Mormon Church Trying to Keep the Wheels On

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-Wa1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an interesting thread. Two comments that I have:
  1. Mormons don’t even believe that the priesthood was taken from the earth, so how could there have been a restoration of something that was never taken away in the first place?
  2. I haven’t been Catholic long enough to totally understand the Catholic position on marriage in heaven. The article that was posted was fascinating, indeed. Mormons have an interesting thing going on which sort of falls in line with the OP of the wheels falling off.
Mormons believe that they can be bound together as husband and wife for eternity if they are sealed in the temple. Men can be sealed to multiple wives. Women can only be sealed to one or two men, normally only one, but sometimes two, depending upon the circumstances.

In the temple, they make sacred covenants with God. During the movie that remakes portions of the Book of Genesis, there’s a point in the film where Adam and Eve are driven out of the Garden of Eden. After God admonishes them for their transgression of partaking of the forbidden fruit, he introduces them to the atonement where they are able to be forgiven and start anew. Adam and Eve make separate covenants. Eve makes a covenant with Adam and then Adam makes a covenant with God. But this is the interesting part. Pre-1990, the temple ceremony included this covenant from Eve to Adam (and remember, the patrons are to assume that they are Adam and Eve, respectively):

Eve: Adam, I now covenant to obey your law as you obey our Father.

Yes, Eve covenanted to obey Adam’s law, not God’s law. That seemed a little sexist to the 80s Mormon feminists, so in 1990, God decided that it needed to be changed. The new covenant from Eve to Adam went like this:

Eve: Adam, I now covenant to obey the Law of the Lord, and to hearken to your counsel as you hearken unto Father.

Now, Eve changed her mind about obeying Adam and decided that God trumped him. So now she obeys God in case Adam messes up, which men usually do.

Well, the 2019 Mormon God has caved once again to the Mormon feminists. Eve now has more speaking parts and speaks directly to God. Since I’m no longer a Mormon, I don’t know what the new covenant is, but Eve no longer makes a covenant to Adam. Instead, they both make the same covenant to God to obey His law.

And, of course, Mormons are expected to believe that this is new revelation. Uh huh.

In a few more years of the Mormon feminist movement, God will again be changing his mind. Eve will be doing all the talking to God and Adam’s lines will be limited to “Yes, dear.”

Just wait and see . . .
 
Lemuel said:
Yes, Eve covenanted to obey Adam’s law, not God’s law. That seemed a little sexist to the 80s Mormon feminists, so in 1990, God decided that it needed to be changed.
Click to expand...
Always fascinating how God moves the goal posts in Mormondom. That’s the fun of having living prophets and continual revelation–you can change things whenever necessary to keep the wheels on.
 
Yeah. Do you remember when passing through the veil included the five points of fellowship and one of them was “breast to breast”? The women didn’t like having to press their breasts against the breast of some old man on the other side of the curtain so God changed that, too. I wonder why the old God didn’t see anything offensive about that.
 
Last edited:
Yes, indeed it was. That was a part of Mormonism pre-1990. But you have to realize, the Mormon five points of fellowship are almost word-for-word identical to the Masonic five points of fellowship. When it was men doing it to men, no big deal. But I guess Joe didn’t think about the consequences of men doing it to women. All the women I knew were uncomfortable with it, but God said to do it, so . . . . .

Back in those pre-1990 days, the first time you went to the temple, you would be butt naked under what was more or less a very sheer poncho and some stranger would touch all the parts of your body with consecrated oil and water and bless the different body parts, starting from your head and going down to your feet, not missing much in the middle. Then they would dress you in the temple garment for the first time. At least that was women doing it to women and men to men. But still kind of creepy.
 
Last edited:
It appears it has. Maybe Tom looked into it further and discovered it did not support his position at all.
 
I’m not sure Gazelam is either. A quick search on google found this exact quote on a couple of LDS sites. It appears it is a commonly used commentary they pull out to support their concept of eternal marriage.
 
Last edited:
And don’t forget the pre-1990 temple ritual of drawing your thumb across your throat symbolizing what would happen to you if you revealed temple secrets to outsiders. I guess 1990 was a special year.
 
Chris-Wa1 said:
Always fascinating how God moves the goal posts in Mormondom. That’s the fun of having living prophets and continual revelation–you can change things whenever necessary to keep the wheels on.
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones?

The Catholic Church changes its doctrines as it sees fit. Here’s what Jimmy Akin says:

However popular it may be in some circles to say that Catholic doctrine “cannot change,” this doesn’t seem to be the way the Magisterium articulates the continuity in its doctrine. Searches of the Vatican website (vatican.va) for such statements don’t turn up results. Instead, The Magisterium has become increasingly frank about the possibility of error in non-infallible teachings.

Because there is continuity in the principles underlying Catholic teaching, the Magisterium appears to prefer the language of development to the language of change, but it avoids making absolute statements like “doctrines can’t change”.

In apologetic discussions, statements like “doctrines can’t change, but they do develop” will be unconvincing to skeptical listeners. They will rightly point out that development is a kind of change, and if they are knowledgeable, they may point to doctrines that have undergone significant change, such as slavery, usury, the salvation of non-Catholics, or limbo. Rather than be sidetracked by semantic quibbles about whether something is a “change“ or a “development“, it is prudent to be frank and to neither minimize nor exaggerate the possibility of change in Church teaching. (Jimmy Akin, Teaching with Authority[Catholic Answers Press, 2018], 349, 350)
 
I did not mean to stir things up. It was an honest question. I admit to not knowing as much about Catholicism as I should. I also know that Mormons have a lot of strange ideas about marriage. Some of my in-laws are Mormons so I hear things here and there. I have been to a couple of Mormon church meetings. I have to admit that there was absolutely nothing there that would attract me to Mormonism or any other non-christian sect for that matter.
 
RuthAnne said:
I have to admit that there was absolutely nothing there that would attract me to Mormonism or any other non-christian sect for that matter.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a non-Christian sect? If so, on what do you base your belief? Thanks in advance!
 
Mormon deflection tactics. You sound like a politician or a lawyer. Using the old “glass houses” tactic is pretty silly for a discussion forum, since it’s just a way to stop discussion.
 
I would say the Mormon church is a pseudo-Christian sect, because though it believes in Christ, its version of Christ (who Christ is, where Christ came from, what Christ did) is quite different from the rest of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
gazelam said:
Are you saying that you believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a non-Christian sect?
Click to expand...
Yes I guess I’m saying that. Several years ago a business associate of my husband urged us to go to the Mormon church. The main meeting was about raising money for the Boy Scouts. The meeting with the ladies was about one of your dead prophets. I don’t remember anyone talking about Jesus Christ. Y’all worship men. That would be like Catholics worshiping Pope Francis.
 
Not to worry, RuthAnne. I know your question was sincere. :hugs:

There are many people I learn of through reading and participating in these threads. You gave me one more through your question. And I thank you for that.😁
 
Last edited:
I parted from the Mormonites six years ago. Since then there have been so many changes that I don’t think I would even recognize the church I left behind. Rusty has been having a lot of lucid dreams and talking a lot with his imaginary God. I’m looking forward to general conference this weekend to see what other changes they will be making.

The corn is popping …
 
Last edited:
RuthAnne said:
Several years ago a business associate of my husband urged us to go to the Mormon church. The main meeting was about raising money for the Boy Scouts. The meeting with the ladies was about one of your dead prophets. I don’t remember anyone talking about Jesus Christ. Y’all worship men.
Click to expand...
For someone who doesn’t know much yet about Mormonism, you were obviously paying attention when you attended their church services. Your comment is spot on. The focus at LDS services is often more about their prophets than about Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top