Discourse with Mormons

[Stylteralmaldo]

TOmNossor:

You will respond that this was foreordained. It was part of the plan. I say the same of the apostasy.

Charity, TOm

Interesting spin. I’ll give you points for trying ( ).

I had the opportunity to read parts of the book of Mormon. I recall reading an introduction on how Joseph Smith supposedly met an angel of God and was instructed to do certain things or be destroyed. When I read that I thought that was odd coming from a messanger of God.

Maybe you could explain the demanding nature of this encounter that struck fear into Joseph Smith. This is certainly not the God I know. Contrast this with the virgin Mary’s encounter with the Angel Gabriel. Gabriel did not say “you will have the Christ child or you will be destroyed”.

Thanks TOm for your insights.

Quote (Joseph Smith):

Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it.

 

[dutch]

TOm,

Why did Joseph Smith have at least 27 wives and why were 11 of them married?

wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

dutch:

TOm,

I happen to be dark-skinned. I know your religion teaches that I’ve been cursed because of my dark skin…

dutch, I found this web site on dark-skinned LDS:

angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/000H4.html

TOm, any way to refute the claims posed by this dark-skinned LDS web site?

It sounds like the site says that racism is wrong but that the “mark of Cain” remains per LDS teaching.

 

[Calvin]

Stylteralmaldo:

dutch, I found this web site on dark-skinned LDS:

angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/000H4.html

TOm, any way to refute the claims posed by this dark-skinned LDS web site?

It sounds like the site says that racism is wrong but that the “mark of Cain” remains per LDS teaching.

In fairness to my Mormon friends, my mother told me the “mark of Cain” was black skin after I said I wanted to marry a black girl I knew when I was about 7 years old. (This was Los Angeles California in the early 1980s.) She was not Mormon and we belonged to a “mainstream” Protestant denomination with several hundred thousand members.

The “mark of Cain” interpretation became popular in the time leading up to the Civil War. (There was an entire book written on the history of that interpretation in pre-war South a couple of years ago.) I don’t know if it was in Catholic circles, but it was common in Protestant groups.

Yet another reason to be skeptical about sola scriptura.

-C

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Calvin:

In fairness to my Mormon friends…

…The “mark of Cain” interpretation became popular in the time leading up to the Civil War…

-C

I think LDS was founded in 1830 which would be the period leading up to the civil war.

In fairness to TOm, I’m not accusing LDS of anything, just looking for a rebuttal from information that is out there.

One of my best friends is LDS and he is a rarity in LDS circles: he’s African-American. He used to comment to me that he and is brother would have a contest as to who could find the most black people in Salt Lake City.

 

[Calvin]

Stylteralmaldo:

I think LDS was founded in 1830 which would be the period leading up to the civil war.

In fairness to TOm, I’m not accusing LDS of anything, just looking for a rebuttal from information that is out there.

One of my best friends is LDS and he is a rarity in LDS circles: he’s African-American. He used to comment to me that he and is brother would have a contest as to who could find the most black people in Salt Lake City.

rod of iron on the “Book of Mormon a Fraud?” thread actually defended the Mormon idea that black skin is a curse from God. I asked him how he could be so sure that Adam and Eve weren’t black and white skin was the curse.

… still no response.

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

Stylteralmaldo:

Interesting spin. I’ll give you points for trying ( ).

It is not actually completely my idea. I hope the book Vox Dei, Vox Populi will actually be done later this year and I will be able to read it and share some of its ideas.

The premise of the author and the one that make the most sense to me, is that the Bride of Christ was to die (apostasy) and be resurrected (restoration) just as Christ was.

Stylteralmaldo:
I had the opportunity to read parts of the book of Mormon. I recall reading an introduction on how Joseph Smith supposedly met an angel of God and was instructed to do certain things or be destroyed. When I read that I thought that was odd coming from a messanger of God.

Maybe you could explain the demanding nature of this encounter that struck fear into Joseph Smith. This is certainly not the God I know. Contrast this with the virgin Mary’s encounter with the Angel Gabriel. Gabriel did not say “you will have the Christ child or you will be destroyed”.

Well, I guess I cannot say for sure. The physical presence of the gold plates become something that witnesses attested too. This became part of the indicators of the validity of the BOM. Unlike the Virgin Mary saying no, it would seem that were Joseph Smith to decide to share the BOM plates for monetary prophet or additional credibility, it would thwart the plan of God.

Had Mary said no she would not have been in the same interesting position as Joseph Smith had he decided to utilize the BOM plates for his own benefit.

I believe God is outside of time. He interacts as necessary with us to bring to pass His plans. Perhaps the stronger words were necessary to quell the young boys desire for wealth?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm (my opinions) on Polygamy and Black Skin:

I am less comfortable with the priesthood ban than I am with the polygamy issue. So I will deal with it first.

Statements from the BOM and the Bible have been used to suggest that black skin is a curse. There clearly have been LDS prophets (perhaps not Joseph Smith) who taught that Black Skin was a curse from God. It is likely that some of these LDS prophets had views that at least bordered upon racism (and probably were racist). The priesthood ban was part of LDS practice for many years.

This article says what I say, “I do not know.”

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2002OlsR.html

My view on the priesthood ban traverse a spectrum from it was all a big mistake to there was some unknown God conceived plan associated with it.

In support of the first is the fact that the D&C does not clarify that the ban was to exist. It seems the Joseph Smith was unaware of the ban. And I do not recognize any man as infallible.

In support of the unknown plan is the fact that Jews were a chosen people. The Levites were the only group able to hold the priesthood. And the General Authorities are responsible for the authoritative interpretation of LDS scripture.

Beyond the above, I am thankful that this practice was long gone before I joined the church.

On to Polygamy:

I believe that God commanded polygamy. I believe there are some truths and some falsities in the claims of wife stealing by Joseph Smith. There may one day be evidence that Joseph Smith was the father of other children through polygamous relations (and one of the 2-5 or so woman who may have mothered a child from relations with Joseph was one of the woman who was married), but it is curiously absent today. It is clear that many folks were sealed to the Prophet before and after death in some kind of (in my opinion misconceived) linkage with God’s prophet and the post mortal benefits associated with this.

Any truth to the claim that Joseph Smith took other men’s wives, denying these men the ability to have mortal marriage relations with their wives (or involving these woman in the practice of earthly polyandry) I would either attribute to something I totally do not understand or to errors on the part of Joseph Smith. Any truth to the claim that Joseph Smith took other men’s wives, denying these men the ability to have post-mortal marriage relations with them I generally attribute to something I do not understand (because I can see no reason a man would do this who was perpetrating a fraud).

As with the priesthood ban, I am thankful that this practice was long gone before I joined the church.

Charity, TOm

 

[Katholikos]

dutch:

TOm,

I happen to be dark-skinned. I know your religion teaches that I’ve been cursed because of my dark skin. Joseph Smith besides being a liar was a racist. Calling Joseph Smith a polygamist is an understatement -he had 27 wives!!! But I guess that’s ok as long as you’re racist, and an adulterer and you don’t drink caffeine.

Here is a link about that forgery of the book of abraham: carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm

By the way, I use the book of Mormon to blow my nose. That’s about all it is good for.

 

[Katholikos]

Calvin:

rod of iron on the “Book of Mormon a Fraud?” thread actually defended the Mormon idea that black skin is a curse from God. I asked him how he could be so sure that Adam and Eve weren’t black and white skin was the curse.

… still no response.

-C

You got it, Calvin. We all have a common mother and father, we are all out of Africa, and we all were black skinned before the migrations of mankind began.

It’s a question of the amount of melanin one has. Those who live near the equator have more. Those who live far from the equator have less.

There is no such thing as “race.” There is only one race, the human race. The differences are environmentally caused. There are many ethnic groups, but no races.

Joseph Smith was a racist in the extreme. He taught it in the religion he invented, making God into a racist.

Pax et bonum, Jay

 

[Katholikos]

I attempted to reply to a post by Dutch, but failed due to my incompetence with the computer.

Right, Dutch, no amount of logic will dissuade a man who believes he can become a god and rule over his own universe – and one must be a card-carrying, prophet-believing, tithing, temple-recommended, sealed-to-your-wife-for-time-and-eternity Mormon to achieve this promised “exaltation.”

Joseph Smith Jun. had 49 documented wives, at least twelve of them with living husbands. He may have had as many as 66 or 67 actual wives, and 149 other women were “sealed” to him after his death. See No Man Knows My History, The Life of Joseph Smith, pp. 335-36.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

TOmNossor:

…I do not recognize any man as infallible.

…the General Authorities are responsible for the authoritative interpretation of LDS scripture.

From the Black Mormon web site:

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes the President of the Church, and his two Counsellors (who are also Apostles). They are the Senior Apostles in the Church. The President of the Church is considered a “Living Prophet” who communicates with the LORD Jesus Christ often; in the “Upper Room” in the Salt Lake Temple. The three together are the highest quorum (council) in the Church, and they, as a body, direct the Church. Whenever they speak as one voice it is the official policy of the Church. Their official statements and actions are the official policies of the Church, and binding upon all Latter-day Saints.

If the First Presidency is fallible, why should you be bound by their official statements?

Thanks.

 

[Katholikos]

TOmNossor:

I

On to Polygamy:

I believe that God commanded polygamy. I believe there are some truths and some falsities in the claims of wife stealing by Joseph Smith. There may one day be evidence that Joseph Smith was the father of other children through polygamous relations (and one of the 2-5 or so woman who may have mothered a child from relations with Joseph was one of the woman who was married), but it is curiously absent today. It is clear that many folks were sealed to the Prophet before and after death in some kind of (in my opinion misconceived) linkage with God’s prophet and the post mortal benefits associated with this.

Any truth to the claim that Joseph Smith took other men’s wives, denying these men the ability to have mortal marriage relations with their wives (or involving these woman in the practice of earthly polyandry) I would either attribute to something I totally do not understand or to errors on the part of Joseph Smith. Any truth to the claim that Joseph Smith took other men’s wives, denying these men the ability to have post-mortal marriage relations with them I generally attribute to something I do not understand (because I can see no reason a man would do this who was perpetrating a fraud).
Charity, TOm

Monogamy = one husband, one wife
**Bigamy **= one husband, two wives
Polygyny = one husband, two or more wives
Polyandry = one wife, more than one husband

Polygamy = any form of plural marriage (includes bigamy, polygyny, polyandry)

Fact: Joseph Smith had 49 documented wives, at least twelve of them had husbands living at the time they were “married” to Smith.

Fact: Polygyny is a doctrine of the LDS Church. It is written into the LDS “scriptures.” It was suspended as a condition of Utah’s statehood, but in no way has it been abrogated. If it has, show me the documentation.

JMJ Jay

 

[rod_of_iron]

Katholikos:

Fact: Joseph Smith had 49 documented wives, at least twelve of them had husbands living at the time they were “married” to Smith.

Fact? These alleged wives are documented? Are you saying that you have found 49 official marriage licenses linking these 49 women to Joseph Smith? I hardly think so.

 

[Katholikos]

From the Black Mormon web site:

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes the President of the Church, and his two Counsellors (who are also Apostles). They are the Senior Apostles in the Church. The President of the Church is considered a “Living Prophet” who communicates with the LORD Jesus Christ often; in the “Upper Room” in the Salt Lake Temple. The three together are the highest quorum (council) in the Church, and they, as a body, direct the Church. Whenever they speak as one voice it is the official policy of the Church. Their official statements and actions are the official policies of the Church, and binding upon all Latter-day Saints.

If the First Presidency is fallible, why should you be bound by their official statements?

Thanks.

Steve Benson, whose grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, was President of the LDS church, and who allegedly “communicated with the Lord Jesus Christ in the ‘Upper Room’ in the Salt Lake Temple” left Mormonism because he said the Mormon religion is a fraud. He may or may not be an atheist – I don’t know. That’s a separate subject from his own “up close and personal” assessment that the Mormon religion is a fraud.

Steve, graduate of BYU, knows Mormonism better than you do, TOm. His own grandfather ‘talked to Jesus Christ.’ He lived it, studied it, was married in the temple, and was raising his kids Mormon. And he came to the conclusion that it was a fraud. He said his own grandfather was part of this massive fraud, and Joseph Smith was the perpetrator of that fraud. That conclusion can’t be dismissed without careful investigation and evaluation. Steve certainly benefitted from his grandfather being the #1 guy in Mormonism. What was his motivation for leaving, if not that he sincerely believed it to be a fraud?

JMJ Jay

 

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

Steve, graduate of BYU, knows Mormonism better than you do, TOm. His own grandfather ‘talked to Jesus Christ.’ He lived it, studied it, was married in the temple, and was raising his kids Mormon. And he came to the conclusion that it was a fraud. He said his own grandfather was part of this massive fraud, and Joseph Smith was the perpetrator of that fraud. That conclusion can’t be dismissed without careful investigation and evaluation. Steve certainly benefitted from his grandfather being the #1 guy in Mormonism. What was his motivation for leaving, if not that he sincerely believed it to be a fraud?

I have no reason to doubt that Steve Benson sincerely believed Mormonism to be a fraud. I have read a great deal written by him.

I do however reject your statement that he knows more about Mormonism than I do. You may try to prove this if you wish.

I also know that Steve Benson does not know more about me than I do. He rejected a number of things that I also reject, but he chose to reject all. I do not.

Steve Benson surely is an atheist. I assure you Steve Benson sees contradictions in Catholicism that demand that the Catholic Church is hopelessly flawed and cannot possible have God at its head.

Steve Benson is/was consistent in the type of thinking he applied to his post Mormonism investigation. He saw inconsistency and problems with the CoJCoLDS. He left. He analyzed the religious landscape he found himself in and saw the same type of problems and he left. I would encourage anyone who spreads anti-Mormon material to think about this. To think as an anti-Mormon would have a LDS think is to reject all religion.

To paraphrase what I saw an anti-Mormon atheist say fairly recently, “Now that you have rejected Mormonism why not continue the thinking and reject all religion.”

There is great consistency in these words.

Have you seen a Catholic so bothered by anti-Catholic material that they became a protestant? Once a protestant they did not worry about the inconstancies associated with lack of authority, following initial but not latter councils, new doctrine invented by the reformist never believed before, … Fortunately, this is the common path of the ex-Catholic. They leave Catholicism and in the free flowing winds of doctrine that is Protestantism they seldom find enough stable ground to test the foundations. Fortunately, some ex-Mormons also find themselves here (or in Catholicism which is a slightly different story), but many LDS who learned to think like anti-Mormons walk the Steve Benson path. If you cannot tolerate blatant contradictions in need of great explanation, if you cannot accept at least some things on faith, if …; you will either be an ignorant (not to be construed as negative) believer in that you do not know the landscape you play in (never tested the foundation), or you will be an atheist.

You may protest and say that Catholicism is not this religion with “blatant contradictions in need of great explanation,” but I think you would be quite mistaken.

You may protest that the problems with Catholicism are much smaller than the problems with the CoJCoLDS. I am not sure I would agree with this, but in any case it would still be a matter of degree.

If you expect me to not consider you foolish for embracing a papal infallibility that has been so carefully defined that it allows for heretical Popes and infallible papal statements, how can you choose to consider me foolish for embracing the words of the first latter day prophet who clearly said, “A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stylteralmaldo:

If the First Presidency is fallible, why should you be bound by their official statements?

Thanks.

Because I sustain them and I believe they are honest good men who communicate with God. I will do as I am counseled (praying for guidance from God constantly. And specifically if necessary). I will make place for the teachings of the general authorities as I understand them.

However, I will recognize that I am responsible for my relationship with God.

Like the Catholic Church we are a community of believers. Our community faith lifts up every member. Our community service serves every member (and non-member too). Our community need provides opportunity for service from every member. But salvation is a personal subordination of ones will to the will of God. I cannot serve that into my neighbor and my neighbor cannot serve that into me. I will always seek to know and do the will of God. This is my most common and fervent prayer and I see no chance that will ever change.

I have little trouble following a non-infallible prophet. Never in my life has the prophet had guidance for me that I felt was something light and truth demanded I reject. I suspect it is unlikely this will happen, but my eyes will continue to try to see God’s will even if it is through the glass darkly.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Thanks TOm for your responses.

It does seem clear that there is a common thread between Catholicism and LDS: They both claim to teach inerrant doctrine. This seems particularly true when you consider that LDS is bound to the teaching as it comes from the First Presidency.

Based on your comments regarding the priesthood ban, you seem to have yet to fully accept all of LDS teaching (your comment was “I do not know”). Perhaps you’re still searching in some regards.

I suppose I am biased, but I pray you will see the truth of the Catholic Church someday. I don’t expect this to happen overnight, but someday I hope you will see this. I recken you feel the same way about the many Catholics you have encountered here.

Take care and may God bless you.

 

[debi]

I have been reading over this and other threads concerning Mormans because one of my son’s friends family is Morman and I have been very impressed with their set of values. I wanted to learn more about what they believe. I live in a small town and there are few Mormans here.

I must admit I am also impressed with the knowledge that people have of their own faiths. I have studied my Catholic faith but could never get into such a deep apologetic discussion (sometimes arguement) and make any sense.

One of the things that seem to make many of us more adament about the errors of Mormanism is that they are so involved with their church and their families. This is very appealing to us as we struggle to raise our families. They LIVE their faith as we often float through ours. You may tell me to speak for myself, but it seems sometimes that I am like a salmon swimming upstream when it comes to finding others who are willing or trying to raise children and live in a Christ like manner. The real world is too tempting, and our egos and need to feed them too great.

I live near an Amish community and they, although also in my eyes misled, live the more ideal life when it comes to family and community. This is an extreme way of life, but it does have a certain appeal when one is searching for a way to get closer to God’s plan for us.

I hope that the discussions become more Christlike, and that everyone reading them will come closer to the Truth and learn to live out that Truth.
Blessings

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

I have a question about Mormon eternal marriage. Most prominently, what is it? Christ clearly debunks this myth in the Gospels with the hypothetical situation given to him by Jewish elders about the woman with seven husbands, none of whom gave her any children. Then, in Ephesians, St. Paul speaks of marriage and the mystery, and how it is an analogy of Christ’s love of His Church. Finally, in Revalation, the First Marriage of Adam and Eve is linked to the final Marriage of the Bridegroom, Christ, and His Bride, the Church.

Catholics firmly believe that marriage is a sacrament, in other words, a gift from Jesus Christ. When we engage in sacraments, we glimpse the Glory of God in Heaven. But after we die, we are either in Heaven (or soon to be) or not, so there is no need for marrige of a man and wife anymore (there is no more need of an analogy of Heaven), for we are all (those in Heaven) married to Christ for all eternity.

This is something that no one has brought up yet, but, as I see it (and as Jesus taught) “eternal marriage” of man and wife is non-existent.

BTW, if eternal marriage does exist (I’ll play a Biblical Jewish Elder) who would a Mormon polygamist be married to in heaven? All of his wives? His favorite wife? None?

I am with Stylteralmaldo. I will continue to pray for all LDS and hope that by the Power of the Holy Spirit, He will guide them to His One, True Church.