Mormons search the web and find doubt

  • Thread starter Thread starter SAVINGRACE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH said:
It has never been repudiated because it has never been a doctrine. It is a theological theory only and therefore no one has ever been obligated to believe it. You are correct however, that many of the Catholic faithful accepted it as truth. Not so much anymore.
Click to expand...
I used ‘doctrine’ for lack of a better term. As you know pinning down LDS theology through the years is difficult due to the not-so-well defined distinction between revelation and opinion. I assume there’s some difficulty among Catholics too (though much less so). It’s been ages, but I remember reading the Baltimore Catechism which spoke of Limbo as nearly a given. Are not Catechisms authoritative sources of teaching?

I only bring up this example because it seems pretty apt to me. That Jesus was ever married (whether once or multiple times) or produced offspring has always been speculation among the LDS, even if widely believed speculation. It has never been what you Catholics would call a de fide pronouncement by the church.
 
So Brandon, as a speculation or theory, how does it strike you now? Necessary to Mormon theology? Un-supported by evidence?
 
Brandon_Cal said:
As a boy I was taught that Jesus was a polygamist and begot children. I taught my own children that the Savior is married (sort of hard to get out of at least that given our beliefs concerning exaltation and marriage) and had begotten children while on this Earth. This was something we openly spoke of in church up until the early 70s or so when I first noticed the teaching become more arcane.

I don’t believe it has ever been clearly enunciated as an divinely revealed, matter of necessity teaching, even if it was once very widely believed by most (if not all) Mormons. I believe this is not unlike the Catholic Church’s (now diminished) teaching on Limbo: it was once widely taught, if not universally taught, among the Catholic faithful, and was seen as a satisfactory theological assumption to reconcile two seemingly contradictory facets of the Gospel. While the doctrinal arms of the Church no longer explicitly teach the doctrine, it has not ever been officially repudiated and so naturally there are still many who believe it.
Click to expand...
That there is a teaching and belief that would lead anyone to speculate that Jesus was a polygamist, is problematic on its own.
 
RebeccaJ said:
That there is a teaching and belief that would lead anyone to speculate that Jesus was a polygamist, is problematic on its own.
Click to expand...
Is that ever true. This really starts to get mind-blowing. How a people can be led so far astray that even their own reason ceases to function. Of all that is said of Jesus’ life, it would be reasonable to conclude that there would have been some mention of Jesus’ wife or wives and children. More to the point, it would be quite unreasonable to believe that nothing would be mentioned. The wedding at Cana being Jesus’ wedding is so far-fetched that it doesn’t deserve discussion. It just makes you go 🤷 :confused: 🤷 :confused: :eek:
 
JHow said:
So Brandon, as a speculation or theory, how does it strike you now? Necessary to Mormon theology? Un-supported by evidence?
Click to expand...
Coming at this with my “Mormon hat” on? I’d still call it speculation, but good speculation at that. It’s really hard to insist that celestial marriage (the modern definition thereof) is necessary for exaltation and then insist on a bachelor Christ, especially so given that the spotless lamb was baptized “to fulfill all righteousness”. Within the LDS framework we understand the Savior having completed all the necessary ordinances that are required of us. Of course he could exempt himself from any or all of them, but shouldn’t the default position be that he did not exempt himself until evidence to the contrary is given?

All of this of course assumes celestial marriage as a given. The Bible is utterly silent about Jesus’ married state, and so the only reason why it would make any sense to assume that he was indeed married is if you already believe in the LDS doctrine of celestial marriage. If one does not believe in celestial marriage, then it would make more sense to assume that the sheer silence in the Biblical record indicates that Jesus probably was not married. I mean, marriage is a really big deal, and coming from a Catholic perspective marriage is a Sacrament just as much as baptism is. If the Gospel writers saw it fitting to mention his baptism surely they’d mention his marriage! This is the argument I’ve heard from both non-LDS Christians and LDS who do not believe in a married Jesus, but of course the latter group then runs into the unique problem I’ve already mentioned about the necessity of celestial marriage. How can we insist on the necessity of celestial marriage for exaltation if the Savior himself isn’t married?
 
Steve VH,

I’ve been meaning to thank you for your private message also. I really do appreciate it; unfortunately this old geezer is having a hard time finding the ‘reply’ button. :o I really do thank you for your support (in the other thread) and for your prayers.

Brandon
 
Brandon_Cal said:
Steve VH,

I’ve been meaning to thank you for your private message also. I really do appreciate it; unfortunately this old geezer is having a hard time finding the ‘reply’ button. :o I really do thank you for your support (in the other thread) and for your prayers.

Brandon
Click to expand...
Thanks Brandon. No problem.
 
Captain_America said:
. . .People living on the sun??? I had not heard that.
Click to expand...
Not surprised really, theres a lot of past doctrines that were taught and accepted and have since been kicked under the carpet to try and make the LDS church seem more “normal”.

Has anyone heard of the LDS Women’s Feminist Group that will be standing side by side with the normal protestors in this next Priesthood General Conference? There’s a lot of people out there that feel sometime within the next 5 or 10 years that women will be given the priesthood. I wonder how people will react when that happens. 🤷
 
SteveVH said:
Is that ever true. This really starts to get mind-blowing. How a people can be led so far astray that even their own reason ceases to function. Of all that is said of Jesus’ life, it would be reasonable to conclude that there would have been some mention of Jesus’ wife or wives and children. More to the point, it would be quite unreasonable to believe that nothing would be mentioned. The wedding at Cana being Jesus’ wedding is so far-fetched that it doesn’t deserve discussion. It just makes you go 🤷 :confused: 🤷 :confused: :eek:
Click to expand...
That was Smith"s schtick. Claim “precious truths” have been removed from the Bible and then claim he was speaking for God and restoring. Once a person is on board with that, anything that is claimed will be believed.

it is still where Mormon missionaries start their conversations today.
 
RebeccaJ said:
That was Smith"s schtick. Claim “precious truths” have been removed from the Bible and then claim he was speaking for God and restoring. Once a person is on board with that, anything that is claimed will be believed.

it is still where Mormon missionaries start their conversations today.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I forgot about the “precious truths” being removed, thing. I’m use to considering the Bible as the inerrant word of God. How silly of me. :rolleyes:
 
Brandon_Cal said:
Coming at this with my “Mormon hat” on? I’d still call it speculation, but good speculation at that. It’s really hard to insist that celestial marriage (the modern definition thereof) is necessary for exaltation and then insist on a bachelor Christ, especially so given that the spotless lamb was baptized “to fulfill all righteousness”. Within the LDS framework we understand the Savior having completed all the necessary ordinances that are required of us. Of course he could exempt himself from any or all of them, but shouldn’t the default position be that he did not exempt himself until evidence to the contrary is given?

All of this of course assumes celestial marriage as a given. The Bible is utterly silent about Jesus’ married state, and so the only reason why it would make any sense to assume that he was indeed married is if you already believe in the LDS doctrine of celestial marriage. If one does not believe in celestial marriage, then it would make more sense to assume that the sheer silence in the Biblical record indicates that Jesus probably was not married. I mean, marriage is a really big deal, and coming from a Catholic perspective marriage is a Sacrament just as much as baptism is. If the Gospel writers saw it fitting to mention his baptism surely they’d mention his marriage! This is the argument I’ve heard from both non-LDS Christians and LDS who do not believe in a married Jesus, but of course the latter group then runs into the unique problem I’ve already mentioned about the necessity of celestial marriage. How can we insist on the necessity of celestial marriage for exaltation if the Savior himself isn’t married?
Click to expand...
To think that God our Creator would marry one of His Creation is pretty bad. At least for Christians. His love is undivided for His children. To think of God marrying one of His children? Not the God we know…no offense to the LDS…
 
catholic-rcia said:
To think that God our Creator would marry one of His Creation is pretty bad. At least for Christians. His love is undivided for His children. To think of God marrying one of His children? Not the God we know…no offense to the LDS…
Click to expand...
Remember that to the LDS, “Heavenly Father” is just another guy like them, only further along in his “progression” than they are. So like the ancient Greek and Roman pagans, they ascribe to “Heavenly Father” body, parts and passions. They have no problem thinking that Heavenly Father “married” one of his daughters and impregnated her. After all, Joseph Smith lowered the bar on sexual morality quite a bit, didn’t he?

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
Marie5890 said:
Some LDS speculate/speculated that, but it’s not really believed.

When I was LDS I heard of that speculation, but I never really heard it given any credence, nor was it taught during the New Testament cycle of SS… 🤷
Click to expand...
I have heard this recently from some friends that are lds that Jesus was getting married. I just sat their and didn’t know what to say. But it could be speculation. But then again, it is the lds church 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top