Let's talk about Mormonism

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamhovey1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just as a side note, Mormon apologists tend to get pretty agitated when you point out that Jacob 2 contradicts Section 132. They always point to verse 30 of Jacob 2:

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

This gives them the out that they need because it basically says that while God forbids polygamy, he can change his mind at any time for the purpose of raising up seed. The begs the obvious follow up question:

Where are Joseph Smith’s seed?

And as far as propagating the Mormon population goes, just look at Brigham Young, for instance. He had 55 wives and only 56 children. A lot of good that did him in raising up seed.
 
I’ve asked that question a couple of times now but I’ve never received an adequate response. I think that their explanation that you mention is weak since we’re talking the same event, the giving of the wives to David and Solomon. It would be like me giving you a pencil (or something) and saying that was both a good and a bad act.

I also have a problem with the BOM saying that there were chariots in America. Chariots by definition have wheels and the Early European explorers noted that the Native Americans had no understanding of wheels.

Blessings
 
A thoughtful and objective Church historian did some homework to determine
if the claims carried weight and on examination found they did not. That
sounds like due diligence to me. It doesn’t change history necessarily. It
sheds some light on the subject perhaps, so people can see it for what it
is. Everyone is entitled to their own study and to their own testimony.
They have found theirs. They conclude Brigham was a politician and not a
prophet and the Latter-day Saint Church deems his actions excommunicable.
His way was not accepted as being of God in any Christian sense. Since he
was operating within the purview of Christianity, his claims were rejected.
If he had been “Raising the Red Lantern” in another system of belief and
practice, it may have flown. But never in Christianity. And that’s where we
are.
 
Last edited:
Lemuel said:
We had to come from somewhere. Our souls are the combination of out physical bodies and our spiritual bodies. Just as our physical bodies require both a father and a mother, our spiritual bodies also require a father and a mother. Our spirits are the offspring of our Heavenly Mother.
Click to expand...
Are you expressing your belief here?
Charity, TOm
 
Part 1 of 3

We have reviewed these so-called evidences many, many times over the last
40 years and they are mainly questions of identity. We have an
unidentified, generic god speaking, so the first question is “god who?” Who
is this “god” who is purportedly speaking about this subject? Before you
can make this canon law, you need to know that. Otherwise it can never
become canon law. Who is speaking? What are the characteristics and
attributes of this personage? Is this a murderer, a liar, a thief, a
deceiver, a seducer? Or is this a benevolent, beneficent being, harmless,
and without guile, seeking only your well being? To whom can you attribute
this text?

An example used more frequently in illustrating the problems of identity in
these texts is the Mount Moriah story. There you have an unidentified god
ordering Abraham to commit murder, to stab Isaac to death on an altar, to
slit the throat of his own son Isaac, a child. This was supposedly while
Abraham was among the Egyptians where there was worship of Isis, Osiris,
and where the roots of crucifixion and resurrection Christology, and some
dualism well known from Satanic verse had a place. Does that sound
Christian? Is it consistent with “Thou shall not kill?” Is it consistent
with benevolence? Is it consistent with beneficence? Is it consistent with
non-violence advocated by the Old Testament god who says “they were full of
violence and their thoughts ran to wickedness all the time and it grieved
me that I had created them”? Is it consistent with the laws and statutes of
our own time? Would Abraham not be arrested, and put in prison for life if
he did such a thing, or placed in an institution for the criminally insane
if he did such a thing in our day? The same D&C you cite says this crime is
the unforgivable sin of shedding innocent blood, and Abraham would be cast
into outer darkness and die the second death. He would be utterly annihilated and cease
to exist.

From these two generic, anonymous texts themselves as you have cited them,
you can not determine identities, so they do not carry much weight. Jacob
citations as you have presented them, are a little closer to an identity
than D&C. They are in proximity to some pretty bad characters though.

And as we know, Joseph himself considered the D&C to be his journal, not
scriptural, so it is hard to make the case that you can do more than learn
something from his personal experience there. He did not intend it to be
canon law for the whole church. It might be profitable to study, but to
claim everyone has to practice what they find there is a weak claim.

Another point is these texts are compilations of journals from different
people, from different times, from different places, in different
circumstances. All of them had different beliefs, different god concepts,
and different practices. God concepts vary immensely. Just saying God, or
Lord does not imply a universal understanding or acceptance of any god
referred to.
 
Last edited:
To be precise, it’s not “our” history. It’s “their” history. Or to be even more precise, it’s their account of history. My history does not include the practice of polygamy or polyandry. They are not joined to me and I am not joined to them. We do not share a history. If I did, I probably would change it and have every right to.
 
You can’t change history. You can choose to ignore it or broadcast it, but it is what it is.
 
Sister Adrian is brand new to CAF and most likely not who she says she is. She’s either not LDS or totally clueless to what the LDS doctrine teaches. I would suggest you just ignore her and move on. She’s just trying to stir up trouble.
 
fredystairs said:
I think that their explanation that you mention is weak since we’re talking the same event, the giving of the wives to David and Solomon.
Click to expand...
Their argument is that some of the wives were given to them and some were not. It was abominable in the cases of the ones that were not given them.

It’s a weak argument at best, but you have to realize, Mormons have little if any solid ground for their position on this and they have to grab at anything they can find. Being an apologist for the Mormon church must be akin to selling snow cones in Siberia.
 
While I disagree with what you say, the most flagrant untruth in your statements is the claim the LDS are Christians. That topic has been discussed many times on these forums. To be Christian means to be followers of Christ, to be baptized to the Body of Christ, and to believe in the Trinity, the LDS do none of those.
 
So LDS history is NOT LDS history 🤔

I think you need to study the LDS a bit more.
 
Lemuel said:
We had to come from somewhere. Our souls are the combination of out physical bodies and our spiritual bodies. Just as our physical bodies require both a father and a mother, our spiritual bodies also require a father and a mother. Our spirits are the offspring of our Heavenly Mother.
Click to expand...
Since you didn’t reference whose post you were responding to, are you stating that this is Mormon belief only or that you share this belief?

Edit: I see you stated that you were stating this as their position.
 
Last edited:
Horton said:
While I disagree with what you say, the most flagrant untruth in your statements is the claim the LDS are Christians. That topic has been discussed many times on these forums. To be Christian means to be followers of Christ, to be baptized to the Body of Christ, and to believe in the Trinity, the LDS do none of those.
Click to expand...
The portion of this comment stating that belief in the Trinity is a requirement for being a Christian has indeed been discussed many times in these forums and your position has never been proven in those discussions. LDS do meet the first two criteria you put forward.
 
I beg to differ. Belief in the Trinity is crucial. The Catholic Church does not accept the LDS baptism as valid just for this reason. It is not a Christian baptism as the LDS invocation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means something entirely different than what Christian belief is. So while you may not accept this proof, it is good enough for the me.

Your god(s) are very different that the God of Christianity.
 
Fortunately, you are not the arbiter of my personal relationship with Our
Father in Heaven or Christ. They are. I have been a Christian all of my
life, followed Christ, Our Father in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit all of my
life, and your idea of a patented formulation of a trinitarian creed has
little to do with my personal relationships with them. I follow Our Father
in Heaven and Christ, not your branded creed.

As you well know if you claim to follow the teachings of Christ and
Biblical Christianity, there is nothing in Bible about the term trinity,
and the word trinity never appears there. It is a philosophical and
doctrinal formulation used as a brand and a patent. I do not have to
subscribe to the made up word trinity as the sole description of Our Heavenly
Father’s role in my life or of Christ’s. What appears in the Bible is an
example, not a term. It is an example of how to lead one’s life, of how to
pray, of how to relate to one’s fellow beings, and how to remain sanctified
from sin. There is an outline of the personages, and the roles, of Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit in the Bible. Never is the word trinity used to define
them. The Latter-day Saints recognize and accept Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, and perform ordinances in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They are indeed Christian. The Latter-day Saints are Christian and always
have been.
 
Last edited:
It really does not matter if they meet the arbitrary criteria or not. What matters is that they follow Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that their lives are conforming. It does not matter which pope chose a term to describe it, or what term you use to describe it. Being Christian is not a dry, dead intellectual exercise in linguistics and semantics. It is the essence and the spirit of the law, not the letter of it. It is about living the life of a Christian. You do that when you receive Christ and Our Father in Heaven. You may never have heard of the Bible, or the word trinity, but when you receive Christ and Our Father in Heaven and the Holy Spirit, that is what makes you a Christian.

Does it matter what my name is or what you call me if you know me? I’m there and you know me. Call me what you will. You seem to think a classroom exercise is the essence of Christian life. It isn’t. Ask Christ if he cares if you call Him trinitarian. Ask Our Father in Heaven if He does. If your name is William, I can call you Will, Willy, or Bill. It does not change who you are. If you follow Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, regardless of what you choose as a term drawn out of thin air with no Biblical basis or reference. The language of the Bible is simply that. Three personages. Father. Son. Holy Spirit. You’re not even justified in deviating from the language given there, much less using it as a battering tool against other Christians who don’t adopt your verbiage. What a silly and trivial thing to say, that someone is not Christian because they do not use the same terminology that you do to describe a Christian life.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top