Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Of course it makes sense they were JEWISH, Jesus was JEWISH.
- Status
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
But you could go to the trouble to read a hate filled anti-Catholic site
Since you can’t be bothered with researching teachings directly from the church (reading hateful lurid sites is more appealing to you?) here’s a link to the relevant CCC pages it will take some effort on your part as you will have to scroll down the page about halfway, hopefully it will not too much trouble.
F
ffg
Guest
One of the confusions here is understanding, or lack thereof, of ‘fulfill’.
It doesn’t mean acknowledge, it includes a conclusion. Thus you then have Jesus put the period on the end of the sentence of OT prophecy.
If he was just going to acknowledge that Judaism as known was to continue as practiced, there would be no need to fulfill a prophecy, much less introduce anything new.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Why do you use the euphemism “plural marriage” don’t be afraid to call it what it is, Mormon men practice a form of polygamy specifically, polygyny. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are polygamists. There was that so hard?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I think you have misperceptions, both of the posters participating here and Catholic doctrine.
There are cradle Catholics in this thread, and most of the posts are from them. Some converted to Mormonism and then reverted back to Catholicism.
Catholic doctrine develops, but development in doctrine can have no impact on doctrines such that doctrines reverse themselves or become mere suggestions. The Apostolic teaching must remain intact. Of course we believe the Church has both the authority and divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, aka, revelation.
But all of this has been explained to you before. That you teach a fellow Mormon your falsehoods is an indicator that you aren’t paying attention at the best, or, an underlying motive to falsely represent the Catholic Church at the worst.
Mormonism doctrines are far outside of Apostolic teachings, as evidenced by the Mormon posters in this thread.
J
JaminB123
Guest
I was just reading though this thread with the intention to lurk, but I couldn’t pass this one by. So, is was legal for Joseph Smith to marry this 14-year-old when he was already married? I’m not an expert, but pretty darn sure bigamy was illegal even back then.
Some quick research reveals this:
“Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred.”
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99
That’s from 1833 in a state where JS was practicing polygamy, no? What is polygamy if not multiple counts of bigamy? Sounds illegal to me. Surely Joseph knew this and it’s probably why he lied about it and publicly denied it for so long. The illegality and unwholesomeness of polygamy was a large part of why Mormons were chased from state to state… and why they were denied statehood in Utah. Contrary to popular Mormon opinion, the evidence indicates that Mormon did continue to practice this illegal behavior even after the 1890 decree. So much for obeying the laws of the land!
In addition to the illegality of polygamy, let’s not use the “God commanded polygamy in the Old Testament” defense I’ve heard often from Mormons. God did NOT command polygamy in the OT (cite it if you can prove me wrong). Just because something is described in the OT doesn’t mean it is prescribed by God. Perhaps tolerated for a time just as divorce was because of the hardness of their hearts, but toleration is hardly a command. This argument does not hold.
Also, let’s not ignore that the practice of polyandry (e.g., Joseph marrying women already married to living men) is absolutely not prescribed or even described in the OT (cite if you can prove me wrong). The OT argument especially doesn’t hold in this case.
When I was Mormon, I had no idea about the 14-year old, the polyandry, the illegality, etc. The Mormon relatives I have didn’t know about it either until I pointed it out to them. The polygamy is very sanitized and whitewashed in Mormon circles in my experience.
J
Jerusha
Guest
The “marriages” were secretly conducted religious contracts. There was no civil marriage involved. So, therefore, there was no polygamy, only concubinage.
Polygamy was a relatively minor issue in Illinois. However, once polygamy was exposed, members who were opposed defected to the anti-Mormon side, and the situation moved from bad to worse. Other issues were:
Theft of the property of non-Mormons. Land fraud. Murder of defectors. Charges of counterfeiting money. Attempts by the Mormons to enlist Natives in the struggle. Joseph’s announcement that he was running for the presidency of the United States. The principle of theocracy, alien to the conscience of leaders of the anti-Mormon side. Violation of freedom of the press. Wholesale integration of Masonic rituals and symbolism into the Mormon faith. Attempts by Mormons to buy land outside of Nauvoo, because it was a disease-ridden swamp (non-Mormons already owned the higher land in the town itself). Abortion to cover up the practice of concubinage. Egotism gone amok.
sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sign1840.htm
Polygamy was a relatively minor issue in Illinois. However, once polygamy was exposed, members who were opposed defected to the anti-Mormon side, and the situation moved from bad to worse. Other issues were:
Theft of the property of non-Mormons. Land fraud. Murder of defectors. Charges of counterfeiting money. Attempts by the Mormons to enlist Natives in the struggle. Joseph’s announcement that he was running for the presidency of the United States. The principle of theocracy, alien to the conscience of leaders of the anti-Mormon side. Violation of freedom of the press. Wholesale integration of Masonic rituals and symbolism into the Mormon faith. Attempts by Mormons to buy land outside of Nauvoo, because it was a disease-ridden swamp (non-Mormons already owned the higher land in the town itself). Abortion to cover up the practice of concubinage. Egotism gone amok.
sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sign1840.htm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
BrotherofJared is being “corrected” because he thought that Catholic taught the unbaptized infant would be in hell (or hell that was still hell but called Limbo). This doctrine (teaching) CHANGED. If you can show me anyone from before the 19th century (other than those condemned as Pelagian) who claimed that the unbaptized infant could be in heaven, I will be surprised. I think there is ZERO evidence for this.
Still there are volumes of evidence that BrotherofJared is correct when he asserts that Catholic did teach this.
I am rethinking my reliance upon Catholic Answer to understand how Catholic teaching “develops.” Over the last 10+ years I have believed that the liberal Catholics post Vatican II were not reading Catholic development correctly. I have believed over the last 10+ years that the ultra-Trads (deniers of Vatican II) were not reading Catholic development correctly. It is clear that many important BISHOPS do not believe the same thing about Catholic development that Catholic Answers believes. The deniers of Vatican II have always provided better arguments than Nancy Pelosi (who is a smart lady who CLAIMS to be committed to her Catholic faith) or some Catholic newspapers. But both the liberal Catholic newspapers and the ultra-Trads position is being enhanced by the CHANGES being CONSIDERED at the Vatican. Do you disagree with me?
Understanding Catholic doctrine on development is like nailing Jello to the wall.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
Catholic dogma does not change. To prove otherwise you would have to show two councils that taught two opposite things about the same subject. You can not. That is why you stopped posting the last time you claimed this fallacy on a previous thread and I asked for you to provide it.
It is easy in Mormonism to find opposite changing doctrine on the same subject because your president is free to make stuff up at will. That is why you are not able to defend these changes.
Catholic defend your false claims because they are false.
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
You have yet to show where in the OT polygyny is “authorized” or “condoned” by God, much less commanded. The law of Moses put limits and regulations on polygyny and its unfortunate consequences, but the law of Moses also puts limits and regulations on slavery.
Do you contend that slavery is “authorized and condoned” by God? Actually your earliest prophets thought so, but I doubt that you do.
The OT reports on many acts that have never been approved of or commanded by God. The mere fact that an act is reported in scripture does not mean it is authorized and condoned by God.
The OT reports acts of incest, murder and suicide, but I doubt that you would claim that any of these things are approved by God.
So why the exception with polygyny?
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
F
ffg
Guest
I’m not sure why you have to qualify with ‘infant’ as if all humans don’t have the same dignity in God’s eyes.
Jesus told a guy hanging next to Him on a cross, that the guy would be with Jesus in paradise that day.
Considering the state of the Church at the time, (non existent with Jesus’ followers running scared rather than doing much teaching) I think it’s fair to say the thief was not baptized.
That happened before the 19th century and you can find it in your closest bible.
Stephen168
New member
Grant H. Palmer uses the changes made in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Convents (Book of Commandments), Pearl of Great Price, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, and the Vision accounts to show how Joseph Smith was a Trinitarian until 1834, then believed in two gods until 1839, and then many gods.
The original Book of Mormon (1830) called Mary the mother of God and said that the Lamb of God was the Eternal Father. Joseph Smith 1832 vision included only Jesus.
The 1837 Book of Mormon changed Mary the mother of the son of God and the Lamb of God was the son of the Eternal Father. The 1838 vision account included the Father and the Son.
In 1839, section 121 is added to Doctrine and Convents which talks about a Council of gods. The Book of Abraham uses ‘The Gods’ frequently.
Yes, Joseph Smith and Mormonism had the truth of the triune God but Joseph Smith led them into apostasy.
Stephen168
New member
Tom, knows this. He knows his claims about the Catholic Church are false. But he would rather have us use bandwidth is defend the Catholic Church than stick to the subject of any thread on Mormonism. He believes a good offense is better than no defense.
So all you can do it point this out when he pops in to be offensive. Mormonism is rooted in anti-Catholicism, and it still lingers.
I just wish he would get some new material.
B
BrotherofJared
Guest
My time on this site is up. I received an infraction from a site moderator because I posted a link to a anti-Catholic web site. Like I’m going to know when I did that. No further replies, but I’ll be visiting to see what new stuff is being posted.
Laters
Laters
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Neither Nancy Pelosi or ultra-trads are the Church.
No, doctrinal development is easy to follow if you keep grounded in the doctrine itself. The foundation is set, it cannot change. You don’t get to the foundation, you keep hanging about in what is said about the foundation.
I think you also need to understand that the councils function in a legislative type of manner. Analogy: murder is illegal, always has been illegal, always will be illegal, but there are myriads of surrounding issues that arise. Is manslaughter murder? What constitutes manslaughter and what constitutes murder? What are the consequences. etc. Did people 200 years ago face a the question, “are drunk drivers who cause a death committing murder?” No, they didn’t. So legislatures address current issues and apply foundation law to the current issues.
The councils do the same for Catholic doctrine. It is very structured, and not based on what any one person believes or thinks.
The doctrine regarding the fate of unbaptized infants is very specifically, God has not revealed it! That’s it. That’s the doctrine. The development is describing, via what we know God has revealed, is possible, or even probable, but the doctrine remains: GOD HAS NOT REVEALED IT.
This is in stark contrast to Mormons, whose changing doctrine is based on claimed revelation of God revealing directly conflicting doctrines. There is no foundation that sticks forever, as the foundation can be swapped out at any time. Or, the foundation is, there is no foundation. God is fickle, and what is foundational today is opinion tomorrow.
Stephen168
New member
Catholics actually do know Catholic teaching and history. When a Catholic attempts to explain Catholic teaching to you it is best to believe them; and if you have doubts don’t run to any website that agrees with you and post a link to it.
Or maybe just stick with defending Mormonism and stir away from trying to teach Catholicism to Catholics.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
It is easy in Mormonism to find opposite changing doctrine on the same subject because your president is free to make stuff up at will. That is why you are not able to defend these changes.
Catholic defend your false claims because they are false.
In the “interim” thread I referred to early, I pointed out that the Council of Nicea declared that the Father and the Son were not two hypostasis. This was then CHANGED. Everyone now knows that the Father and the Son are two hypostasis and one ousia. The LETTER of the council changed.
The intent of the council of Lyons and the Council of Florence was that unbaptized babies (those guilty of “original sin only”) would be in hell. Vatican II changed the INTENT of this council by saying that we can hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism.
So which is it, should I embrace the LETTER of the council or the original INTENT of the council?
This seems obvious to me to be a big problem, but everyone tells me I am somehow defective in my thinking. I cannot understand how I can be so defective, but I will read any thoughts you have.
Charity, TOm
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The foundation doctrine is GOD IS ONE.
Additional foundational doctrines:
Jesus is fully divine.
Jesus is fully human.
Jesus died.
On the third day he rose.
All heresies and errors surrounding the nature of God are rooted in errors and heresies in Christology. The councils have primarily addressed Christological errors, including Nicaea. Mormon errors regarding the nature of God are also rooted in Christological errors.
Errors over the years addressed include:
Jesus is not God (one God), but a God (plural gods); arianism.
Jesus did not have a body but was spiritual in nature only.
Jesus did not really die, only appeared to die.
Jesus did not rise from the dead, but never died.
Jesus is expression of the Father; modalism.
etc.
Stephen168
New member
Return to that thread instead of derailing this one, too. Read Posts #132,133, and 135.
Stephen168
New member
Post 207 on this thread talks about the changing definition of God by Joseph Smith which is the subject of this thread. But you have no interest in defending Mormonism.
- Status