YOU claimed that I was irrational, in denial and hadn’t posted a single verifiable fact.Guess I have to spell this out, too. The subject, as I have followed it, is the legitmacy or not of Mormonism. I restrict my allegations to that topic. Jewish anthropomorphism isn’t on the table.
YOU said that I have failed to meet my burden of proof. When challenged to prove YOUR assertion, you merely say that I don’t get it.I guess I have to spell this out. It’s a collective “you.” I.e., the LDS generally. If you, singular, do not subscribe to that allegation in the BoM, say that and I’ll apologize for making an assumpton.
I will take your lack of response as a Yes. You believe The Book of Mormon is a history of the American Aborigines translated by Joseph Smith.Are you saying:
- The Book of Mormon is a history of the American Aborigines.
- Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.
What is your motivation for posting ~400 times in a month on a Catholic website, then? People generally post here for one of two reasons. Either they are looking for answer or are looking to convince themselves that they are right. Sometimes its a combination of both. Are you here to learn about the Catholic faith or to teach us yours?That’s incorrect. I have never posted anything of a proselytizing nature. On this forum, I don’t claim that The Church of Jesus Christ is true while other denominations are not and that one should convert. I mainly post about factually based matter or post explanation about what we believe.
Snow, how can you say you are opposed to polygamy and then say that Mormon’s believe (or believed) in plural marriage? They are synonyms. here is the definition from answwers.com: “The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.” Now I stated that Joseph Smith was adulterous. This is different than polygamy in that Joseph Smith didn’t just marry multiple women. He married 10 women who were already married to his followers. This is a scriptural departure. The 6th commandment is “thou shall not commit adultery”. Jesus took it even further: in Matthew 5: 27 -28Untrue. We are and have always been opposed to polygamy. Mormons believe or believed that plural marriage was ordained of God, so unless you are claiming that the law of the land (where plural marriage was probably illegal) supersedes the law of God - you know which is not a bad argument for one who does’nt, as a matter of faith, accept the idea that God reveals his will to people, then it is not a matter of adultery. In plural marriage, the participants must be married. You said that it was a scriptural departure. There are numerous examples of polygamy in the Bible where, either no negative judgement is made or where the polygamy is approved or caused by God.
Yes God was incarnated in Jesus Christ, but that’s not what you are talking about. You are talking about God, the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth, who Jesus said was spirit. (and not embodied) When he appeared to Moses, it was from a burning bush that was not consumed, not in the body of man. So this would indicated that God was not embodied. However, we discussed this earlier in this thread. There are placed in the bible where prophets (including Moses) are said to have talked to God face to face. I can see how that can be misinterpretted by those that don’t have the benefit of the oral tradition of the church to think that this meant embodiment rather than just to mean that they engaged in conversation…That’s hardly a scriptural departure. Nothing in scripture indicates that God is not embodied. If you are Catholic, obviously you believe that God is both anthropomorphic and embodied in Jesus Christ.
Snow, according to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.,I don’t know what you are talking about. The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe, to my knowledge, that people marry or are given in marriage in heaven. We believe that such an ordinance occurs prior to heaven.
Snow, you Mormon’s are the ones who claim that a great apostacy occurred. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. We would say that this is ridiculous and that the Apostolic progression has continued form Peter through Benedict XVI as Jesus said it would under the protection of the Holy Spirit.That too is untrue. You may not believe in but that doesn’t mean that it is unsupported. Feel free to try and prove your claim however.
Well, Jesus didn’t make the Mosaic law obsolete, he fulfilled it. The mosaic law that you referred to was to make the Jewish race a chosen people, a people set apart for the incarnation. Once that event occurred, a new covenant was put in place between God and his people, now represented by the Catholic Church. This is significantly different than the Mormon belief in new, constant revelations as an example, where plural marriage is at one point okay and then later, it is rescinded,Oh please. We don’t believe that God changes his mind any more that you believe that he changes his mind when, for example, Mosaic law used to apply and now does not apply.
What is your proof that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and not just an articulate man with a good imagination and an ability to exploit the people desperate enough to follow him… What great works did he do to validate his claims…You believe, I assume, that God used to reveal his will to prophets. We believe that he didn’t stop 1900 years ago, but still does.
Even BF Roberts admitted as much as that.… Joseph Smith was a flawed prophet of God and … an articulate man with a good imagination …
There are many anachronisms, spelling and grammar errors in the original book that indicate one author who was poorly educated.Another analysis conducted by Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry, an evangelical group known for its intense opposition to and criticism of the LDS Church, performed their own brief computer study. 2 They searched through the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price and concluded that they “were all the product of one mind”, Joseph Smith.
I didn’t say anything about 1) and I specifically said 2) so I am unclear why you are asking.Are you saying:
- The Book of Mormon is a history of the American Aborigines.
- Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.
I manage a non-profit Catholic healthcare company and am in the middle of a year long formation program. I am considering a Master’s in theology at a Catholic university. I am fascinated by the richness and depth of Catholic teachings and history.Snow, I appreciate that you took the time to answer in such detail. I will give you the same respect…
What is your motivation for posting ~400 times in a month on a Catholic website, then? People generally post here for one of two reasons. Either they are looking for answer or are looking to convince themselves that they are right. Sometimes its a combination of both. Are you here to learn about the Catholic faith or to teach us yours?
Sorry - obviously I was distracted when I posted. I don’t even know what I intended to say - yes the LDS church practiced plural marriage.Snow, how can you say you are opposed to polygamy and then say that Mormon’s believe (or believed) in plural marriage? They are synonyms. here is the definition from answwers.com: “The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.”
I’d really like to see some evidence that JS committed adultery.Now I stated that Joseph Smith was adulterous. This is different than polygamy in that Joseph Smith didn’t just marry multiple women. He married 10 women who were already married to his followers. This is a scriptural departure. The 6th commandment is “thou shall not commit adultery”. Jesus took it even further: in Matthew 5: 27 -28
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. "
So you believe that God, who according to your belief is of one ontological substance - consubstantial - is both embodied and non-embodied.Yes God was incarnated in Jesus Christ, but that’s not what you are talking about. You are talking about God, the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth,
Nope - that is not what He said. Yes He said that God was spirit - remember Christ is God too - but he said nothing about whether God was not embodied.who Jesus said was spirit. (and not embodied)
There are lots of places in the Bible that talk of seeing God face to face, or seeing his body parts. Oral Tradition may interpret the Bible to mean that when someone saw God face to face, it was not face to face but Tradition doesn’t change the scriptures.When he appeared to Moses, it was from a burning bush that was not consumed, not in the body of man. So this would indicated that God was not embodied. However, we discussed this earlier in this thread. There are placed in the bible where prophets (including Moses) are said to have talked to God face to face. I can see how that can be misinterpretted by those that don’t have the benefit of the oral tradition of the church to think that this meant embodiment rather than just to mean that they engaged in conversation…
Where’s the conflict? I don’t believe that people marry or are given in marriage in heaven. That doesn’t mean that people that are sealed on earth (married) must separate once they go to heaven… The verse does not speak it it.Snow, according to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.,
Smith told one prospective wife that her submission would insure the eternal salvation of her father’s household. Furthermore, once sealed for eternity by priesthood authority, Joseph revealed that such couples would continue to procreate in the next life, becoming “enlarged” and, in effect, gods. This is in conflict with
Matt22: 29-30: Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.
Oh please. You Catholics are the ones that claim that the Catholic Church is true or that God exists or that Christ is atoned for our sins or that The Pope is approved by God, etc.Snow, you Mormon’s are the ones who claim that a great apostacy occurred. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. We would say that this is ridiculous and that the Apostolic progression has continued form Peter through Benedict XVI as Jesus said it would under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
If plural marriage is not okay now and God doesn’t change, then why did God give plural wives to David?Well, Jesus didn’t make the Mosaic law obsolete, he fulfilled it. The mosaic law that you referred to was to make the Jewish race a chosen people, a people set apart for the incarnation. Once that event occurred, a new covenant was put in place between God and his people, now represented by the Catholic Church. This is significantly different than the Mormon belief in new, constant revelations as an example, where plural marriage is at one point okay and then later, it is rescinded,
Sure I can point to things but ultimately the proof is the same that the Pope is called of God… it’s a matter of faith.What is your proof that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and not just an articulate man with a good imagination and an ability to exploit the people desperate enough to follow him… What great works did he do to validate his claims…
Joseph Smith admitted of himself that he had flaws.Even BF Roberts admitted as much as that.
And you still didn’t say anything about 1.I didn’t say anything about 1) and I specifically said 2) so I am unclear why you are asking.
-and-I’ve never phrased it or thought of it that way.And you still didn’t say anything about 1.
Could any ex-mormon answer this most difficult question for me:
Do mormons believe:
The Book of Mormon is a history of the American Aborigines translated by Joseph Smith?
-and-
Nor do I believe that - the 2nd part of your question. It seems like you are referring to a introduction that was not part of the BoM text but was used as an intro for a number of years - from about 1960 to 2006 I think.The Book of Mormon a history dating from 600BC to about 421 AD claiming the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?
It doesn’t?I
Where’s the conflict? I don’t believe that people marry or are given in marriage in heaven. That doesn’t mean that people that are sealed on earth (married) must separate once they go to heaven… The verse does not speak it it.
Who’s wife would she be in the resurrection? Jesus answered that there was no marriage in the resurrection.24Code:On that day Sadducees approached him, saying that there is no resurrection. 15 They put this question to him,
saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies 16 without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
25
Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
26
The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
27
Finally the woman died.
28
Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.”
29
So - your nothing but a simple name-calller. That’s the first and lastt refuge of those that don’t have any real rebuttal.I don’t doubt many LDS members are pleasant and well-educated people with high moral standards but at some level considering the manifest contradictions and outright lies the founder of Mormonism indulged in it becomes an insupportable system.
I still say you don’t get it. That or you’re being disingenuous. The subject I’m dealing with is the legitimacy or not of Mormonism and the claims made on its behalf. Nothing else. If you post, as a fact, your screen name is ‘Snow’ I have no comment. The topic I’m discussing is the Mormon claim that Native Americans are the descendants of ancient Hebrews. That’s one of the facts stated in the BoM and alleged by Mormons Do you believe that ‘fact’ or not? Since you’re a Mormon, I presume you do. If you don’t, say that and I will apologize to you.That’s simple name-calling because you have no legitimate rebuttal to what I post. When challenged to prove your silly claims, you said that I don’t get it.
Snow, you surprised me by this statement. My impression was that you were more in the teaching than the learning mode. Fair enough… I will try to be more attentive to the teaching aspect of it and I’m sorry that you are being pressed so hard by others.I manage a non-profit Catholic healthcare company and am in the middle of a year long formation program. I am considering a Master’s in theology at a Catholic university. I am fascinated by the richness and depth of Catholic teachings and history…
My reference is this wikipedia article on Joseph Smith’s life: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.I’d really like to see some evidence that JS committed adultery.
Do you have any?.
Well, the scriptures came from Catholic Tradition. It was verbal before it was written down and not everything was committed to paper at that point. I will grant you that without tradition, the scriptures are ambiguous. That’s the problem when you try to go on Scripture alone, you lose some of the essence of the versus that are interpretted more fully in the oral tradition.Nope - that is not what He said. Yes He said that God was spirit - remember Christ is God too - but he said nothing about whether God was not embodied.
Obviously Christ is spirit, being God. We humans also have a spirit. That does not preclude either us or God from having a body. Read the rest of the verse you are citing. As I recall it says that God is spirit (not a spirit) and that those that worship Him, worship him in spirit. Obviously we do not become disembodied to worship God.
There are lots of places in the Bible that talk of seeing God face to face, or seeing his body parts. Oral Tradition may interpret the Bible to mean that when someone saw God face to face, it was not face to face but Tradition doesn’t change the scriptures.
.
I think this was answered in a subsequent post. Jesus was dealing with exactly this question. He was asked by the sadduccees, who didn’t believe in life after death to explain who would be the husband of a woman in heaven who had 7 husbands during her life. Jesus’ answer was there were no marriages in heaven.Where’s the conflict? I don’t believe that people marry or are given in marriage in heaven. That doesn’t mean that people that are sealed on earth (married) must separate once they go to heaven… The verse does not speak it it.
You are certainly free to believe what you want. Frankly, it doesn’t make sense to me that such an Apostacy came about during the time of the apostles. This means that Jesus entrusted his message to men who were not capable of keeping its truths for even a single generation, even with the help of the Holy Spirit, which I assume you will agree descended on them at Pentacost.Oh please. You Catholics are the ones that claim that the Catholic Church is true or that God exists or that Christ is atoned for our sins or that The Pope is approved by God, etc.
You don’t have the burden of proof, it is a matter of faith. Unless you assert as demonstrable fact that God likes the Pope, you just believe - you don’t have to prove it.
I believe that there was an apostasy - loss of God’s authority. You believe there wasn’t. Both are claims. Neither can be proved.
.
You are right, the scripture doesn’t take a stand on having multiple wives, although St. Paul recommends that a biship only have one wife. What it does do is take a stand against Adultery. This was an offense in the old testament that would result in the adultress being stoned. When David was guilt of Adultery with Bathsheeba (and ultimately the murder of Uriah), the entire nation was penalized…What Joseph Smith did with the wives of his followers was clearly adultery by every definition of the word…If plural marriage is not okay now and God doesn’t change, then why did God give plural wives to David?.
Well not quite the same…in the case of the Catholic Apostolic progression, the proof is scriptural and attested by the apostolic tradition. They Apostles prooved the validity of their word through miracles and ultimately, their martyrdom.Sure I can point to things but ultimately the proof is the same that the Pope is called of God… it’s a matter of faith.
I don’t think he accused YOU of changing the truth. He was accusing the mormon church of changing its story.I think I’ve answer most every question put to me. You don’t like the answers so you FALSELY accuse me of changing truth to make it convenient.