How do the Mormons do it?

[Naf623]

Well, this is interesting. Do you mind if I ask - do you recall how the friars specifically invited all to receive the Precious Blood?

They asked for any who wished to partake, to come forward (and join one of the three or four queues).

LDS teachings equivocate what virgin birth means. Going down heretical lines of the Father having sexual relations with one of His own creations, a daughter.

Repetition doesn’t add anything to the validity of your claim.
Find us a statement of LDS doctrine (the place to look that has all of this is www.lds.org) that claims that God the Father had intercourse with Mary.

oh come now, let us have full disclosure. Your pearl of great price teaches that a council of gods oversaw the creation.

Wrong again, perhaps you should read what it says before making your claims.
It says that ‘the Gods’ created everything (Abraham 4), and this is further clarified later where God tells Moses that He created all things 'by mine Only Begotten. Two Gods counselling together, just like I said.

There’s that doctrine of polygamy, which is an affront on the family.

Augustine:

Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it. Whoever despises these restraints, even though he uses his wives only to get children, still commits sin, and does an injury to human society itself, for the sake of which it is that the procreation of children is required. In the present altered state of customs and laws, men can have no pleasure in a plurality of wives, except from an excess of lust; and so the mistake arises of supposing that no one could ever have had many wives but from sensuality and the vehemence of sinful desires.

Link: newadvent.org/fathers/140622.htm

Clearly he had a different opinion: that polygamy was acceptable to God, but that the reason it is no longer acceptable is primarily down to social custom and the laws of the land. Sounds familiar…

 

[Naf623]

wrong!!

Ok, so not the Varican, but the French and German Bishops’ councils have spoken contrary to this since 1989. In addition, the bishop of CapeTown, Reginald Cawcutt said that condoms were permitted to stop the spread of AIDS, and later had to backtrack to say that the ideal was still to avoid their use.

 

[Denise1957]

They asked for any who wished to partake, to come forward (and join one of the three or four queues).

Repetition doesn’t add anything to the validity of your claim.
Find us a statement of LDS doctrine (the place to look that has all of this is www.lds.org) that claims that God the Father had intercourse with Mary.

Wrong again, perhaps you should read what it says before making your claims.
It says that ‘the Gods’ created everything (Abraham 4), and this is further clarified later where God tells Moses that He created all things 'by mine Only Begotten. Two Gods counselling together, just like I said.

Link: newadvent.org/fathers/140622.htm

Clearly he had a different opinion: that polygamy was acceptable to God, but that the reason it is no longer acceptable is primarily down to social custom and the laws of the land. Sounds familiar…

Quote:

“They asked for any who wished to partake, to come forward to join any of the three or four queues.”

Thanks for your answer. Interesting that there were three or four queues; I’ve only ever seen two lines for Holy Communion here in the U.S. If the friars/priests knew that they were inviting non-Catholics to take communion, then this goes against Church teaching. Only in rare cases can a bishop decide to give communion to a non-Catholic. It’s unfortunate that the sacrament was mocked in the manner you described. But then Our Lord was also mocked when he was nailed to the Cross. It’s unfortunate that your friends chose to do this, but it happens (especially when students are not properly educated in regards to Catholic teaching).

Still, you were able to witness the process, and there’s nothing secret about anything in Catholicism, which is the ultimate point of this particular issue. All Mormon teachings should all be laid out up front for potential converts.

 

[Stephen168]

Ok, so not the Varican, but the French and German Bishops’ councils have spoken contrary to this since 1989. In addition, the bishop of CapeTown, Reginald Cawcutt said that condoms were permitted to stop the spread of AIDS, and later had to backtrack to say that the ideal was still to avoid their use.

I can understand your confusion. I think it is typical of non-Catholics you want to throw stones at the Church to hear what they want to hear from the clergy, any member of the clergy and apply it to the Magisterium.

 

[Naf623]

It’s unfortunate that the sacrament was mocked in the manner you described. But then Our Lord was also mocked when he was nailed to the Cross. It’s unfortunate that your friends chose to do this, but it happens (especially when students are not properly educated in regards to Catholic teaching).

It is a shame, I agree. I don’t have to agree with your teachings/beliefs etc. to consider this shameful and wrong.
I would not have joined in regardless, but one or two of my peers clearly held it in high regard, despite the attitude of the rest, and I had great respect for that.

Still, you were able to witness the process, and there’s nothing secret about anything in Catholicism, which is the ultimate point of this particular issue. All Mormon teachings should all be laid out up front for potential converts.

If they really think it’ll bother them, they could Google it; everything’s there plain for all to see, despite our wishes to keep it sacred as those things are extremely special. We are, however, happy to explain that we perform baptisms, confirmations and sealings by proxy on behalf of those who have passed on so that all may be afforded the same opportunities in the eternities.

I can understand your confusion. I think it is typical of non-Catholics you want to throw stones at the Church to hear what they want to hear from the clergy, any member of the clergy and apply it to the Magisterium.

Actually this was a genuine error on my part. I believed my source to be accurate (mostly because they are extremely anti-religion and therefore anything they concede to be good [in their eyes] that a church does, they wouldn’t say unless they were certain to be accurate)

 

[CopticChristian]

They asked for any who wished to partake, to come forward (and join one of the three or four queues).

Repetition doesn’t add anything to the validity of your claim.
Find us a statement of LDS doctrine (the place to look that has all of this is www.lds.org) that claims that God the Father had intercourse with Mary.

Wrong again, perhaps you should read what it says before making your claims.
It says that ‘the Gods’ created everything (Abraham 4), and this is further clarified later where God tells Moses that He created all things 'by mine Only Begotten. Two Gods counselling together, just like I said.

Link: newadvent.org/fathers/140622.htm

Clearly he had a different opinion: that polygamy was acceptable to God, but that the reason it is no longer acceptable is primarily down to social custom and the laws of the land. Sounds familiar…/QUOTE]

So, Christians are to seek and do the Will of God. God favors polygamy. Laws of the land prohibit the Will of God. There must be other things that the Will of God requires that may be prohibitied by Law…creeekkkkkk, can you hear the door opening…Pandora…

 

[CopticChristian]

Ok, so not the Varican, but the French and German Bishops’ councils have spoken contrary to this since 1989. In addition, the bishop of CapeTown, Reginald Cawcutt said that condoms were permitted to stop the spread of AIDS, and later had to backtrack to say that the ideal was still to avoid their use.

The Vatican is the source. If a priest teaches contrary to the local Bishop follow the Bishop. If the local Bishop teaches contrary to the Vatican follow the Vatican. Priests have been leading people astray for ages, like Knox, Zwingli, Calvin…and within Protestant thought

Protestants are supposed to follow the Bible and with that source…Protestants have been inventing religious beliefs like Jehovah Witness, Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals…

 

[CopticChristian]

It is a shame, I agree. I don’t have to agree with your teachings/beliefs etc. to consider this shameful and wrong.
I would not have joined in regardless, but one or two of my peers clearly held it in high regard, despite the attitude of the rest, and I had great respect for that.

If they really think it’ll bother them, they could Google it; everything’s there plain for all to see, despite our wishes to keep it sacred as those things are extremely special. We are, however, happy to explain that we perform baptisms, confirmations and sealings by proxy on behalf of those who have passed on so that all may be afforded the same opportunities in the eternities.

Actually this was a genuine error on my part. I believed my source to be accurate (mostly because they are extremely anti-religion and therefore anything they concede to be good [in their eyes] that a church does, they wouldn’t say unless they were certain to be accurate)

Is the recording of the endowment ceremony accurate? Is this accurate clothing?

eyeonapologetics.com/blog/2010/07/10/secret-mp3-recording-of-the-lds-endowment-ceremony/

 

[SteveVH]

If they really think it’ll bother them, they could Google it; everything’s there plain for all to see, despite our wishes to keep it sacred as those things are extremely special. /QUOTE]

Something that has always puzzled me a little is the Mormon position of replacing the word “secret” with “sacred” as to those things that are kept hidden until one has reached a certain status, if you will, in the church. As Catholics, there is nothing more sacred than the holy Mass. Anyone and everyone is welcome to observe this most holy and sacred celebration of Christ’s eternal sacrifice. The Eucharist is both the source and summit of our faith and its sacredness requires that one understand, believe, and become a part of the people of God (the Catholic Church) before receiving it. But it is not hidden in any way, shape or form. We take the position that none of us are worthy to receive it or any of the other sacraments, rather it is Christ himself that makes us worthy. We become the Body of Christ, who is the only one worthy.

So the question I have is why would one want to keep a sacred thing hidden (secret)? Does this depend upon the judgment of certain men as to one’s worthiness?

Thanks.

 

[SteveVH]

If they really think it’ll bother them, they could Google it; everything’s there plain for all to see, despite our wishes to keep it sacred as those things are extremely special. We are, however, happy to explain that we perform baptisms, confirmations and sealings by proxy on behalf of those who have passed on so that all may be afforded the same opportunities in the eternities.

If they really think it’ll bother them, they could Google it; everything’s there plain for all to see, despite our wishes to keep it sacred as those things are extremely special. We are, however, happy to explain that we perform baptisms, confirmations and sealings by proxy on behalf of those who have passed on so that all may be afforded the same opportunities in the eternities.

 

[KathleenGee]

Last night I watched BYU’s ‘King James Bible’…and it started out with saints being tied up at stakes while Catholic priests watched with their prayer books…Queen Mary of Scots was referred only as Bloody Mary several times…they had little movie scenes embellishing the power hungry ‘authorities’…not going as far as mentioning the Catholic Church…and had a setting with people attending Mass…and the narrative went as such that ‘even the people would leave the Mass, and walk to the back of the church preferring to listen to someone with a Bible’…as the priest…with a big crucifix around his neck hanging down to his waist, wearing his hat-- I forget the name…–at Mass. which priests don’t–…he was dressed in full…a caricature, and he would go on expounding as the film shows people turning their backs at him.

The Mormon program continued the old spin that the Church was keeping the Bible away from people out of power and control…but no reference to integrity, to the cost of printing Bibles for a mostly illiterate population.

Catholics are in the Oral tradition…as Jesus taught…without books…but focusing more on the interior disposition of the heart.

The program showed how the King James Bible was more popular than the Great Bible assembled by King Henry to Tyndale…but they were honest that Tyndale’s bible had alot of additions that were political statements really…but the Mormons devoid of integrity the Apostolic tradition to not change a word of Scripture.

It was full of bias. Teaching bias to people with caricatures is not cool…When people want to teach me a bias like that, I exit.

The other remark about the condoms…Africa is becoming extinct because of polygamy. Men and women in mobile areas of the continent are most vulnerable…I worked with women who were primarily all abandoned by their partners, leaving them with children to raise on their own. The Holy Father only gave way because of the apparent disintegration of Africa’s population. It is chronically unable to raise itself up, in spite of the tremendous wealth of natural resources. To see a married African man remaining with his wife for his lifetime is out of the norm.

 

[Naf623]

Thanks for your answer. Interesting that there were three or four queues; I’ve only ever seen two lines for Holy Communion here in the U.S.

I expect in most churches here you’d only see one or two also, but the school had 300 pupils (obviously not all got up to take part), plus staff, friars and sometimes parents.

So, Christians are to seek and do the Will of God. God favors polygamy. Laws of the land prohibit the Will of God. There must be other things that the Will of God requires that may be prohibitied by Law…creeekkkkkk, can you hear the door opening…Pandora…

Polygamy was only ever practised, even in ancient times, under God’s direction. It was never ‘required’.
The story of Daniel is a prime example where the law of the land prohibited something required by God; can you imagine how he felt… At least nowadays the law allows us these freedoms, and even were the law not so accepting, the penalty still would not be death.

 

[truthsave]

I expect in most churches here you’d only see one or two also, but the school had 300 pupils (obviously not all got up to take part), plus staff, friars and sometimes parents.

Polygamy was only ever practised, even in ancient times, under God’s direction. It was never ‘required’.
The story of Daniel is a prime example where the law of the land prohibited something required by God; can you imagine how he felt… At least nowadays the law allows us these freedoms, and even were the law not so accepting, the penalty still would not be death.

Please could you quote for me a passage in the Bible (not Joseph Smith Bible) where it is clearly writen polygamy was practised under God’s direction?

 

[CopticChristian]

I expect in most churches here you’d only see one or two also, but the school had 300 pupils (obviously not all got up to take part), plus staff, friars and sometimes parents.

Polygamy was only ever practised, even in ancient times, under God’s direction. It was never ‘required’.
The story of Daniel is a prime example where the law of the land prohibited something required by God; can you imagine how he felt… At least nowadays the law allows us these freedoms, and even were the law not so accepting, the penalty still would not be death.

Sounds like you should spend some time reading the letter to the Romans…

1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

What Paul is saying is that the Old Covenant is dead. Whatever happened in the Old Testament is not relevant in terms of practices. Looking to the Old Testament if you are not looking at it as Jesus, Paul, the Apostles and the Church did and does to explain Christ then you don’t understand the Old Testament. Your useless to yourself looking for examples of gobbly gook to explain your position.

Christians look at the OT to help understand and explain the New. Get on board little chillin get on board…there’s room for many a more…cmon down…

 

[Miriam1947]

The other remark about the condoms…Africa is becoming extinct because of polygamy. Men and women in mobile areas of the continent are most vulnerable…I worked with women who were primarily all abandoned by their partners, leaving them with children to raise on their own. The Holy Father only gave way because of the apparent disintegration of Africa’s population. It is chronically unable to raise itself up, in spite of the tremendous wealth of natural resources. To see a married African man remaining with his wife for his lifetime is out of the norm.

The Holy Father only gave way because of the apparent disintegration of Africa’s population.

Where on earth did you get that? The Pope has not given way on the condom issue at all.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Holy Father only gave way because of the apparent disintegration of Africa’s population.

Where on earth did you get that? The Pope has not given way on the condom issue at all.

bmonculture.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/catholic-church-reiterates-opposition-on-condoms-to-prevent-hiv/

The Church has reiterated its oppositon to condoms in the fight against HIV, again labelling them an ineffective prevention tool that encourages immoral behaviour, reports PBS Newshour.

An AIDS conference hosted at the Vatican over the weekend quickly stamped out any lingering speculation that the Church might shift or broaden its policy against use of condoms to protect from HIV, the report added.

Instead, Vatican officials hailed recent findings that AIDS medications can be highly effective in preventing transmission and called for a change in “amoral sexual attitudes” that contribute to the spread of HIV.

The concept of using HIV medications as prevention offers particular appeal because it could be used within a marriage, without violating the tenet that the act of sex be “open to life.”

The AIDS conference was originally called in the wake of confusion over a statement by Pope Benedict XVI in late 2010, which said that use of a condom by certain individuals, like a male HIV-positive prostitute, might be a “first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility.”

So here we have some issues that require some thought. AIDS is a disease. Knowingly ransmitting AIDS is evil…if that transmission is through unprotected intercourse…

So if the intercourse is between unmarried people that is evil…
If the Intercourse is between same sex people that is evil…
If the intercourse is between a spouse infected and an unifected spouse is that evil? Perhaps if the infected did not tell the uninfected. Regardless of how the infected spouse got infected.

Another issue…If a spouse is innocent in getting infected and the other partner is uninfected…the logical answer is abstinence…

If the spouse was sinful in getting infected and the other partner is uninfected…the logical answer is abstinence…

If both partners are infected through innocence or sin and the possibility of procreation is possible…knowing that the child will be infected and have AIDS…the logical answer would be abstinence…

Tough, tough decisions…

Getting back to the Post…I don’t know how Mormons do it…

 

[Naf623]

What Paul is saying is that the Old Covenant is dead. Whatever happened in the Old Testament is not relevant in terms of practices. Looking to the Old Testament if you are not looking at it as Jesus, Paul, the Apostles and the Church did and does to explain Christ then you don’t understand the Old Testament. Your useless to yourself looking for examples of gobbly gook to explain your position.

Actually, what Paul is explaining is that the Law of Moses is now fulfilled, and people need to turn their lives to Christ through the gospel, not through the old laws.
We believe that the prophets of the early Old Testament (pre-Moses) were taught the fulness of the gospel from God, understood His whole plan for His children from pre-earth to post-mortal existence, and lived according to the gospel, not the law of Moses. After the institution of the Law of Moses, many of the prophets were also taught the full gospel, but still lived according to the Law of Moses also.
Polygamy was normal amongst the early prophets, and instituted of God for the purpose to ‘raise up seed’.
It seems to me that Augustine very much understood this, his words are effecteviley identical to the LDS teaching on the matter.

[bmonculture.wordpress.com/w
Another issue…If a spouse is innocent in getting infected and the other partner is uninfected…the logical answer is abstinence…

If the spouse was sinful in getting infected and the other partner is uninfected…the logical answer is abstinence…

If both partners are infected through innocence or sin and the possibility of procreation is possible…knowing that the child will be infected and have AIDS…the logical answer would be abstinence…](http://bmonculture.wordpress.com/w)

Or, given that their only option is abstinence because even having children would be considered wrong in their situation, they can use contraception because it won’t prevent them from having children; they’re not going to have any anyway… The anti-contraception teaching is because it prevents having children: so does abstinence, so what would be the difference?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Actually, what Paul is explaining is that the Law of Moses is now fulfilled, and people need to turn their lives to Christ through the gospel, not through the old laws.
We believe that the prophets of the early Old Testament (pre-Moses) were taught the fulness of the gospel from God, understood His whole plan for His children from pre-earth to post-mortal existence, and lived according to the gospel, not the law of Moses. After the institution of the Law of Moses, many of the prophets were also taught the full gospel, but still lived according to the Law of Moses also.
Polygamy was normal amongst the early prophets, and instituted of God for the purpose to ‘raise up seed’.
.

Polygamy and in particular Mormon polygamy did a very poor job of raising up seed. This was discussed in this thread.

 

[Miriam1947]

Coptic, thanks for finding and posting this.

bmonculture.wordpress.com/201…o-prevent-hiv/

Quote:
The Church has reiterated its oppositon to condoms in the fight against HIV, again labelling them an ineffective prevention tool that encourages immoral behaviour, reports PBS Newshour.

An AIDS conference hosted at the Vatican over the weekend quickly stamped out any lingering speculation that the Church might shift or broaden its policy against use of condoms to protect from HIV, the report added.

Instead, Vatican officials hailed recent findings that AIDS medications can be highly effective in preventing transmission and called for a change in “amoral sexual attitudes” that contribute to the spread of HIV.

The concept of using HIV medications as prevention offers particular appeal because it could be used within a marriage, without violating the tenet that the act of sex be “open to life.”

The AIDS conference was originally called in the wake of confusion over a statement by Pope Benedict XVI in late 2010, which said that use of a condom by certain individuals, like a male HIV-positive prostitute, might be a “first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility.”

 

[CopticChristian]

Actually, what Paul is explaining is that the Law of Moses is now fulfilled, and people need to turn their lives to Christ through the gospel, not through the old laws.
We believe that the prophets of the early Old Testament (pre-Moses) were taught the fulness of the gospel from God, understood His whole plan for His children from pre-earth to post-mortal existence, and lived according to the gospel, not the law of Moses. After the institution of the Law of Moses, many of the prophets were also taught the full gospel, but still lived according to the Law of Moses also.
Polygamy was normal amongst the early prophets, and instituted of God for the purpose to ‘raise up seed’.
It seems to me that Augustine very much understood this, his words are effecteviley identical to the LDS teaching on the matter.

Or, given that their only option is abstinence because even having children would be considered wrong in their situation, they can use contraception because it won’t prevent them from having children; they’re not going to have any anyway… The anti-contraception teaching is because it prevents having children: so does abstinence, so what would be the difference?

I cannot believe you do not understand this.

I have an intention. I then will to act. I complete that action.

I have an intention. I then will not to act. I do not complete that action.

One is action the other is no action as it concerns intercourse. You may want to read the Bible and Birth Control by Provon. This is based on the Bible and teachings Christians believe in. You say you believe yourself to be a Christian. I do not believe that based on the ignorance of this question.