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

  • Thread starter Thread starter paul_c
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dianaiad said:
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. 😉
Click to expand...
Are telling me you think Adam was a polygamist? Because I haven’t ever argued against this idea.

My argument is he was not, and so when Jesus says marriage should be as it was in the beginning, that means, no polygamy. Otherwise why would I point out to LDS that if you want to know how God ordered marriage, look to Adam and Eve. So yeah, I’m assuming that most LDS agree Adam had one wife. But I do understand each LDS person may have decided for themselves what scripture is really saying. :rolleyes:
 
Monte1945 said:
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]
Click to expand...
I see…so basically, a ‘cult’ is viewed relatively–it is a belief system that is sufficiently different from the belief system held by most of the people in an area as to seem more than ordinarily deviant.

Which begs the question of who the cultists are in Utah, I suppose. I wonder what the population cut off would be, in Becker’s view?
 
Monte1945 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Monte1945,
If you want a list, then in the interest of time during the future rather than drag these things out, even though this will make this thread go on for weeks as people take issue with every case, here is a list (but remember that drifting is what happened and that many truths including the most important of acknowledging Christ’s atoning power and grace and His example of love and peace have remained):
  1. Eternal marriage covenant. (Given to Adam and Eve.)
  2. Covenant of baptism after belief by the particular individual, in a covenant with Jesus Christ.
  3. Authority to administer those covenants, granted by God through the apostles on the earth, and only through such apostles being on earth among men.
  4. Repentance does not include “doing penance”, but does include “restitution”.
  5. Understanding the importance of seeking to be a “joint heir” with Jesus Christ, and not short-changing the doctrine which allows people to make excuses for not seeking continuous improvement during the course of their lives, continuous seeking for sanctification through the Holy Spirit, continuous seeking for the gifts of the Spirit and the gift of revelation through the Holy Spirit which will bring “hidden wisdom” and will guide to greater capacity to forgive and love others and forgive self and rely upon the grace of Jesus Christ Who is mighty to save and to glorify those who become His sons and His daughters through His atoning grace.
  6. Understanding that God spoke to prophets in more places in the world than one particular area anciently, because His love encompassed all of His children and there were righteous people in more places than one. If He spoke to prophets, then they could write it down and could preserve a record of His dealings with them.
  7. Understanding that all Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled.
 
paul_c said:
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.

(1) 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.

(2) 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/

… And what is the DR version? I couldn’t find it on the web…
Click to expand...
Paul C,

(1) What one does is take the Luke description of the experience and compare with the Matthew description of the experience, and realize that (1) all people will be resurrected and (2) the Matthew description includes the words “there were with us” and the Savior’s reply in both cases singles out the Sadducees and their beliefs in no resurrection. I really don’t want to go through all that discussion again.

(2) The words “able to receive it, let him receive it” have the word “it” italicized because that word was not in the Greek, but was added by the translators. “Receive” can apply to the entire teaching in the passage about no divorce in the higher law Jesus was teaching about. The word “receive” is far different than the word used in the NAB version. It makes sense to me that the words have more to do with no divorce than they have to do with suggesting all men should seek to never marry for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

It is also important to compare and realize that only Matthew includes that particular teaching of that one verse (19:12), at all, in the four gospels. There is no “second witness” for the teaching and Christ always provided a second witness for key doctrine.

DR stands for Douay-Rheims. It was the older Catholic translation.
 
paul_c said:
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.

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?

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.
Click to expand...
Paul C,
One could learn to read ancient Greek and have a better idea of what Paul was writing in 1 Corinthians 7, but even then one would not be clear because certain usages have more than one possible meaning. For example, in verse 1 there are no quote marks after the words “ye wrote unto me” but the context can just as easily be that Paul was quoting the question he had been asked, not teaching a doctrine in verse 1.

Another example is that in verse 8 the words “unmarried and widows” could just as rightly be translated from the ancient Greek to say “unmarried widows” with the word “widows” qualifying the word “unmarried” meaning “those widows who remain unmarried”.

Also, it seems you are taking the assumption that Paul had never married from verse 7 only, yet Paul does not write that he was never married. You are making just as large an assumption as I have made. The assumption can go either way from reading the epistle, and for Paul to have also written “neither the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” would be extremely hypocritical if he had also written that every man who marries should have been “even as I myself” if that really did mean “never marry–stay single forever so you can serve the Lord without distraction.”

Finally, it seems to be lost on many people that for the Sadducees to have asked the question they asked, they knew perfectly well that the Savior had taught that marriage endured after death for covenant marriages (i.e. Adam and Eve kind of marriages where God had done the joining together and not man), or they would certainly not have framed their question the way they framed it. But this will be lost on people who choose to self-justify not even allowing for the possibility that God could have had a plan that included a man and woman having an enduring happiness with each other as “help meet” and “one” that included an eternal marriage covenant to support each other in love and understanding and a process of being completed by that joining by God for all eternity.
 
paul_c said:
(Quotes about Joseph Smith and plural marriage)…

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 47 wives. How is that a relationship of equal partners?

Parker, I am giving you the truth as I know it. Please consider it.
Click to expand...
Paul C,
I suppose you had realized that each of the women you quoted from in your post were single when they were sealed to Joseph Smith, and that not one of them had a child by Joseph Smith being the father, yet some had children by other marriages after Joseph Smith died and they remarried. Also, each of those women wrote of their testimony of Joseph Smith. They may have been reluctant about the doctrine (so would have I), but they believed in a prophet of God strongly enough and had had the witness of the Holy Spirit strongly enough about God guiding a prophet on earth, that they were willing to do something their natural inclination was to not do. This is called an Abrahamic test of faith–you will remember that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac even though that was completely contrary to God’s law for man.

Brigham Young supported his wives in their talents and interests and abilities. Joseph Smith did that with his wife, Emma. The other women sealed to him did not live for any length of time with him, so it is not a case that one should hang their hat on as far as understanding what I meant by “equal partners who bring equal abilities and unique gifts from God to their marriage”, but you may be assured that I am supportive of my wife in that way to the best of my ability and grateful for her equal role in every way.
 
paul_c said:
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?
Click to expand...
He was not “convicted of several offenses in fair, legal trials.” He was not “convicted of being a con artist”.

He did flee Ohio for his life. (I suppose people think he should have stayed knowing he would be killed, but if it had been me in similar shoes with a wife and children and knowing the imperfect court system at that time, I would have fled Ohio also.)

Joseph Smith wrote one of the superb literary treasures of all time (my opinion–D & C 121) from the Liberty Jail (where my daughter happens to be a guide at the present time) in 1839 during the four months you alluded to, and once again your views are different than mine about trusting a faulty legal system (already very evident in his case) and not seeking a chance to escape the dungeon and the horrible food and seek to go support his wife and children in very difficult circumstances.

He didn’t use the word “polygamy” to describe celestial marriage. He was advised by an attorney as to his rights and the legalities of what he did.

The wonderful thing about all this, is that you certainly have many reasons to think that God could not possibly have called Joseph Smith as a prophet, and you will be self-justified and can go on your way thinking that you have proven to yourself how God works among humankind. I have no problem with your choice to do that–God intends for each person to have that choice with every conceivable justification to make whatever choice they want to make for themselves. God’s plan is a perfect plan, perfectly conceived and perfectly carried out among humankind–we who are imperfect.
 
ParkerD said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was being serious. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut Parker.
40.png
Answersplease:
Answer please, what is going on here?
 
Rv_Cain_Spencer said:
I was being serious. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut Parker.
Click to expand...
Rv Cain Spencer,
Thank you for responding and letting me know. I sincerely appreciate your kindness here. Blessings to you, and much peace through Christ, whose love and grace are manifest abundantly across the world.🙂
 
ParkerD said:
Rv Cain Spencer,
Thank you for responding and letting me know. I sincerely appreciate your kindness here. Blessings to you, and much peace through Christ, whose love and grace are manifest abundantly across the world.🙂
Click to expand...
Amen. Blessings, deeply.
 
Rv_Cain_Spencer said:
Mormons, mormons, mormons… ah, what a relief…

I’ve longed to talk with the LDS’s again. Please tell me about the new Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
In Mormonism, “New Jerusalem” acquires a whole new meaning. Our tenth article of faith states:

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

So what is the “New Jerusalem” in Mormonism? Well, it is the same as what it is in the Revelation of John:

Revelation 3:

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Revelation 21:

2 And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

But with more information added. In Mormonism, it is the “holy city” that will be built on the Western Hemisphere, or what is now known as the American continent, in due course, to rival the “old” Jerusalem that was (and is) built in Palestine. When Jesus appeared to the Nephites after His resurrection, He gave them the following instructions about the future “New Jerusalem” that should be built to their descendants in the Western Hemisphere:

3 Nephi 20:

22 And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you.

3 Nephi 21:

23 And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.
24 And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

A more comprehensive explanation and prophecy about the New Jerusalem in the Book of Mormon was given by the Jaredite prophet Ether:

Ether 13:

3 And that it [the American continent] was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord.
4 Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake concerning a New Jerusalem upon this land.
5 And he spake also concerning the house of Israel, and the Jerusalem from whence Lehi should come—after it should be destroyed it should be built up again, a holy city unto the Lord; wherefore, it could not be a New Jerusalem for it had been in a time of old; but it should be built up again, and become a holy city of the Lord; and it should be built unto the house of Israel.
6 And that a New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land, unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph, for which things there has been a type.
8 Wherefore, the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until the end come when the earth shall pass away.
9 And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.
10 And then cometh the New Jerusalem; and blessed are they who dwell therein, for it is they whose garments are white through the blood of the Lamb; and they are they who are numbered among the remnant of the seed of Joseph, who were of the house of Israel.

In the Book of Moses too the following prophecy is found concerning the New Jerusalem:

Moses 7:

62 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.

And here is a prophecy from the Doctrine and Covenants concerning the New Jerusalem:

D&C 133:

56 And the graves of the saints shall be opened; and they shall come forth and stand on the right hand of the Lamb, when he shall stand upon Mount Zion, and upon the holy city, the New Jerusalem; and they shall sing the song of the Lamb, day and night forever and ever.

Continued … /
 
/… Continued

When this dispensation was established through Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord gave instructions on how and where the New Jerusalem should be built:

D&C 42:

9 Until the time shall come when it shall be revealed unto you from on high, when the city of the New Jerusalem shall be prepared, that ye may be gathered in one, that ye may be my people and I will be your God.
35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed
62 Thou shalt ask, and it shall be revealed unto you in mine own due time where the New Jerusalem shall be built.
67 And ye shall hereafter receive church covenants, such as shall be sufficient to establish you, both here and in the New Jerusalem.

D&C 45:

66 And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God

D&C 84:

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

The attempt by the saints to build the city at that time failed, because they were not yet ready for it, and persecution followed, and the Lord permitted their enemies to prevent them from building it. But the promise still remain in force, and was deferred until a future time when the saints would be better prepared to build it; and the prophecies will be fulfilled in due course when the Lord decides in His wisdom when the time is the right for it to be fulfilled.
 
zerinus said:
/… Continued

When this dispensation was established through Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord gave instructions on how and where the New Jerusalem should be built:

D&C 42:

9 Until the time shall come when it shall be revealed unto you from on high, when the city of the New Jerusalem shall be prepared, that ye may be gathered in one, that ye may be my people and I will be your God.
35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed
62 Thou shalt ask, and it shall be revealed unto you in mine own due time where the New Jerusalem shall be built.
67 And ye shall hereafter receive church covenants, such as shall be sufficient to establish you, both here and in the New Jerusalem.

D&C 45:

66 And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God

D&C 84:

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

The attempt by the saints to build the city at that time failed, because they were not yet ready for it, and persecution followed, and the Lord permitted their enemies to prevent them from building it. But the promise still remain in force, and was deferred until a future time when the saints would be better prepared to build it; and the prophecies will be fulfilled in due course when the Lord decides in His wisdom when the time is the right for it to be fulfilled.
Click to expand...
Okay Zerinus! Wow… that was an earfull.
 
zerinus said:
Aren’t you impressed by the comprehensiveness of the Mormon revelation? 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone here ever suggested that Joseph Smith didn’t have a good imagination or was not a good story teller.
 
The Catholic Church teaches that for a marriage to be sacramentally valid it must be consummated. Is this a requirement for a Mormon marriage to be sealed?
 
momor said:
The Catholic Church teaches that for a marriage to be sacramentally valid it must be consummated. Is this a requirement for a Mormon marriage to be sealed?
Click to expand...
So if a 95 year old man married an 85 year old woman for companionship, and both of them were past the age of “consummation,” their marriage in the Catholic Church is not valid? :confused:
 
zerinus said:
/… Continued

When this dispensation was established through Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord gave instructions on how and where the New Jerusalem should be built:

D&C 42:

9 Until the time shall come when it shall be revealed unto you from on high, when the city of the New Jerusalem shall be prepared, that ye may be gathered in one, that ye may be my people and I will be your God.
35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed
62 Thou shalt ask, and it shall be revealed unto you in mine own due time where the New Jerusalem shall be built.
67 And ye shall hereafter receive church covenants, such as shall be sufficient to establish you, both here and in the New Jerusalem.

D&C 45:

66 And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God

D&C 84:

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

The attempt by the saints to build the city at that time failed, because they were not yet ready for it, and persecution followed, and the Lord permitted their enemies to prevent them from building it. But the promise still remain in force, and was deferred until a future time when the saints would be better prepared to build it; and the prophecies will be fulfilled in due course when the Lord decides in His wisdom when the time is the right for it to be fulfilled.
Click to expand...
zerinus, two questions here. It occured to me while reading this post that either Joseph Smith or the Lord spoke in Old English (thy and thou and so forth). Does this not strike you as strange?

Second question is that Joseph Smith said “which temple shall be reared in this generation”. You have given your explanation as to what happened but would this not prove that this statement was a fallacy? Was this not a prophecy? It just seems a little convenient to say that it has been deferred to a future time. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top