Mormons and the Bible

[Rightlydivide]

My main point is that Utah was denied statehood because of the issue of Polygamy. Tell me do you just have a low IQ or are you mentaly challenged?

That may have indeed been your main point. You were asked to provide evidence of a claim and failed to do so though.

 

[alanjeddy]

That may have indeed been your main point. You were asked to provide evidence of a claim and failed to do so though.

Listen I am sick about your puerile debating on the issue of Polygamy . Suffice it to say that horny mormons can no longer practice polygamy since in 1890 their church rescinded their church teaching in order that their state would enter into statehood. You are boring me so I am out of here. Go back to your protestant faith (one of 33.000 splintered churches that can’t come to any agrrement. Hey we will just atart another church.

You are BORING, i AM OUT OF HERE.

 

[juno24]

The Baltimore catechism was pre-Vatican 11. The church now teaches that God’s mercy is endless and unbaptised children will enter into the beatific vision.

I’m just lurking on this thread, but I wanted to step in here to correct this. The Church does not now teach that unbaptized babies *will *enter into the Beatific Vision. The Church teaches, and has always taught, that nothing unclean may enter into Heaven, even those “only” (for lack of a better word) tainted by original sin.
What the Church does teach, however, is that we have hope that God, in His infinite mercy, has a way to make clean the souls of those infants who die without baptism. We in no way know for certain what happens to anyone who dies without baptism through no fault of their own.
So, while earlier theologians were correct in their assertions that souls tainted with original sin could not enter Heaven, the Church has essentially stopped speculating on what, exactly, does happen to them. We simply state that their eternal fate is in God’s hands.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“do not have the joy of God but neither do they suffer…they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they deserve Hell or Purgatory,” .

What John Paul taught is that we trust in God’s mercy. This does not contradict Pope Pius. X…it adds to his statement.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Listen I am sick about your puerile debating on the issue of Polygamy . Suffice it to say that horny mormons can no longer practice polygamy since in 1890 their church rescinded their church teaching in order that their state would enter into statehood. You are boring me so I am out of here. Go back to your protestant faith (one of 33.000 splintered churches that can’t come to any agrrement. Hey we will just atart another church.

You are BORING, i AM OUT OF HERE.

Have a good day.

 

[alanjeddy]

I’m just lurking on this thread, but I wanted to step in here to correct this. The Church does not now teach that unbaptized babies *will *enter into the Beatific Vision. The Church teaches, and has always taught, that nothing unclean may enter into Heaven, even those “only” (for lack of a better word) tainted by original sin.
What the Church does teach, however, is that we have hope that God, in His infinite mercy, has a way to make clean the souls of those infants who die without baptism. We in no way know for certain what happens to anyone who dies without baptism through no fault of their own.
So, while earlier theologians were correct in their assertions that souls tainted with original sin could not enter Heaven, the Church has essentially stopped speculating on what, exactly, does happen to them. We simply state that their eternal fate is in God’s hands.

Come on you are saying what I said. I am a conservative Catholic steeped in tradition. Our church as you rightly said cannot enter fully into God’s mercy. Our finite minds can never assume that we can fully comprehend the ocean of mercy that defines one small , unfathomable, dimension of God’s omnipotence.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Yep. That’s what I was taught, and in a large degree is why I am no longer Catholic. No way was that ever true.

make that two

 

[BDawg]

Come on you are saying what I said. I am a conservative Catholic steeped in tradition. Our church as you rightly said cannot enter fully into God’s mercy. Our finite minds can never assume that we can fully comprehend the ocean of mercy that defines one small , unfathomable, dimension of God’s omnipotence.

Yes, but she said it in an understandable way, using punctuation, and such. And she said it politely.

Take notes.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am no polygamy guru. I frankly just don’t get it or understand it, but I can read. For example, in 2 Samuel 12 God is speaking through his prophet Nathan, chastising David for taking the wife of another man (Bathsheba who was married to Uriah, who David caused to be killed to hide his sin). At that time, Davide was already married to at least 7 known wives.

In verse 8 God specifically says that He, God, had already given David multiple wives that had previously belonged to David’s former master. We know from 1 Kings 15 that all else, beside the issue with Bathsheba, that David had always done right in the eyes of God.

So - David had plural wives. You want us to believe that even though God set it up, he didn’t sanction it.

Why would God set up David’s polygamy and say he was doing the right thing if he didn’t sanction it?

It is not sanctioned. God gives people their free will. The custom of the time was that women were not allowed to work. The ONLY way a woman could earn money was prostitution or begging. So, either you care for the women or you condemn them to whoring or destitution.

You also can read where divorce was practiced.

Jesus preached in the world, and clarified that marriage is between one man and one woman and divorce is not allowed.

He also preached to care for widows. Which would be for the same reason, so that they do not have to resort to prostitution or begging. He did not preach to marry widows, as is the common Mormon apology. (Which, cannot be backed up with demographic numbers.)

Jesus is the Word of God. The perfect Revelation. To believe that you can reverse the words of Jesus is heretical.

 

[alanjeddy]

Yes, but she said it in an understandable way, using punctuation, and such. And she said it politely.

Take notes.

I guess since I figured since you hold a prominant position at a university you could comprehend my pedantic , non comma repartee.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m sorry–it’s actually worse than I let on. Here’s what the Baltimore Catechism actually said:

"Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven” (Q. 632)

So you’re right–Limbo was presented as a “common belief.” But it said no such thing about unbaptized infants not going to heaven. It said they “cannot enter heaven.”

The change in teaching was actually bigger than I thought.

What change is that? That Catholics believe that God is merciful?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yep. That’s what I was taught, and in a large degree is why I am no longer Catholic. No way was that ever true.

Why then, did God send His Son to suffer and die for our sins? Why then, did Jesus descend into hell (limbo) and redeem the souls of the dead?

God is merciful and just, the entire Gospel and the Church itself are testament to this very core doctrine.

I am sorry that you never caught onto this aspect of our faith.

 

[alanjeddy]

BDawg how do you reconcile the Mormon belief, through eternal progression, ( Note the comma) that you can become like God? Isn’t this what contributed to Adam and Eve’s fall in the Garden of Eden when satan seduced them by telling them “You can eat of the fruit and become like God” Don’t try to use John 10:34-36
(note the use of lower case g in gods.}
My point is how do the mormons reconcile their godhood beliefs with the real God"s (notice the upper case “G”) First Commandment: I am the Lord thy God Thou shalt not have strange gods before me???

 

[Snow]

It is not sanctioned. God gives people their free will. The custom of the time was that women were not allowed to work. The ONLY way a woman could earn money was prostitution or begging. So, either you care for the women or you condemn them to whoring or destitution.

You also can read where divorce was practiced.

Jesus preached in the world, and clarified that marriage is between one man and one woman and divorce is not allowed.

He also preached to care for widows. Which would be for the same reason, so that they do not have to resort to prostitution or begging. He did not preach to marry widows, as is the common Mormon apology. (Which, cannot be backed up with demographic numbers.)

Jesus is the Word of God. The perfect Revelation. To believe that you can reverse the words of Jesus is heretical.

You avoided the question. Why would God Himself give David plural wives, say that David did right but refuse to sanction it?

 

[Snow]

Listen I don’t lie or make things up how the hell can you defend your faith if you don’t even know that Utah was delayed statehood for over 50 years and in 1890 your church renounced polygamy. Hello Mcfly anybody home???

You made a specific claim… that someone had a vision.

Prove it.

You just made it up of thin air. You invented it. It is false. You know it.

… and stop sending me childish Private Messages.

 

[rinnie]

Yep. That’s what I was taught, and in a large degree is why I am no longer Catholic. No way was that ever true.

Well then could you please show me where that was defined as Catholic Doctrine,

NO POPE OR COUNCIL EVER DOGMATIZED LIMBO AS BEING DEFINED AS CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

Now you seem to be a pretty good source for talking for the Church, now could you please prove your source. I would like to see where that is. You cannot say things like this against the Catholic Church and not have proof. So please show me where that is defined in Church Doctrine. Anything ever defined as Catholic Doctrine is written. Now PROVE what you are saying!

 

[alanjeddy]

You avoided the question. Why would God Himself give David plural wives, say that David did right but refuse to sanction it?

Snow, let me ask you this, how important is the mormon issue of polygamy when in 1890 your church rescinded that teaching in view of the fact that Utah was denied statehood in the previous 50 years because of the very issue of polygamy?

 

[rinnie]

You avoided the question. Why would God Himself give David plural wives, say that David did right but refuse to sanction it?

Please show me where it says David did right! And why do you swell on this when it is plain as day that God sent Jesus to explain to us everything and he made it perfectly CLEAR in the NT that is is plain wrong and a sin! What do you disguard the NT completely or what?

 

[Snow]

Snow, let me ask you this, how important is the mormon issue of polygamy when in 1890 your church rescinded that teaching in view of the fact that Utah was denied statehood in the previous 50 years because of the very issue of polygamy?

Before I answer any of your questions, address your false and invented claim. You made it up. You’ve tried to change the subject.

Either post your proof or admit deceit or ignorance, then I’ll answer your questions.

 

[Snow]

Please show me where it says David did right! And why do you swell on this when it is plain as day that God sent Jesus to explain to us everything and he made it perfectly CLEAR in the NT that is is plain wrong and a sin! What do you disguard the NT completely or what?

1 Kings 15:5

God gave plural wives to David. Why would God cause his David to be an adulterer - in your view?