LDS View of the Great Apostasy

[PRmerger]

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Amen!

Note that it does NOT say that the ONLY reason for marital relations is to procreate.

And also note that the very next paragraph states this (emphasis mine):

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break,** between the unitive significance and the procreative significance **which are both inherent to the marriage act.

 

[zaffiroborant]

What does it say?

Well you could start by reading the paragraph it’s part of.

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying that it was not possible?

I am saying that Jesus does not lie.

It does appear that in LDS theology saying that the thief may not be saved sets up Jesus as being a liar for proclaiming to all of us that this man (known as St. Dismas in Catholic tradition) would be in paradise, but then really wasn’t saved.

And what would be the difference, then, in LDS theology, if someone can go to paradise and then go to hell, vs someone going to prison and then go to hell?

Was it possible for Lucifer who was created by God to be cast out?

Before time began God gave the angels their choice: with Him or against Him.

That choice is given to the human creature in his lifetime. Not after his death.

 

[kimg901]

If you lived long enough to learn all the knowledge there was, what would you be called? If you had all the knowledge there was, could you say to a mountain move and it would move? If you had all the knowledge there was, could you know the past present and future. If you had all knowledge, could you reach perfection? Stop being so narrow minded. I am not asking you to believe anything, and this is not part of our doctrine.

Thats funny. Thats what I was told when I was mormon. That God was once a man. So dont try and say it wasnt so. My mind was narrow when I was deceived, now its open to God’s truth!!!

 

[Fatboys]

I’m on mormon dialogue quite often under a different name.

There have been, and still are several Catholics over there that poke holes in mormon theology. The main problem over there is the heavy handed moderation.

Over there, if a non mormon proves a point against mormonism, they are either banned from the thread, or banned all together. They aren’t as open to free discussion over there like here, or other boards.

If you want to read nasty posters over there, try Daniel Peterson, and Pahoran… They have Catholics and Protestant posters beat hands down.

Also, over there, if a claim is made, references are expected, and they usually don’t let people get away with ignoring the requests for them. Just sayin…

I have been warned twice today for infractions. I would say that my pants are bigger than yours. If I have said anything that could have been implied as a insult, then I probably meant it. So if I get kicked off so be it. Eye for an Eye, and Tooth for a tooth. Of course if we all lived that law we would all be blind and toothless.

 

[Fatboys]

Thats funny. Thats what I was told when I was mormon. That God was once a man. So dont try and say it wasnt so. My mind was narrow when I was deceived, now its open to God’s truth!!!

It is not DOCTRINE. There is a difference. Tell me why would God who from what I gather from what mainstream Christians believe, begin to create when he did. Was he unhappy? Was he lonely? Was he alone before he created? Did he not feel fulfilled? Did he want some to own some land? Why?

 

[Fatboys]

I am saying that Jesus does not lie.

It does appear that in LDS theology saying that the thief may not be saved sets up Jesus as being a liar for proclaiming to all of us that this man (known as St. Dismas in Catholic tradition) would be in paradise, but then really wasn’t saved.

And what would be the difference, then, in LDS theology, if someone can go to paradise and then go to hell, vs someone going to prison and then go to hell?

Before time began God gave the angels their choice: with Him or against Him.

That choice is given to the human creature in his lifetime. Not after his death.

I am really getting tired of you putting words and thoughts into my mouth. I have never said he was not saved. I have never said that he would not go to Heaven. All I have said was that he was on the right path as we all must be in order to be saved. It is up to him whether or not he continues to follow the path. You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink… Unless you pump his tail.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is not DOCTRINE.

Today, that is what you say.

“I don’t understand that the Mormon doctrine, announced by President Lorenzo Snow, and so often quoted by us: “As man is God once was, and as God is man may become” means that all men are going to become what God is, not by any manner of means. It is possible they may become; yes, when men keep and obey the fulness of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I understand, my brethren and sisters, this great scheme of our Father contemplates that the privilege of gaining celestial glory has been extended to nearly all of his children. There are a very few in the world who are barred from all the privileges. Evidently according to the revelations of the Lord, those races and divisions existing among us now, existed before we came into this world, and some had failed to carry out the will of God and to conform to his plans in their former life to prove themselves worthy to receive the highest of privileges, namely, salvation in the celestial kingdom of our God.”

• Elder Melvin J. Ballard, General Conference, October 1917

BTW, I was taught it as doctrine while growing up Mormon, c.1970’s. When people like you say it isn’t doctrine, then you are telling us we were taught false teachings. So, it is an argument you can’t win.

 

[Fatboys]

Well you could start by reading the paragraph it’s part of.

And??? It says that sex is only for procreation. Where am I misunderstanding it?

 

[kimg901]

It is not DOCTRINE. There is a difference. Tell me why would God who from what I gather from what mainstream Christians believe, begin to create when he did. Was he unhappy? Was he lonely? Was he alone before he created? Did he not feel fulfilled? Did he want some to own some land? Why?

I dont know, was He alone? And if He was once a man on earth, how did He create the stars and universe from earth?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Unless you pump his tail.

 

[Fatboys]

Today, that is what you say.

“I don’t understand that the Mormon doctrine, announced by President Lorenzo Snow, and so often quoted by us: “As man is God once was, and as God is man may become” means that all men are going to become what God is, not by any manner of means. It is possible they may become; yes, when men keep and obey the fulness of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I understand, my brethren and sisters, this great scheme of our Father contemplates that the privilege of gaining celestial glory has been extended to nearly all of his children. There are a very few in the world who are barred from all the privileges. Evidently according to the revelations of the Lord, those races and divisions existing among us now, existed before we came into this world, and some had failed to carry out the will of God and to conform to his plans in their former life to prove themselves worthy to receive the highest of privileges, namely, salvation in the celestial kingdom of our God.”

• Elder Melvin J. Ballard, General Conference, October 1917

Doctrines are contained within the canon of Scriptures we use. Was it a teaching? Yes. Do I believe it? Yes because it makes sense that God wants us to eternally progress to more than what we were. To become perfect as he is and to inherit all that he has. How can we do this without not being like our Father?

BTW, I was taught it as doctrine while growing up Mormon, c.1970’s. When people like you say it isn’t doctrine, then you are telling us we were taught false teachings. So, it is an argument you can’t win.

Then those that taught it were wrong portraying it as doctrine instead of a teaching. Either that or you misunderstood that it was not a doctrine. It is the same as teaching we have a Heavenly Mother. It is not found in any doctrine but found in a hymn. Do I believe I have Heavenly Parents? I know I have a Heavenly Father. Do I believe there is a Heavenly Mother? Yes I do.

 

[kimg901]

This for you Fat,
A.God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
B.“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (D&C 130:22).
C.God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
D.“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
E.God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).
F.God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
G.God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, 1857, p. 218; vol. 8, p. 115). - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always ‘officially’ taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
H.“Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

Whats with the “its not doctrine” but yet your so called prophet spoke of it . If you dont know your own church history perhaps you should study it more. Maybe then the truth will open your eyes and your heart friend. Ill pray for you

 

[zaffiroborant]

And??? It says that sex is only for procreation. Where am I misunderstanding it?

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11)** It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed.** The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

IF sex was only for procreation the Catholic church would not teach how to plan pregnancy through NFP, which basically shows how to tell when a woman is fertile or infertile. It does not teach couples they can only have sex during fertile periods, so it does not teach that sex is only for procreation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Doctrines are contained within the canon of Scriptures we use.

Are you sure?

Was it a teaching? Yes. Do I believe it? Yes because it makes sense that God wants us to eternally progress to more than what we were. To become perfect as he is and to inherit all that he has. How can we do this without not being like our Father?

Do you agree that God the Father was once a man?

Then those that taught it were wrong portraying it as doctrine instead of a teaching. Either that or you misunderstood that it was not a doctrine. It is the same as teaching we have a Heavenly Mother. It is not found in any doctrine but found in a hymn. Do I believe I have Heavenly Parents? I know I have a Heavenly Father. Do I believe there is a Heavenly Mother? Yes I do.

Please check your Proclamation to the World. HM is Mormon doctrine. To say it isn’t is pretty astounding. Especially for Mormon women. I clearly remember being taught I was made in the image of “my Heavenly Mother”.

 

[Fatboys]

Fat,

You are wrong. What keeps me and kept me Catholic is studying and reading the writings of what is and the writings of the anti-. I found too often the writings of those that accused Catholics of whatever were wrong when I researched or those that said Catholics believed whatever. The most common accusation is that Catholics worship Mary and that was condemned by the Church, called Collyridianism. So you do yourself no favors by not studying what the anti-say because there may be some truth there.

Is it just a coincedence that the major talking points that have been brought up on this forum could have been copied word for word from any webstie critical of the LDS religion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are criticism and “anti-Mormon” synonymous?

 

[PRmerger]

I am really getting tired of you putting words and thoughts into my mouth. I have never said he was not saved.

Excellent.

Then you are in disagreement with your LDS brother Janderich, who said that just because someone was on paradise, one couldn’t assume he was saved.

So then we are agreed that one can be saved without baptism, although baptism is the normative means.

From your fellow LDS member:

However this is beside the point, Jesus says, “today shalt thou be with me in paradise”. This is not salvation. This is simply the spirit world. One is not saved until the resurrection.

 

[kimg901]

Fat, why is everything anti-mormon even when it comes from ex-mormons? Is it because we know the truth about the lds beliefs?

 

[PRmerger]

And??? It says that sex is only for procreation. Where am I misunderstanding it?

It does NOT say sex is ONLY for procreation.

In fact, in the very next paragraph it says that sex is for union AND procreation.

Originally posted in Humanae Vitae:

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.