LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[RebeccaJ]

I do not make it my business to tell God what He can or cannot do with regard to legitimizing plural marriages when He has placed on earth that kind of marriage for a set period of time. I am certainly glad I am not living in one of those times, but those marriages would have sought “oneness” yet also have allowed for the full development and unique qualities of each woman within those marriages.

By this very statement, you are defining marriage something other than Jesus Himself described. A disciple of Jesus follows Jesus, not someone who comes along later teaching something different.

 

[Answersplease]

How convenient that he only had sex with his first wife. If that is the case, then Joseph Smith is NOT following the plural marriages portrayed in the Bible.

But then again, Joseph Smith most likely did have sex with most if not all his wives, since that is the whole purpose of marriage, does “be fruitful and multiply” ring a bell?

Funny how Joseph Smith was almost castrated for having sex with a 16 year old that he wasn’t married to, but you say that he didn’t have sex with any of his wives except his first wife.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy

…Jon Krakauer’s account of Smith’s relationship with Marinda Nancy Johnson (age 16) in 1831,[67]

“ In the summer of 1831 the Johnson family took Joseph and Emma Smith into their home as boarders, and soon thereafter the prophet purportedly bedded young Marinda. Unfortunately, the liaison did not go unnoticed, and a gang of indignant Ohioans—including a number of Mormons—resolved to castrate Joseph so that he would be disinclined to commit such acts of depravity in the future. ”

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, Jesus brought us the New Covenant, that all, Jew and Gentile, fall under. There is not one covenant for you another for everyone else. If you do not want to believe what He taught then perhaps it is time for you to rethink what discipleship really means. hint: It doesn’t mean explaining away His teachings to suit your purposes.

If you are basing this covenant on belief, there is only heaven and hell, there is no in-between. Sheep and goats. Those who follow Jesus, those who do not. The Sadducee’s risk is hell, not a different level of heaven. Choose to be a sheep ParkerD, not a goat.

Jesus brought a greater covenant than the Mosaic covenant–not a lesser covenant. The Mosaic covenant already had marriage, and in fact the Jews considered marriage of importance enough to plan for marriages well in advance of their children being of age to marry. They did not consider marriage to be a lesser choice by any means, but considered it to be a desirable choice in the eyes of God. Having children was also considered to be favored in the eyes of God. This is clear in the Old Testament. It is not new doctrine.

By the way, now with your observation that the Sadducees’ risk is hell, how do you then say that he was saying the Sadducees will be like the angels in heaven, when there was nothing in the story to say that they were all of a sudden going to repent? This is one aspect of the Catholic position that I do not get, other than the self-justification I’ve already noted that basically says they bring the desired meaning with them into the passage.

 

[ParkerD]

By this very statement, you are defining marriage something other than Jesus Himself described. A disciple of Jesus follows Jesus, not someone who comes along later teaching something different.

So if you’re saying shame on Paul for citing Abraham as an example in Hebrews 11, then I would say Paul knew more than you know.

Good night, all. Hey, I still enjoyed the additional insights learned by reading the Greek today,

 

[Answersplease]

You have not shown proof that God approved of the plural marriages in the Bible.

You have not shown proof that those marriages were covenant marriages, you just say so because of your own bias.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jesus brought a greater covenant than the Mosaic covenant–not a lesser covenant. The Mosaic covenant already had marriage, and in fact the Jews considered marriage of importance enough to plan for marriages well in advance of their children being of age to marry. They did not consider marriage to be a lesser choice by any means, but considered it to be a desirable choice in the eyes of God. Having children was also considered to be favored in the eyes of God. This is clear in the Old Testament. It is not new doctrine.

You seem to keep hinting at this false dichotomy ParkerD. I know this has been explained several times, but perhaps you choose not to listen. Marriage is like all the Sacraments that Christ has given us, it is fulfilled in heaven, not destroyed. You understand what it means for God to fulfill something, right? There is no need to imagine, as Joseph Smith did, things that Jesus never taught. Trust God ParkerD, heaven is not a place of suffering.

ps: Who ever said marriage is a lesser choice and children are not favored?

By the way, now with your observation that the Sadducees’ risk is hell, how do you then say that he was saying the Sadducees will be like the angels in heaven, when there was nothing in the story to say that they were all of a sudden going to repent?

You have found the indication that your neat little English diagram has an error. See what it is, “they” refers to the people in the question…the woman and the 7 men she had married over the span of her lifetime.

This is one aspect of the Catholic position that I do not get, other than the self-justification I’ve already noted that basically says they bring the desired meaning with them into the passage.

ParkerD, follow the words of Jesus, as He is speaking to the question the Sadducee’s asked, not a judgment on them as individuals.

 

[Answersplease]

This is what I keep repeating but it is not heard. “God hath joined together.”

I heard it all right, but did you hear me?

HEAR THIS:

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Wait a minute now, Joseph Smith married women who were ALREADY married to earlier husbands.

Since no man can put asunder what God hath joined together, does that mean that Joseph Smith acknowledged his wives’ other husbands as his “brother husbands” just like the wives acknowledge the other wives as their “sister wives”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So if you’re saying shame on Paul for citing Abraham as an example in Hebrews 11

Why would you think this?

 

[Answersplease]

…What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This is what I keep repeating but it is not heard. “God hath joined together.”

Are you not going to respond to this? Obviously you have no answer.

HEAR THIS:

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Wait a minute now, Joseph Smith married women who were ALREADY married to earlier husbands.

Since no man can put asunder what God hath joined together, does that mean that Joseph Smith acknowledged his wives’ other husbands as his “brother husbands” just like the wives acknowledge the other wives as their “sister wives”.

 

[ParkerD]

You seem to keep hinting at this false dichotomy ParkerD. I know this has been explained several times, but perhaps you choose not to listen. Marriage is like all the Sacraments that Christ has given us, it is fulfilled in heaven, not destroyed. You understand what it means for God to fulfill something, right? There is no need to imagine, as Joseph Smith did, things that Jesus never taught. Trust God ParkerD, heaven is not a place of suffering.

ps: Who ever said marriage is a lesser choice and children are not favored?

You have found the indication that your neat little English diagram has an error.

ParkerD, follow the words of Jesus, as He is speaking to the question the Sadducee’s asked, not a judgment on them as individuals.

Strange comments here. Angels are not “suffering.” The Sadducees, after their resurrection, will not be “suffering.” The telestial glory and the terrestrial glory are not conditions of “suffering”. They are conditions of “glory”–really and truly, glory.

I was reading an article today about Jewish marriage and Catholic marriage and the dichotomy that Catholic marriage has with respect to whether it is a blessed state or whether it is “more blessed” to be celibate. I didn’t write the article–only read it.

The English usage holds true–that was my point. “As the angels of God in heaven” is not the same as “sons of God.”

Good night, all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The telestial glory and the terrestrial glory are not conditions of “suffering”. They are conditions of “glory”–really and truly, glory.

There is one heaven and one hell. Either you are there, or you are not. This isn’t like T-ball where everyone gets a trophy.

I was reading an article today about Jewish marriage and Catholic marriage and the dichotomy that Catholic marriage has with respect to whether it is a blessed state or whether it is “more blessed” to be celibate. I didn’t write the article–only read it.

You would need to site what you read. I imagine whatever it was, you were like a Mormon at Mass, taking note of everything that is foreign to you, assigning Mormon meanings to what you know nothing about, and congratulating yourself for understanding the truth of what this means.

The English usage holds true–that was my point. “As the angels of God in heaven” is not the same as “sons of God.”

It is. but, I think you read “as the angels” as becoming an angel. The angels are not humans in a improved form. They are an immortal creation of God that share in His divine nature. Therefore, they are sons of God. Just as becoming sons of God by adoption (via baptism) we share in His divine nature after the resurrection.

 

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by ParkerD
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This is what I keep repeating but it is not heard. “God hath joined together.”
Quote:
Are you not going to respond to this? Obviously you have no answer.

HEAR THIS:
Quote:
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Wait a minute now, Joseph Smith married women who were ALREADY married to earlier husbands.

Since no man can put asunder what God hath joined together, does that mean that Joseph Smith acknowledged his wives’ other husbands as his “brother husbands” just like the wives acknowledge the other wives as their “sister wives”.

Answersplease,
Perhaps he did. I wasn’t there, I don’t know.

But also, be aware that until the sealing of marriages was restored through Joseph Smith, God had not “joined together” any marriages between the time of those done by the ancient apostles and those done by Joseph Smith and others who were given the sealing keys.

The marriages performed by other means were like the Sadducees’ marriages–for mortal life only. The Sadducees’ marriages were like Mosaic law marriages, and Christ had taught “from the beginning it was not so.”

 

[Answersplease]

The marriages performed by other means were like the Sadducees’ marriages–for mortal life only. The Sadducees’ marriages were like Mosaic law marriages, and Christ had taught “from the beginning it was not so.”

“from the beginning it was not so.”

You attach that quote to different context than what it was in the Bible.

Beyond the pale.

 

[Answersplease]

But also, be aware that until the sealing of marriages was restored through Joseph Smith, God had not “joined together” any marriages between the time of those done by the ancient apostles and those done by Joseph Smith and others who were given the sealing keys.

Giving the keys ta an adulterer, not likely. (rolls eyes)

So you just said every marriage inbetween of the original Apostles to Joseph Smith, is invalid.

No scripture to back that up.

You will probably just say it is because the keys were lost in the Great Apostasy. (rolls eyes)

 

[ParkerD]

“beyond the pale”

Here is the text, which points out that the Mosaic law marriage was different than the Adam and Eve marriage:

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

But I truly give up on you ever understanding this subject. For example, no lawful and legal marriage is invalid. I never said any such thing, nor implied any such thing. Every Catholic marriage is valid, of course, as is every Jewish marriage or every marriage done by a licensed justice of the peace.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD, for a Catholic to marry outside the Sacrament of marriage is an invalid marriage. You did indeed say every Catholic (Sacramental) marriage from the Apostles to now is invalid.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease,
Perhaps he did. I wasn’t there, I don’t know.

But also, be aware that until the sealing of marriages was restored through Joseph Smith, God had not “joined together” any marriages between the time of those done by the ancient apostles and those done by Joseph Smith and others who were given the sealing keys.

The marriages performed by other means were like the Sadducees’ marriages–for mortal life only. The Sadducees’ marriages were like Mosaic law marriages, and Christ had taught “from the beginning it was not so.”

Here is the text, which points out that the Mosaic law marriage was different than the Adam and Eve marriage:

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

But I truly give up on you ever understanding this subject. For example, no lawful and legal marriage is invalid. I never said any such thing, nor implied any such thing. Every Catholic marriage is valid, of course, as is every Jewish marriage or every marriage done by a licensed justice of the peace.

"from the beginning it was not so."

Here is the original context from the Bible:

7 They say unto him, Why

did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease,
Perhaps he did. I wasn’t there, I don’t know.

But also, be aware that until the sealing of marriages was restored through Joseph Smith, God had not “joined together” any marriages between the time of those done by the ancient apostles and those done by Joseph Smith and others who were given the sealing keys.

The marriages performed by other means were like the Sadducees’ marriages–for mortal life only. The Sadducees’ marriages were like Mosaic law marriages, and Christ had taught “from the beginning it was not so.”

Here is the text, which points out that the Mosaic law marriage was different than the Adam and Eve marriage:

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

But I truly give up on you ever understanding this subject. For example, no lawful and legal marriage is invalid. I never said any such thing, nor implied any such thing. Every Catholic marriage is valid, of course, as is every Jewish marriage or every marriage done by a licensed justice of the peace.

"from the beginning it was not so."

Here is the original context from the Bible:

7 They say unto him, Why

did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Clearly the above is taking about divorce and that from the beginning divorce was not so.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease,
Perhaps he did. I wasn’t there, I don’t know.

But also, be aware that until the sealing of marriages was restored through Joseph Smith, God had not “joined together” any marriages between the time of those done by the ancient apostles and those done by Joseph Smith and others who were given the sealing keys.

The marriages performed by other means were like the Sadducees’ marriages–for mortal life only. The Sadducees’ marriages were like Mosaic law marriages, and Christ had taught “from the beginning it was not so.”

Here is the text, which points out that the Mosaic law marriage was different than the Adam and Eve marriage:

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

But I truly give up on you ever understanding this subject. For example, no lawful and legal marriage is invalid. I never said any such thing, nor implied any such thing. Every Catholic marriage is valid, of course, as is every Jewish marriage or every marriage done by a licensed justice of the peace.

"Answersplease:

"from the beginning it was not so."

Here is the original context from the Bible:

7 They say unto him, Why

did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Clearly the above is taking about divorce and that from the beginning divorce was not so.

Here is the context ParkerD attached it to:

The marriages performed by other means were like the Sadducees’ marriages–for mortal life only. The Sadducees’ marriages were like Mosaic law marriages, and Christ had taught “from the beginning it was not so.”

Clearly this IS NOT the same context. Attaching a different context to a Bible verse is beyond the pale.

For example, no lawful and legal marriage is invalid. I never said any such thing, nor implied any such thing.

"Answersplease:

Backpedalling now are you, or don’t you realize what you said in the following quote:

…be aware that until the sealing

of marriages was restored through Joseph Smith, God had not “joined together” any marriages between the time of those done by the ancient apostles and those done by Joseph Smith and others who were given the sealing keys.

But I truly give up on you ever understanding this subject.

Answersplease:

I’m so sorry that it is hard for me to undestand when people twist scripture.

 

[Answersplease]

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This is what I keep repeating but it is not heard. “God hath joined together.”

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Wait a minute now, Joseph Smith married women who were ALREADY married to earlier husbands.

Since no man can put asunder what God hath joined together, does that mean that Joseph Smith acknowledged his wives’ other husbands as his “brother husbands” just like the wives acknowledge the other wives as their “sister wives”.

Answersplease,
Perhaps he did. I wasn’t there, I don’t know.

But also, be aware that until the sealing of marriages was restored through Joseph Smith, God had not “joined together” any marriages between the time of those done by the ancient apostles and those done by Joseph Smith and others who were given the sealing keys.

The marriages performed by other means were like the Sadducees’ marriages–for mortal life only. The Sadducees’ marriages were like Mosaic law marriages, and Christ had taught “from the beginning it was not so.”