L
Lemuel
Guest
Sorry, but that’s simply not true. The Church continued to practice polygamy well into the 1900’s.
- Status
R
Raxus
Guest
You’ll need to prove that, please.
L
Lemuel
Guest
These are not splinter groups. Your own church admits to it. And if you believe in obeying the laws then why did your president John Taylor live out the last couple of years of his life as a fugitive of the law?
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Catholic priests don’t always wear black. There are different colors throughout the liturgical calendar. Priests were robes of all different colors - red, green, white. There probably is a black robe but I am actually not sure about that. Methodist preachers wear black, at least they did in the 19th century. I think now it is pretty much come as you will. Maybe Joseph made the right move. (sorry I confused Joseph Smith with Brigham Young above)
Last edited:
J
jas84173
Guest
Trinity was defined in the same Council that defined the New Testament Canon. So you can trust the New Testament is correct but they were wrong about that? That’s a paradox.
R
Raxus
Guest
You made the claim. Claims are made on proof. Get crackin’.
Inferred or explicitly, prove your case. If you wanna. Let’s see where marriage is eternal.
L
Lemuel
Guest
I didn’t say a thing about those who are currently practicing it. I was making reference to the hundreds of polygamous marriages that were sanctioned by the LDS church after the Manifesto.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
And going back to your former assertion that your Church honors the laws of the land, then what does that say about all the polygamy that went on during Joseph Smith’s times when it was clearly illegal?
I also wonder if you’re avoiding my other question about Joseph Smith’s polyandrous marriages. If God allowed women to be married to more than one man back then, then why not now? When did that policy change?
L
Lemuel
Guest
Look up the data. There were more men than women in early Utah. That nonsense has been thoroughly debunked.
Exile? Do you just make this stuff up as you go? John Taylor remained in Utah until his death in Kaysville.
L
Lemuel
Guest
They are both the fruit of Joseph Smith. And you know what they say about knowing them by their fruits?
I imagine that Joseph Smith is on the sidelines cheering for Warren Jeffs about now.
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
Nothing there says that Paul and his fellow apostles practiced baptism for the dead. That is just your assumption.
M
Minnesota
Guest
The Book of Mormon does not contain the fullness of the Gospel.
Scripture was written by inspired men, who through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, dictated the life, ministry, Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is divinely inspired and without a word of error. It does not need mere men who, although they mean well, believe in a polytheistic facsimile of the Christian religion and add more of their idea of Sacred Scripture.
If the Book of Mormon is the fullness of the Gospel, then why was it only revealed in the 19th century by a man of English extraction in Nauvoo, Illinois?
And to add to that, the American Midwest in the 19th century? At the time of the writings of Joseph Smith, settling west of the Appalachian Mountains was a new concept - it was forbidden under the English and when this was written, the United States was barely 30 years old.
Wouldn’t something that purported to have the fullness of the Holy Gospel be discovered in the lands where Our Sacred Lord walked the Earth? The Holy Land in modern-day Israel? Jesus Christ is God - if He wanted to traverse to the North American continent sometime between AD 0 and AD 30, He could make it possible. But it seems very unlikely.
Third, why would a layman in the middle of an infant nation suddenly have the fullness of the Gospel of Christ? Would it not belong to His Apostles, the first Catholic hierarchy? Or an early saint?
I have nothing wrong, personally, with those of the Mormon religion. They are a big part of my field of study thanks to the work of Brigham Young University and its very refined choral studies program. I have a lot of qualms with Mormon theology.
Pax tecum.
Scripture was written by inspired men, who through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, dictated the life, ministry, Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is divinely inspired and without a word of error. It does not need mere men who, although they mean well, believe in a polytheistic facsimile of the Christian religion and add more of their idea of Sacred Scripture.
If the Book of Mormon is the fullness of the Gospel, then why was it only revealed in the 19th century by a man of English extraction in Nauvoo, Illinois?
And to add to that, the American Midwest in the 19th century? At the time of the writings of Joseph Smith, settling west of the Appalachian Mountains was a new concept - it was forbidden under the English and when this was written, the United States was barely 30 years old.
Wouldn’t something that purported to have the fullness of the Holy Gospel be discovered in the lands where Our Sacred Lord walked the Earth? The Holy Land in modern-day Israel? Jesus Christ is God - if He wanted to traverse to the North American continent sometime between AD 0 and AD 30, He could make it possible. But it seems very unlikely.
Third, why would a layman in the middle of an infant nation suddenly have the fullness of the Gospel of Christ? Would it not belong to His Apostles, the first Catholic hierarchy? Or an early saint?
I have nothing wrong, personally, with those of the Mormon religion. They are a big part of my field of study thanks to the work of Brigham Young University and its very refined choral studies program. I have a lot of qualms with Mormon theology.
Pax tecum.
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
I’m quite familiar with Alabama. Of course you don’t need to answer this but what ward are you referring to?
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Read Matthew 22:30. The entire verse when read in proper context indicates that marriage will not last into heaven, any Mormon twisting of this passage could not suffice and wouldn’t even make sense based on the context of the verse; if you try to argue that they [the woman and her several husbands] were not “eternally sealed”, that fails because,
Reading further down in 1 Corinthians 7, we see Paul speak of living as you are called and then of the benefits of remaining single, even telling the unmarried in verse 27 to “not seek a wife.” Though he does not say marriage is sinful, and even gives some precepts to the married. Interestingly in verse 29 Paul says, “But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none”", It’s possible St. Paul may have believed the Lord would return in his time, or shortly after, and he is clearly hinting at the dissolution of marriage here, which is further supported by the next verses 30-31. In verse 32, Paul tells us that he who is married cares for the things of the Lord, while in verse 33 he says that the married care for things of this world [their wife].
Now let me ask you this, is St. Paul not going to make it to the highest degree of glory because he remained unmarried and encouraged others to also remain unmarried? Because it seems to me that according to Mormon belief, St. Paul cannot be exalted, and thus he didn’t complete the fullness of salvation. Why would Paul not want to reach full exaltation, and why would he encourage others not to reach full exaltation as well?
- Such a concept did not exist at the time, nor has it ever existed in Christian history, and I certainty can’t find any place where Jesus teaches the concept. Being “sealed” is entirely a Mormon invention.
- Why couldn’t Jesus have just introduced or began teaching about the doctrine of “sealing” right there in this passage? No, instead he answers that there will be no marriage in the resurrection.
Reading further down in 1 Corinthians 7, we see Paul speak of living as you are called and then of the benefits of remaining single, even telling the unmarried in verse 27 to “not seek a wife.” Though he does not say marriage is sinful, and even gives some precepts to the married. Interestingly in verse 29 Paul says, “But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none”", It’s possible St. Paul may have believed the Lord would return in his time, or shortly after, and he is clearly hinting at the dissolution of marriage here, which is further supported by the next verses 30-31. In verse 32, Paul tells us that he who is married cares for the things of the Lord, while in verse 33 he says that the married care for things of this world [their wife].
Now let me ask you this, is St. Paul not going to make it to the highest degree of glory because he remained unmarried and encouraged others to also remain unmarried? Because it seems to me that according to Mormon belief, St. Paul cannot be exalted, and thus he didn’t complete the fullness of salvation. Why would Paul not want to reach full exaltation, and why would he encourage others not to reach full exaltation as well?
Last edited:
B
BornInMarch
Guest
That’s not quite what Catholics believe. In Trinitarian Tradition (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, etc), Jesus is considered to be ALL divine as well as ALL human. Jesus is the son of God, but Jesus IS God as well.
This second part is important. It’s what separates Jesus from, say, Hercules (a Greek Mythological Figure who was considered the son of Zeus but was held as being distinct from him). Jesus is not a demigod.
G
gazelam
Guest
Regarding Matthew 22:30, a non-LDS scholar has stated…
The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?..Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state.” (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 328, italics added)
The Jews seem to have believed in eternal marriage from at least second-temple times, since they posed the question about the woman with seven successive husbands, asking which of them would be her husband “in the resurrection” (Matthew 22:28; Mark 12:23; Luke 20:33). The concept of eternal marriage is well-attested among Jews in the medieval period and is frequently mentioned in the Zohar, which also notes that God has a wife, the Matrona (“mother”), and is known in the Talmud. In the Falasha (the black Jews of Ethiopia’s text) 5 Baruch, it has Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, being shown various parts of the heavenly Jerusalem, with different gates for different heirs. The text then says, “I asked the angel who conducted me and said to him: ‘Who enters through this gate?’ He who guided me answered and said to me: ‘Blessed are those who enter through this gate. [Here] the husband remains with his wife and the wife remains with her husband’” (Wolf Leslau, Falasha Antholog (New Haven: Yale, 1951, 1971), 65.)
G
gazelam
Guest
For one thing Jesus was addressing non-believers who were attempting to trap Him. Why would He expound a new doctrine to those who couldn’t care less? Enlightenment comes to the faithful.
Already refuted earlier…
Paul clearly was married, at least at one point. 1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
Ignatius wrote the following:
I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found … at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men (Philadelphians, Chap 4, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1)
Also, it’s important to note that Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 7 to the married is from God…
1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord)
…and the advice to the rest (i.e., singles) is only Paul’s opinion…
1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest I say (not the Lord)…
…and only intended during the “present distress” (whatever that is).
1 Corinthians 7:26 So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.
As I already showed, Paul was married, and the counsel he gave for some to remain unmarried was his opinion and was only meant for the “present distress”. I think it’s safe to say Paul wants Eternal Life.
I hope this helps…
Last edited:
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Did you really not read what I just wrote? That interpretation wouldn’t even make sense based on the context. If Jesus believed that marriage could last into heaven, then why didn’t he just introduce the concept? No, instead, he gives them an answer about the nature of marriage in heaven in Matthew 22:30. The context of the passage demands the interpretation that marriage will not last into heaven.
Actually, this becomes clearer when we look to the Jewish views of marriage. According to Jewish tradition (even to this day), death is seen as the end of marriage. But in the 1st century and even well into the centuries to come, there was debate over whether marriage could be restored in the resurrection. Funnily enough, in the Zohar, regarding which husband the woman will remarry in the resurrection after she had been married to at least 2 men with the first one having died during marriage, the Zohar says that she should remarry the first and not the second (Zohar I, 21b), however, the Sefer HaNitzachon argues the exact opposite and says that she should remarry the second (Anaf Yosef, Sanhedrin, 128). Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Baghdad agreed with the Zohar and asserted it would be the first, and many Kabbalistic Jews hold this opinion today, though there is still debate about this issue and no uniform position among Jews today.
Last edited:
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
With this all in mind, it actually becomes much clearer and fits the context really well. The Sadducees were expecting Jesus to answer about who she would remarry in the resurrection, and Jesus answers that she will not be remarried to any of them but rather that they will be like “the angels in heaven.” Jesus was participating in a typical Rabbinical discourse, debating with other fellow Jews of his over these kinds of questions that often got raised by scholarly Rabbis. In this passage, Jesus not only demonstrates how he believes in the Jewish tradition that death ends marriage, he then goes onto give his opinion that there will be no remarriage in the resurrection. This of course logically leads to the belief that marriage can not at all last beyond this life
Of course, as I see, Mormons are twisting ancient Jewish beliefs that marriage is eternal when this simply isn’t the case. It’s actually a lot more complicated than that, but typical Mormon apologetics tries to make everything sound so grounded. As shown, the Jews believed marriage ended at death, and whether a person will be remarried after the resurrection was up to the opinion of the Rabbi. For our Lord, Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth (Christ), there will be no remarriage after the resurrection, and thus for Christ marriage is only for this life.
Now, onto the next case.
Of course, as I see, Mormons are twisting ancient Jewish beliefs that marriage is eternal when this simply isn’t the case. It’s actually a lot more complicated than that, but typical Mormon apologetics tries to make everything sound so grounded. As shown, the Jews believed marriage ended at death, and whether a person will be remarried after the resurrection was up to the opinion of the Rabbi. For our Lord, Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth (Christ), there will be no remarriage after the resurrection, and thus for Christ marriage is only for this life.
Now, onto the next case.
Last edited:
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Well he was expounding a new doctrine right here actually, in the Catholic view at least. And Jesus wasn’t afraid to teach about who he was or his teachings to his opponents faces. Look at John 8:58, he openly declares he is God to a whole bunch of people wanting to stone him and who were mocking him and calling him a devil and a Samaritan.
Actually, I refuted you.
1 Corinthians 9:5 doesn’t suggest anything, also, that passage from Ignatius is interesting; perhaps Paul was married before and that seems to be the main tradition I can find, that he was a widow from. It must be noted that Paul never speaks of him every having a wife, but I admit that’s mostly circumstantial.
Yeah, I included mention of that in my original post. There is nothing wrong with marriage. Marriage is good. The family is good. There is a necessity to marriage. But clearly Paul does not see marriage as essential for salvation, even encouraging celibacy, for as he says, “all men.” Even going back to chapter 4:16 where Paul wishes all will imitate him. But please make no mistake about my argument, I am in no way against marriage, neither I or Paul. I am simply showing you how marriage is not necessary for full salvation, and Paul clearly demonstrates this in 1 Corinthians 7.
There is no clear cut evidence that Paul was married, but I will say that the tradition of the early Church that he may have been is interesting. I think I am willing to accept the tradition that he was a widow.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Back to the thread title: Oh, yeah, it contains much much more than the “fullness” of the Gospel which was once for all delivered to the Saints - 1,800 years before mysterious languages, golden plates, spirits named Moroni or Jos. Smith were ever thought of. How can you read the Letter of Jude and believe the BOM?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Inquiring minds want to know.
- Status