MORMONS (LDS) what is this "great apostasy" that you claim to have happened?

[zaffiroborant]

What, that polygyny, properly practiced, gives WOMEN the power?

the simplest explanation is that since men and women should have equal votes in what goes on in the household, the poor man gets outvoted.

Well that’s great if you look at marriage as a power play accomplished by political maneuvering.

Then there is this; the man can’t just up and decide to fall in love with the nearest Lolita and bring her home and install her in the family; the decision to marry again has to be that of the man–and of his present wife or wives; They get absolute veto rights. Again, we are looking at the poor schlub getting out voted.

As was so well demonstrated by JS.

In a properly run polygamous household, the women can have it all, really: a wife can have a full time career, be as creative as her talents allow AND be certain that her children have full time and loving care at home by a mother that loves them. The poor husband? His role is pretty much the same as it is now: he has to work, be the husband and father–and keep the entire household happy.

Excepting of course the Cinderella wife who gets to stay home.

Finally, there’s the entire family structure; there isn’t a whole lot of room there for 'limerence…" that 'happily ever after" all obsessive love between one man and one woman that is so treasured in song and story; family is a very different sort of thing; more people to depend on, more delegation, more support—and at the same time, more responsibility to all the rest of the household.

Limerence? I can’t say I’ve ever met a couple “obsessed” with each other the way you imply. Many who found warmth, delight, comfort and the like with each other.

I

How many men can do that without trying to get control of the situation and of the women? How many men could accept their position as one of several equals–and be willing to lose control like that?

I submit…not many. So…polygamy becomes the seraglio/master-chattel situation that our critics insist that it MUST be.

Nah, this idea that polygamy is wrong and awful isn’t about how horrific it is for the women. It’s an admission that the men can’t do it. :-J

And how many women can do that without taking sides, forming little cliques to wage power struggles? Not many so polygamy doesn’t work from either side.

I suppose I’m reading into it but from the tone of your post I seems you don’t think much of marriage or men.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Actually, it has been answered. What it has not been, is answered to the point that you are willing to leave Catholicism and join the Mormons.

“to the point” is exactly the point. Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy: Answer to the Universe is 42. To MY mind it leaves something to be desired and questions whether the question was answered at all.

We aren’t expecting that, y’know. The thing is, several of us have written rather extensive answers to that, why WE believe …

Apparently clerical changes of moving from a few hundred followers to a few million and leaders called bishops instead of apostles rubs Mormons the wrong way. <an oversimplification, i know.>

I understand your position. Like in my previous post I talked about dialoguing in person with many Mormons concerning this issue and was just stating that I find it interesting that even in a 200+ post thread there are other people who’s questions have not been sated.

I find comfort in knowing there are others wandering in ignorant delusion next to me. sarc.

 

[Stephen168]

“to the point” is exactly the point. Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy: Answer to the Universe is 42. To MY mind it leaves something to be desired and questions whether the question was answered at all.

I think you have a point about the kinds of answers received from Mormons.
After we say The Catholic Church received all revelation necessary for salvation from Christ, the Mormon response is the factual and logical equivalent of ‘Mark the Apostle made it all up.’ And they will consider their response sufficient.

 

[dianaiad]

Well that’s great if you look at marriage as a power play accomplished by political maneuvering.

As was so well demonstrated by JS.

Excepting of course the Cinderella wife who gets to stay home.

I believe that ‘gets to’ is indeed the proper term. How many wives and mothers nowadays would far rather be home than working in an office and letting someone else raise the kids? Feminism is all about choice–a woman being able to do what she WANTS to do; including stay home if she wishes.

I much preferred to be home when my children were young. Sometimes that wasn’t possible, and THAT is not freedom.

Limerence? I can’t say I’ve ever met a couple “obsessed” with each other the way you imply. Many who found warmth, delight, comfort and the like with each other.

You have got to be kidding. Most of the literature and poetry of the ages is concerned with this very idea; it is held as the goal towards which every couple is supposed to aspire…and is the hope of every couple that moves in together.

"Warmth, delight, comfort and the like’ with each other is what most people think they are ‘settling’ for rather than that ideal of total involvement. Why do you THINK so many married people have affairs? They are looking for that obsession/limerance.

And how many women can do that without taking sides, forming little cliques to wage power struggles? Not many so polygamy doesn’t work from either side.

You have a point…but that problem would be partly mitigated by the fact that the women have the power to decide who joins their ranks in the first place; a second wife, after all, isn’t just marrying the husband; she’s marrying the entire family.

You are quite right, though; polygamy is a very difficult life to live…which is, I believe, one of the reasons why we aren’t supposed to be living it right now.

I suppose I’m reading into it but from the tone of your post I seems you don’t think much of marriage or men.

You are indeed ‘reading into it.’

I have a very high opinion of marriage, and of men. I am, however, realistic. I got to keep my husband for twenty years: I have two sons. There is no way in the universe that any one of the three of 'em could handle more than one wife (though I would very much like to see my sons try ‘handling’ ONE! grumble, gripe…)

I know that polygamy CAN work, and how it must work to be successful, because I have family journals from women who lived exactly that. I also know how quickly such arrangements can go sour, because I also have family journals that describe THAT. I have a pretty good idea what the problems are, from men and women who tried it.

 

[dianaiad]

“to the point” is exactly the point. Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy: Answer to the Universe is 42. To MY mind it leaves something to be desired and questions whether the question was answered at all.

Tough.

It is not fair of you to demand answers from non-Catholics that will force you to leave your faith and join theirs. Religion and faith simply do not work like that. The most you can ask of us is to tell you why WE believe this thing, or that thing. You may, once you have seen those reasons, decide that they aren’t sufficient to change your mind, but you may NOT dismiss what we said as if we had not said, or written, anything at all. That’s dishonest, in my opinion.

Let me turn this around:I happen to have a different idea of the Trinity than you do. Using the same reasoning you are using here, I could claim that nobody has given me any evidence to show that the Catholic version of the Trinity is true.

Except, of course, people have given lots of reasons and supports for their belief in the Trinity as Catholics conceive it to be. They simply do not rise to the level of convincing me.

That I am not convinced, however, does not mean that your words are invisible. It simply means that I disagree with them.

Apparently clerical changes of moving from a few hundred followers to a few million and leaders called bishops instead of apostles rubs Mormons the wrong way. <an oversimplification, i know.>

Well, yeah…but the problem is, this office of ‘apostle’ was not ever continued. As the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church is a ‘bishop among bishops,’ there is no higher authority; it no longer exists. Though the Pope has considerably more authority over the RC than the Patriarch does over Eastern Orthodoxy, the history of the Papacy has a few bumps in it–that I think, quite frankly, probably would not have happened had everybody been working under authentic priesthood authority and direct revelation.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don’t think I am.

I understand your position. Like in my previous post I talked about dialoguing in person with many Mormons concerning this issue and was just stating that I find it interesting that even in a 200+ post thread there are other people who’s questions have not been sated.

I find comfort in knowing there are others wandering in ignorant delusion next to me. sarc.

(shrug) I can’t help that. I can only point to posts like mine, and Parker’s, and Z’s…among others who explained why we think there was an apostasy. Of course you don’t agree with our reasoning; if you did, you would be Mormons.

But your disagreement with those reasons, may I repeat, does not mean that we didn’t give them.

 

[jpaul1953]

What historical proof text and historical evidence do you have that the Great Apostasy happen?

Mannyfit75,

It drives me nuts as well as you. ‘The Great Apostacy’, believed by Senth day adventists, Jehovahs witnesses, and Mormons.

All the proof they seem to give is 100% opinion with absolutely no fact.

As us Catholics know, to believe there was an Apostacy is to believe that our Lord, Jesus Christ was and is mistaken.

It’s the same as in all facets of life. Instead of you doing better than someone else, you knock them down so you ‘look’ better than them. Just remember fellow Catholic that all walks of faith outside of the Church knock the Church down. How else are they suppose to shine.

But on a different note, I know many people of different beliefs and many of them do their best with what they know to do God’s will. My heart believes what Pope John Paul II (Romans 2:12-16) spoke about. Putting aside all of their insults about the Church, they will be judged by God, through Jesus Christ, the same as us. If they are invinsibly ignorant and follow our Saviour to the best of their ability, mercy will be shown to them as well as us who know the fullness of the truth. God does love all of us.

I need to remember what Jesus said: " Forgive them for they know not what they do".
I can be as ignorant as the next guy.

May God guide us always.

jpaul1953

 

[zaffiroborant]

I believe that ‘gets to’ is indeed the proper term. How many wives and mothers nowadays would far rather be home than working in an office and letting someone else raise the kids? Feminism is all about choice–a woman being able to do what she WANTS to do; including stay home if she wishes.

I much preferred to be home when my children were young. Sometimes that wasn’t possible, and THAT is not freedom.

Nope that’s life, seems you’ve got some romantic notions here concerning freedom.

You have got to be kidding. Most of the literature and poetry of the ages is concerned with this very idea; it is held as the goal towards which every couple is supposed to aspire…and is the hope of every couple that moves in together.

Yep one can start with the two shall become one flesh.

"Warmth, delight, comfort and the like’ with each other is what most people think they are ‘settling’ for rather than that ideal of total involvement. Why do you THINK so many married people have affairs? They are looking for that obsession/limerance.

Like I said IRL since leaving HS I haven’t seen couples obsessed with each other. I think adultery is less about limerence ( 1. (neologism) An involuntary state of mind which seems to result from a romantic attraction for another person combined with an overwhelming, obsessive need to have one’s feelings reciprocated.)
and more about sexual excitement. But there are more than likely as many reasons for committing adultery as there people that engage in it.

You have a point…but that problem would be partly mitigated by the fact that the women have the power to decide who joins their ranks in the first place; a second wife, after all, isn’t just marrying the husband; she’s marrying the entire family.

Well that’s the theory.

You are quite right, though; polygamy is a very difficult life to live…which is, I believe, one of the reasons why we aren’t supposed to be living it right now.

That’s probably why God in His wisdom set it up originally as one man and one woman.

You are indeed ‘reading into it.’

I have a very high opinion of marriage, and of men. I am, however, realistic. I got to keep my husband for twenty years: I have two sons. There is no way in the universe that any one of the three of 'em could handle more than one wife (though I would very much like to see my sons try ‘handling’ ONE! grumble, gripe…)

I know that polygamy CAN work, and how it must work to be successful, because I have family journals from women who lived exactly that. I also know how quickly such arrangements can go sour, because I also have family journals that describe THAT. I have a pretty good idea what the problems are, from men and women who tried it.

And I know it’s best to go with the way it was in the beginning, that is the mark to strive for.

 

[dianaiad]

Nope that’s life, seems you’ve got some romantic notions here concerning freedom.

Yep one can start with the two shall become one flesh.

Like I said IRL since leaving HS I haven’t seen couples obsessed with each other. I think adultery is less about limerence ( 1. (neologism) An involuntary state of mind which seems to result from a romantic attraction for another person combined with an overwhelming, obsessive need to have one’s feelings reciprocated.)
and more about sexual excitement. But there are more than likely as many reasons for committing adultery as there people that engage in it.

Well that’s the theory.

You have it: that’s the theory. My point is that so few men could live UP to that theory. So…it’s not a good idea.

You keep writing as if I am defending polygamy today; I’m not, y’know. I’m stating fact: God allowed polygamy in various times, and among His most influential and ‘chosen’ folk, His prophets. In one case He even yelled at one king for wanting too much: God had, indeed ‘given’ him all the wives and concubines of his predecessor–why wasn’t that enough?

The failure is that of the people involved; a situation that is not in and of itself inherently sinful, but rather a living arrangement that is almost impossible for humans to handle well.

That’s probably why God in His wisdom set it up originally as one man and one woman.

He did create Adam and Eve…but as far as I can tell, most of the rest of the OT prophets/leaders were man and women (wives and concubines.)…and God never once, though He lambasted them about OTHER things, gave them grief about that.

And I know it’s best to go with the way it was in the beginning, that is the mark to strive for.

What, a world population of two?

 

[dianaiad]

I think you have a point about the kinds of answers received from Mormons.
After we say The Catholic Church received all revelation necessary for salvation from Christ, the Mormon response is the factual and logical equivalent of ‘Mark the Apostle made it all up.’ And they will consider their response sufficient.

Would you care to show me where any Mormon, anywhere, said that “Mark the Apostle made it all up” in any sort of wording whatsoever?

 

[Stephen168]

Did your “prophet” Joseph Smith believe Jesus’ teaching about marriage being indissoluble between one man and one woman?

I wonder about that, too. Mormons seem to allow divorce now but I’m not sure if it is one of those new revelations or if Smith taught it to, too. Mark 10:6-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7:10

Smith was a polygamist which was never a Christian practice until the protestant revolt; in fact just the opposite was found in the early Church. Christ, and 10 of The Twelve never married, and neither did Paul. 1 Corinthians 7:8, 1 Corinthians 7:2, Titus 1:5-6, Timothy 2:3.

 

[mark_a]

You keep writing as if I am defending polygamy today; I’m not, y’know. I’m stating fact: God allowed polygamy in various times, and among His most influential and ‘chosen’ folk, His prophets. In one case He even yelled at one king for wanting too much: God had, indeed ‘given’ him all the wives and concubines of his predecessor–why wasn’t that enough?

It’s readily appearant that Mormonism is fighing this polygamy albatross with all their might.

I found this quote interesting:

“I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives… I am innocent of all these charges… What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”
—Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6:410–411

IF the above quote from Smith is true, apostacy came quickly to the Mormons also.

 

[Stephen168]

Catholic: When Mormons talk of continuing revelation, I have to wonder what they believe Christ’s mission was on earth. He preached for three years and they believe he was unable to teach what was necessary for salvation.

Mormon: Jesus Christ taught many things, but we don’t have a single thing from Him. (He taught, did not write, so we don’t know what he taught.)

Mormon: Everything we have of Him was written by other people; apostles. (The New Testament was written by Apostles, Mark and Luke wrote Gospels so they were Apostles.)

Mormon: Everything we have in the NT was written by those apostles and prophets who received revelation after His death and resurrection. (Christ taught nothing during his life time, so from a historical view point - the Apostles made it up)

To summarize:
Catholic: Christ taught all we need to know for salvation during his earthly ministry
Mormon: There was no earthly ministry, the Apostles made it up.

 

[dianaiad]

Catholic: When Mormons talk of continuing revelation, I have to wonder what they believe Christ’s mission was on earth. He preached for three years and they believe he was unable to teach what was necessary for salvation.

Mormon: Jesus Christ taught many things, but we don’t have a single thing from Him. (He taught, did not write, so we don’t know what he taught.)

Oh, now Stephen, that’s just wrong. We DON’T have a single thing from Him. What we know about Him comes from the writings of others; those very prophets and apostles that YOU are claiming do not exist. You can’t have this both ways, y’know: either they ceased to exist upon the advent of Christ or they did not. If they DID cease, then we would know nothing of Christ. Since we do–then they continued. Are you really going to argue that Paul did NOT have a revelation on the way to Damascus (which makes him a prophet by definition) or that he was not an apostle? What scripture are you going to have to throw out because of course there were no more prophets after Christ?

Hint: the entire New Testament. That’s what you would have to throw out.

Mormon: Everything we have of Him was written by other people; apostles. (The New Testament was written by Apostles, Mark and Luke wrote Gospels so they were Apostles.)

Mormon: Everything we have in the NT was written by those apostles and prophets who received revelation after His death and resurrection. (Christ taught nothing during his life time, so from a historical view point - the Apostles made it up)

Are you telling me that you don’t believe the apostles who wrote of their conversations with the Risen Christ?

To summarize:
Catholic: Christ taught all we need to know for salvation during his earthly ministry
Mormon: There was no earthly ministry, the Apostles made it up.

Stephen, that’s not simply a strawman, that’s a whole straw castle.

 

[mark_a]

I have often wondered about the similarities between Muhammad and Joseph Smith.

Can anyone substantiate the info below?

Joseph Smith apparently thought (Muhammad was a prophet); according to four close friends of his.
Thomas Marsh was Joseph Smith’s original senior apostle (president of the Council of the Twelve). He later left the Church, but always was a believer in The Book of Mormon. Marsh said:
" I have heard the Prophet [Joseph Smith] says that…he would be the second Mahomet [Muhammed] to this generation." (Correspondance & Orders, 1841, p.57)
George M. Hinkle, another close friend of Joseph Smith, and Commander of the Mormon Militia in Missouri, said:
“I have heard Joseph Smith Jr. say that he believed Mahomet was a good man…that Mahomet was a true Prophet!” (ibid, p.128)
George A. Smith, cousin and confidant to Joseph Smith Jr., and apostle and counselor to Brigham Young, says in General Conference in 1855 (Brigham Young was seated right behind him):
“About six hundred years after Christ a Prophet arose in Arabia, by the name of Mahomet [Muhammed]…Now this man descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God.” (Journal of Discourses 3:28)
George Q. Cannon, another confidant of Joseph Smith, and later an LDS apostle, said in General Conference:
“I believe that Mahomet [Muhammed]–who the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets–I believe that he was a man raised up by the Almighty.” (Journal of Discourses 24:371)
Joseph Smith was referred by in the American press as “the Modern Mahomet”, and Mormonism was often called “America’s Islam”.

Is this info, snipped elsewhere, true?

 

[zaffiroborant]

You have it: that’s the theory. My point is that so few men could live UP to that theory. So…it’s not a good idea.

You keep writing as if I am defending polygamy today; I’m not, y’know. I’m stating fact: God allowed polygamy in various times, and among His most influential and ‘chosen’ folk, His prophets. In one case He even yelled at one king for wanting too much: God had, indeed ‘given’ him all the wives and concubines of his predecessor–why wasn’t that enough?

The failure is that of the people involved; a situation that is not in and of itself inherently sinful, but rather a living arrangement that is almost impossible for humans to handle well.

He did create Adam and Eve…but as far as I can tell, most of the rest of the OT prophets/leaders were man and women (wives and concubines.)…and God never once, though He lambasted them about OTHER things, gave them grief about that.

What, a world population of two?

Intentionally obtuse?

 

[Stephen168]

Catholic: Did Christ have an earthly ministry?

Mormon: Answer to the Universe is 42

 

[ricko]

I was already fully intent on writing you, beloved, about the salvation we share. But now I feel obliged to write and encourage you to fight hard for the faith delivered once for all to the saints. Jude 3

This passage indicates the faith being delivered ONCE for all. No new public revelations or changes will be forthcoming as Christ, being God in the flesh, has taught all that is needed. His teachings are fully truth and not lacking in sufficiency. Knowing this, we can now understand why the bible warns us against an angel teaching a different (new) gospel.

Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, not the death of Jesus.

Praise you Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[mark_a]

Has anyone here seen the ifooonfo below before? Is it true?

Joseph Smith apparently thought (Muhammad was a prophet); according to four close friends of his.
Thomas Marsh was Joseph Smith’s original senior apostle (president of the Council of the Twelve). He later left the Church, but always was a believer in The Book of Mormon. Marsh said:
" I have heard the Prophet [Joseph Smith] says that…he would be the second Mahomet [Muhammed] to this generation." (Correspondance & Orders, 1841, p.57)
George M. Hinkle, another close friend of Joseph Smith, and Commander of the Mormon Militia in Missouri, said:
“I have heard Joseph Smith Jr. say that he believed Mahomet was a good man…that Mahomet was a true Prophet!” (ibid, p.128)
George A. Smith, cousin and confidant to Joseph Smith Jr., and apostle and counselor to Brigham Young, says in General Conference in 1855 (Brigham Young was seated right behind him):
“About six hundred years after Christ a Prophet arose in Arabia, by the name of Mahomet [Muhammed]…Now this man descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God.” (Journal of Discourses 3:28)
George Q. Cannon, another confidant of Joseph Smith, and later an LDS apostle, said in General Conference:
“I believe that Mahomet [Muhammed]–who the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets–I believe that he was a man raised up by the Almighty.” (Journal of Discourses 24:371)
Joseph Smith was referred by in the American press as “the Modern Mahomet”, and Mormonism was often called “America’s Islam”.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Tough.

It is not fair of you to demand answers from non-Catholics that will force you to leave your faith and join theirs.

That makes sense. I have never demanded answers that would convert me. I have simply asked for answers where if one says A + B = C they know where A is grounded in history and B is something that actually pertains to the equation. I am looking for a solid form of reasoning. I would say that Mormon doctrine of Apostasy is well reasoned as long as there is a certain foundation. I call to question that foundation as other evidence contradicts it.

Religion and faith simply do not work like that. The most you can ask of us is to tell you why WE believe this thing, or that thing. You may, once you have seen those reasons, decide that they aren’t sufficient to change your mind, but you may NOT dismiss what we said as if we had not said, or written, anything at all. That’s dishonest, in my opinion.

The same as you are able to freely choose what you believe so am I to freely choose to dismiss your reasoning for said belief for beyond insufficient but insignificant to the point of non-entity. I would refrain from presuming what I can and cannot do.

That’s dishonest, in my opinion.

I would call it honesty not the opposite.

Let me turn this around:I happen to have a different idea of the Trinity than you do. Using the same reasoning you are using here, I could claim that nobody has given me any evidence to show that the Catholic version of the Trinity is true.

Except, of course, people have given lots of reasons and supports for their belief in the Trinity as Catholics conceive it to be. They simply do not rise to the level of convincing me.

That I am not convinced, however, does not mean that your words are invisible. It simply means that I disagree with them.

You are claiming it. And, obviously, no one has given you any positive evidence for it. So, what does that say about the evidence for it from your perspective? That for your specific case it just as easily could of never been written. You are in actuality doing your hypothetical scenario. Diminishing my choice of understanding your reasoning behind a mask of “simply disagreeing” is what is dishonest.

Well, yeah…but the problem is, this office of ‘apostle’ was not ever continued. As the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church is a ‘bishop among bishops,’ there is no higher authority; it no longer exists. Though the Pope has considerably more authority over the RC than the Patriarch does over Eastern Orthodoxy, the history of the Papacy has a few bumps in it–that I think, quite frankly, probably would not have happened had everybody been working under authentic priesthood authority and direct revelation.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don’t think I am.

So first the problem is not enough authority. Then with “considerably more” authority because of not church teachings but human mistakes, one human at a time at that, the Church is invalidated and leaves millions in the cold.

(shrug) I can’t help that. I can only point to posts like mine, and Parker’s, and Z’s…among others who explained why we think there was an apostasy. Of course you don’t agree with our reasoning; if you did, you would be Mormons.

But your disagreement with those reasons, may I repeat, does not mean that we didn’t give them.

I have already answered this.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Catholic: Did Christ have an earthly ministry?

Mormon: Answer to the Universe is 42