E
EllieH
Guest
Yes, you are correct, to achieve a fullness of Glory he will need to married. We are in agreement on your observation.
- Status
C
CAROLOFTHEBELLS
Guest
What is the logic behind Mormons seeking to become “gods” and to be “exalted”? Isn’t that expecting a bit too much? Logically, there is only one exalted, awesome, and godlike being and that is God in the form of the Trinity. I can be blunt sometimes, so forgive me, but isn’t that really against the first commandment? It just seems extremely presumuous, to say the least, and not we what should be striving for as servants of God.
I have a bit of a problem with the whole requirement of marriage idea. LDS was founded by a man who seems to have rationalized that marriage was a way to engage in womanizing - even if the woman was already married. The thinking goes, “I want that woman, I say we are married, and I have her.” If that is how the requirement for marriage began, than it is no use trying to extend that into thinking Jesus was married because he would not go about doing such things. If it is different for LDS today, It’s nice to have a great, stable, and long marriage between one woman and one man in the present day, but I don’t think that is all that is behind this requirement. In other words, I don’t think it began as a holy assignment.
I have a bit of a problem with the whole requirement of marriage idea. LDS was founded by a man who seems to have rationalized that marriage was a way to engage in womanizing - even if the woman was already married. The thinking goes, “I want that woman, I say we are married, and I have her.” If that is how the requirement for marriage began, than it is no use trying to extend that into thinking Jesus was married because he would not go about doing such things. If it is different for LDS today, It’s nice to have a great, stable, and long marriage between one woman and one man in the present day, but I don’t think that is all that is behind this requirement. In other words, I don’t think it began as a holy assignment.
C
Callvenus
Guest
This is just another way in which the LDS Church ties your salvation to the church and to other human beings. You can not get into the highest degree of the celestial kingdom without tying your boat to another human being. For Catholics, our salvation is tied strictly to God, and God alone, who was incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.
P
Publisher
Guest
Is it? I thought the only way the eucharist could be confected was by a priest…and unless one “eats the flesh and drinks the blood, there is no life”…but a man must confect it and he and he alone has that authority to do so? Doesn’t a priest have to absolve one of their sins to have them absolved?
Don’t Catholics beleive there is no salvation outside the Catholic church? Must not one be baptized in water by another human to have one’s sins washed away? Doesn’t sound to me like it “is tied strictly to God and God alone”…seems to me a human agency is required.
C
Callvenus
Guest
If you read the Catechism very clearly, the sovereignty of God is pledged throughout meaning that even though the Church professes that certain things are necessary, God can still be sovereign in his judgement. It is the same reason we pray for our dead, whether Catholic or not. It is the same reason the Magisterium declares that someone can be baptized ex voto or have a baptism of desire. It is the same reason the Catechism also refers to a part of salvation for others who do not share our faith. In Mormonism, there is the argument that whether in this life or the next life, one would have to eventually agree to the LDS gospel and not only agree but also have technical rituals done by people still on earth (i.e. baptisms and temple marriages). In Catholicism, the sacraments are necessary but God can determine someones deserving of heaven without them being done based on what He sees in the persons heart.
P
Publisher
Guest
Does God not have this option as Soverign of the universe in Mormonism? Can God not “save whom He will save”? Isn’t there a passage in the Book of Mormon that says something to that effect?
C
CAROLOFTHEBELLS
Guest
Publisher, I don’t know about anyone else, but, as a Catholic I do not do those things to receive salvation or because it is “required” of me (which confession and communion are not) but to have a closer walk with God and to live a better life as a Christian and to live in right relationship with God (to be close to him). NOT so I can be exalted, get to a better place in heaven, be saved (Jesus saved me once and for all), or so that I can see my loved ones in heaven (I know I will and I am not required to do anything here to achieve that).
P
Publisher
Guest
That’s good to know friend, I do not place my trust in rituals and rites either, but in Christ alone to receive his grace and mercy. I don’t know if what you stated is “good” Catholic theology…but I do agree with you that none of those are required. I do not place my trust in a church organization…Christ is the One Baptizer and by His Baptism direct from His Hands that I am joined to His Body in faith.
E
EllieH
Guest
1.) COB Inquires: What is the logic behind Mormons seeking to become “gods” and to be “exalted”
e answers:
Please understand that from our perspective it isn’t that we sought to become God’s per se, but that we accept that it is a part of God’s plan for his children, that by obedience they may have all that he has as the scriptures state. Ye are god’s as Paul states it, and not that he is speaking about the mortal man but what the potential is upon embracing God’s plan for his children. Again, in our view it is God’s plan for us, not our plan for God.
2.) COB observes: LDS was founded by a man who seems to have rationalized that marriage was a way to engage in womanizing
e replies:
I absolutely agree that from the outside looking in this is an absolutely acceptable means of looking at aspects of the origins of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Were I not a convert that had worked my way through this dilemma already, I would be casting a aye vote by the raise of hands right along beside you. However, I have never been one to take anyone’s word for anything. I am a student and have been my whole life. Some people are born pretty, others strong, I was just born to inquire why. When I find why, I try to do to the best of my ability. I consider it a great blessing that I am not easily led by others observations and philosophies or dogma. I have to know for myself.
I can unequivocally state that having put the hours and days and weeks and years of research, coupled with prayer and pondering that Joseph Smith was no fraud, nor was he the reprobate people like to claim. Much of the information is based upon conjectures made by Fawn Brodie in her book No Man Knows my History. Many of the claims of his having intimacies with many were based upon her work interviewing individuals that claimed they or relatives were descendents of individuals who were children of Joseph Smith by other wives. However, genetic testing of the family lines mentioned in Fawn Brodie’s Book show no traces of Joseph’s DNA, except in the family lines that come down through Emma Smith. If anyone feels compelled here is a link that will discuss this and point to other locations for more detailed research : deseretnews.com/article/695226318/DNA-tests-rule-out-2-as-Smith-descendants.html?pg=all
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226318/DNA-tests-rule-out-2-as-Smith-descendants.html?pg=all
Still, I am okay that people on the outside question these things. I have never shied away from asking myself the hard questions and at times I have had to struggle through the process of having my own faith challenged. It is my perception that had I not have asked questions I could not have the surety of understanding that I have but I begrudge no one that does not feel as I do. It is a challenging set of circumstances and no one should take it at face value but I also do not advocate stepping over questions for fear of asking them.
E
EllieH
Guest
You are actually much further along than many from my perspective. You haven’t walked around the question and ignored it, nor have you just parroted something you heard or read somewhere without coming to your own conclusions. You have accepted that the verse is in Corinthians as scripture and that to fit it must have a place in your religious structure. That is good.
If I was going to go further and I was in your position, I would simply want to know more about the early practice of Baptism for the dead and then find out why it was stopped.
This post here from campeador offers some possibilities that would need further exploration. Particularly points 2 and 3 offer some interesting possibilities as they seem to reference the physical act of Baptism for the dead that was actually practiced in the early church. The first explanation on the list, from my way of thinking seems to want to ignore there was an actual event called baptism for the dead and that seems disingenuous to me. Still your efforts of dealing head on with the reality of the scriptural reference is commendable. While may not agree with your current conclusions, I nonetheless appreciate someone who has the courage to ask the hard questions.
E
EllieH
Guest
This is an excellent start. As part of an effort to objectively research the verse, instead of overlooking the implications of why Paul uses it, this is a good start. It is only one source and there are several. This source does not go completely into the details of why it was officially stopped but it embraces four possible interpretations of precedent.
Now if we continue upon this vein and look at the four options above we still are left with a duty to find one of these that best supports the intent of scripture. They are not all in agreement, though as I read them 2 and 4 are consistent with different aspects of what could be considered the same interpretation.
Number 3 also is somewhat tangential. Not how I would put it and I think it is trying to distance itself from the actually baptism by proxy concept by limiting the profession of belief in resurrection to those who have been baptized which belief they validate in their baptism. In a way one could accept this but it is not a full treatment - only a partial.
Now if we wanted to further our effort and perhaps take this from being 4 or so different ideas on baptism for the dead, what could we do to help us come to a better understanding of why there is even a need for baptism for the dead? What purpose could it possible serve? Could we look over the scriptural references that explain why someone would need baptism?
John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
A very familiar scripture to all of us but do we accept it for what it says, and if not upon what scriptural reference can we claim that would guide us to understand an altered definition. Except one is baptized of water and the spirit, that person does not enter God’s kingdom.
Next going back to Corinthians Paul, still taking about resurrection points out a very clear point of view:
1 Corinthians 15:19
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
If the only time a person can have a hope of accepting Jesus Christ and his blessings is in this life he observes that this would indeed be a miserable existence. The fact that in verse 18 just before this one above he is acknowledging that he speaks of those who have died in Christ as having perished already if there were not a resurrection informs us that he is speaking in some part of conditions which give those who have passed on hope in Christ. Surely, none of us would think that he is only referencing those that died during his lifetime as being the only one who could have died unto Christ. Even less the possibility that he is referring to the limitations of the three years of Christ active ministry. Surely the blessings of Christ are offered to all men both those in the grave and those without and this promise is true:
1 Corinthians 15:22
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
However, if this be true and all shall be made alive that choose Christ and John 3:5 above be true that all must be born of the water and the spirit then how can this be accomplished so that it can be a hope for those that have passed on in Christ, as Paul the Apostle promises, before the opportunity for baptism was theirs. For if there is no hope of receiving the blessings of baptism then John 3:5 denies them entrance into the kingdom of God. Yet all will have an equal chance to accept Jesus Christ as Savior. Their hope may be observed in the conditions that Paul cites and become the hope for those that have passed before and now lie in the graves: There hope in the resurrection lies perhaps in this concept:1 Corinthians 15:29
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
There are many more verses of scripture that can be thrown at this proposition but I’ll keep it here for the moment. In my mind scripture has to provide the answers for scriptures promises. If all must receive baptism of water and spirit to enter into the Kingdom of God, then hopefully to each of us there is scripture which can be interpreted within the constraints of scripture to define enough of the the process of how this is done to truly be the hope in the resurrection that Paul promises.
The hope, that for the millions of people that died before 33 AD, the hope that they too could share in the promises of Christ through some mechanism that maintains the integrity of the Word of God. I find this hope for me in the concept of Baptism for the dead referenced in 15:29. As of yet, for myself, no other scriptural precedent protects the integrity of all scripture by providing the mechanism that speaks to all promises in scripture relative to this discussion at hand.
If you find a different hope, please illustrate the continuity of how you believe by appealing to the word of God. Show me what works for you. It is not important for the moment that we agree, but it is important that we have the courage to see what is being said and wrap our own personal hope in the words of God that speak to our hearts and not our fears which may not reflect the words of scripture but instead the rational of men. Of the four options which campeador has provided which seem most aligned with the scriptural requirement? This is the next step; four points of knowledge so diverse that they cannot all be right requires further thought, research, pondering and prayer. Which one is most consistent with God’s word and the promises therein?..
E
EllieH
Guest
I would like to read this section of the Catechism can you point me in the right direction for an online source?
E
EllieH
Guest
First off let me just state how I appreciate the fact that you are not providing a knee-jerk response but one that is thought out and reflects genuine effort of thought. This is not just the usual defensive posturing but you have made genuine effort at validating your perspective. That is significant to me.
Prior to your post double bind was not a concept of which I was aware. I have read your description and I visited the site you provided and several other sites that discussed it and I will absolutely agree that this paradigm does exist. However, and please bear with me, but examine this double-bind concept with a little more objectivity…I’m not trying to disagree but just letting you see my thought process. As I stated it is a real paradigm, however, even as I was reading your description on it the first thought that occurred to me was that the argument was applicable to many areas but particularly religion in general. After I read the site you provided, I knew that I could type in a dozen different searches into Google and find everyone twisting the double bind concept to object to their particular point of offense. Atheists use it to undermine religious claims, Christians to undermine Catholics and Mormons and Protestants.
Here’s one for a person who is caught in a double bind for the restraints of her Catholic religion: http://www.fortunatefamilies.com/2012/dawns-story-dawn-elizabeth-wright/ . For space constraints, I won’t give a complete list of links but mixing up a few keyword searches with the word double bind will produce an eclectic brew for the discerning apologist or critic of practically any venue in life of which you can conceive. Few however are more absurd than Dawns story above…Here is an example for the supposed general double bind as perceived by someone concerning AA over religious themes in the AA program.
My God is okay. But the Gods represented by three of the main religions of the world today (Cristianity, Islam & Judaism) are, in large part, not like my God. I simply can’t get past the perception that the Gods represented by the organized religions are totally conditional, abusive, control freaks. There is a double bind mechanism going on and double binds are, by their very definition, inescapable. Not that one can’t escape per se, but they are inescapable whilst complying with the “binds”. (http://www.toxicdrums.com/is-god-an-abuser.html )
It’s obvious to me that if we explained double bind to James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise he would nod his head and tell you all about the Kobayashi Maru from his days at the academy. However, the interpretation of a set of events as a no win scenario can be applied to any organization with which one wants to take offense and it is particularly useful for decrying religion as a whole or any brand thereof. I can only ask that you think in broader terms and examine the potential abuse that comes from such a formula as double bind. Anyone can create these scenarios simply by filling in the formula. As a courtesy, I will not go into detail but one of the best examples is found within the history of the early Catholic Church relative to assessing a woman’s guilt for practicing the dark arts. However, let’s be clear, this example is not a focus point of this discussion and I do not want to consider it at this time but only to give you a point to consider in terms of the overall picture of your observations from a perspective that I hope will soften your bias to allow for a more generous consideration of how great is the potential abuse for using such a philosophical construct that is a poor construct for determining truth. For me, using the concept of double bind outside of the venue for which it was constructed brings it squarely into this venue:
Colossians 2:8
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
So, my point is that it is possibly a reasonable construct for the unnatural state of mind of a schizophrenic dealing with the nuances of the burdens of the mind which are unique to their situation. Their condition imposes a perceptual challenge that creates a particular type of stress that Gregory Bateson coined a descriptive phrase to reference. (Gregory Bateson, a British linguist who studied schizophrenia, where he used the term “double bind” to describe as a symptom the stress that a schizophrenic feels when perceiving two conflicting messages. (http://www.toxicdrums.com/is-god-an-abuser.html))) That stress is not, IMO, universally applicable for the scriptural patterns of promise upon conditions, effort to achieve and failure when we fall short of fulfilling the conditions for whatever reason. How common it has become with contemporary societal indoctrination to absolve ourselves of any responsibility of the outcome – Double bind seems to me, because of its sophistic abuse, to simply be an expanded embrace whatever flavor of excuse rational that can be affixed to any demon of my choosing.
The key point and the one I think you were quick to overlook because you have accepted the paradigm of the double bind as applicable to Mormons, is that the double bind is not derived as a function of LDS theology. It is a function of scripture and more inclusively religion in General. Let’s look at a verse that is essentially the same construct that you considered the Moroni challenge to be:
James 1:5
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
This verse suggests no more to you than does Moroni. If you wish to understand something, ask of God who is generous and gives to all men liberally and he will receive what he seeks. However, there are conditions and if you fail in them you receive nothing. Those conditions have limited measurable potential other than the receipt of the promised blessing. It is only a double bind when it fails. For those that apply the formula above and succeed they perceive no sense of double-bind. They receive the promised revelation and because LDS believe that the heavens are open and God still communicates with man we can’t possibly interpret the process as a double bind process. It works, it has for me and it has for others…and for some it does not work…people in general, not just LDS, always play the Job card and presume to judge the individual unwisely and in accusatory fashion. If someone try’s it and fails it is a logical conclusion that they failed to meet the conditions of receipt but I can’t say why that would be the case.
End of part one to be continued…
E
EllieH
Guest
Nonetheless, it is a simple equation that is found in a multitude of flavors throughout scripture and each one of them is subject to being claimed as a double bind with the act of creating the twist in sophistry that defines the spiritual Kobayashi Maru. But as the verse above points out, without specificity, fail to meet the conditions and nothing happens. Is that a double bind or simply that one needs to continue in patience as James references in the verses 3 and 4 preceding the ones above and not give up and in the Lord’s time when conditions are met it will be.
I need to move on for the time constraints but once again my point is that all religion is under attack from these types of philosophical deceptions. If I give credence to its use against the LDS theology, I give credence to its use against any or all religions. In a critical thinking class I took about 5 years ago we went over a list of logical fallacies. What was fascinating to me is that this set of rules for evaluating logical constructs has been embraced as the set of standards by academia and one can clearly see that religious ideas and theology suffer more than most other mainstreams of thought. Post hoc ergo propter hoc by definition defies validating any act of faith as a gift from God. Slippery slope logic debates completely undermine religious ideas that evil begets more evil. Etc etc etc…Double bind is just one more bit of philosophy that is wonderfully suited to attack religion – review how atheists use it and you can see my point.
……………………….
As one who has researched the concepts of Christ being married I am also the one who has on several occasions pulled out that same list of quotes and given them to my sons to carry to their Seminary teachers who were unclear on the origins of such statements. I know of a fact that many members have not even considered the concept. In my ward there may be 10 people that even know the quotes exist and of those 10 possibly one other who has worked with the material as I have. You need read nothing sinister or devilish in my response it is simply my observations.
Nonetheless, Paul, you and I are at different levels of understanding on this material. As I would read your way of characterizing my statements as haughty and arrogant I would have to presume that were you in the audience to whom Paul was speaking when he mentioned they could not handle meat but to their destruction that you would have characterized him in the same way. It was not meant as disparaging from Paul, it was a simply observation of the way it was. It is not meant as a criticism from me it is simply the way I see it.
I would expect you to presume the same of me if this was a conversation concerning the Saints of Catholicism, or the justifications for celibacy of monks. You have an entirely different capacity to validate these doctrines as a believer than do I as one who sees them opposing scriptural precedent. Were you to couch your descriptions of these types of Catholic concepts, objectively I would only agree with you that they are not as well understood or grasped from a believers point of view, for you would be right – just as I am to note that distinction between Paul and I when it comes to principles of eternal marriage.
The Jews have a principle that “knowledge” is incomplete by itself. Proper perceptions can only be gained and elucidated upon when knowledge is combined with wisdom through the venue of understanding. I have spent 12 years or so studying Jewish principles of scripture study and understanding and can only sustain their correct perception upon this principle. However, it is completely ignored by western academic priority which hyper emphasizes the “sacred” power of knowledge. Paul the Apostle so clearly understands this principle when he states:
1 Cor 3:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
Paul the Apostle has the knowledge but his understanding of giving knowledge to those unprepared for it for the lack of spiritual maturity is bounded in the wisdom to be cautious with giving more than people are able to bear. That for me was why I preferred to introduce my support of the concept in a careful, explanatory way, instead of shutting down the proper process learning by putting meat before milk.
You can twist that around and create a double bind scenario out of it and it can be very convincing but as I stated earlier it is a poor manner of defining truth. Why can’t I simply be allowed to use Paul’s very correct explanation as I understand its scriptural implications? Why can’t we just use the scripture I base my actions on to define my actions?
My statement to Paul the poster and to all is that our actions must be consistent not only when we agree with others or not, but according to Christ based standards at all times. Paul the Apostle is explaining the appropriate use of fundamental doctrines to strengthen the membership so that if they apply the fundamentals they will be better equipped to approve deeper doctrines.
End of Part 2 to be continued.
I need to move on for the time constraints but once again my point is that all religion is under attack from these types of philosophical deceptions. If I give credence to its use against the LDS theology, I give credence to its use against any or all religions. In a critical thinking class I took about 5 years ago we went over a list of logical fallacies. What was fascinating to me is that this set of rules for evaluating logical constructs has been embraced as the set of standards by academia and one can clearly see that religious ideas and theology suffer more than most other mainstreams of thought. Post hoc ergo propter hoc by definition defies validating any act of faith as a gift from God. Slippery slope logic debates completely undermine religious ideas that evil begets more evil. Etc etc etc…Double bind is just one more bit of philosophy that is wonderfully suited to attack religion – review how atheists use it and you can see my point.
……………………….
HD – first let’s be clear that I was not speculating or equivocating in my response, speculating was Paul’s terminology. I was voicing my observations and I was toning them down to what I considered an appropriate level for the audience. I wanted to explain the logical background from a scriptural perspective of why it is not as difficult a paradigm to grasp if one is objective. I have long maintained that it is completely disingenuous to come after the LDS, a religion that claims to be a restoration of all gospel principles, unless one can get Abraham, Isaac and Jacob out of the way. Every statement of condemnation against us a condemnation of the Prophets. To really do a good job of castigating the LDS one needs to show that these, the preeminent of some of the most righteous men who have ever lived, were in error in their practice.
As one who has researched the concepts of Christ being married I am also the one who has on several occasions pulled out that same list of quotes and given them to my sons to carry to their Seminary teachers who were unclear on the origins of such statements. I know of a fact that many members have not even considered the concept. In my ward there may be 10 people that even know the quotes exist and of those 10 possibly one other who has worked with the material as I have. You need read nothing sinister or devilish in my response it is simply my observations.
Nonetheless, Paul, you and I are at different levels of understanding on this material. As I would read your way of characterizing my statements as haughty and arrogant I would have to presume that were you in the audience to whom Paul was speaking when he mentioned they could not handle meat but to their destruction that you would have characterized him in the same way. It was not meant as disparaging from Paul, it was a simply observation of the way it was. It is not meant as a criticism from me it is simply the way I see it.
I would expect you to presume the same of me if this was a conversation concerning the Saints of Catholicism, or the justifications for celibacy of monks. You have an entirely different capacity to validate these doctrines as a believer than do I as one who sees them opposing scriptural precedent. Were you to couch your descriptions of these types of Catholic concepts, objectively I would only agree with you that they are not as well understood or grasped from a believers point of view, for you would be right – just as I am to note that distinction between Paul and I when it comes to principles of eternal marriage.
The Jews have a principle that “knowledge” is incomplete by itself. Proper perceptions can only be gained and elucidated upon when knowledge is combined with wisdom through the venue of understanding. I have spent 12 years or so studying Jewish principles of scripture study and understanding and can only sustain their correct perception upon this principle. However, it is completely ignored by western academic priority which hyper emphasizes the “sacred” power of knowledge. Paul the Apostle so clearly understands this principle when he states:
1 Cor 3:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
Paul the Apostle has the knowledge but his understanding of giving knowledge to those unprepared for it for the lack of spiritual maturity is bounded in the wisdom to be cautious with giving more than people are able to bear. That for me was why I preferred to introduce my support of the concept in a careful, explanatory way, instead of shutting down the proper process learning by putting meat before milk.
You can twist that around and create a double bind scenario out of it and it can be very convincing but as I stated earlier it is a poor manner of defining truth. Why can’t I simply be allowed to use Paul’s very correct explanation as I understand its scriptural implications? Why can’t we just use the scripture I base my actions on to define my actions?
My statement to Paul the poster and to all is that our actions must be consistent not only when we agree with others or not, but according to Christ based standards at all times. Paul the Apostle is explaining the appropriate use of fundamental doctrines to strengthen the membership so that if they apply the fundamentals they will be better equipped to approve deeper doctrines.
End of Part 2 to be continued.
E
EllieH
Guest
In this response, I have mentioned a total of 3 Catholic teachings that are uniquely yours. My observation is based on the fact that I could dig up an immense amount of history and authoritative commentary and actions by Catholic Popes, Bishops and monks hoping to poison the well with my personal bias against these concepts. However, I consider that a deceptive practice which invites contention which belies any effort at a reasonable discussion of mature adults. It sets the terms of our interaction on defensive posturing and not genuine exchange. I base this attitude on my understanding of scriptural precedent that informs me that I should “shun profane and vain babblings” which “increase unto more ungodliness” (2 Timothy 2:14-16) and that I need to study and use scripture as my behavior guide. I have to be cautious that my goal is not to subvert the hearers by using a tactic that I realize will shut down the process of considerate exchange and allow for a reasoned approach. From my perspective, if I do otherwise, I am simply in error for most common interactions.
Christ being married is a necessity from LDS and Jewish theology, however, to typical Christian and Catholic theology it is an offense and a stumbling stone. One only needs to toss out the meat of the doctrine with absolutely no other commentary or accusation and the rest is history. My goal was to soften the approach. An approach I also have used in referencing Catholic doctrines. As earlier stated, there is ample history of questionable events in Catholic history to create much more shocking material than Christ being married. However, this is a public forum and out of respect for you and others, I am not going to present factual, historically accepted “evidence” that on its face only incites contention and puts you and others in an uncomfortable position of trying to explain or defend questionable events. I don’t need to say a word of attack and can be as non-challenging as a summer breeze, but it would be wrong for me to toss out the facts of something I do not agree with for its alienation effect alone.
Analyzing my motivations over the years, when I have done the same thing, I have realized that I am not being charitable or kind or considerate of the spiritual maturity of others who I may rob of the opportunity to consider a concept with proper explanation as Paul the Apostle attempts to do in Corinthians and Hebrews when he takes store of the spiritual weakness of the people. As this is a public forum, I realize that many read these things and I have to consider all in my response. Private discourse would be different.
These are very real observations and I agree that they are a challenge for many LDS or former LDS. Again as mentioned above each of us have decisions to make over how our religious organizations respond to perceived threats. I think that had we persisted with plural marriage, you and I would not be having this conversation as the LDS church would have ceased to exist in America if not the world. That there are times when the requirements of God are not met and changes are made is on several occasions referenced in scripture. I have used one such instance in this thread already:
Matthew 19:8
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
In this instance marriage was of imminent importance to God and divorce was unacceptable. He made laws against it and forbade it yet because of the wickedness of the people, it came down to the fact that it was a better thing to change the commandment than sacrifice so many of the people, who might eventually grow to understand if/when they finally converted to being obedient. Losing them on this principle of doctrine meant the loss of a greater number than would eventually be saved if they were not offended in their spiritual immaturity.
Though the circumstances were different, polygamy was going to be the death knell for the church. That God allowed it to be rescinded seems consistent with the path of greater salvation. I am not polygamous in this life, but upon the same hope in the resurrection that Paul the Apostle recommends to the saints of his day concerning Baptism for the Dead, I have the same hope for embracing the laws of polygamy. I have reasons to believe it is required for exaltation but it is not required at this time due to the requirements of the laws of the land. As a point of consideration for you, I will provide a little known quote by Senator Frederick Dubois, who tirelessly worked to destroy the church in the early days where he indicates why they choose to persecute the saints on the principles of polygamy and what the governments more likely fear was:
“Those of us who understood the situation were not nearly as much opposed to polygamy as we were to the political domination of the Church. We realized, however, that we could not make those who did not come actually in contact with it, understand what this political domination meant. We made use of polygamy in consequence as our great weapon of offense and to gain recruits to our standard. There was a universal detestation of polygamy, and inasmuch as the Mormons openly defended it we were given a very effective weapon with which to attack.” Autobiography of Frederick T. Dubois, MS, 29, Idaho Historical Society, as quoted in Grenville H. Gibbs, “Mormonism in Idaho Politics, 1880-1890,” Utah Historical Quarterly 21 (1953), 291.
Still, most true believing LDS recognize the exact same observations you are making, but just as baptism was not required of those who died before receiving baptism, we recognize God’s mercy and willingness to allow obedience to his laws through other valid means. So we teach it is not necessary, and that a husband and a wife can receive of the fullness of the blessings of the gospel…and they will when the time is right.
End of part three - to be continued…
Paul did nothing uncommon, most people in defense of their religion love to pounce on the shock approach of dropping the hardness of an uncomfortable doctrine without even trying to understand its potential. Still, if you characterize that he said I said that it was not taught, that is not at all what I said. I did not deny it in the least as being taught, I made the observations based on my experience that many are not aware of it and I supported possibilities as to some limited scriptural interpretation as to why it might be a reasonably possibility. However, your response illustrates my need for caution from my perspective.
Christ being married is a necessity from LDS and Jewish theology, however, to typical Christian and Catholic theology it is an offense and a stumbling stone. One only needs to toss out the meat of the doctrine with absolutely no other commentary or accusation and the rest is history. My goal was to soften the approach. An approach I also have used in referencing Catholic doctrines. As earlier stated, there is ample history of questionable events in Catholic history to create much more shocking material than Christ being married. However, this is a public forum and out of respect for you and others, I am not going to present factual, historically accepted “evidence” that on its face only incites contention and puts you and others in an uncomfortable position of trying to explain or defend questionable events. I don’t need to say a word of attack and can be as non-challenging as a summer breeze, but it would be wrong for me to toss out the facts of something I do not agree with for its alienation effect alone.
Analyzing my motivations over the years, when I have done the same thing, I have realized that I am not being charitable or kind or considerate of the spiritual maturity of others who I may rob of the opportunity to consider a concept with proper explanation as Paul the Apostle attempts to do in Corinthians and Hebrews when he takes store of the spiritual weakness of the people. As this is a public forum, I realize that many read these things and I have to consider all in my response. Private discourse would be different.
unpacking that chapter of the D&C, Emma’s severely negative reaction to the doctrine, and the First Presidency and the Apostles of the church testifying to the United States Senate of the teaching of “polygamy or Celestial Marriage”.
These are very real observations and I agree that they are a challenge for many LDS or former LDS. Again as mentioned above each of us have decisions to make over how our religious organizations respond to perceived threats. I think that had we persisted with plural marriage, you and I would not be having this conversation as the LDS church would have ceased to exist in America if not the world. That there are times when the requirements of God are not met and changes are made is on several occasions referenced in scripture. I have used one such instance in this thread already:
Matthew 19:8
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
In this instance marriage was of imminent importance to God and divorce was unacceptable. He made laws against it and forbade it yet because of the wickedness of the people, it came down to the fact that it was a better thing to change the commandment than sacrifice so many of the people, who might eventually grow to understand if/when they finally converted to being obedient. Losing them on this principle of doctrine meant the loss of a greater number than would eventually be saved if they were not offended in their spiritual immaturity.
Though the circumstances were different, polygamy was going to be the death knell for the church. That God allowed it to be rescinded seems consistent with the path of greater salvation. I am not polygamous in this life, but upon the same hope in the resurrection that Paul the Apostle recommends to the saints of his day concerning Baptism for the Dead, I have the same hope for embracing the laws of polygamy. I have reasons to believe it is required for exaltation but it is not required at this time due to the requirements of the laws of the land. As a point of consideration for you, I will provide a little known quote by Senator Frederick Dubois, who tirelessly worked to destroy the church in the early days where he indicates why they choose to persecute the saints on the principles of polygamy and what the governments more likely fear was:
“Those of us who understood the situation were not nearly as much opposed to polygamy as we were to the political domination of the Church. We realized, however, that we could not make those who did not come actually in contact with it, understand what this political domination meant. We made use of polygamy in consequence as our great weapon of offense and to gain recruits to our standard. There was a universal detestation of polygamy, and inasmuch as the Mormons openly defended it we were given a very effective weapon with which to attack.” Autobiography of Frederick T. Dubois, MS, 29, Idaho Historical Society, as quoted in Grenville H. Gibbs, “Mormonism in Idaho Politics, 1880-1890,” Utah Historical Quarterly 21 (1953), 291.
Still, most true believing LDS recognize the exact same observations you are making, but just as baptism was not required of those who died before receiving baptism, we recognize God’s mercy and willingness to allow obedience to his laws through other valid means. So we teach it is not necessary, and that a husband and a wife can receive of the fullness of the blessings of the gospel…and they will when the time is right.
End of part three - to be continued…
E
EllieH
Guest
I can appreciate the fervor of this observation and the commitment that it illustrates for your love of the Catholic Church. I can guess, judging by the intelligent insight that you manifest concerning the details of Celestial Marriage that you are a person willing to do your homework and actually find the “scoop” on things. This I respect very much.
Still, this as you express it is far from clear cut and has been subject to debate since the first discussion of The Didache as canonized or heretical. Several of these sacraments became the focus of the Protestant reformation and subsequent fracturing of the Catholic and thereafter other religious organizations for the claim that they had been changed. Nonetheless, that the ordinances as observed within the Catholic Church have been subjected to revision is readily manifested simply from Catholic resources that discuss the Latin Rite and the Need of the Second Vatican council wherein immersion was reintroduced as a permissible option. (http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34099)
For centuries, Catholics have been baptized with a sprinkling of water on their foreheads.
But now Catholics are reviving the ancient tradition of immersion. St. Bartholomew is the first Catholic church in Broward County to have a full immersion pool.
It`s an old trend being revisited, said Sister Maureen Cannon of the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. Problem is that it demands a building change for most churches.( articles.sun-sentinel.com/1993-02-08/news/9301080426_1_baptism-immersion-catholic-doctrine)That’s about as far as I will carry this side of the discussion. . If you wish to develop the detail of changes esp. that of baptism, even when Baptism for the Dead was discontinued, I am willing to go along but I will let you lead the discussion if there is to be any. I doubt I will be able to go much into the presentation of your own literature as somehow that approach just seems contentious to me and I recognize that if anyone is truly interested it is readily available to the true seekers.
My real point is that when an organization accepts the principle that God still speaks to man, just as he did Moses, then when changes are necessary, they can be communicated to his prophets for the people, just as Moses altered the conditions of divorce. We do not feel the heavens are closed and the examples of a change in plans as manifest in scriptures are part of a living church. We have a mechanism that at least explains why we can adjust the conditions of a growing church to conform to anything the Lord requires and still be true to our theology. Aristotelian logic, originating from the philosopher and scientist, became the downfall of believing that God talked to man. The observation that God’s unchanging nature must embrace unyielding exactness and cannot be altered is more condemnatory to those that believe the heavens are closed than those that acknowledge the living functions of ongoing revelation to guide individuals and organizations. Those religious organizations that deny living revelation must of necessity eventually give in to all arguments of having made changes based upon revelation and must simply acknowledge that, as the heavens were closed to them, they can only operate according to the best intents of men, if they are going to remain true to their religious theology.
I apologize for the length and there is so much more to say but I will forgo for now. As far as Mormon’s changing how things are done, I can’t expect that it makes sense to those outside the church who do not have the reference points of revelation upon which change is based. In the cases of what we have discussed it also solves the dilemma of double bind for those who exercise faith unto revelation such as James and Moroni witness is possible. I can try to explain in more detail but again will leave it to yours or others questions of such should there be any.
e.
E
EllieH
Guest
edited double post.
L
LynJohn1023
Guest
Matthew and John are pretty clear (John has total clarity as an EYEWITNESS) that Christ’s declaration in MT 27:46 was to fulfill prophecy. It wasn’t some off hand remark in the midst of suffering that he believed his Father had abandoned him. It may have even been muttered since many of the pharisees, etc. misheard him as calling down Elijah the Prophet.
Look, you are clearly on fire for your Mormon faith. Bravo. I love Mormons. But we need to agree to disagree on the nature and event that brought us atonement for the original sin as we hold utterly different views on it.
“Christ paid a debt he didn’t owe because I owed a debt I couldn’t pay.”
- Scott Hahn
L
LynJohn1023
Guest
As long as we agree that all Christian and purported Christian denominations came from a rebellion within the True Catholic Church…
Just kidding.
HonoraDominum is correct. The fundamental truths taught by the apostles and codified in our liturgical celebrations and sacraments remains unchanged for 2000 years. That said, your reference to the, “Reformation,” brought on by a misinterpretation of Ephesians from Latin to German by an otherwise obscure Augustinian monk from Wittenburg is a canard since from that time we have believed him a heretic and his teaching heresy.
It is worthy of debate, the Reformation. But it isn’t really pertinent to this discussion.
Tell you what though, you are one seriously well-studied LDS member. I applaud you
.
L
LynJohn1023
Guest
By the way, Baptism either sprinkling or immersion (as the Greek Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics have done since the beginning) is not a change in doctrine. If the form changed that would constitute a change. Water three times and these words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father (water), and of the Son (water) and of the Holy Spirit (water) constitutes the One Baptism we confess in the Catholic Church, and has been since Pentecost.
- Status