Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons

[zaffiroborant]

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.

Well if you look to the very first posts you’ll see your initial impression appears accurate.

 

[Snow]

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.

Don’t get me wrong, I love to debate. I like a fair and honest debate. I also like frothy and angry debates. I find that the competition of it all is what works for me in learning new things.

My reference is this wikipedia article on Joseph Smith’s life: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
Of all Joseph’s innovations during the years immediately preceding his death, Richard Bushman has called his practice of plural marriage “the most disturbing” In April 1841, Smith secretly wed Louisa Beaman as a plural wife, and during the next two and a half years, he may have married about thirty additional women, ten of them already married to other men. About a third of Smith’s plural wives were teenagers, including two fourteen-year-old girls. Joseph was “a charismatic, handsome man,” and in Remini’s words, he “seemed cheerful and gracious” to all. Because many husbands and fathers knew about these plural marriages, Smith must have convinced them that "they and their families would benefit spiritually from a close tie to the Prophet."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.

As Bushman has written, Joseph surely “must have realized that plural marriage would inflict terrible damage, that he ran the risk of wrecking his marriage and alienating his followers.” And for those in the larger world, plural marriage “would confirm all their worst fears” about Mormonism. “Sexual excess was considered that all too common fruit of pretended revelation.”[109]

I’ve read his book. Heard him lecture extensively about JS and personally spoken with him about it.

I just asked for some evidence of 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.

That’s fair. If you say that you understand scripture in the context of Tradition, I’d say that we understand them in the context of modern revelation. What bothers me is when people claim that scriptures say something that they don’t, or at least aren’t explicit about.

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.

The poster gave an opinion. Though it is to long to post, here’s another opinion on the same passage:

How can there be marriage in heaven? Doesn’t that contradict the Bible? jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/love.shtml#heaven

 

[Snow]

I have to agree. I’ve asked Snow twice: Is the Book of Mormon a history of the American Aborigines translated by Joseph Smith? And twice I got a response with no answer.

As I read your post, you weren’t directly answering me and regardless, I am not required to answer every question anyone has. I typically answer all questions related to claims that I make.

On the other hand, the majority of posters here debating with me fail to answer questions relating to claims they make.

I’ve also never got answer on other threads

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4430878&postcount=278

Was my answer too subtle for you? How about none that I know of though I don’t understand why you are asking.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4430958&postcount=279

It seems to me that I’ve asked some very simple questions that shouldn’t take much effort to answer. I guess I’ll have to learn from the ex-mormons.

It’s posted in a new thread.

 

[Snow]

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.

To drag in everything you ever said on this board and say I have no rebuttal is dishonest on its face.

Settle down and tighten up your posts to avoid confusion.

Native Americans, at least some of them, in my opinion, are probably, in some way, descended from a a very small handfull of Hebrews that came to the Americas. We know from science that the land was populated with many other people as well so I can’t tell you in what way Native Americans descended from those Hebrews.

 

[Snow]

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.

You can see from verse cited on my new thread explaining my understanding of the apostasy that the NT is loaded with verses saying that some apostasy was already underway, but the complete apostasy came after 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.

I don’t view it was a matter of capability. Humans exercise free will no matter how capable someone is, people do what they are going to do.

How could this be God’s plan? He told them that he was going to protect them. Not allow them to fall into apostacy and then be rescued by Joseph Smith 1800 years later…

I think that OT, a history of man’s relationship to God, is a story of apostasy and new relationships, apostasy and new relationship. This was nothing new.

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.

He also recommended that it is better to not marry at all but the Bible clearly indicates that man and woman were designed to cleave together and be one flesh.

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.

What was Abraham’s penalty?

It’s not adultery if:

1. There’s no sex (though I don’t claim it for all JS’s plural wives), or 2. If the marriage was ordained of God - God’s will superseding man’s laws. Early Mormons believed it was ordained of God. Personally I am confused by it all.

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.

It’s proved by the “an interpretation” of the scriptures. Obviously I disagree that Christ would found his Church on a man. I believe he found it on the rock of revelation. Unfortunately man turned from God, in my opinion, and revelation dried up.

In the Case of Joseph Smith’s claims, we have nothing but his word to go on. We don’t even have the golden plates.

For the existence of God we have nothing but opinion and man’s word to go on either.

And unfortunately, his life is full of moral questions which makes his claims especially suspect.

For that matter, JS was a Saint compared to a goodly number of the Popes, yet you accept the RCC and Papacy.

 

[Stephen168]

As I read your post, you weren’t directly answering me and regardless, I am not required to answer every question anyone has.

Three responses and no answer. I would have thought a mormon would know what the book of mormon is about, especially a question which can be answered yes or no.

 

[Snow]

Three responses and no answer. I would have thought a mormon would know what the book of mormon is about, especially a question which can be answered yes or no.

Your act is getting tiring. You know full well I answered your questions so be honest. You may not like the answers but I answered them. Would you like me to count a few questions that I’ve asked that you haven’t answered?

 

[Stephen168]

Your act is getting tiring. You know full well I answered your questions so be honest. You may not like the answers but I answered them. Would you like me to count a few questions that I’ve asked that you haven’t answered?

Wow, four times.

 

[paul_c]

You can see from verse cited on my new thread explaining my understanding of the apostasy that the NT is loaded with verses saying that some apostasy was already underway, but the complete apostasy came after the apostles.

This is really the crux of the matter, so I will look at it there. if there was no apostacy, then its clear that Mormonism is a falst religion.

I don’t view it was a matter of capability. Humans exercise free will no matter how capable someone is, people do what they are going to do…

I’m glad that you recognize free will. However, we’ll discuss whether there was an actual apsotacy in your new thread.

I think that OT, a history of man’s relationship to God, is a story of apostasy and new relationships, apostasy and new relationship. This was nothing new…

yes, there was considerable apostacy in the old testament. But an apostacy in the new testament would indeed be something new.

He also recommended that it is better to not marry at all but the Bible clearly indicates that man and woman were designed to cleave together and be one flesh…

yes, except where they can stay celibate for the glory of God - hence the standard for our preisthood and religious…

What was Abraham’s penalty?
…

When did Abraham marry an already married woman?

It’s not adultery if:

1. There’s no sex (though I don’t claim it for all JS’s plural wives), or 2. If the marriage was ordained of God - God’s will superseding man’s laws. Early Mormons believed it was ordained of God. Personally I am confused by it all…

You are right to be confused by it. The sanction against adultery was not man’s law. It was written by the Hand of God as part of the ten commandments. Therefore, you have to believe that God would have changed the law he gave earlier just for the benefit of Joseph Smith. This seems impossible.

It’s proved by the “an interpretation” of the scriptures. Obviously I disagree that Christ would found his Church on a man. I believe he found it on the rock of revelation. Unfortunately man turned from God, in my opinion, and revelation dried up…

“Peter, you are rock and on this rock I will build my church”. It can’t be much clearer than that. any alternative interpretation is clearly stretching to support a position contratry to scripture.

For the existence of God we have nothing but opinion and man’s word to go on either…

This is not true. We can see God in his creation. We can see him as the maker of the physical laws such as gravity and the organization of the universe and even the creator of the Big Bang 13.7Billion years ago, where all matter was created from nothing.

For that matter, JS was a Saint compared to a goodly number of the Popes, yet you accept the RCC and Papacy.

Here’s the rub. You think of Jospeh Smith as much more than a Saint. You think of him as a wrold changer, equivalent to Abraham or Moses and maybe close to the level of Jesus Christ himself. He changed doctrines. None of the Popes changed doctrines, they were the custodians of doctrine passed to them by their predecessors and yes, some of them were personally corrupt but none of them changed doctrine…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Native Americans, at least some of them, in my opinion, are probably, in some way, descended from a a very small handfull of Hebrews that came to the Americas. We know from science that the land was populated with many other people as well so I can’t tell you in what way Native Americans descended from those Hebrews.

As with most of your opinions, there is more than enough equivocation here to discard everything you say. ‘At least some of them,’ ‘probably’ and ‘in some way’ all add up to your conclusion that you can’t tell us in what way the alleged descendancy occurred. I’ll add, you can’t say it occurred at all. The latest scientific information, which the Mormon revisionists are working on right now, says it didn’t occur at all. I believe, and most thinking, rational people believe it’s a complete fabrication. Can you prove it isn’t??

 

[Jerusha]

Native Americans, at least some of them, in my opinion, are probably, in some way, descended from a a very small handfull of Hebrews that came to the Americas. We know from science that the land was populated with many other people as well so I can’t tell you in what way Native Americans descended from those Hebrews.

Perhaps these? wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/06/53383 wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/06/53165 Sorry, their ancestors got here later.

 

[seekdatruth]

Here’s the rub. You think of Jospeh Smith as much more than a Saint. You think of him as a wrold changer, equivalent to Abraham or Moses and maybe close to the level of Jesus Christ himself. He changed doctrines. None of the Popes changed doctrines, they were the custodians of doctrine passed to them by their predecessors and yes, some of them were personally corrupt but none of them changed doctrine…

:clapping:
Bravo! And, as I have seen in the homes of LDS members here, a big picture of Joseph Smith is up on the wall either right next to Christ, in equal size or BIGGER! Sometimes, you’re hard-pressed to find JC at all among the pictures of the SLC Temple and such.
So again about the threat of Catholics being converted is serious or not, I say to you “KNOW THINE ENEMY!” In this town, you must convert or be shunned, restricted from public office, children persecuted and excluded because they are considered immoral abominations based solely on religious denomination and race. Our parish is overflowing with immigrants from Mexico because apparently, they are not welcome in the LDS church, but yet, I’ve lost a few white friends to them. And yes, you DO loose a friend in this instance, because now you are unworthy for them to associate with. My husband’s family started shunning us to a point, since I"ve told them I’m going to baptize my kids in the CC, not the LDS church. It seems like they are planning to not show up for my daughter’s b-day party even. They are pretty mad at me over this.
We’re getting a brand new Temple here. There are about 5 LDS meeting houses I know of in town, 3 stake houses too. Then there’s our one little parish and a couple of missions. The pop of LDS is around 2000 and the pop of Catholic 3000, butwe do not hold the keys to the city here, the LDS do.
I’m concerned because my parish priest has said some things which are very pro-LDS and almost seems to kind of want us to start going to them because he is over-burdened with parishioners. This alarms me. He hasn’t been here long enough to fully understand what’s going on, I think. When I talked to him about my childrens’ baptisms and it being in conflict with my in-laws wishes, he asked me, “What’s so bad about them anyways?” Does he want me to go to them instead? He wants my husband’s permission to proceed, but fortunately, he doesn’t mind now that I’ve explained he will not have conversion forced on him. What if he hadn’t consented? Would I be turned away?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

:I’m concerned because my parish priest has said some things which are very pro-LDS and almost seems to kind of want us to start going to them because he is over-burdened with parishioners. This alarms me. He hasn’t been here long enough to fully understand what’s going on, I think.

I suggest you talk to your bishop about this priest and get him on the right road before it’s too late. Some priests are such gentle, loving people they are easily intimidated and easily swayed. Do not let him waver!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Much more proof for plagiarism of the KJV than that, whole passages taken from Isaiah and copied, word for word, to the BoM.

Either pre-Columbian people spoke in Shakespearean English, or Smith did. Or from the Mormon POV, where God is doing the translating, God translated something from a made up language of reformed Egyptian, to Shakespearean English.

:ehh:

Further, the LDS Church has taught the the early middle English usage of thee, thou, thy, etc…is a sacred language, and the only respectful way to address God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

History has become a belief system for the LDS. They discount historical fact as belief (or opinion) and they take their beliefs and try their hardest to get them presentable as historical facts.

 

[mfbukowski]

Oh come on, now!!! Your posts have been nothing but irratioinal claims and obstinate denial. You have stated no facts and certainly no history since Mormons cannot backup a single thing they have alleged with a single verifiable fact.

Hey how’s that oxygen mask for Mary doin? Irrational claims?

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

O-X-Y-G-E-N

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

Let’s restrict the claims of the legitimacy of the catholic church to the eucharist. Papal succession isn’t on the table.

 

[mfbukowski]

Jewish anthropomorphism is easy…paganism, which the Hebrews were quite infected with. What Mormonism ignores is that God has revealed quite clearly the Truth, of ONE God. Mormonism keeps trying to reinsert paganism, in the form of henotheism.

Gotta watch those big words around here becca

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

The history of the Book of Mormon dates from 600BC to about 421 AD and claims the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews.

Not so.