For Mormons - How Much Do You Really Know About Joseph Smith?

[Jerusha]

• I am not talking about his racism, although he WAS more racist than “the average.” As if that could be quantified after the fact.

Have you actually read some of his more hair-raising speeches from the JoD? I am sorry, but IMHO, he was a downright evil man.

As for the rest of it, we have no language in common if you don’t accept Bickmore.
SteveVH;12411326:

Oh, yeah… Now I remember why I stopped posting on Mormon threads.

• I don’t know why I keep coming back here. It is pointless.

 

[TOmNossor]

Catholic Farmer:
*

Not according to Catholicism. We were instructed in regards to baptism but our ways are not God’s ways so we cannot know what He might do. We are not in charge of heaven.

Perhaps you should talk to those that believe such a thing. Catholics believe that God is not bound by the sacraments, and that it is possible for those who, through no fault of their own, did not hear the Truth and receive saving baptism to still be saved, through God’s justice, mercy, and grace.

**

This thread is about LDS not knowing their faith. The Brother of Jared is NOT incorrect in suggesting that Catholic believe that infants who die without baptism are denied heaven. Thomas Aquinas knew that unbaptized infants who die cannot go to heaven so he theorized that there was a place called Limbo where these infants do not suffer the eternal torment of heaven. In the 20th century Aquinas’s accommodation began to be questioned and limbo was called theological speculation. Limbo was the theological speculation, but it was an attempt to explain why unbaptized infants were not in hell. There is NO HISTORY before Aquinas that involves a belief that unbaptized infants who die are in heaven NONE. The non-ecumenical council of Carthage claimed that this was part of the heresy of Pelagianism. The ecumenical councils of Florence and Lyons II clearly say, “** the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”**

Concerning the way LivingWaters frames this question was specifically denied by Pope Pius XII as late as 1958. Catholicism had previously taught that desire for baptism can only be carried out by those with formed wills which babies lack.

So, I applaud the move the Catholic Church has made beginning with Aquinas and culminating in the 20th century toward the view the CoJCoLDS defined in the 19th century, but please do not accuse the Brother of Jared of misspeaking when he says what he says. He is right about what ALL Catholic theologians ALWAYS stated before the 20th century (did I miss any theologian- not condemned as Pelagian - who taught anything like the MODERN teaching???).
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

This thread is about LDS not knowing their faith.

That is true. I was correcting an obviously fallacious understanding of Catholic teaching, as understood by Catholics. If you would like to discuss your personal view of a supposed evolution in official Catholic teaching (noting that Catholics would not accept your personal interpretations of our Councils and other writings), as well as your false notion that the Catholic view moved toward the view held by Mormons (which is quite obviously false), then please start a thread in the relevant section of this forum. What I have stated is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, as one can read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and is in direct opposition to what the person I was responding to claimed we believe.

 

[TOmNossor]

That is true. I was correcting an obviously fallacious understanding of Catholic teaching, as understood by Catholics

. If you would like to discuss your personal view of a supposed evolution in official Catholic teaching (noting that Catholics would not accept your personal interpretations of our Councils and other writings), as well as your false notion that the Catholic view moved toward the view held by Mormons (which is quite obviously false), then please start a thread in the relevant section of this forum. What I have stated is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, as one can read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and is in direct opposition to what the person I was responding to claimed we believe.
We have had these discussions in various threads as you know.
You also should recognize that the view that preceded Aquinas, espoused by Carthage and Augustine, is still a view held by conservative Catholics as it is not prohibited in the NEW teaching.
So, I do believe this CHANGE is a CHANGE. I suspect this CHANGE is not even in line with Newman’s development thesis and that the ultra-trads are right.
But…
To suggest that Brother of Jared is misinformed when he said what he said is wrong IMO and least Brother of Jared not be a student of Catholicism, I thought I would point it out.

We might also note that the CoJCoLDS defined its contra-Catholic position on this when the Catholic position was UNIVERSALLY taught and not questions like it has been in the 20th century.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The Brother of Jared is NOT incorrect in suggesting that Catholic believe that infants who die without baptism are denied heaven.

The magisterium of the Catholic Church has never taught limbo and has never condemned babies not baptized by water to hell. Christ has not reveled their fate, so we leave it to his mercy and grace.

While Mormonism rejects the Eucharist, the trinity, and has made the sin of Adam a goal, we don’t know what their future holds, because Christ gave no revelation on Mormonism.

 

[Stephen168]

We have had these discussions in various threads as you know.
You also should recognize that the view that preceded Aquinas, espoused by Carthage and Augustine, is still a view held by conservative Catholics as it is not prohibited in the NEW teaching.
So, I do believe this CHANGE is a CHANGE. I suspect this CHANGE is not even in line with Newman’s development thesis and that the ultra-trads are right.
But…
To suggest that Brother of Jared is misinformed when he said what he said is wrong IMO and least Brother of Jared not be a student of Catholicism, I thought I would point it out.

We might also note that the CoJCoLDS defined its contra-Catholic position on this when the Catholic position was UNIVERSALLY taught and not questions like it has been in the 20th century.

Charity, TOm

You are wrong and it has been explained to you why you are wrong. When you realized you were wrong, you stopped posting. Then you turn up to make the same claims again. You are still wrong.

 

[Stephen168]

Catholic Farmer:
**
**

This thread is about LDS not knowing their faith. The Brother of Jared is NOT incorrect in suggesting that Catholic believe that infants who die without baptism are denied heaven. Thomas Aquinas knew that unbaptized infants who die cannot go to heaven so he theorized that there was a place called Limbo where these infants do not suffer the eternal torment of heaven. In the 20th century Aquinas’s accommodation began to be questioned and limbo was called theological speculation. Limbo was the theological speculation, but it was an attempt to explain why unbaptized infants were not in hell. There is NO HISTORY before Aquinas that involves a belief that unbaptized infants who die are in heaven NONE. The non-ecumenical council of Carthage claimed that this was part of the heresy of Pelagianism. The ecumenical councils of Florence and Lyons II clearly say, “** the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”**

Concerning the way LivingWaters frames this question was specifically denied by Pope Pius XII as late as 1958. Catholicism had previously taught that desire for baptism can only be carried out by those with formed wills which babies lack.

So, I applaud the move the Catholic Church has made beginning with Aquinas and culminating in the 20th century toward the view the CoJCoLDS defined in the 19th century, but please do not accuse the Brother of Jared of misspeaking when he says what he says. He is right about what ALL Catholic theologians ALWAYS stated before the 20th century (did I miss any theologian- not condemned as Pelagian - who taught anything like the MODERN teaching???).
Charity, TOm

You are wrong about Catholic Church teaching, but it does keep you from defending Mormonism; which is an impossible task. See post 108

 

[LivingWaters7]

We have had these discussions in various threads as you know.
You also should recognize that the view that preceded Aquinas, espoused by Carthage and Augustine, is still a view held by conservative Catholics as it is not prohibited in the NEW teaching.
So, I do believe this CHANGE is a CHANGE. I suspect this CHANGE is not even in line with Newman’s development thesis and that the ultra-trads are right.
But…
To suggest that Brother of Jared is misinformed when he said what he said is wrong IMO and least Brother of Jared not be a student of Catholicism, I thought I would point it out.

We might also note that the CoJCoLDS defined its contra-Catholic position on this when the Catholic position was UNIVERSALLY taught and not questions like it has been in the 20th century.

Charity, TOm

Again, if you would like to discuss the matter, start the thread in the relevant place. The fact of the matter is that invincible ignorance goes back long before Aquinas, and that the poster that I was responding to was incorrect about the Catholic understanding of the matter, and that what I stated is quite clearly documented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, making your continued rabbit hole moot. Further, the fact that you continue to claim some sort of equivalence or similarity between the Catholic Church’s position on the matter and what the LDS church teaches demonstrates a lack of understanding of what we Catholics actually believe. The Catholic teaching has not ever moved to something closer to what Mormons claim. Indeed, Mormons are legalistic to the point where they must perform proxy water baptisms, otherwise the individual cannot be saved (i.e. eternal life to be clear). This is not equivalent to the Catholic teachings on invincible ignorance and baptism of desire.

Start another thread to discuss further if you care.

 

[LivingWaters7]

You are wrong about Catholic Church teaching, but it does keep you from defending Mormonism; which is an impossible task. See post 108

It was very amusing to me that he pointed out that this thread is about LDS not knowing their faith, then immediately went on to discussing his erroneous ideas about Catholic teachings.

 

[TOmNossor]

You are wrong and it has been explained to you why you are wrong. When you realized you were wrong, you stopped posting. Then you turn up to make the same claims again. You are still wrong.

I suspected that the Council of Trent (then Council of Lyons II and Council of Florence) had IRREFORMABLY settled the issue at odds with the teaching being offered post Vatican II. I creatively (IMO) proposed a way that the TEXT of the Council of Lyons and Florence could be PARSED and allow that the REFORMED teaching was not contradicting an IRREFFORMABLE council thereby proving that Catholicism is false. I am less convinced that my creative solution should be embraced by me or anyone as the “original intent” of the Bishops certainly was not this. And the letter of the TEXT in previous councils is opposed by the letter of the TEXT in future councils. So, I am less happy with the “letter of the Text” as opposed to the “original intent” idea than I was previously. I did detail this in a thread that occurred between the one to which you refer and this one.

All that being said, it is absolutely true that Brother of Jared is offering the position espoused by EVERY Catholic theologian before the 20th century. Therefore, he should not be told that he is wrong at least not without qualification.

Hope that explains this well enough.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I suspected that the Council of Trent (then Council of Lyons II and Council of Florence) had IRREFORMABLY settled the issue at odds with the teaching being offered post Vatican II. I creatively (IMO) proposed a way that the TEXT of the Council of Lyons and Florence could be PARSED and allow that the REFORMED teaching was not contradicting an IRREFFORMABLE council thereby proving that Catholicism is false. I am less convinced that my creative solution should be embraced by me or anyone as the “original intent” of the Bishops certainly was not this. And the letter of the TEXT in previous councils is opposed by the letter of the TEXT in future councils. So, I am less happy with the “letter of the Text” as opposed to the “original intent” idea than I was previously. I did detail this in a thread that occurred between the one to which you refer and this one.

All that being said, it is absolutely true that Brother of Jared is offering the position espoused by EVERY Catholic theologian before the 20th century. Therefore, he should not be told that he is wrong at least not without qualification.

Hope that explains this well enough.
Charity, TOm

Unlike the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church has never changed its doctrine including the one which you claim has changed. You are wrong.

AND none of this has ANYTHING to do with the invented doctrines of Joseph Smith which prove the Mormon Church is not a restoration but an invention.

 

[Stephen168]

It was very amusing to me that he pointed out that this thread is about LDS not knowing their faith, then immediately went on to discussing his erroneous ideas about Catholic teachings.

I noticed that, too. It was my experience in the 1970’s that Mormons thought they knew all about Catholic Doctrine. I didn’t understand why until I discovered that Catholic teaching was part of Mormon Doctrine. It was so odd. I could not imagine the Vatican taking the time to bad mouth other religions in the CCC.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

It is difficult to respond to this because in the first part, I am saying that you claim that families will be separated. My comment was to a statement to the effect “In the Gospel of Jesus marriage was NEVER eternal.” But now you say in the latter part of your comment that it is the Mormons that say that families will be separated. Round and round we go and where we stop, nobody knows.

We don’t “threaten” anyone, but you can say it’s implied when in order to obtain any blessing from god, “it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” Just like getting into heaven. If you want to live with God, one must live by God’s commandments. You could say that it is a threat that if you don’t live God’s commandments, you can’t live with Him. Most people who don’t live God’s commandments, don’t want to live with God either. So it’s no big threat. Most Christian religions teach that we won’t be married or have family in heaven (if you ask me, this is the choir version “sing praises for eternity”), so this is no threat to them either. However, as I stated, almost no Christian believes that. All the ones I’ve talked to think it’s a moot argument because a loving god would not separate them. The problem is, that’s not what their religion teaches. That’s not what Catholics teach. They teach “until death do you part.” Why would anyone align with an overseer that teaches you are condemned to part at death when they don’t believe that part. Join a church, and pick what you want to believe. Seems like a great plan, believe what ever you want. God will not punish you. There is no sin. Eat, drink and be merry. Oh joy.

Here’s a good one: Keep the Sabbath day holy. Mega church, too many congregants to house under one roof on the Sabbath day, so pick any day you want for a Sabbath, keep it holy until the services are over. Go shopping, or pick Saturday so you can do your shopping on Sunday. Pick your truth, believe what you want, but I would suggest that you don’t get upset when you don’t get what you want out of your religion.

“Isn’t God alone enough for Mormons?” What does that mean? Are you suggesting that God might replace my wife? That he might replace my parents or my kids? How much is enough? You probably can’t answer that question. I think it’s a question that can’t be answered.

I have some questions for you… Is there a difference between exaltation and salvation? If so, what’s the difference? If so, how does one obtain each one or if one obtains one, does one automatically obtain the other and why?

BTW, it’s isn’t “need our families” it’s “want our families.” And I can only insist on the things I want. I can’t determine for you what’s important. Why can’t I have both, my family and my God? Especially since, I hope, I brought my family to God or tried to. (Tree of Life, Lehi’s vision. Not your Bible, but my Book of Mormon).

I am not going around anything, friend. You may be mistaking my comments with another poster.

1). The Catholic definition of heaven is to be with God. With Him. He who the ultimate source of love, hope, and faith. What more could we want? And why, pray tell, would a woman in her right mind, wish to spend eternity giving birth to child after child? Where is that in the Bible? Where does it say that I must be pregnant for all eternity? As far separation, we are not told we will be separate. We are promised to be with God. That is enough for me. We may very well be with our loved ones, but if it isn’t in the Bible or in the traditions of the Church, we cannot make it up for our own, possibly nefarious, purposes. I certainly do prefer this to eternal pregnancy and childbirth.

2). I have heard from many Mormons who spoke of being separate from non-Mormons in their family. They were told they wouldn’t see their own children unless they be ame Mormon. To claim something that is not in the Bible or the traditions of the church sounds like manipulation, rather than truth.

3). Please also address my questions regarding no new prophets and warnings regarding people claiming to be prophets as was written by the apostles. How on earth do you explain this? How can you explain away the fact that we were specifically warned about false prophets? How can you possibly justify your claim that a prophet appeared 1,800 years later? You avoided this question.

4). And please do also address the fact that Joseph Smith was a Mason and copied Masonic rituals. This is another question you ignored.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Average age does not mean it wasn’t common. Why would states have laws that permitted women to marry as young as 10 years old? Get over it. It was legal. I get it you don’t like Joseph Smith. But that has no affect on his call as a prophet of God.

It was not common for girls to marry at 14 this has nothing to do with Joseph Smith and every thing to do with you perpetuating a falsehood. If you’d like to be considered credible then you should get your facts straight.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t know why I keep coming back here. It is pointless.

Yes. A virtual merry-go-round.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is difficult to respond to this because in the first part, I am saying that you claim that families will be separated. My comment was to a statement to the effect “In the Gospel of Jesus marriage was NEVER eternal.” But now you say in the latter part of your comment that it is the Mormons that say that families will be separated. Round and round we go and where we stop, nobody knows.

We don’t “threaten” anyone, but you can say it’s implied when in order to obtain any blessing from god, “it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” Just like getting into heaven. If you want to live with God, one must live by God’s commandments. You could say that it is a threat that if you don’t live God’s commandments, you can’t live with Him. Most people who don’t live God’s commandments, don’t want to live with God either. So it’s no big threat. Most Christian religions teach that we won’t be married or have family in heaven (if you ask me, this is the choir version “sing praises for eternity”), so this is no threat to them either. However, as I stated, almost no Christian believes that. All the ones I’ve talked to think it’s a moot argument because a loving god would not separate them. The problem is, that’s not what their religion teaches. That’s not what Catholics teach. They teach “until death do you part.” Why would anyone align with an overseer that teaches you are condemned to part at death when they don’t believe that part. Join a church, and pick what you want to believe. Seems like a great plan, believe what ever you want. God will not punish you. There is no sin. Eat, drink and be merry. Oh joy.

Here’s a good one: Keep the Sabbath day holy. Mega church, too many congregants to house under one roof on the Sabbath day, so pick any day you want for a Sabbath, keep it holy until the services are over. Go shopping, or pick Saturday so you can do your shopping on Sunday. Pick your truth, believe what you want, but I would suggest that you don’t get upset when you don’t get what you want out of your religion.

“Isn’t God alone enough for Mormons?” What does that mean? Are you suggesting that God might replace my wife? That he might replace my parents or my kids? How much is enough? You probably can’t answer that question. I think it’s a question that can’t be answered.

I have some questions for you… Is there a difference between exaltation and salvation? If so, what’s the difference? If so, how does one obtain each one or if one obtains one, does one automatically obtain the other and why?

BTW, it’s isn’t “need our families” it’s “want our families.” And I can only insist on the things I want. I can’t determine for you what’s important. Why can’t I have both, my family and my God? Especially since, I hope, I brought my family to God or tried to. (Tree of Life, Lehi’s vision. Not your Bible, but my Book of Mormon).

Marriage vows are for this life. Till death do us part means the surviving spouse is no longer under their marriage vows, which include fidelity to each other, and are free to marry again. If you believe a dead spouse is still married to a living spouse, the logic follows that the living spouse has broken fidelity to their dead spouse, and commits adultery when they remarry.

The Mormon idea of heaven where multiple spouses are sealed to each other and children are sealed, but the sealing doesn’t hold if everyone isn’t in the same level of heaven, step families, divorced spouses whose children may be unsealed from them, sealed to someone else, in this life or the next, and many other familial scenarios, is a mess.

Catholicism is simple, we are sealed to Christ by the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. We are conformed to him by the sacraments of Eucharist and reconciliation. We are all, one Body, sealed to our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. Why do you believe you are required more than this? Is being sealed to Jesus Christ not enough for you?

The sacraments prefigure heaven, including the sacrament of marriage. Marital relationships will be fulfilled in heaven, not destroyed. We hold no belief that heaven will just be a rehash of earth. We anticipate something better. Yes, even better than marriage. Our God is that great.

Mormons are stuck, like Moslems, thinking heaven is what a man’s idea of heaven should be. Sex and women.

We are Christians, not familians.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Marriage vows are for this life. Till death do us part means the surviving spouse is no longer under their marriage vows, which include fidelity to each other, and are free to marry again. If you believe a dead spouse is still married to a living spouse, the logic follows that the living spouse has broken fidelity to their dead spouse, and commits adultery when they remarry.

The Mormon idea of heaven where multiple spouses are sealed to each other and children are sealed, but the sealing doesn’t hold if everyone isn’t in the same level of heaven, step families, divorced spouses whose children may be unsealed from them, sealed to someone else, in this life or the next, and many other familial scenarios, is a mess.

Catholicism is simple, we are sealed to Christ by the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. We are conformed to him by the sacraments of Eucharist and reconciliation. We are all, one Body, sealed to our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. Why do you believe you are required more than this? Is being sealed to Jesus Christ not enough for you?

The sacraments prefigure heaven, including the sacrament of marriage. Marital relationships will be fulfilled in heaven, not destroyed. We hold no belief that heaven will just be a rehash of earth. We anticipate something better. Yes, even better than marriage. Our God is that great.

Mormons are stuck, like Moslems, thinking heaven is what a man’s idea of heaven should be. Sex and women.

We are Christians, not familians.

Exactly. The Catholic view of marriage and Heaven is not that we will be separated from our families, but that our relationships are fulfilled, and that we are all part of one family united in Jesus Christ. The idea that we will be separated from our families is a Mormon caricature of our actual beliefs.

 

[Stephen168]

Eleven were married to other men when he was sealed to them for eternity only, meaning that the marriage did not start until after their death. Odd situation that was not repeated after Joseph died by any other church authorities that I know of, but the husbands did not object and the wives did not object (well, I think one husband did. not sure). There was no sharing of the wife.
I’ve already stated that you insinuate adulterous. But it was polygamy not adultery. They were married.
Eternity only marriages: as you know some women were married to him after his death. How was that suppose to work? Obviously he could have no conjugal association. The marriage was to commence after death. This concept was same when married those who had husbands. The ones sealed after death were free to marry if they weren’t already married. It is the same either way. You could claim he was an adulterer if he had sex with these married women, but otherwise, he was not.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ NEVER included eternal marriage.

That’s your loss. It’s funny that almost every Christian I’ve talked to doesn’t believe that God will separate them after death. Why would a loving God destroy a union between husband and wive and family? But that is what your religion teaches.

False dilemma. There is a third option; which is the Christian option taught by Jesus Christ. We are with God together and not married. The Mormon eternal marriage is an invention of Mormonism and was NEVER included in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Mormon idea of heaven where multiple spouses are sealed to each other and children are sealed, but the sealing doesn’t hold if everyone isn’t in the same level of heaven, step families, divorced spouses whose children may be unsealed from them, sealed to someone else, in this life or the next, and many other familial scenarios, is a mess.

Yes, a mess and never Christian.

 

[Stephen168]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ NEVER included polygamy.

Then Abraham and Jacob (Israel) are going to hell?

Abraham and Jacob are not Christians. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news of Jesus Christ. His gospel never included polygamy. Polygamy is an invention of Joseph Smith not a restoration of the Gospel. To answer your question: Like anybody not baptized in water, we do not know. It was never revealed to us by Jesus Christ.

 

[LivingWaters7]

There are many things in Mormonism that were never part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as we read in the New Testament and other ancient Christian documents, including:

-plural marriage
-God the Father having once been a man that then progressed to/achieved Godhood
-God the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother deity
-priesthood ordination required for eternal life
-Endowment ritual required for eternal life
-the learning of signs and tokens necessary for eternal life
-eternal mariage required for eternal life
-the idea of eternal increase, or the begetting of spirit children, just like the Father and Mother did
-the practice of proxy water baptism for the deceased
-the idea that we all have a core “intelligence” that is co-eternal with God
-the idea that the Son and Holy Ghost are literal begotten spirit children of the Father and Mother