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

[TOmNossor]

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.

RebeccaJ,
Your comments are not addressing what I am saying. So as to not derail this thread I posted in the “interim” thread so Stephen or you can address this there.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12416913#post12416913

Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

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

Of course you should know. Just read the very article you posted. You should also know that LDS-related forums do not allow links to anti-LDS web sites either.

See you when you get back.

 

[TOmNossor]

Return to that thread instead of derailing this one, too. Read Posts #132,133, and 135.

I have now done so.
I will not stop claiming that Catholic teaching (doctrine) has CHANGED on threads where you claim it has not until it is regularly acknowledge that Catholic doctrine changes. You may claim that Catholic DOGMA does not change if you want to be clear and I might disagree, but at least that would acknowledge the OBVIOUS changes in doctrine that happen.
And you should not criticize someone for claiming that Catholic teach that unbaptized babies who die are in hell. If this was DOGMA because of Lyons II and Florence or because of the UNIVERSAL teaching of it, then it is DOGMA that changed, but it absolutely is doctrine that changed. You may claim that we NOW have hope for unbaptized babies, but that was not the “correction” offered to BrotherofJared. That is one of the reasons I regularly harp on these issues.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I will not stop claiming that Catholic teaching (doctrine) has CHANGED on threads where you claim it has not until it is regularly acknowledge that Catholic doctrine changes.

It is you that makes this false claim about the Catholic Church in response to the many changes which have taken place within Mormonism. I only correct your false claim.

Creating a falsehood on Catholicism does not change the shady history of Joseph Smith.

 

[Stephen168]

[nd you should not criticize someone for claiming that Catholic teach that unbaptized babies who die are in hell. If this was DOGMA because of Lyons II and Florence or because of the UNIVERSAL teaching of it, then it is DOGMA that changed, but it absolutely is doctrine that changed. You may claim that we NOW have hope for unbaptized babies, but that was not the “correction” offered to BrotherofJared. That is one of the reasons I regularly harp on these issues.

You are wrong. The fate of the unbaptized by water has never been known and have never been Catholic dogma. You will never make it so, no matter how many time you repeat it. You will never find two EC that have conflicting teaching on the subject.

There is plenty of evidence for the changes made by Mormon leaders which contradict each other. Who God is, is that most serious, because God does not change, yet Joseph Smith changed him; twice. And Brigham Young said he was Adam, but that got changed, too. It is so clear the there is not defense for the apostasy.

A more recent example to the rejection of Mormon Doctrine and of course the change in the theology associated with the lifting of the priesthood ban.

But you are not interested in defending Mormonism.
[/QUOTE]

 

[TOmNossor]

You are wrong. The fate of the unbaptized by water has never been known and have never been Catholic dogma. You will never make it so, no matter how many time you repeat it. You will never find two EC that have conflicting teaching on the subject.

There is plenty of evidence for the changes made by Mormon leaders which contradict each other. Who God is, is that most serious, because God does not change, yet Joseph Smith changed him; twice. And Brigham Young said he was Adam, but that got changed, too. It is so clear the there is not defense for the apostasy.

A more recent example to the rejection of Mormon Doctrine and of course the change in the theology associated with the lifting of the priesthood ban.

But you are not interested in defending Mormonism.

I understand your addition of “by water,” but why don’t you make it clear.
What do you mean?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I understand your addition of “by water,” but why don’t you make it clear.
What do you mean?

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 make a clear case that 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.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Dang, they still dodged my questions.

I guess you will just not let go of the idea in your head that the Catholic Church has changed in areas related to dogma. She hasn’t. It’s been demonstrated many times, but you deny it still. I suppose it’s easier to keep denying evidence than to answer the questions I asked. I suppose I don’t blame you. I don’t envy your position as a Mormon apologist.

 

[TOmNossor]

Dang, they still dodged my questions.

I guess you will just not let go of the idea in your head that the Catholic Church has changed in areas related to dogma. She hasn’t. It’s been demonstrated many times, but you deny it still. I suppose it’s easier to keep denying evidence than to answer the questions I asked. I suppose I don’t blame you. I don’t envy your position as a Mormon apologist.

I am saying that the Catholic Church has absolutely changed in areas of doctrine. Dogma is much more difficult to assess.
Do you believe that the BrotherofJared was correct to state that the Catholic Church teaches/taught that unbaptized infants are in hell?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I am saying that the Catholic Church has absolutely changed in areas of doctrine. Dogma is much more difficult to assess.

Dogma, such as, who God is, can never change. But Joseph Smith changed dogma and other Mormon leaders have it as well. That is why we know that Mormonism is not true.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Once again, no, the Church has never taught that. Here’s a link:

bustedhalo.com/questionbox/someone-told-me-that-if-a-baby-dies-before-being-baptized-the-baby-goes-to-hell-is-this-true-2

There’s a catch. Let’s get back to the topic of this thread. Now, will you answer my questions regarding Mormons? I posted those questions three times. I’d be happy to copy and paste again, if you need it.

 

[Stephen168]

Let’s get back to the topic of this thread. Now, will you answer my questions regarding Mormons? I posted those questions three times. I’d be happy to copy and paste again, if you need it.

I don’t think any Mormon will answer your questions. Mormonism is completely irrational due to it being led my a guy that is free to make stuff up. Mormons rely on feelings and not reason, which makes it almost impossible for them to explain in any coherent manner, so they don’t. Did you notice the response to the OP was two Mormons giving their testimony; one left and the other turned on the Catholic Church. A third tried but then turned on the Catholic Church. My experience is to ask your question and hope an ex-mormon will answer it.

 

[vsedriver]

well. you and i will just have to disagree on the celibacy issue. Joseph wasn’t restoring Christianity. He was to restore all of God’s teachings which included polygamy. .i.e. Abraham and all of Israel practiced it.

just because something was done in the Bible doesn’t mean it was good or willed by God. Abraham and Israel had no end of problems because of their polygamy and concubines. Sarah didn’t trust God to give her a child so she convinced Abraham to lie with her maid. That didn’t work out so well for the maid and her son.

It is Jesus who clarifies for us what marriage is to be, he says it is one man and one woman as it was in the beginning. A joining by God that no man can put aside. If a woman is married she can’t be married in any other way to another man.

If the Catholic Church can fall into apostasy then so can the Morman Church. If the Holy Spirit can abandon the church founded by Christ he can abandon a church founded by a man.

 

[TOmNossor]

Once again, no, the Church has never taught that. Here’s a link:

bustedhalo.com/questionbox/someone-told-me-that-if-a-baby-dies-before-being-baptized-the-baby-goes-to-hell-is-this-true-2

I do not believe Father Joe is correct. Do you believe he is a good source?
I posted this to him:

Father Joe,

1. I understand Pius VI maintained that the teaching of Limbo was available when the Jansenist claimed that Limbo was setting up a THIRD eternal resting place for the dead. Pius VI argument was not that babies were in heaven for nobody EVER claimed that was possible before the 19th or 20th century. Pius VI was merely saying that “We reject as a Pelagian fable a third place for babies who die in a state of original sin.”
   What reason do you have for suggesting that Pius VI was denying that unbaptized infants are in some form hell. The proper understanding of Limbo as presented by Aquinas is that Limbo is a denial of the beautific vision (thus not heaven and thus properly hell), but without any some aspects of torment.
   Pius VI is primarily saying that Limbo is not a third place such that some are in heaven, some hell and some Limbo.
   How am I misunderstanding this?
2. The Council of Carthage (not an EC) quite explicitly taught that unbaptized infants are in hell. This teaching was developed further in the middle ages with the idea of Limbo. But, would it not be true that the Father’s at Carthage (and 2 Popes who approved of the proceedings at Carthage) did in fact teach that unbaptized infants are in hell?
   “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left."
3. An aside: What evidence do you point to when you say, “Whether these words of Jesus applied to babies was apparently not a concern for the earliest Christians, since they baptized only adults.” This is also something I have seen little of.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I do not believe Father Joe is correct.

Father Joe is talking to a general audience. Most people believe that baptism equal water baptism. Some even believe that water baptism equals water submersion. When talking to this audience, and this audience what include you, his answer is correct. There is no change in Catholic dogma.

Unlike the 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 keep pace the Joseph Smith’s changing dogma about God.

Yes, Joseph Smith and Mormonism had the truth of the triune God but Joseph Smith led them into apostasy.

 

[TOmNossor]

Father Joe is talking to a general audience. Most people believe that baptism equal water baptism. Some even believe that water baptism equals water submersion. When talking to this audience, and this audience what include you, his answer is correct. There is no change in Catholic dogma.

What non-water baptism could be available to an infant that dies? Baptism of desire HAS NEVER been applied to persons before the age of reason (at least before the 19th or 20th century) AND Pope Pius XII in a papal encyclical makes it perfectly clear that babies unlike adults do not have a way open to them to supply baptism other than via the sacrament.

And no, if he has some hidden meaning associated with Baptism of Desire (because he is unaware of the historical position of the church or because he believes it has changed), then IMO this is very problematic. It SEEMS that he is saying something very different.
Charity,
TOm

 

[Stephen168]

What non-water baptism could be available to an infant that dies? Baptism of desire HAS NEVER been applied to persons before the age of reason (at least before the 19th or 20th century) AND Pope Pius XII in a papal encyclical makes it perfectly clear that babies unlike adults do not have a way open to them to supply baptism other than via the sacrament.

And no, if he has some hidden meaning associated with Baptism of Desire (because he is unaware of the historical position of the church or because he believes it has changed), then IMO this is very problematic. It SEEMS that he is saying something very different.
Charity,
TOm

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 make a clear case that 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.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:
What non-water baptism could be available to an infant that dies? Baptism of desire HAS NEVER been applied to persons before the age of reason (at least before the 19th or 20th century) AND Pope Pius XII in a papal encyclical makes it perfectly clear that babies unlike adults do not have a way open to them to supply baptism other than via the sacrament.

And no, if he has some hidden meaning associated with Baptism of Desire (because he is unaware of the historical position of the church or because he believes it has changed), then IMO this is very problematic. It SEEMS that he is saying something very different.
Charity,
TOm
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 make a clear case that 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.
So by this you acknowledge that your invocation of non-water Baptism (which pseudo-Clement seems to not recognize) is not applicable to infants correct?

As to your invoking changes:
I am quite certain that understanding of the CoJCoLDS concerning God evolved during Joseph Smith’s life. I find it quite possible that Joseph’s understanding evolved. I presently embrace an understanding most clearly articulated by Blake Ostler, but in alignment with everything Joseph Smith offered (not in alignment with all offered by Orsen Pratt, Brigham Young, and others BTW).

Grant Palmer was hardly the first to offer the thesis that Joseph Smith’s understanding of God changed over time.

There is a huge difference. “Pre-Nicea orthodoxy was subordinationalism.” If this is true, and I think it is, Newman’s development thesis must carry a lot of weight. BUT… LDS do not embrace Tradition in the way that Catholics do. So …

All LDS converts in the 19th century were as orthodox of a Trinitarian as I was when they became a LDS. Some moved a great deal some very little. The CoJCoLDS places very little emphasis upon what form of Trinity our members embrace. We have seldom erred in the way the Catholic Church did IMO when it cut off significant of their former brothers and sisters in Christ due to a DEVELOPED definition of doctrine. Remember Athanasius after Nicea called some folks now considered Semi-Arians his brothers in Christ. Today these Semi-Arians are usually called Arians and condemned as outside the faith. This is the error the CoJCoLDS usually avoids.

Anyway, Joseph Smith was as close to an orthodox Trinitarian before his visions and … as were any of his neighbors.
I would say less than 10% of the folks that become LDS have any thought that they must change the way the thought about the Trinity.

I was both similar and different. I know what the Trinity was, but I also knew that every time I poked on the boundaries of the doctrine (mostly mentally, but occasionally in discussion), the “mystery” of it all would be invoked to make it work. Thus leaving behind that which nobody could explain was not too tough for me. Of course I was a post Vatican II Catholic in a “Catholic Community” growing up.

So, while there are some other responses given thousands of times by LDS to what you write, in broad strokes, I admit that LDS thought has developed and changed. I can even admit that LDS thought has developed and changed more from 1830-2014 than has Catholic thought from 700-2014.

LDS lacks any official CCC or systematic theology. Blake Ostler’s thought looks like it might have some stability in many areas, but there is still a wide range of theological speculation in LDS thought. If you need a fixed never changing theology, then do not become a LDS!
Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

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.

Even if this was true, which it is not, it would be bizarre all by itself. There is no justification to do such a thing. Very troubling.

Eternity only marriages: as you know some women were married to him after his death. How was that suppose to work?

You’ll have to ask Joseph Smith, because I have no idea whatsoever. It boggles the imagination that anyone could know such things about this guy and still believe in him.

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.

So they could get married in this life to some Mormon guy for time only, and then be Joseph’s wives in the hereafter? There is only one world for this------crazy!

Your claim that most Mormons didn’t know this information is true concerning the ages of the women. It is also true that most Mormons didn’t know some of those women were married. Big surprise, right? Yes, indeed it was. But does it make any difference? No.

Maybe not to you and many other LDS who are so incredibly emotionally biased in favor of Joseph that nothing he could ever do could cause doubt. But this is not the case in the historical record, nor is it the case today with many LDS who somehow have been able to take the emotion out of it and look at the history objectively. The early LDS church lost many of its top leaders in a very short period of time (Apostles, members of the First Presidency, the BoM witnesses, etc.) for several reasons including Joseph Smith’s increasingly bizarre conduct in the last few years of his life. Even if they still believed in the BoM, they stopped believing in Joseph. That didn’t happen by itself, and is a pretty good indicator that Joseph went off the deep end. A good example was William Law, Joseph’s second counselor in the First Presidency. Though he still believed in the BoM and the Book of Commandments, witnessing Joseph Smith’s bizarre behavior first hand led him to publishing the Nauvoo Expositor which exposed Joseph’s conduct.

There is no value in teaching these concepts in any church venue. That would be wading in the mire.

Nonsense. There is always value in teaching the truth so people can make up their own minds based on the real story and not the fairly tale. When it comes to its own history, the church has been knowingly telling the fairy tale to its members. This information has been out there for a long, long time, and the church has tried to suppress it, calling it ‘anti-Mormon’ as way to keep the membership from looking. But it’s no longer possible due to the proliferation and accessibility of the information on the internet.

 

[Chris-WA]

I know people are leaving the church. I know that some who left should have been the stalwart foundation of the church, Bishops, Area Authorities, scholars, etc. But the devil is a cunning adversary and it states in the Bible that even the very elect might be deceived. (Matt 24:24).

Of course-- it’s the devil’s fault they are leaving the church. Anytime somebody leaves it’s because there is something wrong with them, right? There’s no chance that these people found out the types of things we’ve been talking about in this thread and felt duped? You should look up some of their stories on Youtube and listen for yourself. You know how the church often treats them when they leave? Since there is no possible way there could ever be anything wrong with the church’s claims, it’s often assumed that the ex-member must be involved in some serious sin like adultery.