Mormonism, Polygamy, and Warren Jeffs

[Cowboy_Pete]

Jim:

“All Christians belonged to the Church called Catholic (Universal) in or before A.D. 107; they soon thereafter became known as Catholics.”

Soon? How soon? 4th Century does not seem particularly soon to me. And there were certainly different Christian groups in, before and after 107 AD. Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics … although some Gnostics were part of the group of that time which seems to be the most connected to Catholicism … I’d call them the Proto-Orthodox.

(Calling the Proto-Orthodox “Catholic” is like calling Abraham a Jew, or calling the Suffragettes “First Wave Feminists” or calling the Roman Empire “The First Reich.” In other words, it’s self-serving historical revisionism. It’s probably not intentionally dishonest, it’s just the sort of distortion that occurs when we pass history through the lens of cultural vanity).

“Sacred Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition flow from the same source: the teaching of Christ through His Apostles to His Church. “

On that much, we are agreed!

“The Church’s Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church) is the only rightful interpreter of both Scripture and Tradition.”

I cannot overemphasize my disagreement on that point. If God did not wish us to interpret, then why did He give us brains?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Jim:

Why do you assume that continual scriptural revelation is necessary for the Church? Can you find that taught in scripture? Is not your source for this assumption the fact that Mormonism claims that there must always be scriptural revelation? If so, then you have not posed a real problem for us, since the dilemma only arises from presupposing a Mormon understanding of revelation.

Jim, I am sure that you are right that my upbringing influenced my personal views on continuing revelation (but yes, there’s a biblical basis as well).

But more importantly, why do you assume that my intent is to “pose a real problem for you?” I was asked to explain my views, so I did. I did not come here to proselytize; indeed, I made a promise not to proselytize, so why do you want me to try to change your views?

If you want a mormon to preach to you, to try to show you that we’re right, and all that stuff, then go to a mormon board, or some neutral board. But that sort of conduct would not be appropriate here, on a Catholic board. Any more than I’d walk into your Parrish and start preaching the Book of Mormon without an invitation. I’m not here to sew seeds of doubt in your mind about the Catholic Church. And I’m very grateful that your organization has picked up so many of our own wayward sheep, and kept them in the Christian faith.

 

[Telstar]

Jim:

“All Christians belonged to the Church called Catholic (Universal) in or before A.D. 107; they soon thereafter became known as Catholics.”

Soon? How soon? 4th Century does not seem particularly soon to me. And there were certainly different Christian groups in, before and after 107 AD. Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics … although some Gnostics were part of the group of that time which seems to be the most connected to Catholicism … I’d call them the Proto-Orthodox.

(Calling the Proto-Orthodox “Catholic” is like calling Abraham a Jew, or calling the Suffragettes “First Wave Feminists” or calling the Roman Empire “The First Reich.” In other words, it’s self-serving historical revisionism. It’s probably not intentionally dishonest, it’s just the sort of distortion that occurs when we pass history through the lens of cultural vanity).

“Sacred Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition flow from the same source: the teaching of Christ through His Apostles to His Church. “

On that much, we are agreed!

“The Church’s Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church) is the only rightful interpreter of both Scripture and Tradition.”

I cannot overemphasize my disagreement on that point. If God did not wish us to interpret, then why did He give us brains?

Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnosticism

All of those so-called ‘christian groups’ that you seem to want to include with the true Church, were declared heresies by the early Church fathers, who fought fiercely against their errors, because they did not follow the truth that was passed down by the Apostles from Jesus. They were not considered to be a part of the Church because they were declared to be heretical. They soon disappeared from historical record because they were false churches. If they were the true Church, they would still exist. That should be your first clue, unless you consider them to be the ones that JS was referring to as the ‘true’ church (though they don’t fit his description of the ‘abominable church’). If you read through them, I’m sure you’ll be able to somehow identify with all of them. In that case, then those churches all might qualify as the ‘church’ referred to in his ‘great apostasy’, especially since Mormonism resembles all of them, at least in part, much more than it does the true Catholic Church that was established by Jesus Christ, that was passed down from the Apostles to the present day. Read the links and you’ll find plenty of evidence that the true Church of Christ fought against all of those early heresies, for obvious reasons. They were just a few of the first groups to qualify as a fulfillment of the prophecy about a ‘falling away’ from the truth, that you guys seem to love to dwell on so much.

God gave us brains so we could figure out the difference between someone that’s feeding us a long line of BS, and someone that’s telling us the real truth. Unfortunately, way too many people refuse to use the brains God gave them, especially the ones like the Gnostics that thought they were so much more ‘intellectual’ than the Apostles and early Church fathers were. But, just because we have great intellect, that doesn’t mean that we can never be wrong about spiritual things.

Our ‘worldly knowledge’ doesn’t mean diddly squat to God. He doesn’t care if we’re complete morons, as long as we love Him in spirit and truth. Even the mentally ‘retarded’ go to Heaven, probably much easier than those that like to call themselves ‘intellectuals’, but can’t seem to see the real truth, even when it’s staring them right in the face. Intelligence is wasted on those who refuse to learn.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, some of you Utah Catholics like to pretend, for example, that Brigham Young and the Mormons didn’t help you build your Cathedral in Salt Lake Valley,

That’s because, he didn’t.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnosticism

All of those so-called ‘christian groups’ … were declared heresies by the early Church fathers, who fought fiercely against their errors, because they did not follow the truth that was passed down by the Apostles from Jesus.

Precisely. All of those groups that I cited were Christian heretics. Heretics because they fundamentally failed to recognize some central aspect of Jesus’ teachings and mission. But Christian, because they recognized Jesus’ resurrection, and therefore were subject to being executed as Christians by the Roman Empire. Don’t forget that the name Christian was first applied to us all at Antioch, by our persecutors, even though we came to embrace it later. If you and I were to travel back in time, we would stand side by side in the arenas with the proto-orthodox, the marcionites, and the ebionites, being eaten by lions as our wives and children were … that part is too horrible to even say. Only some Gnostics might have lived, since IIRC they didn’t have a problem with pretending to believe differently. I suspect that the Rosicrucian among you are the continuation of the Gnostics, who simply adapted and pretended for generations to be Catholic. But I digress.

My source re the Gnostics is not an LDS source, but Bart Ehrliman.

(though they don’t fit [the BoM’s] description of the ‘abominable church’).

Not quite, but I take it you did not read my link.

I’m sure you’ll be able to somehow identify with all of them.

You are mistaken, and you’d know better if you’d actually read my link. I think that all of those groups possessed some parts of the truth which was lost. But if I had to pick one of those groups to survive, as being closest to the actual teachings of Jesus, I’d have picked the proto-Orthodox. So yes, I do believe that your predecessors were honestly trying to piece together the intent of the apostles, as best they could under circumstances much harder than anything that the Latter-day Saints ever faced.

Our ‘worldly knowledge’ doesn’t mean diddly squat to God. He doesn’t care if we’re complete morons, as long as we love Him in spirit and truth. Even the mentally ‘retarded’ go to Heaven, probably much easier than those that like to call themselves ‘intellectuals’, but can’t seem to see the real truth, even when it’s staring them right in the face. Intelligence is wasted on those who refuse to learn.

That was well-said, Telstar, and God bless you.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I apologize if I was unclear. I didn’t mean Orthodox as in Eastern Orthodox, I meant Orthodox as in partaking in the Catholic/Orthodox obsessiveness about God saving or damning you based on your having correct opinions about whether the gates of heaven swing or roll. I certainly did not mean to imply that the Eastern Orthodox have more correct opinions than the Roman Catholics – I’ve no desire to enter that argument, sir, so please leave me out of it.

I realize this is contrary to your traditions, and I do not mean to offend. But as an overarching descriptive term, it seems to me more logical to describe Catholicism as a type of Orthodoxy rather than vice-versa.

I didn’t make up the term “proto-Orthodox,” neither did any mormon; that’s from Bart Ehrliman, who I doubt has anything good to say about the mormons. I did find him quite informative about what Dr. Ehrliman called the “Lost Christianities” although I strongly disagree with his wistful attitude about their loss; I tend to think of them as the architects of the Great Apostasy. (Again, see my link to the most recent {{albeit unofficial}} scholarly LDS view on the matter that I’m aware of).

Origen was clearly one of the proto-Orthodox, and fought as valiantly against heresies as Polycarp himself, but that didn’t save him from posthumous excommunication when the church later came to a theological consensus on doctrines which during Origen’s time were unsettled. Would you deny that Origen was a Christian, despite the fact that he died of Roman tortures inflicted on him because of he taught the Christian doctrine?

To sum up, we mormon “heretics” do identify more with you and with the proto-Orthodox than we do with the Ebionites, Marcionites, or Gnostics. But when I think about “the nature of God,” I think of His love for us, his sending his son to die for our sins, that we might all be resurrected and know eternal life. To me the issue of whether God has a body or is pure spirit, and whether spirit is made of finer matter, etc., is all very interesting … but to make those things the central issue about “God’s nature” seems frankly a little shallow.
In Paul’s words:

1 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
…
8 Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.
12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known.

John 10:27

My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.

I submit that knowing Jesus Christ when we see him is more important to our salvation is more important than having a precise knowledge of theology. And that Charity, i.e. Christ’s pure love, will work in us a greater possibility of knowing God when we see Him, than all the knowledge in the world.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

SteveVM should be glad to hear that I’ve replied to Soren’s wonderful post on a new thread, since this had nothing to do with that horrible pedophile Warren Jeffs.

 

[Stephen168]

I didn’t make up the term “proto-Orthodox,” neither did any mormon; that’s from Bart Ehrliman, who I doubt has anything good to say about the mormons.

Ehrman made up that term for the benefit and all anti-Catholics not just Mormons. The term is meaningless. I don’t think Ehrman claimed any followers of Christ were polygamist like Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Ehrman made up that term for the benefit and all anti-Catholics

I had no idea that Ehrman was considered “anti-Catholic.” I’ve actually used his writings to persuade Protestants that Catholicism could not have been the prophesied whore of babylon, etc. And his book, “Lost Christianities,” debunks as modern forgery the “secret gospel of Mark” which some ex-Catholic gays have used to impute homosexuality to the Savior.

not just Mormons.

I don’t think that Ehrman wrote for the benefit of Mormons at all.
You think Mormons are anti-Catholic?

I guess you must think that I’m anti-Catholic, too. What a frightening world to live in, where anyone who isn’t with you is against you. Fortunately, your church doesn’t seem to share that view with you.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I don’t think Ehrman claimed any followers of Christ were polygamist

Not to my knowledge. Why do you bring that up?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ehrman made up that term for the benefit and all anti-Catholics not just Mormons. The term is meaningless. I don’t think Ehrman claimed any followers of Christ were polygamist like Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs.

My :twocents: –

Ehrman’s conclusions and work are based on a fundamentalist approach to scripture. Mormons have the same approach. So while Evangelical Fundamentalist view Ehrman as anti-Christian, Mormons view him as a non-Mormon authority that supports their doctrine of a “great apostasy”, and their teaching that the Bible is corrupt. (Which is of course inherently anti-Catholic.)

My view of Ehrman is, he doesn’t have a grasp of how Catholics use scripture, and his arguments against scripture don’t work well for a Catholic (east or west).

 

[Stephen168]

My :twocents: –

Ehrman’s conclusions and work are based on a fundamentalist approach to scripture. Mormons have the same approach. So while Evangelical Fundamentalist view Ehrman as anti-Christian, Mormons view him as a non-Mormon authority that supports their doctrine of a “great apostasy”, and their teaching that the Bible is corrupt. (Which is of course inherently anti-Catholic.)

My view of Ehrman is, he doesn’t have a grasp of how Catholics use scripture, and his arguments against scripture don’t work well for a Catholic (east or west).

I have not read any of his work regarding scripture. I heard his lecture series “From Jesus to Constantine.” My daughter-in-law’s father teaches at Ehrman’s alma mater. She described the place as very fundamentalist anti-catholic. In 2004, they fired a Professor who converted to Catholicism.

Ehrman’s lectures were supposed to be a history of Christianity, so when I heard him use the word “proto-orthodoxy” it was used as a substitute for Catholic/Orthodoxy. There was never an explanation on when proto-orthodoxy ended and regular Orthodoxy began. I had to chuckle at how someone would invent a new name for a group instead of admitting who they were.

I agree that when Ehrman did use scripture in his lecture series his conclusions seems odd to me. (They walked to school, so they could not have carried their books.) I have heard other Mormons use Ehrman in support of their ‘great apostasy’ idea in the ‘there was confusion and caos’ line of reasoning. But Mormon’s still can’t find their unique beliefs in those early years.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

My :twocents: –

Ehrman’s conclusions and work are based on a fundamentalist approach to scripture. Mormons have the same approach. So while Evangelical Fundamentalist view Ehrman as anti-Christian, Mormons view him as a non-Mormon authority that supports their doctrine of a “great apostasy”, and their teaching that the Bible is corrupt.

Ah

Please correct me if I’m wrong, here.

So in your factual universe, Mormons are “fundamentalists” but Evangelicals fundamentalists are not fundamentalists?

That seems fundamentally loopy, Rebecca.

How is “fundamentalism” actually defined in your universe?

In this universe, in the English language, this is what “fundamentalist” actually means:

Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines typically in reaction against Modernist theology.[1] The term “fundamentalism” was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time[2]. The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.

Given the things that you and some other exmormons have complained about the LDS church’s continuing change in doctrines, it’s fundamentally goofy for you to suddenly accuse us of “fundamentalism.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ah

Please correct me if I’m wrong, here.

So in your factual universe, Mormons are “fundamentalists” but Evangelicals fundamentalists are not fundamentalists?

That seems fundamentally loopy, Rebecca.

How is “fundamentalism” actually defined in your universe?

In this universe, in the English language, this is what “fundamentalist” actually means:

Given the things that you and some other exmormons have complained about the LDS church’s continuing change in doctrines, it’s fundamentally goofy for you to suddenly accuse us of “fundamentalism.”

I am referring to the way in which Evangelical Fundamentalists read scripture. Mormons do so in the same fashion. This is not saying that Mormons are fundamentalist.

I’m seeing a trend in all of your posts, I’m going to start calling you Cowboy Non Sequitur.

Study this, I think it will help in your communication on this forum:

If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)
I am a mammal. (B)
Therefore, I am a human. (A)

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: I could be another type of mammal without also being a human. The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises - it is a ‘non sequitur’.

FWIW, you do this a lot.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I am referring to the way in which Evangelical Fundamentalists read scripture. Mormons do so in the same fashion.

How is that, with our eyes? Could you be more specific?

This is not saying that Mormons are fundamentalist.

Thank you for clarifying.

I’m seeing a trend in all of your posts, I’m going to start calling you Cowboy Non Sequitur.

An observable *trend *towards nonsequlturs?

You realize that’s a contradiction in terms, right? :bighanky:

I hope the logical rule you looked up proves useful to you, but you did evade my question about fundamentalism. What do you think that fundamentalist means, and how do you think that a fundamentalist reads? How do you construe Bart E’s reading as “fundamentalist”? Do you simply mean what Stephen 168 seems to mean when he says “anti-Catholic,” i.e. meaning a view that you disagree with?

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVM should be glad to hear that I’ve replied to Soren’s wonderful post on a new thread, since this had nothing to do with that horrible pedophile Warren Jeffs.

Thank you for that, Pete.

 

[RebeccaJ]

How is that, with our eyes? Could you be more specific?

Thank you for clarifying.

An observable *trend *towards nonsequlturs?

You realize that’s a contradiction in terms, right? :bighanky:

I hope the logical rule you looked up proves useful to you, but you did evade my question about fundamentalism. What do you think that fundamentalist means, and how do you think that a fundamentalist reads? How do you construe Bart E’s reading as “fundamentalist”? Do you simply mean what Stephen 168 seems to mean when he says “anti-Catholic,” i.e. meaning a view that you disagree with?

Well, you’re suspended, again. But to answer, in futility I think, because you don’t even attempt to comprehend…Rebecca said it, so therefore, a smarmy reply that breaks sentences apart (proof-texting again) is the de rigueur…

Catholics read scripture in a way that recognizes the unity of all scripture, while also understanding that there is a literal and spiritual sense.

Fundamentalists read scripture in a way that favors proof-texting, which lacks in a recognition of the unity of scripture. Also, favoring the literal sense over the spiritual sense.

Ehrman is a trained Evangelical Fundamentalist pastor, and his arguments are entirely aimed at a person (or persons) who read scripture in the same fashion. So while no, I don’t believe he set out to target Mormons, Mormons are in the same group of people who read scripture in the same fashion as Fundamentalists. Mormons also favor anything that makes Christianity look bad, even when that anything is not sound. So Ehrman is appealing to Mormons.

From the Catechsim:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”

The work I have read of Ehrman’s takes none of this into account. He seems to read and critique scripture as though the Bible is a textbook, which, it is not. It is scripture.

As for your non sequiturs, yes, an illogical thought process is a recognized trend.

 

[aquabatix]

So, can we say then that mainstream LDS read scripture in a Fundamentalist way (except for D&C 132 that is) and the FLDS are the true fundamentalist for strictly adhering to the beliefs? Such a small step…

 

[Telstar]

So, can we say then that mainstream LDS read scripture in a Fundamentalist way (except for D&C 132 that is) and the FLDS are the true fundamentalist for strictly adhering to the beliefs? Such a small step…

I have to wonder which one would be the actual ‘apostate’ Mormon church (since there are several branches all claiming to be the ‘true’ one, someone has to be ‘it’)? Is it one of the ‘originals’, that still follow Joseph Smith’s teaching, or the one that followed Brigham Young and changed?

 

[aquabatix]

I have to wonder which one would be the actual ‘apostate’ Mormon church (since there are several branches all claiming to be the ‘true’ one, someone has to be ‘it’)? Is it one of the ‘originals’, that still follow Joseph Smith’s teaching, or the one that followed Brigham Young and changed?

I tend to think that the FLDS are actually the ones who follow the true faith. But, then again, if you allow for continuing revelation, the LDS are still ok. The thing is though, that this revelation about Polygamy said that it would never be taken away from the earth. It is an everlasting covenant. BUT, somehow it really wasn’t. The FLDS will even point to a revelation to their prophet John Taylor that says it should still be practiced no matter what. This was in hiding from the US authorities as they were being hunted down or their practices.

So, aside from the twisting of their doctrine and the pedophilia and abuse of power, I think the FLDS have the truth. (According to them of course)