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

[ParkerD]

lets review the entire sequence from the NAB translation of Luke 20: 27-38

27Some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward and put this question to him,
28 saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us, ‘If someone’s brother dies leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman but died childless.
30 Then the second
31 and the third married her, and likewise all the seven died childless.
32 Finally the woman also died.
33 Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her.”
34 Jesus said to them, “The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
36 They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.
37 That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush, when he called ‘Lord’ the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
38 and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
Note, that the question was asked about a generic Jewish man, not necessarily a Sadduccee. Note further that those deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry or are given in marriage … because they are the ones who will rise. This is plain language and completely contradicts your point.

Because you position is clearly contradicted by the correct translation (NAB). If you are using Joseph Smith’s translation, which has been altered to support his position, you are merely fooling yourself.

Yes, it should read: they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
and this is a direct copy and paste from the NAB translation. While we both know that Jesus didn’t use the word renounce because he wasn’t speaking english, why do you think that the essence of what this translation says is wrong.

That’s a cop out. If Marriage was an absolute necessity to get to heaven as you claim, Jesus would have said that directly (and he didn’t) and he would have demonstrated it by his actions (which he didn’t).

Paul C,
The NAB translation is an illustration of the drifting of doctrine and teachings. If you would like to cite the DR translation, I would take a look at that, but the NAB is not an effective translation. I have already pointed that out earlier several times. Learn Greek and read the Textus Receptus, if you wish. I am comfortable with the KJV, or often with the DR.

Any translation was subject to the bias and understanding of the translator, of course. That is how language works–there are no perfect one-to-one translations from one language to another, especially from different base language starting points.

One needs an earnestness in their study in order to care about these finer points of reading a Bible and seeking what the original specific teaching was.

 

[ParkerD]

Why do you think its very clear that he had been married prior to writing Corinithians 7? The only evidence we have is a direct statement that he was not married. There are no indications at all that he ever married. Not one. And why do you think Paul’s opinion is untrustworthy on the matter of marriage. He is saying the same thing Jesus did.

No, He isn’t, except in the NAB translation.

1 Corinthians 7 is all about second marriages.

Paul evidently had a poor marriage. His opinion was his opinion.

No one is saying that marriage is not important. I’ve been happily married for 22+ years myself. The point is that it is not and has never been a requirement to get to heaven. And marriage has always been " until death do us part". When your spouse dies, you are free to re-marry, right? There is no marriage in heaven.

In your culture, these are true statements. Congratulations on being happily married for 22+ years

As for Adam and Eve, they were never given a commandment that they and all their progeny would have to be married to “be exalted” in heaven. There is no textual or traditional support for such a commandment. Being told to be fruitful and multiply as the only two people on earth, is a whole lot different than being told that marriage is a requirement for heaven, thus damning all that haven’t “been sealed”.

I don’t know if you’ve read enough about LDS doctrine to realize that “damning” means “not being a joint-heir with Christ” which means “not being a son of God with Christ” which means “not having a continuation of the seed forever.” Those who are content with the kinds of choices we have talked about, are going to be happy and joyful and have peace with Christ in the eternities. They will be as happy as they set out to be.

But Adam and Eve were given marriage by God, and God is an eternal being, and “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” is as plain as language can be.

Oh come on, many of the plural wives admitted they had sex with Joseph Smith. its all over the internet and in books. And to say that he didn’t personally benefit by having a harem of women available for sex while being supported by their husbands and fathers is laughable. Its been removed as a practice because even the Mormons knoew it was wrong.

If you wish to cite a specific example using the specific words of the person, go ahead. Your use of a term here shows a deep-down thinking (that’s one of the fascinating results of these kinds of conversations–the deep-down thinking has a way of surfacing.) It is viewing marriage as a possession, and comes not from Joseph Smith’s mind, but from the mind of the one who typed the words sitting at their computer with their thoughts spilling out. It shows a profound difference in approach and reverence toward marriage.

Marriage is a relationship of equal partners who bring equal abilities and unique gifts from God to their marriage. There are profound reasons it is described as a “help meet” situation, and God intended that a profound truth be understood–but evidently it is lost on many people.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
Not only do we disagree, but you cannot show a scripture that says marriage will be “fulfilled” by Christ’s return. I agree wholeheartedly that you are neither married nor are given in marriage–and this is what you have chosen. This is how choice works.

Parker, I agree we do not agree. This is not a cause for you to insult me every time you feel the need to express the obvious.

Here you go…

Revelation 21

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I agree we do not agree. This is not a cause for you to insult me every time you feel the need to express the obvious.

Here you go…

Revelation 21

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

RebeccaJ,
Sorry.

The word “as” in verse 2 above introduces a simile. That simile is used often in the Old Testament, also, in different contexts but with the same broad meaning about the righteous keepers of their covenants with God, and His keeping of His promises to them. (I don’t think by writing this comment I am describing something you aren’t already aware of, but the simile does not preclude there being marriages existing in heaven, at all.)

Have a good day.

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

To learn more about what and why other peope believe what they do Why are you here?
Annie

Mormons, mormons, mormons… ah, what a relief…

I’ve longed to talk with the LDS’s again. Please tell me about the new Jerusalem.

 

[Answersplease]

RebeccaJ,
But no way in the world is that going to penetrate into your mind.

You have to say disparaging statements like that, as a signal to any observers (especially Mormon observers) that anyone who doesn’t accept Mormonism is closed minded or worse.

The reality is that many posters have given hard evidence and strong arguments for the falseness of Mormonism and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but it is some Mormons like you who have closed their minds to any of those arguments and evidence.

 

[Answersplease]

**Mormons, mormons, mormons… ah, what a relief…

I’ve longed to talk with the LDS’s again.**

Let’s just say that your snarkyness implies that Catholics were less than you in the second century, and all your venerated “Church Fathers” were just newcomers to be ignored for their lack of history. Just think. They were ex-pagans.

What ever happened to buying pagan babies? I suppose none here are old enough to remember that noble custom.

asksistermarymartha.blogspot.com/2006/08/announcing-pagan-baby-reunion.html

Moving the goalposts there, Paul.

I guess I will have to point out that until the twentieth century it was not possible for an African American to attend a seminary here in the USA, unless he could ‘pass…’

In fact, the first African American Priest had to work his way to Rome to attend a seminary THERE, because Americans wouldn’t allow him to attend one here.

As well, (and this is why I mention double standards here…) **It was the direct result of instructions by a Pope that the international slave trade got going, and that people of black descent were singled out for slavery over other people. Slavery, in fact, was not only accepted, but promoted, by the church, Popes and all. Your priests…and at least a couple of Popes, OWNED slaves. **

…and even though there was a proclamation that slavery was a sin that was supposed to keep one from communion, **Catholics never once denied a southern slaveowner communion–and indeed several Priestly orders owned slaves right up until the North won the war. Even after that, American Catholic Bishops were unhappy about the change. **

…**and Catholic parishes were segregated until well past WWII. **

The point is, Paul, that Mormons were very much anti-slavery. Even Brigham Young, that noted racist (and yes, he was…) turned slavery into ‘indentured servitude…’ that recognized these servants as people bound in service, not property. Even though Utah was a ‘slave state…’ owning slaves was very much looked down upon.

Then, less than 150 years after the founding of the CoJCoLDS, on one sunny June morning, a simple announcement was made—and greeted with a great deal of joy–that said that ALL worthy men could have the priesthood. From that day, no man is discriminated against because of color, heritage or anything else. We turned it around in pretty much the time it took to read a statement.

Catholics…you’ve been around HOW long? You say 2000 years, the rest of us talk about 1500 years…and you STILL have problems with getting blacks into the priesthood. The very fact that you are bragging about importing black priests from Africa to help HERE should scream at you.

WE did not begin slavery. WE did not make announcements from our leaders that literally moved armies against entire peoples for the express purpose of enslaving them. Catholic popes, however, did precisely that.

WE fixed our problem in less than a tenth of the time it has taken you.

Given these facts (which anyone here is VERY aware that I can support…and will at the drop of a suggestion…) I think perhaps that you should consider the words in Matt. 7:1-5.

Yes, every Catholic should be relieved about talking to Mormons.

Where are the four Catholics that bashed me for exposing Mormonism when vile disgusting and intentionally MISLEADING mud like the above is thrown.

 

[ParkerD]

Mormons, mormons, mormons… ah, what a relief…

I’ve longed to talk with the LDS’s again. Please tell me about the new Jerusalem.

Rv Cain Spencer,
If you’re being serious, then the new Jerusalem as described in Revelation 21:1-2 is the city of holiness where people whose sins have been purged by the blood of the Lamb, who have been sanctified by Christ and lifted up by His grace through keeping their covenants with Him, will live when there is a "new heaven and a new earth, and where “he that overcometh shall inherit all things;” it is further described in Revelation 21 and 22.

 

[Answersplease]

**Mormons, mormons, mormons… ah, what a relief…

I’ve longed to talk with the LDS’s again.**

Let’s just say that your snarkyness implies that Catholics were less than you in the second century, and all your venerated “Church Fathers” were just newcomers to be ignored for their lack of history. Just think. They were ex-pagans.

What ever happened to buying pagan babies? I suppose none here are old enough to remember that noble custom.

asksistermarymartha.blogspot.com/2006/08/announcing-pagan-baby-reunion.html

Moving the goalposts there, Paul.

I guess I will have to point out that until the twentieth century it was not possible for an African American to attend a seminary here in the USA, unless he could ‘pass…’

In fact, the first African American Priest had to work his way to Rome to attend a seminary THERE, because Americans wouldn’t allow him to attend one here.

As well, (and this is why I mention double standards here…) **It was the direct result of instructions by a Pope that the international slave trade got going, and that people of black descent were singled out for slavery over other people. Slavery, in fact, was not only accepted, but promoted, by the church, Popes and all. Your priests…and at least a couple of Popes, OWNED slaves. **

…and even though there was a proclamation that slavery was a sin that was supposed to keep one from communion, **Catholics never once denied a southern slaveowner communion–and indeed several Priestly orders owned slaves right up until the North won the war. Even after that, American Catholic Bishops were unhappy about the change. **

…**and Catholic parishes were segregated until well past WWII. **

The point is, Paul, that Mormons were very much anti-slavery. Even Brigham Young, that noted racist (and yes, he was…) turned slavery into ‘indentured servitude…’ that recognized these servants as people bound in service, not property. Even though Utah was a ‘slave state…’ owning slaves was very much looked down upon.

Then, less than 150 years after the founding of the CoJCoLDS, on one sunny June morning, a simple announcement was made—and greeted with a great deal of joy–that said that ALL worthy men could have the priesthood. From that day, no man is discriminated against because of color, heritage or anything else. We turned it around in pretty much the time it took to read a statement.

Catholics…you’ve been around HOW long? You say 2000 years, the rest of us talk about 1500 years…and you STILL have problems with getting blacks into the priesthood. The very fact that you are bragging about importing black priests from Africa to help HERE should scream at you.

WE did not begin slavery. WE did not make announcements from our leaders that literally moved armies against entire peoples for the express purpose of enslaving them. Catholic popes, however, did precisely that.

WE fixed our problem in less than a tenth of the time it has taken you.

Given these facts (which anyone here is VERY aware that I can support…and will at the drop of a suggestion…) I think perhaps that you should consider the words in Matt. 7:1-5.

Yes, every Catholic should be relieved about talking to Mormons.

Where are the four Catholics that bashed me for exposing Mormonism when vile disgusting and intentionally MISLEADING mud like the above is thrown.

 

[ParkerD]

a quote and a comment

Answersplease,
I didn’t mean “close-minded”. I meant that a decision has already been made and that the words of the scriptures that have been cited and been discussed have had opportunity to be looked at in a different way, but this is not readily done and I am sensitive to that reality. I sincerely did not mean “close-minded”, and did not mean the remark to have been “disparaging”. I respect the views of the writer. I probably worded my remark badly, and apologize.

As far as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, they would be found innocent of any crimes in any fair, legal trial with representation and with actual evidence relied on rather than accusations and trumped up charges.

Besides which, the Holy Spirit who is the primary personal witness of truth to humankind, and who people who have had experiences with that divine source of knowledge would understand such that they would not question someone else who acknowledges such a source even if not agreeing, has given to my soul thousands of first-hand experiences to know of the truths which are taught in the Bible and which I have been discussing on this thread.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
The NAB translation is an illustration of the drifting of doctrine and teachings. If you would like to cite the DR translation, I would take a look at that, but the NAB is not an effective translation. I have already pointed that out earlier several times. Learn Greek and read the Textus Receptus, if you wish. I am comfortable with the KJV, or often with the DR.

Any translation was subject to the bias and understanding of the translator, of course. That is how language works–there are no perfect one-to-one translations from one language to another, especially from different base language starting points.

One needs an earnestness in their study in order to care about these finer points of reading a Bible and seeking what the original specific teaching was.

So Now your position is that all the Biblical contradictions to celestial and plural marriages are due to translation errors? Please! But just to answer your objections, here is the same Luke 20: 27-38 from the KJV :kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-Chapter-20/

.27Then came to [him] certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

28Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

29There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.

30And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.

31And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.

32Last of all the woman died also.

33Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

37Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

38For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

The wording is not much different from the NAB and it is still clear in verse 35 that those worthy of attaining to the resurrection neither marry or are given in marriage. and there is no indication that Jesus is talking only about Sadduccees here because their question wasn’t specific to Sadduccees either but was for a generic Jewish man.

oh, and from the same website, lets look at Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

And how about the notes for that verse from the KJV: kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-19-12/

View Wesley’s Notes for Matthew 19:12

19:12 There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake - Happy they! who have abstained from marriage (though without condemning or despising it) that they might walk more closely with God! He that is able to receive it, let him receive it - This gracious command (for such it is unquestionably, since to say, such a man may live single, is saying nothing. Who ever doubted this?) is not designed for all men: but only for those few who are able to receive it. O let these receive it joyfully!

You can’t hide behind translation error when you are selling fabrications. And what is the DR version? I couldn’t find it on the web…

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Why do you think its very clear that he had been married prior to writing Corinithians 7? The only evidence we have is a direct statement that he was not married. There are no indications at all that he ever married. Not one. And why do you think Paul’s opinion is untrustworthy on the matter of marriage. He is saying the same thing Jesus did.

Parker, this is a losing battle on your part. its not about translations its about the truth.
Lete’s review 1Corinthians 7 from the KJV : kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-7/
1 Corinthians Chapter 7
1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.

2Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

6But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment.

7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

In this, your prefered translation, Paul is clearly saying it is better not to touch a woman and that, although he gives permission to marry, he would prefer it the unmarried and the widows to stay unmarried, as he is. this is a direct contradiction to elestial marriages as a requirement for “exaltation”

And there is no indication that Paul was ever married. Now not only do you create a marriage for him, but an unhappy one at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
No one is saying that marriage is not important. I’ve been happily married for 22+ years myself. The point is that it is not and has never been a requirement to get to heaven. And marriage has always been " until death do us part". When your spouse dies, you are free to re-marry, right? There is no marriage in heaven.

Not only in my culture but in all Christian religions. You claim that Joseph Smith restored Celestial marriage, but you have yet to demonstate that it was ever practiced or acknowledged by anyone else other than Mormons. How is it then a restoration and not an innovation? And how would we know it was from God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
As for Adam and Eve, they were never given a commandment that they and all their progeny would have to be married to “be exalted” in heaven. There is no textual or traditional support for such a commandment. Being told to be fruitful and multiply as the only two people on earth, is a whole lot different than being told that marriage is a requirement for heaven, thus damning all that haven’t “been sealed”.

So what if Adam and Eve were given marriage by God? And yes, if you get married, it is for life. Catholics don’t believe in divorce. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO legitimate scripture or Christian tradition that states marriage is a requirement for salvation.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Oh come on, many of the plural wives admitted they had sex with Joseph Smith. its all over the internet and in books. And to say that he didn’t personally benefit by having a harem of women available for sex while being supported by their husbands and fathers is laughable. Its been removed as a practice because even the Mormons knoew it was wrong.

Here are some quotes from specific plural wives with documentation:i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm
Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph’s wife “in very deed.” (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

• In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)
• Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she “roomed” with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had “carnal intercourse” with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

In total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.

• Joseph Smith’s personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith’s first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
  William Clayton’s journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)
• Smith’s secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: “Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep.” Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera “as man and wife” and “occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife.” Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: “I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F.” (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)
• Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith’s son: “Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.”” (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)

So if , as you say, " Marriage is a relationship of equal partners who bring equal abilities and unique gifts from God to their marriage.", how can you justify joseph Smith having 33 wives and Brigham Young have 47wives. How is that a relationship of equal partners?

Parker, I am giving you the truth as I know it. Please consider it.

 

[paul_c]

Answersplease,
I didn’t mean “close-minded”. I meant that a decision has already been made and that the words of the scriptures that have been cited and been discussed have had opportunity to be looked at in a different way, but this is not readily done and I am sensitive to that reality. I sincerely did not mean “close-minded”, and did not mean the remark to have been “disparaging”. I respect the views of the writer. I probably worded my remark badly, and apologize.

As far as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, they would be found innocent of any crimes in any fair, legal trial with representation and with actual evidence relied on rather than accusations and trumped up charges.

Besides which, the Holy Spirit who is the primary personal witness of truth to humankind, and who people who have had experiences with that divine source of knowledge would understand such that they would not question someone else who acknowledges such a source even if not agreeing, has given to my soul thousands of first-hand experiences to know of the truths which are taught in the Bible and which I have been discussing on this thread.

The facts about Joseph Smith are that he was convicted of several offenses in fair, legal trials. He was convicted of being a con artist in 1826 for wrongly telling people he could find treasure with his seeker stones. In 1838, he fled Ohio when a warrant was issued for his arrest for Bank fraud. Later in 1838, he was jailed for Treason and after being jailed for 4 months, he bribed the sherriff and fled to Illinois. He also denied that he practiced polygamy at the preliminary hearing, although it is clear from Mormon records that he had many plural wives by this time. He was again jailed for treason and inciting a riot in 1844, leading ultimately to his death. Is this really the track record of someone who would be called as God’s prophet to restore Christianity?

 

[AMDGtoo]

seeking of gospel knowledge is completely different than the approach you have suggested in your post.

Yes, seeking knowledge of the gospel (and writings of the Early Church Fathers) is different. But if we are speaking of Joseph Smith and plural marriage, we should at least read about what happened (from reputable sources, of course, and like I said Todd Compton is LDS) or else we are just ignorant in that matter.

 

[Monte1945]

Mormonism is not a cult nor is it recognized as a cult by the US government or law enforcement agencies.

The concept of “cult” was introduced into sociological classification in 1932 by American sociologist Howard P. Becker as an expansion of Ernst Troeltsch’s church-sect typology. Troeltsch’s aim was to distinguish between three main types of religious behavior: churchly, sectarian and mystical. Becker created four categories out of Troeltsch’s first two by splitting church into “ecclesia” and “denomination”, and sect into “sect” and “cult”.[5] Like Troeltsch’s “mystical religion” Becker’s cults were small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs.[6] Later formulations built on these characteristics while placing an additional emphasis on cults as deviant religious groups “deriving their inspiration from outside of the predominant religious culture”.[7] This deviation is often thought to lead to a high degree of tension between the group and the more mainstream culture surrounding it, a characteristic shared with religious sects.[8] Yet sociologists maintain that unlike sects, which are products of religious schism and therefore maintain a continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, “cults” arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.[9]

 

[Monte1945]

Paul C,
As I’ve posted before, “drifting” is I think a better word to describe what happened than “great apostasy”, and within that drifting there was both a loss of the doctrine of celestial marriage and a loss of the keys to do such an ordinance, so as far as a number one kind of loss, that would seem to be a very big one since it impacts everything that happens in eternity as well as on earth for people who choose not to marry.

Just what were/are the necessary doctrines of the Faith which makes you feel is the cause to prove that there was/is a “Great Apostasy” from within the Catholic Church’s teachings which you feel your Church have corrected?

 

[Monte1945]

Jesus knew He would be killed during a short ministry on earth, so it makes sense that He would not marry and since He was perfect, He didn’t need the stabilizing and selflessness influence that is involved in marriage and raising children. He had a singular role on earth, which no one else has had or will ever have. Peace to you and all.

Does this fit into the view that “some” LDS hold that God has a wife in heaven?
(Heavenly mother?) And that is Jesus married now in heaven also?

 

[dianaiad]

Unless you are telling me Adam was married to a folkloric night demon, you’re going to have explain what you mean by this comment.

No, I’m telling you that WE do not believe there was a Lilith…but that the idea of her was invented by someone--------not us. So if you are going to start criticizing anybody for thinking that Adam was a polygamist, you might want to start looking at people who are indeed------not us.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I agree with your point that everyone who “acts as the Scribes did” can “expect a similar punishment.” This is an important point.

A similar point is clearly to be made about the Sadducees and their rejection of Christ and rejection of the resurrection–hence anyone who acts as they acted can “expect a similar punishment” or in other words, a similar status in their own resurrection.

I’m not understanding your thinking here. Catholics clearly believe in Christ and in the Resurrection, yet you have intimated that we will have a different “status of resurrection” because we don’t believe in “celestial marriages”.