Mormonism, Polygamy, and Warren Jeffs

[PaulDupre]

Interesting. You’d have to believe, actually believe, that our marriages are binding beyond death, in order to say that we still practice a form of polygyny. Wouldn’t that make you an heretic in the Catholic Church?

I don’t believe that, but I believe that you believe it. When writing about Mormonism, I often write from within the Mormon POV in order to provide clarity (which I prefer to agreement).

My LDS sister is an interesting example. Her first temple marriage was to the missionary who baptized me. He cheated on her on their honeymoon and cheated on her consistently from then on. After 5 children and 22 years of heartbreak (and being told by bishops that she could cure him by being more submissive) , she finally divorced the bastard after he was (at long last) excommunicated for adultery. Their temple sealing was cancelled.

My sister soon met and married another guy (a decent though overly up-tight Mormon). They were very much in love and very happy. After 3 years of marriage, he died from a rare congenital disease.

After a few years, she met a non-Mormon on an internet dating site and fell head-over-heals in love (or whatever) with him. They are getting married next Friday. Her bishop will marry them.

The reason she doesn’t care that he is a non-Mormon is that they will only be together until one of them dies. When my sister is resurrected, she will be reunited with her 2nd temple husband, and this new guy will be left out in the cold. That doesn’t seem to bother her at all. It confuses the hell out of me. Even after having been a Mormon for 11 years, I cannot understand this LDS callous disregard for human relationships.

In Catholicism, no one is married to anyone in heaven, but we are all best friends in Christ Jesus. Effectively, we are all the Bride of Christ, so we will all be married to God and united in a perfect and total intimacy (read: vine and branches).

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Yes, and if you bring this up LDS will say “we don’t really know how this will work out but no one will have to participate in polygamy if they don’t want too”, waffle waffle, weasel weasel.

Sheesh. Get a life. Or failing that, go count angels on pin-heads, instead of getting all wound up about mormons that aren’t as uptight as you about matching the colors of the drapes in your heavenly mansions.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Interesting. You’d have to believe, actually believe, that our marriages are binding beyond death, in order to say that we still practice a form of polygyny. Wouldn’t that make you an heretic in the Catholic Church?

Quit being intentionally obtuse, (it is so twisted it almost seems deceptive) he is discussing LDS beliefs, he is not saying these are his beliefs jeesh. Stop deflecting, LDS men are allowed to be sealed for eternity to all the women they marry in this life, if none of his wives have the sealing cancelled for a subsequent marriage (the only reason a woman can get a cancellation is to get remarried) he will be married to all of these women in the after life (disclaimer)ACCORDING TO LDS TEACHING, NOT ACCORDING TO MY BELIEFS.

 

[mwok]

Interesting. You’d have to believe, actually believe, that our marriages are binding beyond death, in order to say that we still practice a form of polygyny. Wouldn’t that make you an heretic in the Catholic Church?

What I understand Catholic teaching is that a Sacramental Marriage is indissoluable until one or both spouses are dead.

CCC 1614 & 1640 speaks on the marriage bond.

Romans 7:2-3
2 A married woman, for instance, is bound to her husband by law, as long as he lives, but when her husband dies all her legal obligation to him as husband is ended.

3 So if she were to have relations with another man while her husband was still alive, she would be termed an adulteress; but if her husband dies, her legal obligation comes to an end and if she then has relations with another man, that does not make her an adulteress.

St. Ambrose of Milan also had something to say about the indissoluability of marriage:

“You dismiss your wife as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing;and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the Law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey; ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’”
{Commentary on Luke 8:5A.D.389

 

[zaffiroborant]

Sheesh. Get a life. Or failing that, go count angels on pin-heads, instead of getting all wound up about mormons that aren’t as uptight as you about matching the colors of the drapes in your heavenly mansions.

Can’t face the morality issues over polygamy I see, well that’s understandable, you cart a lot of baggage there.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you, Rebecca! I didn’t expect you to be the one God sent to answer my prayer
[bookmarking them]

Well don’t just bookmark them, read them.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

"Cowboy Pete:

Interesting. You’d have to believe, actually believe, that our marriages are binding beyond death, in order to say that we still practice a form of polygyny. Wouldn’t that make you an heretic in the Catholic Church?

Quit being intentionally obtuse, (it is so twisted it almost seems deceptive)

You don’t get out much, do you?

Stop deflecting, LDS men are allowed to be sealed for eternity to all the women they marry in this life, if none of his wives have the sealing cancelled for a subsequent marriage (the only reason a woman can get a cancellation is to get remarried) he will be married to all of these women in the after life (disclaimer)ACCORDING TO LDS TEACHING, NOT ACCORDING TO MY BELIEFS.

No need to use caps; calm down, take a xanax or a beer (but not both; they don’t mix!).

Yes, what you said is mostly accurate, other than the paranoid assumption that I was “deflecting” from something that I just brought up earlier today.

The point of my joke was, why are you so obsessed over our beliefs, if you’re not afraid somewhere inside you that we’re right?

Can’t face the morality issues over polygamy I see, well that’s understandable, you cart a lot of baggage there.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. Do you?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Why do you accept the writings of an “apostate church” as your Scripture?

OK, for the third time, this seems to be the view of the current LDS scholarship, replacing Talmage’s earlier opinions from “The Great Apostasy”

The Catholic church is not an “apostate church.”

The notion of shifty-eyed medieval monks rewriting the scriptures is unfair and bigoted. We owe those monks a debt of gratitude that anything was saved at all.

 

[SteveVH]

The Catholic church is not an “apostate church.”

Can you explain this a little further? If the Catholic Church is not “apostate” then there was no apostasy, which means there was no need for a restoration, which in turn means that there is no basis for the existence of your church. So what does the “Great Apostasy” mean to you?

Pete, you continue to surprise me. I find it strange that the other Mormon posters who frequent this forum seem to have become silent since you began posting, but I have little doubt that they would disagree with you on a number issues, including this one.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

OK, for the third time, this seems to be the view of the current LDS scholarship, replacing Talmage’s earlier opinions from “The Great Apostasy”

The Catholic church is not an “apostate church.”

Nephi’s “Great and Abominable Church”

Stephen E. Robinson

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume - 7, Issue - 1, Pages: 32-39

Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1998

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (color added)

One word: Bull-oney.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Can you explain this a little further? If the Catholic Church is not “apostate” then there was no apostasy, which means there was no need for a restoration, which in turn means that there is no basis for the existence of your church. So what does the “Great Apostasy” mean to you?

The article I linked to presents an excellent summation of my views.

I don’t see the Catholic church as emerging at least until 2-300 AD.

If you look at the “7 hills” thread I poked fun of the connection between the 7 hills prophesy of Apostasy and the Roman Catholic Church, because there wasn’t a specifically Roman Catholic church until after the great schism with the Eastern Orthodox. And obviously the Great Apostasy happened before that. The book of Revelations and the Epistles hint that the apostasy was already beginning, with congregations splintering off, following the nicolatians, for example.

 

[NewSeeker]

The article I linked to presents an excellent summation of my views.

I don’t see the Catholic church as emerging at least until 2-300 AD.

If you look at the “7 hills” thread I poked fun of the connection between the 7 hills prophesy of Apostasy and the Roman Catholic Church, because there wasn’t a specifically Roman Catholic church until after the great schism with the Eastern Orthodox. And obviously the Great Apostasy happened before that. The book of Revelations and the Epistles hint that the apostasy was already beginning, with congregations splintering off, following the nicolatians, for example.

The Didache (The Teaching of the Apostles) seems to be a 1st century document, early 2nd century at latest. It has distinctly Jewish elements overlaid with christian teaching. Both it and Acts call the gospel “The Way”. Justin Martyr wrote in Rome about 160ad about his conversion in Palestine thirty years earlier. Presumably the church he joined was not invented the year he was converted. Both documents refer to a liturgical form of worship, with the standard format of priestly prayers and public response, very Catholic and Orthodox in structure, even if very early and less developed.

Ignatius of Antioch in Syria wrote about the Eucharist and the Catholic hierarchical structure of bishop, priest, and deacon in about 110 ad. He was in communion with the church in Rome and wrote to that church and others on his journey from Antioch to Rome to be martyred. Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote about the catholic tripartite structure of the priesthood in 90ad. The evidence for the existence of liturgical Christianity in Rome, Antioch, and Palestine, all in communion together with a shared belief in the Eucharist and a liturgical form of worship (very Catholic/Orthodox) is strong. All of these men - Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr (and let’s add Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, Ignatius’s pal and similarly a disciple of John, into the mix) were catholic (pre-Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split). If these obviously catholic bishops belonged to an apostate church, then the foundation of this apostate church occurred earlier than 90ad, and certainly after Paul wrote in the 50s and 60s, and was founded while John was still alive, with two of his disciples occupying bishoprics in this apostate church in Asia Minor.

Finally, consider the fact that the Mass and Orthodox Divine Liturgy are clearly based on ancient Jewish Day of Atonement rites, including an altar where the priest offers bread and wine, church buildings patterned after the Jewish temple, a veil (the communion rail on Catholic churches and the iconostasis in Orthodox churches) before the altar, and a priest standing in for the Lord - going in and out from behind the veil, exactly what you would expect of a bunch of messianic Jews who thought Jesus was their Great High Priest who came to restore true temple worship. All of this indicates that the rites of the Mass/Divine Liturgy originated in the Jewish temple, not in pagan mystery religions - as certain protestant scholars, and Talmadge building on their work, tend to believe.

In my view, the historical evidence that an Apostasy occurred is very scanty, if not completely non-existent. The evidence for the traditional Catholic/Orthodox position of apostolic continuity through the bishops is far stronger .

**

 

[BartBurk]

The Didache (The Teaching of the Apostles) seems to be a 1st century document, early 2nd century at latest. It has distinctly Jewish elements overlaid with christian teaching. Both it and Acts call the gospel “The Way”. Justin Martyr wrote in Rome about 160ad about his conversion in Palestine thirty years earlier. Presumably the church he joined was not invented the year he was converted. Both documents refer to a liturgical form of worship, with the standard format of priestly prayers and public response, very Catholic and Orthodox in structure, even if very early and less developed.

Ignatius of Antioch in Syria wrote about the Eucharist and the Catholic hierarchical structure of bishop, priest, and deacon in about 110 ad. He was in communion with the church in Rome and wrote to that church and others on his journey from Antioch to Rome to be martyred. Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote about the catholic tripartite structure of the priesthood in 90ad. The evidence for the existence of liturgical Christianity in Rome, Antioch, and Palestine, all in communion together with a shared belief in the Eucharist and a liturgical form of worship (very Catholic/Orthodox) is strong. All of these men - Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr (and let’s add Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, Ignatius’s pal and similarly a disciple of John, into the mix). If these obviously catholic bishops belonged to an apostate church, then the foundation of this apostate church occurred earlier than 90ad, and certainly after Paul wrote in the 50s and 60s, and was founded while John was still alive, with two of his disciples occupying bishoprics in Asia Minor.

Finally, consider the fact that the Mass and Orthodox Divine Liturgy are clearly based on ancient Jewish Day of Atonement rites, including an altar where the priest offers bread and wine, church buildings patterned after the Jewish temple, a veil (the communion rail on Catholic churches and the iconostasis in Orthodox churches) before the altar, and a priest standing in for the Lord - going in and out from behind the veil, exactly what you would expect of a bunch of messianic Jews who thought Jesus was their Great High Priest who came to restore true temple worship. All of this indicates that the rites of the Mass/Divine Liturgy originated in the Jewish temple, not in pagan mystery religions - as certain protestant scholars, and Talmadge building on their work, tend to believe.

In my view, the historical evidence that an Apostasy occurred is very scanty, if not completely non-existent. The evidence for the traditional Catholic/Orthodox position of apostolic continuity through the bishops is far stronger .

The idea of an apostasy was a fairly popular one among the Protestants in early America. The Campbellites really popularized it. One of their preachers was a man named Sidney Rigdon who had a lot to do with the development of the Mormons and was an intimate associate of Joseph Smith.

 

[NewSeeker]

The idea of an apostasy was a fairly popular one among the Protestants in early America. The Campbellites really popularized it. One of their preachers was a man named Sidney Rigdon who had a lot to do with the development of the Mormons and was an intimate associate of Joseph Smith.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

The Didache (The Teaching of the Apostles) seems to be a 1st century document, early 2nd century at latest. It has distinctly Jewish elements overlaid with christian teaching. Both it and Acts call the gospel “The Way”. Justin Martyr wrote in Rome about 160ad about his conversion in Palestine thirty years earlier. Presumably the church he joined was not invented the year he was converted. Both documents refer to a liturgical form of worship, with the standard format of priestly prayers and public response, very Catholic and Orthodox in structure, even if very early and less developed.

Ignatius of Antioch in Syria wrote about the Eucharist and the Catholic hierarchical structure of bishop, priest, and deacon in about 110 ad. He was in communion with the church in Rome and wrote to that church and others on his journey from Antioch to Rome to be martyred. Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote about the catholic tripartite structure of the priesthood in 90ad. The evidence for the existence of liturgical Christianity in Rome, Antioch, and Palestine, all in communion together with a shared belief in the Eucharist and a liturgical form of worship (very Catholic/Orthodox) is strong. All of these men - Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr (and let’s add Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, Ignatius’s pal and similarly a disciple of John, into the mix) were catholic (pre-Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split). If these obviously catholic bishops belonged to an apostate church, then the foundation of this apostate church occurred earlier than 90ad, and certainly after Paul wrote in the 50s and 60s, and was founded while John was still alive, with two of his disciples occupying bishoprics in this apostate church in Asia Minor.

Finally, consider the fact that the Mass and Orthodox Divine Liturgy are clearly based on ancient Jewish Day of Atonement rites, including an altar where the priest offers bread and wine, church buildings patterned after the Jewish temple, a veil (the communion rail on Catholic churches and the iconostasis in Orthodox churches) before the altar, and a priest standing in for the Lord - going in and out from behind the veil, exactly what you would expect of a bunch of messianic Jews who thought Jesus was their Great High Priest who came to restore true temple worship. All of this indicates that the rites of the Mass/Divine Liturgy originated in the Jewish temple, not in pagan mystery religions - as certain protestant scholars, and Talmadge building on their work, tend to believe.

In my view, the historical evidence that an Apostasy occurred is very scanty, if not completely non-existent. The evidence for the traditional Catholic/Orthodox position of apostolic continuity through the bishops is far stronger .

**

Trying to rebut your arguments would probably constitute proselytizing, but I hope I’ve made my point that the LDS Church position is not that the Catholic Church was responsible for the apostasy.

 

[mwok]

Trying to rebut your arguments would probably constitute proselytizing, but I hope I’ve made my point that the LDS Church position is not that the Catholic Church was responsible for the apostasy.

Hey Pete,

I think what NewSeeker is trying to get at is that even though there were many splinterings from the newly established church( as made clear in Acts), the main faith has always been intact. Just like in early Mormon history when there were many splinter groups claiming to be the reestablished church after JS died, the main church faithful to JS was still intact.

Hope that helps.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Trying to rebut your arguments would probably constitute proselytizing, but I hope I’ve made my point that the LDS Church position is not that the Catholic Church was responsible for the apostasy.

Mormonism teaches that the so-called mythical “apostasy” occurred at the end of the first century. Some LDS have recently revised history to exclude the Catholic Church from the “apostasy.” (See the article Cowboy Pete has been touting.) Mormonism has undergone many revisions in doctrine since its founding in 1830. This is the version du jour. Stay tuned.

Jim Dandy

 

[hosemonkey]

Mormonism teaches that the so-called mythical “apostasy” occurred at the end of the first century. Some LDS have recently revised history to exclude the Catholic Church from the “apostasy.” (See the article Cowboy Pete has been touting.) Mormonism has undergone many revisions in doctrine since its founding in 1830. This is the version du jour.

Stay tuned.

How nice of the mormon “church” to excuse us from something that never happened. But then, they have always been about “change”, haven’t they? Are we sure that “Our Commander in Cheat” is not really a mormon?

 

[lax16]

OK, for the third time, this seems to be the view of the current LDS scholarship, replacing Talmage’s earlier opinions from “The Great Apostasy”

The Catholic church is not an “apostate church.”

Wow - this is quite a night!

First, BartBurk says that what the LDS called doctrine 22 years ago is outdated, despite the fact the whole article is singing the praises of Joseph Smith and his “restoration of the gospel” - meaning JS is out of date.

Next, I find out that the great and abominable whore of babylon is not the Catholic Church and that we were never in a state of apostasy.

Uhh - what is going on here?
Do the officials down in Salt Lake know what is being touted here?

Why the sudden need to be chummy with the Catholics?

 

[lax16]

Mormonism teaches that the so-called mythical “apostasy” occurred at the end of the first century. Some LDS have recently revised history to exclude the Catholic Church from the “apostasy.” (See the article Cowboy Pete has been touting.) Mormonism has undergone many revisions in doctrine since its founding in 1830. This is the version du jour. Stay tuned.

Jim Dandy

But I have been told repeatedly here, and by missionaries, that the Great Apostasy happened when the last apostle died because they never passed on priesthood authority.

So, now who are they saying never passed on the authority - a different church?

btw - where has Parker been? Not like him to let these things go unanswered…