an18 wheel truck, through your entire theology and doctrinal legitimacy.
. . . and I’m sure the understanding of all orthodox Christianity, including all, or virtually all, Protestants, . . .
Oh my goodness! We have now become Protestant have we? The chameleon has changed his colours! Since when did you start appealing to the Protestantism to support your false theology? Well, Protestantism is a remnant of an apostate religion, just like Catholicism is; so I guess you are birds of a feather. It is only natural that you should in the end make common cause to fight against the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
. . . is that Paul is not referring to polygamy, but to divorce.
That is a ridiculous thing to say. By no stretch of the imagination can “the husband of one wife” be understood to be equivalent to “never been divorced”.
In Catholic teaching for sure, and probably throughout most of Protestantism as well, civil divorce does not affect the sacramental or religious aspect of marriage. . . .
Yea, I am listening. Keep appealing to Protestantism, now that you have no more wriggle room left. But you appeal in vain! They are more bankrupt than you are!
Jesus makes no reference whatever to polygamy.
Sure He didn’t. He had nothing to say against it, since He never abrogated that law, like many other laws that He did abrogate.
Surely, if polygamy were approved, Jesus would have had SOMETHING to say about it, especially in view of his teachings on adultery.
It makes more sence to look at it the other way: “Surely, if polygamy were disapproved, Jesus would have had SOMETHING to say about it,”—just like He had SOMETHING to say about many other Jewish laws which He had changed, abrogated, or done away with.
Moreover, even if the marriage were annulled via religious action, a candidate for Bishop probably would not be considered worthy in view of that failed marriage.
“failed marriage,” “remarriage,” or “divorce” had nothing to do with what Paul was talking about.
Moreover, the use of the term “blameless” in line with the other things, “husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach” suggests that shortcomings in any of these areas makes a candidate subject to “blame.”
That is “stretching it,” to put it mildly.
If in fact this refers to polygamy and not to divorce, why is it that a Bishop would be held to a monogamous marriage, if polygamy were OK for NT era peoples? Why would it be disreputable for a church leader to have more than one wife, if polygamy were OK.
That is Paul! Paul had a lot of weird things to say about women and about marriage that nobody in his right mind would now want to follow. He told women to cover up their heads like the Moslems and not talk in church! He prohibited them from teaching and speaking in church. He told them that if they have any questions they should their husbands at home and not in church. That sounds like Al-Qaeda theology than Christianity! But that is Paul for you. Everything that he says about divorce or marriage, or the relationship between the sexes, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
And, why exactly is it that polygamy was prohibited at all, either in the secular realm or the religious? If it is such a great thing, and was, as you claim, widespread, or at least permissable, why did it get prohibited along the way?
Polygamy was prohibited by the Romans, not by the Christian church. Christianity became apostate, and effectively inherited the mantle of the Roman Empire, and adopted the Roman traditions. The Romans had initially allowed the Jews to practice their religious customs, including polygamy. Early on in their history, the Romans showed a great deal of tolerance towards the religious practices and social customs of the nations that they had conquered, and allowed them to practice their religions and customs without hindrance, provide that they did not rebel against Rome. When Christianity began to spread in the Roman Empire, the Romans began to get worried, and did all kinds of crazy things to try and stop it. After the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Jews who had escaped became dispersed throughout the Roman Empire, and became a persecuted race, though not as much as the Christians. The Romans enacted all kinds of laws to prevent them from practising their religion, which included polygamy. But it was never considered evil either by the Jews or by the early Christians.

zerinus
 
WOW.
Anybody who would talk about the Apostle Paul like you do,
and speak so ridiculingly of the holy scriptures he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
is a blasphemous person.

People should take what YOU say with a grain of salt.
 
Ouote: Restored gospel of Jesus Christ.Qupte: he he ha ha he he ha ha 😃 he he ha ha 🙂 he he ha ha 😃
 
Ouote: Restored gospel of Jesus Christ.Qupte: he he ha ha he he ha ha 😃 he he ha ha 🙂 he he ha ha 😃
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. . . . If the veil were rent today, . . . if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. . . .
“. . . It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible” (Smith, Teachings, 345–46).
he he ha ha he he ha ha he he ha ha 😃 😃 😃 Explain this away!
NIV Tim 6:11But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. 12Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
 
What Joseph Smith taught was that polygamy was permissible

under divine law, if and when God sanctions it or commands it.

zerinus
Yes folks! It’s time for
"More Zingers from Zerinus!"

**First Quotation: **Joseph Smith, the ‘Jesus’ of Mormonism, only taught polygamy was allowed when God-of-this-planet Earth told him so.
 
Then you can hear it now. Polygamy was permissible under the old Jewish law, as well as under the Roman Law.

Zounds !!

More Zingers from Zerinus !!

First Quotation: Roman law permitted polygamy! Of course, no source is given. And do not hold your collective breath, my brethren, because his sources are all tertiary at best and only go back to some Profit of the Mormon sect who gets a revelation from the local god.
 
Zounds !!

More Zingers from Zerinus !!

First Quotation: Roman law permitted polygamy! Of course, no source is given. And do not hold your collective breath, my brethren, because his sources are all tertiary at best and only go back to some Profit of the Mormon sect who gets a revelation from the local god.
What I meant was that the Jews were allowed to practise it under the Roman occupation at the time of Christ. The Romans did not prevent them from practicing it (or try to) until much later in history.

zerinus
 
Polygamy was prohibited by the Romans, not by the Christian church.
Second Quotation: This sentence is enough to illustrate once more how Zerinus giveth with the one hand and taketh with the other!

Which is it? an inquiring Christian might ask. You can’t really mean that Romans BOTH permitted it and prohibited it, do you?

But ah! That is the wrong type of question to ask Zerinus. The question should be: “What, O great master of the forked reply, should we fall for, hook, line and sinker?” Zerinus is here not to learn about Christianity (it is Apostate in his worlds-view), no, he is here to show us poor, lost remnant sheep that the Mormons got the inside scoop on how to get our own world, what to wear (that holy union suit), how much food to hoard, and (sorry girls!) every man is a priest!!!

C’mon! What are we waiting for? Let’s climb aboard the Mormon train and call all Jews, Gentiles.
 
Second Quotation: This sentence is enough to illustrate once more how Zerinus giveth with the one hand and taketh with the other!

Which is it? an inquiring Christian might ask. You can’t really mean that Romans BOTH permitted it and prohibited it, do you?

But ah! That is the wrong type of question to ask Zerinus. The question should be: “What, O great master of the forked reply, should we fall for, hook, line and sinker?” Zerinus is here not to learn about Christianity (it is Apostate in his worlds-view), no, he is here to show us poor, lost remnant sheep that the Mormons got the inside scoop on how to get our own world, what to wear (that holy union suit), how much food to hoard, and (sorry girls!) every man is a priest!!!

C’mon! What are we waiting for? Let’s climb aboard the Mormon train and call all Jews, Gentiles.
I can see that you have gone right off the rails already. I am here to debate with our Catholc friends. Debate is good fun. It stimulates the mind, forces you to think logically, and makes you do research to find the answers, and helps you to learn, both about your own religion as well as of others’.

I don’t recall having started a thread in this forum. I may have, but I don’t recall it, since they have been so few (if any). I only reply to posts made by others. My responses are always appropriate to their posts. I have never initiated any conversation. The conversations have always been started by others, and I have joined in to reply to them. If people round here don’t want me to talk about Mormonism, the answer is simple, don’t start a thread on it, and don’t talk about it! I won’t if you don’t!

zerinus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top