Mormonism, Polygamy, and Warren Jeffs

[smirknoff]

It must be noted that as much as modern LDS leaders distance their Church from their polygamous neighbors, they do not have as strong a foundation as we do to actually justify condemning their actions. For us, polygamy is a disordered form of marriage as such, but for them, it is only unauthorized polygamy that is evil.

.

Whereas Catholics believe that polygamy would still be evil if God authorized it and the commanded it? But those wascally Mormons think that polygamy would be ok if God told them to do it… Tut tut. As if God could override the Magesteriun.

 

[mwok]

Whereas Catholics believe that polygamy would still be evil if God authorized it and the commanded it? But those wascally Mormons think that polygamy would be ok if God told them to do it… Tut tut. As if God could override the Magesteriun.

Good thing God never authorized it then!

God would never authorize it because it goes against God.

 

[smirknoff]

Good thing God never authorized it then!

God would never authorize it because it goes against God.

How so?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Soren: “The real question is for you: Why do you assume that continual scriptural revelation is necessary for the Church?”

Because God is unchanging.

“If so, then you have not posed a real problem for us”

Good. I never intended to pose a problem for you, Soren. I did hope to educate myself about Catholicism, to correct some falsehoods taught here about my beliefs, and to make some friends. Not much success here either way.

“The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached.” (Luke 16:16) This passage poses a problem for anyone who thinks that the same rules that make scriptural revelation normative in the Church would be the same in the new covenant as in the old.

It certainly would if it was referencing St. John the Beloved. You realize the actual reference is to John the Baptist, right? Not John the Beloved? And that all of the New Testament was written after John the Baptist was beheaded?

What do you think a prophet is, and how do you say that John the Beloved was not a prophet?

How can you say that your very own Saint Joan was not every bit as much of a prophetess as Deborah? Clearly, Saint Joan’s revelations were no more “private” than Deborah’s. It frightens and confuses me that you canonize her, but nothing that she actually said. I would say that the real issue is not whether God speaks, or how He speaks, but whether you listen to Him.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Kathleen:
"Tradition is the authentic understanding Jesus Christ given us not just one person, but 12 apostles who were witnesses to Christ, "

I understand that you believe that your church traditions were handed down from the twelve apostles. I believe that some of your traditions indeed did so originate, and that some did not. From the LDS point of view, the way to tell is through the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.

I do not understand what you mean by "tradition the manner of interpreting Scripture and how it is lived out in the history of salvation history. "

I do not exactly understand what you mean by “Mormonism rejects the salvation history of the people of God,” but I think you are mistaken.

I know you are mistaken when you characterize our beliefs as “Only Mormonism is right and only in the alleged visions of Joseph Smith.”

" Smith did it alone. No challenges. Nobody contradicting him, blind faith…"

You should already know that is not true, Kathleen, since you have seen numerous LDS folks right here on this forum disagreeing with Joseph Smith on various issues. Myself included.

---

Pablope: "Then could you provide an official LDS paper to support your views, approved and signed by the highest authority of the LDS, that makes it official doctrine/dogma/teaching? "

Hosemonkey: "I doubt that you would ever get such a thing. mormons do not like to codify their “doctrines,” if something is written down and sworn to, it makes it very difficult for them to deny or change it when circumstances or “revelation” brings changes. "

Pablope’s question can be answered without resort to conspiracy theories, Hosemonkey.

The answer is no. Obviously, the LDS church does not issue official doctrine/dogma/teachings regarding the Catholic church. Any more than I’d expect you to produce a paper signed by the Pope to support your views on Mormons. But you can look at the 2nd Saturday session of any annual General conference transcript since 1993, and you’ll see, like I said, that the LDS Church contributes a chunk of our Tithing money to Catholic Charities. OBVIOUSLY the LDS church does not think that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon, otherwise we would not entrust our Tithes to the Catholic Church.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Rebecca:

Ehrman is a trained Evangelical Fundamentalist pastor

Bart Ehrman is an Agnostic, Rebecca.

As far as I can see, an agnostic is the absolute opposite of any sort of fundamentalist. So you’re not just wrong, you’re as wrong as humanly possible.

 

[Telstar]

Soren: “The real question is for you: Why do you assume that continual scriptural revelation is necessary for the Church?”

Because God is unchanging.

Welcome back, Pete.

Sorry to jump in here, but I have to ask you this. If you believe that God is ‘unchanging’, then why would you accept the LDS notion that we ‘progress’ to become gods, just like the ‘Eternal Father’ progressed? That makes no sense, whatsoever, if you believe that God is ‘unchanging’. Does it? Those two concepts are completely incompatible with each other.

I did hope to educate myself about Catholicism, to correct some falsehoods taught here about my beliefs, and to make some friends. Not much success here either way.

Educating yourself about Roman Catholicism on this particular section of the forum is probably not the best place to do it, since there are many Catholics here that are not necessarily Roman Catholic. Because of that, you’re likely to get many different views from each of those different types of Catholics (Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, etc.). Not all of those churches agree 100% on every doctrine, or they’d still be following the Pope. (Not to mention the fact that even though someone here may claim to be Catholic, they might not actually be.) If you really want to educate yourself about the Roman Catholic Church, you’d have much better luck reading the entire Catechism of the RCC on the Vatican website, or by attending RCIA classes at a nearby RCC parish in your own area.

We don’t ‘teach’ anything about LDS beliefs. We merely pose questions and discuss them in the context of our own Catholic beliefs. We always wonder about certain beliefs of other churches that seem to contradict with what we believe, so we’re curious as to why other people believe what they do. It’s certainly not just LDS beliefs and teachings that make us scratch our heads.

Making friends is a two way street and it often takes time for people to get acquainted with each other. There’s no reason for people here not to become friends, over time. Even good friends will always disagree about certain things. If they didn’t, then I’d have to think something wasn’t quite right with the world. :ehh:

It certainly would if it was referencing St. John the Beloved. You realize the actual reference is to John the Baptist, right? Not John the Beloved? And that all of the New Testament was written after John the Baptist was beheaded?

What do you think a prophet is, and how do you say that John the Beloved was not a prophet?

All of the prophets, up to the time of John the Baptist, were to prepare us for the Coming of the Messiah into the world. Their main purpose for existence was to guide the Chosen People in how to live their lives in order to prepare themselves, spiritually, for the time of His Coming. After that point, there is no more need for their prophecies, because Jesus has already arrived to fulfill all prophecy, thus His final words on the cross, “It is finished.”. At that point, the work of man’s salvation that Jesus had come to accomplish was complete, as was the Old Law of Moses. There was no more need for waiting or preparing for the Messiah to arrive. At that point, the New Covenant and the Law of Christ began. Under the New Covenant, the Church (aka the Kingdom of God on earth) that He established began its mission, which is to do everything that Jesus taught the Apostles to do, and preach the Gospel to the whole world, while always guarding the truth from any possibility of error.

There is no more need to prophesy about the Messiah because He’s already here. But, that doesn’t mean that private revelation, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, ever ends. However, Scripture itself was considered to be complete when the last eyewitness of Jesus Christ’s life on this earth died. All other ‘revelation’ is no longer in the form of Holy Scripture. It’s now dispensed through the workings of the Holy Ghost through His Church and its people. Those that have been blessed with great sanctity may be given the gift of private revelation, but it is always carefully scrutinized by those who are called to lead His Church and protect it from any error. Nothing revealed through any private revelation, since that time, can ever conflict with what was taught from the very beginning of the Church, when it was first established by Jesus, Himself. The Church can never establish any new doctrine, but it might further explain those doctrines that have not been fully understood before. Those are the sorts of things that the Magisterium of the Church have often done, such as further explaining the Doctrine of the Trinity and those concerning the role of Mary in the Church.

How can you say that your very own Saint Joan was not every bit as much of a prophetess as Deborah? Clearly, Saint Joan’s revelations were no more “private” than Deborah’s. It frightens and confuses me that you canonize her, but nothing that she actually said. I would say that the real issue is not whether God speaks, or how He speaks, but whether you listen to Him.

Joan of Arc (always a personal favorite of mine) is a perfect example of Christian sanctity. That’s why she was declared a true Saint of the Church, but, she was certainly not a ‘prophetess’ by any stretch of the imagination. She was a very good example of Christian obedience and loyalty to the Catholic Church.

 

[Tony888]

Mormons sects are not the only ones involved in Polygamy your right. Even the presidents half brother is a polygamist in Kenya . But serial monogamy? Please explain .

Open your eyes a-bit. Other Christian sects besides the flds practice it
Just google Christian Polygamy and study.

And stop blaming the LDS for Jeff’s behavior, none of them are members of the LDS church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Bart Ehrman is an Agnostic, Rebecca.

As far as I can see, an agnostic is the absolute opposite of any sort of fundamentalist. So you’re not just wrong, you’re as wrong as humanly possible.

Doesn’t change the fact that he is a trained Evangelical pastor. Doctorate in divinity, etc. He left for agnosticism, but in his agnosticism, he still thinks like an Evangelical. Just as many former Mormons who now say the are atheists, continue to think like Mormons. I know, because I was one of those.

How you are trained to think, about God, scripture, everything religious, stays with you until you are able to see things in a new way. Some people, never do.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Welcome back, Pete.

Sorry to jump in here, but I have to ask you this. If you believe that God is ‘unchanging’, then why would you accept the LDS notion that we ‘progress’ to become gods, just like the ‘Eternal Father’ progressed? That makes no sense, whatsoever, if you believe that God is ‘unchanging’. Does it? Those two concepts are completely incompatible with each other.

I agree that they seem incompatible. That’s why Anasthasius made me – and apparently many other mormons – wonder if many of us mormons have misunderstood deification. I was delighted when our last Prophet, Gordon B Hinckley, said of the KFD theories, that “we don’t know that.”

I reckon that exalted beings will probably take part in the building of worlds without number, but it will be on behalf of the eternal and unchanging God.

Even good friends will always disagree about certain things. If they didn’t, then I’d have to think something wasn’t quite right with the world.

Amen and well-said. To surround oneself only with friends with whom one agrees, would be moral cowardice and intellectual incest. But as for friendship being a two-way street, I could never be friends with someone who assumed I was lying whenever I said anything about my religion. That’s insufficient respect to permit any non-hypocritical form of friendship.

That’s why she was declared a true Saint of the Church, but, she was certainly not a ‘prophetess’ by any stretch of the imagination.

Would it surprise you that some LDS folks, including my own father, an LDS bishop and currently a missionary in the Congo, believe that Joan of Arc was a prophetess? (Please promise me that if some silly person claims that I said she was a “mormon” that you will correct them, otherwise I will probably say something in reply that will get me banned). Basically, she received revelation from heaven, she acted on it to lead armies to fulfill God’s will, just like Deborah did in the Book of Judges. So if Deborah was a prophetess – and the Book of Judges names her so, then so was Joan of Arc.

---

rebecca:

Doesn’t change the fact that he is a trained Evangelical pastor. Doctorate in divinity, etc.

The fact is that he was trained as an Evangelical pastor. To call an agnostic a “trained Evangelical minister” is seriously misleading, particularly when you’re trying to argue that he reads “like a fundamentalist.” Tsk, Rebecca.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The fact is that he was trained as an Evangelical pastor. To call an agnostic a “trained Evangelical minister” is seriously misleading, particularly when you’re trying to argue that he reads “like a fundamentalist.” Tsk, Rebecca.

Are you purposely being obtuse?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Are you purposely being obtuse?

No. Are you purposefully being redundant? There’s no such thing as being accidental obtuse.

 

[Telstar]

I agree that they seem incompatible. That’s why Anasthasius made me – and apparently many other mormons – wonder if many of us mormons have misunderstood deification. I was delighted when our last Prophet, Gordon B Hinckley, said of the KFD theories, that “we don’t know that.”

I reckon that exalted beings will probably take part in the building of worlds without number, but it will be on behalf of the eternal and unchanging God.

I’m happy to hear that, but it’s sad for the LDS that have been taught the ‘old ways’ for so long. I’m not so sure if changing the church’s position on these kinds of beliefs would be well received by most of the congregation. It would be nice if they could embrace it, but I’m not so sure they would. Part of the problem with having ever-changing doctrine is the lack of stability that it causes among believers. They can never know for sure if something that they’ve known to be true from the time they were children won’t suddenly be completely reversed. It can be a real shock to some people, depending on the importance that they’ve placed on those beliefs.

Either way, the real key to actually becoming ‘perfect’ (or what LDS refer to as ‘exalted’) as it is described in the New Testament, is to partake of the Holy Eucharist of the Catholic Church. Anything less than that intimate Communion with Jesus (by actually consuming His Real Presence), will only get us so far, and no farther, toward the highest level of perfection. Those that do achieve the highest level are what the Catholic Church refers to as Saints. Most of the rest of us will never be that perfect, but we all try as hard as we can to get there, and rejoice when we see someone that has reached that level of sanctity (i.e. Padré Pio, who died in 1968 and was recently elevated to Sainthood by the Church, as Saint Pio).

Amen and well-said. To surround oneself only with friends with whom one agrees, would be moral cowardice and intellectual incest. But as for friendship being a two-way street, I could never be friends with someone who assumed I was lying whenever I said anything about my religion. That’s insufficient respect to permit any non-hypocritical form of friendship.

It’s impossible to find friends of any kind that will completely agree with us about everything. If your friend always tells you that they agree with you, they probably aren’t being completely honest, or they might be trying not to hurt your feelings by disagreeing. Personally, I’d rather have people tell me the truth, than lie to me about it. We can always ‘agree to disagree’ about something that we know we differ on, but if we don’t know the truth, we won’t be able to talk about why we feel the way we do. After a while, friendships tend to break down when we feel the need to hide our true feelings because we don’t want to talk to them about it. It will eventually eat away at our friendship until we start avoiding each other for fear of blowing up over our cover-ups. Trust me, I’ve been there. I’m usually the one that always tries to ‘let things go’ without facing the fact that I disagree with some things that friends do. But, I really hate confrontation.

As far as your comment, “I could never be friends with someone who assumed I was lying whenever I said anything about my religion.”, I apologize for taking that kind of position. It might not be the best thing for me to say, but due to a bad experience with this kind of thing with LDS ‘friends’ in the past, I do have some serious ‘trust issues’ with most LDS folks, now. I can’t help it, even though I do have some very dear LDS friends. As I said in another post, ‘once burned, twice shy’. It will take a while for me to build that kind of trust back up, again. I will always have to start from scratch with new people. Mea culpa.

Would it surprise you that some LDS folks, including my own father, an LDS bishop and currently a missionary in the Congo, believe that Joan of Arc was a prophetess? (Please promise me that if some silly person claims that I said she was a “mormon” that you will correct them, otherwise I will probably say something in reply that will get me banned). Basically, she received revelation from heaven, she acted on it to lead armies to fulfill God’s will, just like Deborah did in the Book of Judges. So if Deborah was a prophetess – and the Book of Judges names her so, then so was Joan of Arc.

You say to-mah-to, I say to-may-to. You say prophetess, I say holy soul/Saint.

There really is a difference between the two, but whichever way we say it, Joan of Lorraine was always very close to God. Many Catholic Saints have had visions. It’s nothing unusual for them to have many visions. Some of them were almost in a perpetual state of ‘ecstasy’ or ‘rapture’ (the state of being in a Heavenly vision), once they achieved such a high level of perfection in their earthly lives. I have no doubt that Mary was one of those special souls that were always in a constant state of spiritual ecstasy, while she walked the earth. After all, she was actually betrothed to the Holy Spirit. Saint Joseph was her celibate spouse on earth, to act as her protector, but her spirit was always joined to God, alone. He was her True Spouse.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

As far as your comment, “I could never be friends with someone who assumed I was lying whenever I said anything about my religion.”, I apologize for taking that kind of position. It might not be the best thing for me to say, but due to a bad experience with this kind of thing with LDS ‘friends’ in the past, I do have some serious ‘trust issues’ with most LDS folks, now. I can’t help it, even though I do have some very dear LDS friends.

You are growing on me. Put it that way. I browsed while I was suspended, and saw a great deal to respect. And I appreciate your being honest about your position. Better to not be friends and to gradually build respect for one another, than to assume a friendship on the assumption of a respect that is not there yet. For me, once burned, twice shy doesn’t mean that I fear an entire religious group; it means that if I consider someone my friend, and they burn me, then my own sinful pride causes me to view that person as an enemy. Nothing burns quite so hot as perceived betrayal.

Do you remember the doctrinal issue at play with that story you told with the LDS individual who PMed you?

There are certain theories in the LDS church that have very strong subscribers, who really really want them to be doctrines. Some of these the LDS church has firmly rejected as heretical, e.g. the so-called Adam-God theory. Other theories, such as the King Follet Discourses, fall into the “we don’t really know” category. At one time, the theory was actually published in sunday school manuals, but the church has tightened up on stuff that hasn’t been approved through common consent.

The Proclamation on the Family, with the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother, is much closer to canonical than the KFD. The KFD never passed unanimous approval from the Quorum of the 12, but the PoF was signed unanimously, and only awaits the Common Consent process. I strongly believe that the PoF should be scripture, but realize that there are some faithful LDS people who don’t accept it. I look forward to it being submitted to common consent.

Incidentally, even though I don’t qualify for a temple recommend, my voice still counts for common consent. Any baptized member of the church counts.

We don’t count votes in the affirmative, only votes in the negative. Common Consent means that there are no negative votes.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

You say to-mah-to, I say to-may-to. You say prophetess, I say holy soul/Saint.

There really is a difference between the two, but whichever way we say it, Joan of Lorraine was always very close to God. Many Catholic Saints have had visions. It’s nothing unusual for them to have many visions. Some of them were almost in a perpetual state of ‘ecstasy’ or ‘rapture’ (the state of being in a Heavenly vision), once they achieved such a high level of perfection in their earthly lives. I have no doubt that Mary was one of those special souls that were always in a constant state of spiritual ecstasy, while she walked the earth. After all, she was actually betrothed to the Holy Spirit.

Can you imagine the excitement if someone were to discover some authentic writings by Mary herself? A Gospel of Mary? Would that not be entitled to recognition as scripture, even though it was not a traditional part of the Bible?

 

[mwok]

Can you imagine the excitement if someone were to discover some authentic writings by Mary herself? A Gospel of Mary? Would that not be entitled to recognition as scripture, even though it was not a traditional part of the Bible?

I believe some of Mary’s point of view was written in the Gospel According to Luke since he was so close to Mary.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I believe some of Mary’s point of view was written in the Gospel According to Luke since he was so close to Mary.

Really? I thought it was John the Beloved who the Savior asked, from the Cross, to look after her, “Son behold thy Mother.”

 

[mwok]

Really? I thought it was John the Beloved who the Savior asked, from the Cross, to look after her, “Son behold thy Mother.”

I think its part of Sacred Tradition. I believe that is why the Magnificat is in the Gospel of Luke.

 

[Telstar]

You are growing on me. Put it that way. I browsed while I was suspended, and saw a great deal to respect. And I appreciate your being honest about your position. Better to not be friends and to gradually build respect for one another, than to assume a friendship on the assumption of a respect that is not there yet. For me, once burned, twice shy doesn’t mean that I fear an entire religious group; it means that if I consider someone my friend, and they burn me, then my own sinful pride causes me to view that person as an enemy. Nothing burns quite so hot as perceived betrayal.

Do you remember the doctrinal issue at play with that story you told with the LDS individual who PMed you?

There are certain theories in the LDS church that have very strong subscribers, who really really want them to be doctrines. Some of these the LDS church has firmly rejected as heretical, e.g. the so-called Adam-God theory. Other theories, such as the King Follet Discourses, fall into the “we don’t really know” category. At one time, the theory was actually published in sunday school manuals, but the church has tightened up on stuff that hasn’t been approved through common consent.

The Proclamation on the Family, with the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother, is much closer to canonical than the KFD. The KFD never passed unanimous approval from the Quorum of the 12, but the PoF was signed unanimously, and only awaits the Common Consent process. I strongly believe that the PoF should be scripture, but realize that there are some faithful LDS people who don’t accept it. I look forward to it being submitted to common consent.

Incidentally, even though I don’t qualify for a temple recommend, my voice still counts for common consent. Any baptized member of the church counts.

We don’t count votes in the affirmative, only votes in the negative. Common Consent means that there are no negative votes.

Like I said in another post about my ‘trust issues’, I don’t really remember what the actual topic was, but I know there were a few Mormons that ripped me a new one just for asking some tough questions that they didn’t want to discuss. It might have been the KFD, about the nature of God. I was pretty shocked by some of their vitriol. I had never seen such a nasty exchange of insults by some of those folks, before. It was not on a religious forum, but more of a political one. I was very sad because I really liked those guys. Once one guy started on me, some of the others seemed to descend on me like a pack of wolves. That’s when my friend sent me the PM to try to explain their reaction.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I’m sorry to hear about your experience. I’ve seen internet folks act like raving pack animals before.

Mormons get this “lying for the lord” garbage a lot, and that’s really aggravating, so I can expect some exaggerated responses to questions about whether a mormon really believes what he says he believes … but there’s no excuse for pack behavior. Mormons particularly should not act like mobbers.

As for the Kentucky-Fried Doctrines, well, they have been taught as “doctrine,” but they are not; they’ve never been submitted to the Common Consent process. Consequently there are a lot of Mormons who really feel strongly that they should be or are doctrine. Some of them were angry when President Hinckley said that “we don’t know that” the KFD theories are true.