Catholic and Mormon Theodicy

[ParkerD]

I know this may sound hopelessly simple, but does everything in Mormonism boil down to being about Man and what Man can do? Make God into a Man? So that God is easy to understand? Is that what Mormonism is all about? I don’t get it.

These are profound questions. If your question is “how limitless is Man in the universe?” then the answer is “as limitless as a person allows themselves to be as they move on a path of change, change, change through following Christ, who truly did condescend to come to earth to show the way toward what mankind can become.”

Yet He is the Son of God, Immanuel Who came to earth completely unlike us in His perfection and glory, so we may be tempted to ask all along the way, “Does He really believe in me in that way–does He really think I have the capability to follow Him and make the changes necessary to become perfect in every way, so that I can really love as He loves, have compassion as He does, and have the kind of faith that can move mountains as He does?”

The answer is “Yes, He does believe in all of us in that way.”

But all along the way, there will be those many who will say, “It is not possible. It is not meant to be.”

That is part of the tempering process, and the test of faith so the faith and the assurance of “things not seen” grow through resistance.

Jesus says, in effect, that we should “trust in Him.” If we trust in ourselves, or any person among us, we won’t have the kind of faith and assurance necessary for the kinds of change He asks us to make. We will think “it is simply not possible to make those kinds of changes. A mortal person needs to be content with where they are at–with their station in life, and wait for their reward in the next life.”

I see that as a profound difference. For me, this life is not about “waiting around.” It’s about change, change, change–every day. Call that “works” or call that “faith”–I call that “repentance” and “growth through Christ.”

 

[why_me]

Reading the Fawn Brodie book it seems Joe came up with “revelations” whenever he needed them. Also getting in a fight with this brother and his brother calling him a false prophet.

If someone is not a believer that would be the logical conclusion that JS came up with the revelations. However, I see no proof that hyrum called his brother a false prophet. However I did find this:

lightplanet.com/mormons/people/hyrum_smith.html

Hyrum and his first wife, Jerusha, had four daughters and two sons. After Jerusha’s death, he married Mary Fielding in 1837, and she bore him a son and a daughter. When Joseph Smith introduced plural marriage to him, Hyrum at first opposed the idea, but when converted to the principle, he became one of its staunchest advocates.

Many of Hyrum’s descendants have played significant roles in Church history. A son, Joseph F. Smith, became the sixth President of the Church, and a grandson, Joseph Fielding Smith, became the tenth President. Four of the six Patriarchs to the Church since 1845 have been descendants of Hyrum Smith.

Obviously Hyrum did not think his brother a false prophet since he faced death with him.

 

[why_me]

And this is where Mormonism redefines the purpose of Jesus; if man’s nature is essentially good and there’s no original sin, you have to realign the role of a savior.

Not exactly, but if a child dies at an early age, mormons consider that child in the celestial kingdom and not in limbo. In other words, that child was blessed and did not have to experience the opposites that we have to experience and the trials.

 

[SirThomasMore]

If someone is not a believer that would be the logical conclusion that JS came up with the revelations. However, I see no proof that hyrum called his brother a false prophet. However I did find this:

lightplanet.com/mormons/people/hyrum_smith.html

Hyrum and his first wife, Jerusha, had four daughters and two sons. After Jerusha’s death, he married Mary Fielding in 1837, and she bore him a son and a daughter. When Joseph Smith introduced plural marriage to him, Hyrum at first opposed the idea, but when converted to the principle, he became one of its staunchest advocates.

Many of Hyrum’s descendants have played significant roles in Church history. A son, Joseph F. Smith, became the sixth President of the Church, and a grandson, Joseph Fielding Smith, became the tenth President. Four of the six Patriarchs to the Church since 1845 have been descendants of Hyrum Smith.

Obviously Hyrum did not think his brother a false prophet since he faced death with him.

Does not matter what Hyrum thought. People died for Mohammed, it means nothing. And Hyrum did not plan on dying. His brother, thru his ego, killed him.

 

[Returning_Home]

I know this may sound hopelessly simple, but does everything in Mormonism boil down to being about Man and what Man can do? Make God into a Man? So that God is easy to understand? Is that what Mormonism is all about? I don’t get it.

Basically, when Joseph Smith decided to be a prophet, he wrote the BOM from a more-or-less Protestant point of view, plagiarizing the BOM to do so.

As time went on, he started to teach things that go against both the Bible and the BOM because he actually started to believe his own lies. This is where the notions of eternal progression, God as once a man, and that the members of the Trinity are all separate and distinct.

Mormonism redefines the nature of man, making him essentially good. This is because of their concept of the premortal existance, in which only the valiant souls are slated to get physical bodies, the souls that fought on the side of God during the war in Heaven.

Thus, this makes the real Jesus an awkward fit in the entire LDS scheme of things but as long as Mormons (men specifically) are faithful and pay some lipservice to the polygamous jesus (small j), they can become gods and get their own planet of people to destroy any way they choose. The required works are baptism, geneology, mission work (where applicable), holding a temple recommend, baptisms for the dead, and so forth.

What didn’t you see there?

Jesus!

 

[Returning_Home]

Not exactly, but if a child dies at an early age, mormons consider that child in the celestial kingdom and not in limbo. In other words, that child was blessed and did not have to experience the opposites that we have to experience and the trials.

This response isn’t relevent to the point I made, the redefinition of the role of the savior.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Any my two plus years in the LDS church I’ve never heard 1 Corinthians 7 quoted:

7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

And in simpler language:

Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me—a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Have any LDS members admitted on this forum that God wants all people on earth to be married?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Have any LDS members admitted on this forum that God wants all people on earth to be married?

I’ve never seen that.

I do have personal friends that would agree with you that singles are not well-received in Mormon congregations. There’s just no place for them, at least that was the experience of people I know.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

I’ve never seen that.

I do have personal friends that would agree with you that singles are not well-received in Mormon congregations. There’s just no place for them, at least that was the experience of people I know.

An LDS member told me God wants everyone to be married. Another one told me our purpose on earth is to have babies.

 

[MelanieAnne]

An LDS member told me God wants everyone to be married. Another one told me our purpose on earth is to have babies.

That’s certainly not Biblical. According to the Bible we all have different paths and our job is to pursue that path the right way. Now we do see in the Bible that we should “be fruitful and multiply”.

I find it amazing, actually, that anyone could assert that they know what God wants. That seems rather arrogant to me.

 

[ParkerD]

Any my two plus years in the LDS church I’ve never heard 1 Corinthians 7 quoted:

7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

And in simpler language:

Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me—a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.

TikiTokiguy,

Paul wasn’t writing that he had never been married. He was talking primarily about widows and widowers or those whose spouse had left them because of unbelief not remarrying, but he also said he was giving his opinion about these things.

 

[ParkerD]

An LDS member told me God wants everyone to be married. Another one told me our purpose on earth is to have babies.

Genesis 1 and 2 has pretty direct language about these subjects, and the Savior quoted from those teachings and commandments. It wasn’t a case of, “It’d sure be nice if you would find a spouse and marry and have children.”

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Genesis 1 and 2 has pretty direct language about these subjects, and the Savior quoted from those teachings and commandments. It wasn’t a case of, “It’d sure be nice if you would find a spouse and marry and have children.”

So you admit it’s tough being a single in the “True” church? You admit singles with no children are not doing what God wants them to do? How oh how can this be the “true” church then?

 

[zaffiroborant]

TikiTokiguy,

Paul wasn’t writing that he had never been married. He was talking primarily about widows and widowers or those whose spouse had left them because of unbelief not remarrying, but he also said he was giving his opinion about these things.

He doesn’t seem to be talking primarily about widows and widowers since “the unmarried” is referred to specifically.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Genesis 1 and 2 has pretty direct language about these subjects, and the Savior quoted from those teachings and commandments. It wasn’t a case of, “It’d sure be nice if you would find a spouse and marry and have children.”

And we know you are hoping that particularly goes for the next life populating your planet .

 

[ParkerD]

So you admit it’s tough being a single in the “True” church? You admit singles with no children are not doing what God wants them to do? How oh how can this be the “true” church then?

If you’re asking if the LDS church emphasizes marriage and families and that happiness thrives through marriage and families, then that is true. Guess what? Sociologists and statistics about longevity agree with that.

Men who choose to be single have a statistical probability of not living as long or being as “happy” as a married man–in country after country.

Women in the LDS church are encouraged to be nurturers of children, whether it be through their relatives or through children in their communities, and have examples of single women who have not married (not of their own choice in life) and are nurturers of children.

If you’re asking if LDS young adults have a “ward” to attend with other young single adults and have firesides and activities for young single adults with one of the intents of hoping that some will find a compatible “someone” with whom they feel attracted and later marry, then yes, that happens and three of my children attend such a “Young Adult ward”.

 

[ParkerD]

He doesn’t seem to be talking primarily about widows and widowers since “the unmarried” is referred to specifically.

Zaffiroborant,
I assume you are referring to verse 8. One can try to figure out the original Greek to figure out Paul’s real meaning in that verse. There are Greek-English translations online that show how the Greek comes over into a literal English translation. Here is one (if the pasting works):

biblos.com/1_corinthians/7-8.htm

Here is a copy of the text there:

Λέγω legō 3004 V-PAI-1S I say
δὲ de 1161 CONJ therefore
τοῖς tois 3588 T-DPM to
ἀγάμοις agamois 22 N-DPM unmarried
καὶ kai 2532 CONJ even
ταῖς tais 3588 T-DPF the
χήραις chērais 5503 N-DPF widows
καλὸν kalon 2570 A-NSN good
αὐτοῖς autois 846 P-DPM for them
ἐὰν ean 1437 COND if
μείνωσιν meinōsin 3306 V-AAS-3P they remain
ὡς ōs 5613 ADV as
καγώ kagō 2504 P-1NS-C I even

If you look at the far right, you will see the English translation from the Greek.

“Unmarried” is a general term, then Paul moves into his specific meaning when he writes the words that translate to “even the widows”.

The original meaning could be translated effectively as “unmarried who are widows” or as “unmarried specifically those who are widows” to get at the real meaning intended by Paul and brought into English usage that would be commonly understood.

The original meaning should definitely not have included the word “and” between the word “unmarried” and the word “widows”. The inclusion of the word “and” changes the entire meaning of verse 8.

Have a good day, Zaffiroborant (and wishing that for all readers).

 

[TikiTokiguy]

If you’re asking if the LDS church emphasizes marriage and families and that happiness thrives through marriage and families, then that is true. Guess what? Sociologists and statistics about longevity agree with that.

But you didn’t answer my question about how tough it is being single in the church and if this is the case how can it be the “True” church? I will not say they have no use for single grown (over 30) adults, but there is almost that feeling. They really need to change the name of the church to “The Church of Joseph Smith for Marriage.” It’s like one of those couples resorts in the Caribbean - for couples.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
I assume you are referring to verse 8. One can try to figure out the original Greek to figure out Paul’s real meaning in that verse. There are Greek-English translations online that show how the Greek comes over into a literal English translation. Here is one (if the pasting works):

biblos.com/1_corinthians/7-8.htm

Here is a copy of the text there:

Λέγω legō 3004 V-PAI-1S I say
δὲ de 1161 CONJ therefore
τοῖς tois 3588 T-DPM to
ἀγάμοις agamois 22 N-DPM unmarried
καὶ kai 2532 CONJ even
ταῖς tais 3588 T-DPF the
χήραις chērais 5503 N-DPF widows
καλὸν kalon 2570 A-NSN good
αὐτοῖς autois 846 P-DPM for them
ἐὰν ean 1437 COND if
μείνωσιν meinōsin 3306 V-AAS-3P they remain
ὡς ōs 5613 ADV as
καγώ kagō 2504 P-1NS-C I even

If you look at the far right, you will see the English translation from the Greek.

“Unmarried” is a general term, then Paul moves into his specific meaning when he writes the words that translate to “even the widows”.

The original meaning could be translated effectively as “unmarried who are widows” or as “unmarried specifically those who are widows” to get at the real meaning intended by Paul and brought into English usage that would be commonly understood.

The original meaning should definitely not have included the word “and” between the word “unmarried” and the word “widows”. The inclusion of the word “and” changes the entire meaning of verse 8.

Have a good day, Zaffiroborant (and wishing that for all readers).

But the word even doesn’t mean “who are” or “specifically those who are”, so I don’t see your meaning here even when you change “and” to “even”.