Do Mormons believe that God was once a man?

[Allweather]

I don’t advocate any side using derogatory statements and accusations. My judgement is no different for him than it is for any other person of any faith. Deal with him as you wish. That’s your perogative. I would suggest an alternative route of kindness and/or ignoring if you dislike what he says.

I’m not in favor of ignoring. That is the Mormon tactic. If you spend a few days browsing these threads you will see the Mormons over and over again threaten to ignore, and then put ignore into practice. It doesn’t make any sense to me to go to a place of debate, and then ignore. This isn’t the kitchen table, where the husband ignores his wife or children. People purposely come here to engage in religious argument. If they are going to ignore, then one has to wonder why they are here at all. Could it be that they are selling religion and do not have time to waste on people who are not buying?

Well, my way of dealing with such a person is to kindly and respectfully say “no thanks” and walk away. How do you deal with them? Tell them to go to hades and have a terrible life?

Again, this computer/internet forum is a place where people deliberately come to argue. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all to ignore. In real personal life, why, yes, I think it DOES make sense to ignore people for some good reasons, to say “no thanks” and walk away. But here, we always seem to have a small coterie of Mormon evangelizers whose profession it is to sell their false religion. Wolves among the sheep, so to speak. Not suggesting that there are many sheep here, but you understand that there are lurkers who wouldn’t think to post themselves, but nevertheless do read extensively. We owe it to them to present the full story, not just the lovey-dovey story of happy Mormon women watching their husbands sleep with 15 or 20 other women, under command of Almighty God.

 

[Fa_Chan]

I agree, but I DO see them step in from time to time. I see the realtively hands-off approach as a strength, rather than as a weakness, as you apparently do. The CA forums are immensely successful, and in spite of some spirited argument, have not IMO disintegrated into name-calling, as others have.

This is also a matter of style and an overall view of argument. You apparently are very involved in “managing” your forum. There’s nothing wrong with that; it is a perfectly valid way to go. For people who can’t take heated argument, that is a better place to hang out.

It is a matter of style, but for us it’s more than that. The Admin created the forum as a healing tool and place for each member to share their faith and actually learn from each other. We do have debating subforums and they get heated, but as long as people are respectful they are allowed to share their views. Obviously, this is a Catholic forum and the goals are different. That’s okay too. It’s not that we shrink away from debate. It’s that you can actually learn more from listening than being the best man at the debate table.

Debating is NEVER bad, even when it gets a little “disrespectful.” If you’ve ever watched a group of men who are close friends sit around and chat, you will see and hear behaviors that seem to be rather unfriendly, even insulting. But that isn’t the way things really are between them. Be careful about appearances of things which often do not describe the reality.

I disagree that it’s never bad. Yes, I seem to remember watching and being a part of a “mens” group and seeing what goes on. After all, I am a man myself. Respectfulness has nothing to do with social behaviors of males. It has to do with treating other human beings in a correct and beneficial way.

Moreover, we are arguing religion. Religion is a very important subject. Some people are captivated by false religions that teach sinful things, like polygamy. You may have recently been aware of news reports about a polygamous Mormon sect whose founder is behind bars on charges of child abuse. While you may not consider polygamy to be “evil” I would be surprised if you didn’t consider child abuse to be “evil.” Some of us consider these things to be connected together. Mormonism, polygamy, child abuse. If you are a woman, then you may feel that polygamy as an institution, in which women are commanded to obey their polygamous husbands under threat of “destruction” by God Almighty, is a rather sinful institution. Then again, you may not.

I haven’t seen the reports. I would imagine that the man supposedly married young girls of 15 or 16 years of age. Back home in the South that is not abnormal. Should people back home be jailed for marrying 16 year olds? My father married my mother when she was 16 and he was 21. I married my wife when she was 18. That’s typically an acceptable norm for the South.

I never condone child abuse. But, child abuse does not equal marrying young women if that’s what you are implying. If you were to poll women in Mormon polygamous relationships you would find that they don’t feel polygamy is demeaning to them in any way. I’ve seen their interviews. They really think it’s a healthy and beneficial and Godly way to live. Who are you to say otherwise?

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

I’m not in favor of ignoring. That is the Mormon tactic. If you spend a few days browsing these threads you will see the Mormons over and over again threaten to ignore, and then put ignore into practice. It doesn’t make any sense to me to go to a place of debate, and then ignore. This isn’t the kitchen table, where the husband ignores his wife or children. People purposely come here to engage in religious argument. If they are going to ignore, then one has to wonder why they are here at all. Could it be that they are selling religion and do not have time to waste on people who are not buying?

Once again, I have to chuckle. I don’t see how ignoring is a Mormon tactic. I thought it was a universal behavior. The forum rules state that people with agendas should not be here. Read them yourself. Anyone pushing an agenda is summarily dismissed. This rarely happens, but that is the rule. I’ve had to ignore people in the past, but that doesn’t mean I ignore everybody. You ignore the person that causes the most grief and anxiety. You should check your agenda in a the door too and make sure your heart is in the right place. We all should.

Again, this computer/internet forum is a place where people deliberately come to argue. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all to ignore. In real personal life, why, yes, I think it DOES make sense to ignore people for some good reasons, to say “no thanks” and walk away. But here, we always seem to have a small coterie of Mormon evangelizers whose profession it is to sell their false religion. Wolves among the sheep, so to speak. Not suggesting that there are many sheep here, but you understand that there are lurkers who wouldn’t think to post themselves, but nevertheless do read extensively. We owe it to them to present the full story, not just the lovey-dovey story of happy Mormon women watching their husbands sleep with 15 or 20 other women, under command of Almighty God.

If you don’t want to ignore then don’t. If you want to share your faith then share it by all means. It’s a Catholic forum for goodness sake. If you do present your side, just make sure it is accurate. If it’s not, then you have done more harm than good and have continued the cycle of misinformation.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Allweather]

Whoa, hold on partner. First, we were talking about polygamy among the Old Testament fathers. The Bible is clear that they did practice, even the beloved King David. Intermarrying with pagans is a different issue altogether. Of course they were told not to do that. I don’t see what bearing that has on King David or his great son King Solomon having over 600 wives and concubines. Please explain.

I never get very specific about the Bible, because I am not a Bible scholar, so I’ll leave that for others. However, it is clear that Solomon deteriorated as he took on the trappings of wealth and wives. It is true that there are a few reported instances of polygamous situations among the early Hebrews, but they are consistently the result of disobedience and always result in less than happy endings. From the beginning, the model for marriage has been ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN. God created Adam and Eve and set them over the creation as the dominant creatures. He didn’t create ONE Adam and several EVES, as one might expect him to have done if he desired polygamy among men. After Abram was given the promise, he and Sarai got impatient and so he took on a foreign wife to make a son who wasn’t the son of God’s will, but the son of man’s will. There is more, but space is very limited. I hope you get the general idea.

Christianity came along and polygamy became a taboo practice. Polygamy was not expressly condemned in New Testament Scripture. It was implied, but Jesus nor the apostles taught extensively about it.

OK, let’s start with the Christians, then. I won’t get into the specific NT arguments against polygamy, though there are many. The fact is, Catholicism and Christianity-at-large have consistently taught polygamy to be sinful. This covers the last 2,000 years and going. Even if the scriptural statements are not “express” as you claim, they are nevertheless CLEARLY implied. Catholics don’t need things to be expressly stated in Scripture. We are perfectly able to flesh out the full meanings of Scripture through reasoning, under the leadership of the Magisterium, which has been given authority by God to do just that.

Instead of telling me that they exist, please show me some evidence. I haven’t seen any and am willing to look at anything you may have to that effect. If you can point out racism in the posts here on the forum please do. Again, please show me. I’m not lazy. I simply haven’t seen them. If they do exist, again, isn’t it possible that it’s a personal mislead ideology instead of a church teaching?

OK, there’s a current thread, which I started a few days ago, titled Do Mormons Believe This? It has some info, and some links to more info. I can also recommend a book or two for you, let me know if you want titles. I’m sure the ex-Mormons here would also be glad to show you quite a bit more than I am able. I am not an expert on Mormonism, but I do know a few things, thanks to this forum and some personal reading.

You certainly are sure of yourself. Yes, Joseph Smith Jr. said the New Jerusalem/Zion was to be in Independence, Missouri and there is a temple that itself now rests in the hands of the RLDS after legal battles with the LDS leadership in SLC. I’m well aware of that. I don’t see how that view makes them nationalists to the extreme.

Maybe it depends on how one defines “nationalism.” One assumes there is more than one way to apply it. Personally, and I am not alone in this opinion I assure you, I believe that Mormonism is a product of the peculiar American view of itself in the world. Rather than make a case for this here, in this thread, off topic, taking up space, I would recommend you do some reading. Again, let us suggest some titles for you.

I’m not convinced that you have studied Mormonism as much as you say and am surprised by your assertion that my studies are somehow inadequate. Come now, must we travel that road? Simply agree or disagree without judging each others intelligence or abilities?

Sorry if I have insulted you, but you’ve already admitted that you are not aware of the racist or nationalist aspects of Mormonism. Considering that these things are never far from the skin of Mormonism, your lack of knowledge in these areas suggests a lack of study. That is neither good, nor bad, and I make no judgement in that regard. I merely suggest, respectfully, that you do some study, both here on this forum, and some outside reading, and see what you find out.

 

[Allweather]

I haven’t seen the reports. I would imagine that the man supposedly married young girls of 15 or 16 years of age. Back home in the South that is not abnormal. Should people back home be jailed for marrying 16 year olds? My father married my mother when she was 16 and he was 21. I married my wife when she was 18. That’s typically an acceptable norm for the South.

I never condone child abuse. But, child abuse does not equal marrying young women if that’s what you are implying. If you were to poll women in Mormon polygamous relationships you would find that they don’t feel polygamy is demeaning to them in any way. I’ve seen their interviews. They really think it’s a healthy and beneficial and Godly way to live. Who are you to say otherwise?

Well, Fa Chen, the man is behind bars on charges of child abuse. I will allow the law to decide this issue. I take it that there is strong evidence that he has violated the law. While you may disagree with the law, it is a fact that most Americans find polygamy and child abuse (as defined by the law) to be objectionable.

These things vary from state to state. I agree that there are cultural differences among states. That’s why there are variations in the law.

Are you familiar with Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery? I have not read it yet, but have scanned through it. I just now opened it at random to page 171 and found a quote from a woman named Lucy A. Young, who was married to Brigham Young’s brother, Phineas. Here is part of it:

““With a sad heart I found all the married people at liberty to choose new companions if they so desired. There was marrying and giving in marriage for the first wife was expected to give others to her husband unless she rebelled as I did. There were queens and queens of Queens in those days but I lost my queenship by not giving my husband the women he desired but he got them all the same.””

You see, if the woman rebelled against her husband’s polygamous desires, why, he just threw her out and got the new women anyways. Does this seem like a “healthy and beneficial and Godly way to live”?

 

[Fa_Chan]

I never get very specific about the Bible, because I am not a Bible scholar, so I’ll leave that for others. However, it is clear that Solomon deteriorated as he took on the trappings of wealth and wives. It is true that there are a few reported instances of polygamous situations among the early Hebrews, but they are consistently the result of disobedience and always result in less than happy endings. From the beginning, the model for marriage has been ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN. God created Adam and Eve and set them over the creation as the dominant creatures. He didn’t create ONE Adam and several EVES, as one might expect him to have done if he desired polygamy among men. After Abram was given the promise, he and Sarai got impatient and so he took on a foreign wife to make a son who wasn’t the son of God’s will, but the son of man’s will. There is more, but space is very limited. I hope you get the general idea.

The idea that you proposed was that polygamy itself is sinful. God’s plan for mankind and its beginnings don’t outlaw polygamy. It’s probably not the best situation for most families, but that’s a far cry from saying it’s sinful.

OK, let’s start with the Christians, then. I won’t get into the specific NT arguments against polygamy, though there are many. The fact is, Catholicism and Christianity-at-large have consistently taught polygamy to be sinful. This covers the last 2,000 years and going. Even if the scriptural statements are not “express” as you claim, they are nevertheless CLEARLY implied. Catholics don’t need things to be expressly stated in Scripture. We are perfectly able to flesh out the full meanings of Scripture through reasoning, under the leadership of the Magisterium, which has been given authority by God to do just that.

Most of Christianity (traditional that is) has condemned it. And yes, Scripture for Catholics is not the only valid authority as Tradition is held as authoritative also. I realize that. But, just saying that it’s wrong because so and so said it was wrong doesn’t mean anything for a non-Catholic like me who denies the authority of the Catholic Church.

OK, there’s a current thread, which I started a few days ago, titled Do Mormons Believe This? It has some info, and some links to more info. I can also recommend a book or two for you, let me know if you want titles. I’m sure the ex-Mormons here would also be glad to show you quite a bit more than I am able. I am not an expert on Mormonism, but I do know a few things, thanks to this forum and some personal reading.

I’ll search for the threads later. I will say that you have to expand your study to not just anti-Mormon literature. If you want to get doctrine, you have to look to the BOM, the Pearl and the revelations of the prophets to get their official doctrine. There are many that write anti-Mormon books, even some who were former members. However, their stories should be taken at face value.

Maybe it depends on how one defines “nationalism.” One assumes there is more than one way to apply it. Personally, and I am not alone in this opinion I assure you, I believe that Mormonism is a product of the peculiar American view of itself in the world. Rather than make a case for this here, in this thread, off topic, taking up space, I would recommend you do some reading. Again, let us suggest some titles for you.

I define extreme nationalism as we witnessed in Nazi Germany. I don’t see the same parallel in the Mormon Church’s doctrine of Zion being in Independence, Missouri.

Sorry if I have insulted you, but you’ve already admitted that you are not aware of the racist or nationalist aspects of Mormonism. Considering that these things are never far from the skin of Mormonism, your lack of knowledge in these areas suggests a lack of study. That is neither good, nor bad, and I make no judgement in that regard. I merely suggest, respectfully, that you do some study, both here on this forum, and some outside reading, and see what you find out.

I’m not aware of those aspects because I haven’t found them. That doesn’t mean I haven’t studied enough. It means they may not be there. And, to date I’ve not seen you show me any examples to that effect. So, until I see them I will continue to deny that they exist. I almost joined the LDS. I read the Book of Mormon, the Pearl and D and C. I don’t find the things you say they believe. To me, those are the most definitive sources because A) they come from the founder himself and B) because they are admitted to be their official doctrine. That’s better than hearsay or accounts of people that could be disgruntled or misinformed.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

Well, Fa Chen, the man is behind bars on charges of child abuse. I will allow the law to decide this issue. I take it that there is strong evidence that he has violated the law. While you may disagree with the law, it is a fact that most Americans find polygamy and child abuse (as defined by the law) to be objectionable.

These things vary from state to state. I agree that there are cultural differences among states. That’s why there are variations in the law.

Since you are unaware of the specifics of the case, then how can you make the judgements you already have? You accuse the man of it and assume he’s abusing children (I might add that others in other faiths have done the same on a high level, ahem) without knowing the facts. Yes, I will let the law decide and make my judgements after the facts are presented. I would say that you should do the same.

Are you familiar with Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery? I have not read it yet, but have scanned through it. I just now opened it at random to page 171 and found a quote from a woman named Lucy A. Young, who was married to Brigham Young’s brother, Phineas. Here is part of it:

““With a sad heart I found all the married people at liberty to choose new companions if they so desired. There was marrying and giving in marriage for the first wife was expected to give others to her husband unless she rebelled as I did. There were queens and queens of Queens in those days but I lost my queenship by not giving my husband the women he desired but he got them all the same.””

You see, if the woman rebelled against her husband’s polygamous desires, why, he just threw her out and got the new women anyways. Does this seem like a “healthy and beneficial and Godly way to live”?

I haven’t read the book, no. I haven’t read any books of that nature. I find them subjective and not authoritative, so I don’t find it worthy of my time to read them. I don’t read fiction.

Even if Ms. Young was unhappy doesn’t mean that they all were and (again) it doesn’t mean that polygamy in itself is sinful. It being a “healthy and beneficial and Godly way to live” doesn’t mean it’s sinful. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. There is no condemnation in the OT of polygamy. None. So, why was it wrong for the OT fathers who were great men of faith? Example (again) King David (who was a man after God’s own heart) and Solomon. King David sinned when he committed adultery. Had he been married to Bathsheba and Michal he would not have committed adultery. It was because of the lust in his heart that God condemned him for those actions and the fact that he had her husband, Uriah, killed because of his lust.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Kristine1957]

My perception of the way the thread was going was similar to a circle of kids taunting a new kid on the playground. That’s the picture in my head. There have been many mormons who gladly shared their beliefs and backed them up. NotreDameMormon was one of them. I haven’t seen him in a short time, but I’m sure he’s still around. And it could be that some of the Mormons who come here have stated the same things over and over till they are sick of it. Things aren’t always how they appear to be. Give people a chance.

Peace…

Fa Chan

I agree some Mormons do back up their beliefs and we listen and try to answer also as to what we believe. However, as I have stated before when it comes to questions they can’t answer we have “Silence”.
My purpose for starting this thread was to ask Do Mormons believe God was once a man? I don’t think thats a difficult question but its frustrating when some Mormon members on here pick and choose what they want to talk about and when you bring up a touchy subject they ignore it…In all honesty if they don’t want to share thier religion then why are they on this forum?

 

[Tmaque]

After reading more and more people jump on the bandwagon of bashing and belittling Zenius and mormons, how about offering some true substance to your posts instead of cheap jabs. How about offering kindness to your “mislead” fellow Christians instead of spitefulness? I’m a Buddhist, how about making fun of me and my faith? Does it make you feel better and holier?

Fa Chan

Buddhists have faith? I did not know that. I thought Buddhists were essentially atheists.

 

[Tmaque]

I agree some Mormons do back up their beliefs and we listen and try to answer also as to what we believe. However, as I have stated before when it comes to questions they can’t answer we have “Silence”.
My purpose for starting this thread was to ask Do Mormons believe God was once a man? I don’t think thats a difficult question but its frustrating when some Mormon members on here pick and choose what they want to talk about and when you bring up a touchy subject they ignore it…In all honesty if they don’t want to share thier religion then why are they on this forum?

I work with four active LDS. I just went around and asked them all (seperately) if they believed God was once a man and that he “progressed” to Godhood. One had to think about it for a minute, but they all said “yes”. My office is in Salt Lake City. The ages of these people are 29, 26, 49, and 32. I think I can say with confidence that LDS believe that God was once a man.

 

[Tmaque]

There is no condemnation in the OT of polygamy. None. So, why was it wrong for the OT fathers who were great men of faith? Example (again) King David (who was a man after God’s own heart) and Solomon. King David sinned when he committed adultery. Had he been married to Bathsheba and Michal he would not have committed adultery. It was because of the lust in his heart that God condemned him for those actions and the fact that he had her husband, Uriah, killed because of his lust.

Peace…

Fa Chan

Fa Chan,

You are quite incorrect. Polygamy was condemned in the OT.

“When thou art come unto the land which the Eternal thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me. . . . Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away” (Deut. 17:14, 17). It is spoken of as “THIS LAW” in verses 18 and 19. It was a LAW.

As far as the patriarchs go…
Abraham only had one wife, Hagar was NOT his wife
Isaac only had one wife
Jacob only had one wife after his conversion
David repented of polygamy and ended up with only Bathsheba as his ONE wife
Solomon was sinning when he took multiple wives because God had forbade it.

Also Israelites practiced what God had forbidden – divorce and remarriage. If you recall Jesus said: “Moses [not God] because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Mat. 19:8-9).

Jesus said, in this same chapter: “Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?” Notice, Jesus was dating this from the BEGINNING. And God never changes! “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” Notice, a man shall cleave to his WIFE – not wives. And they TWO – not he and several wives – shall be one flesh.

 

[Fa_Chan]

Fa Chan,

You are quite incorrect. Polygamy was condemned in the OT.

“When thou art come unto the land which the Eternal thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me. . . . Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away” (Deut. 17:14, 17). It is spoken of as “THIS LAW” in verses 18 and 19. It was a LAW.

Actually, I don’t think I am. The verses you quoted from Deut. speak of the King only. Verses 14-17 discuss the eventual desire of Israel to set a king over themselves. Then God says that He will choose this king. He then goes on to say that he will not multiply wives, money, etc. It says nothing about average Joe in the sheep field. It was a LAW for the King. So, King David and Solomon broke that. The funny thing is that the Bible says that King David was a man “after God’s own heart”. How could that be?

As far as the patriarchs go…
Abraham only had one wife, Hagar was NOT his wife
Isaac only had one wife
Jacob only had one wife after his conversion
David repented of polygamy and ended up with only Bathsheba as his ONE wife
Solomon was sinning when he took multiple wives because God had forbade it.

So, I listed Lamech (who was an early descendent of Adam - look in Genesis early on in the genealogies) and other prominent OT “fathers” (as I call them) of the monotheistic followers of Yahweh and you list Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It’s apparent that this was a practice early on…way before the Israelites. So, why isn’t this listed in the Adamic covenant? Or the Noahide covenant? By the way, David was married to Michal when he became king. She was part of his present from Saul. David kept Bathsheba and a slew of other wives. He even married Abishag late in his life. So, why do you think he ended up with Bathsheba as his one wife? Chronicles details his many children by these multiple wives and lists these wives.

Also Israelites practiced what God had forbidden – divorce and remarriage. If you recall Jesus said: “Moses [not God] because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Mat. 19:8-9).

Jesus said, in this same chapter: “Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?” Notice, Jesus was dating this from the BEGINNING. And God never changes! “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” Notice, a man shall cleave to his WIFE – not wives. And they TWO – not he and several wives – shall be one flesh.

I admit there are NT references to monogamy. As I told AllWeather before though, polygamy is rarely talked about. That doesn’t make it go away or the NT texts inaccurate. The NT talks more about wine than polygamy. That should tell you something.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

Buddhists have faith? I did not know that. I thought Buddhists were essentially atheists.

I follow a faith tradition called Pure Land Buddhism and incorporate both the Chinese and Japanese form into my practice. Faith is an important element in all branches of Buddhist faith. The Buddha said to not believe blindly but follow his example and see for ourselves. Once we do see for ourselves, faith develops. Some Buddhists are atheists, some are not. The Buddhist canon has many instances referring to Brahma, Indra and other gods that were said to exist.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Allweather]

Most of Christianity (traditional that is) has condemned it. And yes, Scripture for Catholics is not the only valid authority as Tradition is held as authoritative also. I realize that. But, just saying that it’s wrong because so and so said it was wrong doesn’t mean anything for a non-Catholic like me who denies the authority of the Catholic Church.

Fair enough. We can certainly spend some time, perhaps in another thread, discussing the nature of Christian faith, and the authority of the Catholic Church. You say you are not a Christian, and for awhile there I was starting to wonder if you aren’t actually a Mormon. We sometimes get people here who pretend to be one thing, and then turn out to be another. I take you at face value, as I do everyone.

Now, I don’t say polygamy is wrong “just because so and so said it is wrong.” I say it is wrong because I agree with Jesus, and I agree with the Church that He established on Earth for purposes of teaching mankind about God. Left to myh own devices, I actually LIKE multiple partner sex. I’m very familiar with it. For years I practiced it and justified it on grounds that a man is, by nature, given to multiple partner sex. Now I know that God calls us out of our carnal desires to a life that is nobler, and more in-line with what his original plan was/is: One Man, One Woman, until death do them part. This isn’t Allweather’s teaching. This is God’s teaching. While I would rather enjoy multiple partner sex in all it’s carnal glory, I am under conviction by almighty God, to fear Him, and to Love Him, and to Obey Him, so that I can enjoy the wonderful things He has for me in this life, and the life of the world to come.

There are many that write anti-Mormon books, even some who were former members. However, their stories should be taken at face value.

I realize that, and have learned to take things with grains of salt. I usually take things at face value until it is shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that face value is wrong.

I define extreme nationalism as we witnessed in Nazi Germany. I don’t see the same parallel in the Mormon Church’s doctrine of Zion being in Independence, Missouri.

Fair enough. I won’t argue that point here for lack of room, and the fact that this is so off-topic. However, just let me say that my own definition of extreme nationalism applies to things of a far lesser ominous nature than Nazism.

I almost joined the LDS. I read the Book of Mormon, the Pearl and D and C. I don’t find the things you say they believe. To me, those are the most definitive sources because A) they come from the founder himself and B) because they are admitted to be their official doctrine. That’s better than hearsay or accounts of people that could be disgruntled or misinformed.

Have you read any of the thread Do Mormons Believe This yet? Do the words white and delightsome ring a bell for you? I am not a BoM expert, I haven’t read it entirely, and I doubt I ever will. So I will defer to your superior knowledge of that book. I take you to mean here that there is NOTHING in the BoM that suggests that dark skinned people are of a lower caste than white skinned people?

 

[Fa_Chan]

Fair enough. We can certainly spend some time, perhaps in another thread, discussing the nature of Christian faith, and the authority of the Catholic Church. You say you are not a Christian, and for awhile there I was starting to wonder if you aren’t actually a Mormon. We sometimes get people here who pretend to be one thing, and then turn out to be another. I take you at face value, as I do everyone.

Now, I don’t say polygamy is wrong “just because so and so said it is wrong.” I say it is wrong because I agree with Jesus, and I agree with the Church that He established on Earth for purposes of teaching mankind about God. Left to myh own devices, I actually LIKE multiple partner sex. I’m very familiar with it. For years I practiced it and justified it on grounds that a man is, by nature, given to multiple partner sex. Now I know that God calls us out of our carnal desires to a life that is nobler, and more in-line with what his original plan was/is: One Man, One Woman, until death do them part. This isn’t Allweather’s teaching. This is God’s teaching. While I would rather enjoy multiple partner sex in all it’s carnal glory, I am under conviction by almighty God, to fear Him, and to Love Him, and to Obey Him, so that I can enjoy the wonderful things He has for me in this life, and the life of the world to come.

I realize that, and have learned to take things with grains of salt. I usually take things at face value until it is shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that face value is wrong.

Fair enough. I won’t argue that point here for lack of room, and the fact that this is so off-topic. However, just let me say that my own definition of extreme nationalism applies to things of a far lesser ominous nature than Nazism.

Have you read any of the thread Do Mormons Believe This yet? Do the words white and delightsome ring a bell for you? I am not a BoM expert, I haven’t read it entirely, and I doubt I ever will. So I will defer to your superior knowledge of that book. I take you to mean here that there is NOTHING in the BoM that suggests that dark skinned people are of a lower caste than white skinned people?

I did. I just read and responded to your thread you spoke of earlier. And, as I said there, he also spoke of the 5 darker “but equally delightsome” other children. The Lamanites were said to be of darker skin and cursed because of their wickedness in the BoM. I think this speaks more to that historical aspect of the time and not a condemnation of the black people today. It’s easy for us to say that in today’s time this was racist. If you recall, in the OT, there are many times were God and the children of Israel did terrible things, including condoning the murder of women and children during raids. I wouldn’t be so easy to point out problems in the BoM when the Bible itself condemns homosexuals to death and commands women and children to be killed. I hold the BoM to be just as authoritative as the Bible and should be taken for what it’s worth. It’s a religious text with ideologies that boggle my mind sometimes.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Allweather]

I admit there are NT references to monogamy. As I told AllWeather before though, polygamy is rarely talked about. That doesn’t make it go away or the NT texts inaccurate. The NT talks more about wine than polygamy. That should tell you something.
Fa Chan

Here’s the thing about the Bible, and is the main reason I don’t argue nuts and bolts Bible, especially with cultists. People who are in cults usually will have an elaborate interpretation set that sounds really good when it is taken in isolation from the Tradition that is the ocean in which that fish actually lives. I agree that it is possible to arrive at many various interpretations of Scripture. This BTW is probably the very best argument against the Protestant notion of sola scriptura, the fact that among Protestants exists hundreds of varying interpretations of Scripture, which leads inevitably to disunion among them.

For me, the real argument is about authority. Is or is not the Catholic Church the authority that Jesus founded upon the Apostles? Obviously, I believe that it is, and I believe that the Church is what leads us into a proper understanding of Scripture, both OT and NT. Do I believe this because the Bible tells me so? In part, yes. In part, because it make sense that God would not have founded thousands of churches all spatting with one another over Scripture meanings. In part because when I read about historical things I find the Catholic Church existing and carrying the Gospel to the world since Jesus founded it upon Peter and the other Apostles. Among other things.

So, is it possible for people, acting as little popes unto themselves, to pull scripture verses out and interpret them to their own liking? Sure it is. We see it all the time. It is a lot harder to submit and obey hard teachings that people don’t find to their liking. Like teachings about marriage and birth control and abortion… stuff like that.

 

[zerinus]

Good day to you too zerinus. I must warn you though that I’m a heathen in a monotheists eyes, so beware of becoming too friendly

No fears my good man! I have respect for all religions; and I believe that people of all religions who live by the good principles of their faith, and try to do what is right in their lives, will obtain a good reward in heaven, regardless of what religion they believe in. Besides, Jesus eat and drank with sinners; so it won’t do me any harm to become friendly with another sinner in the world!

NotreDameMormon was very open and honest and I always enjoyed his posts. As I said in another post I just wish people could get along. But, as long as we continue our motto of “my way is the only way” then dialogue becomes difficult and filled with insults and meaningless chatter.

Yes, he was a good poster, and I used to enjoy reading his posts too; but unfortunately he has disappeared.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

I did. I just read and responded to your thread you spoke of earlier. And, as I said there, he also spoke of the 5 darker “but equally delightsome” other children. The Lamanites were said to be of darker skin and cursed because of their wickedness in the BoM. I think this speaks more to that historical aspect of the time and not a condemnation of the black people today. It’s easy for us to say that in today’s time this was racist. If you recall, in the OT, there are many times were God and the children of Israel did terrible things, including condoning the murder of women and children during raids. I wouldn’t be so easy to point out problems in the BoM when the Bible itself condemns homosexuals to death and commands women and children to be killed. I hold the BoM to be just as authoritative as the Bible and should be taken for what it’s worth. It’s a religious text with ideologies that boggle my mind sometimes.
Fa Chan

Is it the Bible condemning homosexuals? Is it the Bible that commands the destruction of women, children, and even animals? Or, it is God?

Is the Bible just another “religious text”? Is it really “just as authoritative” as the BoM?

If you really believe this last question, then you are a Mormon at heart, because this is what Mormons believe about the Bible. They discount it, and hold the BoM to be “the most correct book ever written” (my paraphrase of Joseph Smith).

I think you were very well indoctrinated by the Mormons, but I also think that your understanding of the Bible is very limited. This is probably because you have not studied it under the guidance of the Church which wrote it and assembled it, and guarded, protected, and promoted it for almost 2 millenia.

If you are Pope Fa Chan, then you will believe your own interpretations of Scripture. But if you are jes’ plain ol’ Fa Chan who’d like to understand the Bible the way God meant for it to be understood, then you may be able admit to your weaknesses, and submit to the authority that God established over you.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise.” Proverbs 1:7

 

[zerinus]

I agree some Mormons do back up their beliefs and we listen and try to answer also as to what we believe. However, as I have stated before when it comes to questions they can’t answer we have “Silence”.
My purpose for starting this thread was to ask Do Mormons believe God was once a man? I don’t think thats a difficult question but its frustrating when some Mormon members on here pick and choose what they want to talk about and when you bring up a touchy subject they ignore it…In all honesty if they don’t want to share thier religion then why are they on this forum?

What if that question has been answered a million times before? And you must be aware of it; you have been here long enough.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Actually, I don’t think I am. The verses you quoted from Deut. speak of the King only. Verses 14-17 discuss the eventual desire of Israel to set a king over themselves. Then God says that He will choose this king. He then goes on to say that he will not multiply wives, money, etc. It says nothing about average Joe in the sheep field. It was a LAW for the King. So, King David and Solomon broke that. The funny thing is that the Bible says that King David was a man “after God’s own heart”. How could that be?

You have understood that verse correctly. It was addressed to future kings; and it means simply that they should not carry those practices (i.e. accumulating wealth and opulence, or marrying many wives) to excess—which their position as kings gave them the power to do. It does not mean that polygamy is inherently wrong.

Also, it us utterly and blatantly false that Abraham had only one wife. He had many wives; and even many concubines (Genesis 25:1-6; 1 Chronicles 1:32).

zerinus