Let's talk about Mormonism

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamhovey1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah I’m not sure how that’s mockery either, if you’re going to make a claim, you better be able to back it up. Theo, tends to be forgetting this is a Catholic forum. We’re not saying anything about Mormons, that Mormons haven’t already said, including on this website.
 
Yes, Theo, I do. I also have a feeling that CAF wouldn’t allow me to post their posts from Amazon here. Nor can I link to them since the forums are now history.

I’m sorry you’re so bothered by what Mormons there said. Perhaps if you were to question the Mormons here on CAF, you might get a straight answer.
 
Last edited:
There was one lady on here, Mormon lady, and I asked her quite clearly whether or not Mormons believe in multiple gods, and she refused to answer me, it just ended up being a very circular discussion. Now, not every Mormon is like that, but when you’ve dealt with stuff like that here, it tends to leave a bad taste in your mouth.
 
LDS dot org on the Apostle John.

John is mentioned frequently in latter-day revelation, as in 1 Ne. 14:18–27; 3 Ne. 28:6; Ether 4:16; D&C 7; 27:12; 61:14; 77; 88:141. These passages serve to confirm and to clarify the biblical record of John and also give us a hint as to his greatness and the importance of the work the Lord has given him to do on the earth, not only in the time of the New Testament, but also in the last days. We especially have a clarification of John 21:20–23, ascertaining that John did not die but has been allowed to remain on the earth as a ministering servant until the time of the Lord’s Second Coming (3 Ne. 28:6; D&C 7).
 
Melchior_1 said:
LDS dot org on the Apostle John.

John is mentioned frequently in latter-day revelation, as in 1 Ne. 14:18–27; 3 Ne. 28:6; Ether 4:16; D&C 7; 27:12; 61:14; 77; 88:141. These passages serve to confirm and to clarify the biblical record of John and also give us a hint as to his greatness and the importance of the work the Lord has given him to do on the earth, not only in the time of the New Testament, but also in the last days. We especially have a clarification of John 21:20–23, ascertaining that John did not die but has been allowed to remain on the earth as a ministering servant until the time of the Lord’s Second Coming (3 Ne. 28:6; D&C 7).
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for this, Melchior.👍
 
lilypadrees said:
Thank you so much for this, Melchior.👍
Click to expand...
No problem! We met with some Mormons for five weeks straight a couple of months ago, and they said the apostasy started after the death of the last Apostle. I wonder if they knew about this train of thought re; John.
 
lilypadrees said:
If you think that valid questions like these are mockery, Theo, then you haven’t followed the discussion. In my experience, Mormons don’t like the hard questions being directed to them. They have a certain script they have to follow and get quite flustered if you throw them a curve ball.
Click to expand...
Where did I suggest asking hard questions was inappropriate?

FYI, using a half dozen ROFL smileys gave away your intent was to mock.
 
You’re mistaken, Theo. I don’t mock anyone. I use the appropriate emoticon to express my feelings “ROTFL” means I find something extremely funny. And I find many things extremely funny. I’m a very happy soul who has learned to develop a healthy sense of humor on this journey called life.
 
It gets worse. Mormons believe that Jesus visited the Americas after his crucifixion and called 12 disciples (apostles, basically) similar to what he had done during his ministry. They were given the priesthood and the keys of the kingdom. Three of them are still alive today. The Mormons can’t make a claim that the priesthood was ever taken from the earth and then restored. It makes no sense. Unless God changed his mind again. But the Mormon God does change his mind a lot, so who knows. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Part 1 of 2

I am a Latter-day Saint myself. I do not practice polygamy nor do I wish to. It is condemned in scripture as an abomination before God, and I can not say I disagree with the imposition of such a thing on anyone being so categorized. It is not a marriage and not chastity. Chastity never was promiscuity.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not practice polygamy. This is false statement and a false generalization. The generalization is no more valid than saying if a single Catholic sins, the whole Catholic Church accepts the sin, embraces sin as their new doctrine, and practices it everywhere. It is a gross over generalization and misstatement that has no basis in truth. In order to state that the LDS Church practices polygamy, there would have to be a unanimous acceptance of it by every Latter-day Saint, and it would have to be officially presented and sustained by the general membership. It has not ever been, and it will never be.

The idea that Latter-day Saints practice polygamy, when in fact they do not, had its origin in a handful of behaviors by persons identified with the church who were not in good standing and considered by church standards to be worthy of excommunication, not worthy of exaltation. See President Gordon B. Hinckley’s 2012 address entitled “Do Not Practice Polygamy”. The link to his address is on the official website of the LDS Church.

Historians on Temple Square in Salt Lake City conducting tours in the 20th Century church have explained the origin of the idea in terms of false doctrine introduced to Brigham Young in books from the Orient which outlined the practice.

LDS church historians apparently traced the sources to secular books in possession of Brigham Young while he was seeking the office of governor. They state he had no contact with the idea prior to exposure to non-Christian literature, foreign culture, or alien traditions.

Their account is there was no evidence of it being introduced to the general church membership prior to that exposure, and that Brigham Young introduced the idea to Joseph Smith contemporaneously with their seeking political offices. The guides state he became convinced it would be a means of breeding a quick populace so that Utah might become a state under secular law, which then had a requirement of a certain number of residents to be recognized as a state in the Union, rather than remain a territory for some time until the populace settled in greater numbers or was produced rightfully under the ecclesiastical laws governing marriage. The guides state it was Joseph Smith who rejected the false doctrine when presented with it by Brigham Young, as did Emma Hale Smith, Joseph’s wife, and Emma’s parents who were practicing Christians opposed to their daughter living in sin or becoming a “heathen” for the sake of politics. The conflict resulted in Brigham’s , Joseph’s, and the early Saints’ expulsion from Illinois and the execution of Joseph Smith by a mob according to church history, while Brigham Young escaped to Salt Lake City and a second winter quarters residence in what is now Southern Utah.

Continued in Part 2 of 2
 
Last edited:
Part 2 of 2

Those attempting to force the practice of polygamy into the lives of Christians opposed to it were incarcerated, and the federal government prohibited it in the United States. Bigamy remains a criminal offense today in the US under secular law, as does statutory rape, child molestation, and other crimes of a sexual nature. It is a practice prohibited in the church under penalty of excommunication.

Far from being a revelation from God, the motivation was political as 20th century church historians describe it, and was vehemently rejected by any Christians then in the territory and in the United States generally, as evidenced by Wilford Woodruff’s Manifesto of 1890 where he cites over 50 million in opposition. Its appearance in the US amounted to a failed attempt to introduce a political expedient as a replacement for church doctrine. It failed as an attempt to replace the consensual marital relationship with an indoctrination of imposed prostitution, sexual slavery, or chattelry masquerading as a religious duty.

The idea of reducing marriages to the status of a politicized breeder colony did not take hold, and the rejection of the false doctrine by a false prophet highlighted the importance of the three components of Canon Law: revelation, scripture, and the vote of the membership. False prophets, false doctrines, do not bypass these checks and balances against sin, error, unrighteous dominion, or potentially tyrannical government.
 
Last edited:
Since there was no contact with the idea of polygamy other than with Biblical accounts condemning the practice previous to Brigham Young’s residence at Lion House where his limited library was housed, LDS Church historians conclude that not only did it lack origin as a revelation from God, but that it was never accurately attributed to any association with the Christian church in the United States.

Two thousand years of recorded history confirm polygamy and polyandry have never been admitted to the Christian Church. Neither is serial monogamy accepted. Divorce and remarriage is considered adultery according to the Canon. They are practices inconsistent with Christian morals and ethics, violations of the marriage vow or covenant.

This will not change for good reason. If it were not for Christianity, the whole world would be given to the animal kingdom and rapacious natural law or rapacious whim of will, to the threats of epidemic sexually transmitted diseases, to fragmentation, to depravity of lust, to wholly licentious behavior. There would be no place for anything else. That adultery, whoredom, and forced communism in a breeder colony should be the only extant form of relationships is certainly not a reasonable conclusion.

The Christian Churches who do so are correct in protecting and preserving the freedom to enter into marriage without the ugly scepter of alien invasion and unholy communion, infidelity, and the undesired and unwelcome breach of group sex and “group marriage” rape.

Those who wish to be united monogamously in a marriage between one man and one woman rather than forced to political prostitution in a communist group led by a deviate are just as deserving of that liberty as any hedonist, nihilist, narcissist, or megalomaniac pushing Dionysus and Baal worship, and the cow-tow to their version of an exalted race and society at the expense of someone else’s.
 
Are you saying that Joseph Smith did not have more than one wife. By that, I do not mean more than one wife recognized by a state or federal government, but as recognized by the church he brought to fruition?
 
Just WOW! The LDS are getting better at the whole “let’s change our history” thing. The idea that non LDS folks would believe the fictional accounts of their own history is beyond belief!
 
sisteradrianyearsley said:
I am a Latter-day Saint myself. I do not practice polygamy nor do I wish to. It is condemned in scripture as an abomination before God, and I can not say I disagree with the imposition of such a thing on anyone being so categorized.
Click to expand...
Sister Adrian, please review the following passages; I will have questions concerning them at the end:

From the Book of Mormon: (published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah 1986)
Jacob 1:15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old, desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon his son.
Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

This passage seems to support your statement that I quoted above.

From the Doctrine and Covenants (published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah 1986)
132: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines –
132: 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned, for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
132: 38 – 39 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not from me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

Continued
 
This second passage seems to directly contradict the first passage and it seems to contradict your statement that I quoted above.

In the book of Jacob, the wives and concubines are “abominable before me(The Lord)” while in the Doctrine and Covenant, David’s wives and concubines “were given unto him of me”(Again, the Lord). How does Mormon Church reconcile the two passages? Does it teach that the Lord gave an abomination to David?
Second, in the Doctrine and Covenants, there is a passage (132:4) that says that if the Mormon Church does not follow the “new and everlasting covenant” that it will be “damned”. The Mormon Church does not currently follow the statutes concerning wives and concubines as outlined in Chapter 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the chapter that contains the warning to follow the covenant or be “damned”. What is the Mormon Church’s teaching about why it does not follow the principle and doctrine concerning wives and concubines contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, Chapter 132?

Blessings
 
Wow! Just Wow!! Mormon lies just seem to get more and more brazen. This one tops them all. I don’t even know where to begin . . .
 
sallybutler said:
Are you saying that Joseph Smith did not have more than one wife.
Click to expand...
The Mormon Church admits that he had multiple wives, but the exact number is not known. Officially, I think that they accept that it was somewhere around 30-40. Most apologists seem to agree on the number of known wives to date being 34.
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t that something that the LDS church tried to hide for some time? I mean, I could be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top