Mormons, when did the Apostacy occur?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pjs2ejs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church GRADUALLY drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken; and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in
spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist.

.
YOU AFFIRM? Wssup, you’re OPINION is about as valid as your affirmation of your LDS claims of a Lost Culture. That sir, is an outrageous assertion, and for anyone to take YOUR AFFIRMATION about how YOU view the historical context of the Apostolic and Post Apostolic age is total farce. You can’t seem to use the same Synoptic vision on your own church’s dubious legacy and yet, ***YOU ***AFFIRM the Catholic Church ***drifted *into apostasy. Well that’s nice. Affirm some evidence for me on this unknown ‘Lost Culture’, will you please. Affirm your statement with facts, that the Catholic Church was somehow a different church from the rest of the “Early Church” and then apostized after Peters death. I want facts, not your opinion. So much of your last post sounds like rhetoric you ‘lifted’ from some LDS author. You try to argue Church validity, with opinions, and yet, you have no validity of your own. Only opinions. **Show **me the evidence of these ‘Lost culture’ claims, and if you can’t, then you argue from a position built on lies.
 
Place the following if you can. Regarding our present inquiry we accept as demonstrated facts the establishment of the Church of Christ under the Savior’s personal administration and the rapid growth of the Church in the early period of the apostolic ministry.

A question of the utmost importance is: Has the Church of Christ, thus authoritatively established, maintained an organized existence upon the earth from the apostolic age to the present? Other questions are suggested by the first. If the Church has continued as an earthly organization, where lies
the proof or evidence of legitimate succession in priestly authority, and which among the multitude of contending sects or churches of the present day is the actual possessor of the holy priesthood originally committed to the Church by the Christ, its founder?

Furthermore, have the spiritual gifts and graces by which the early Church was characterized and distinguished been manifest on earth through the centuries that have passed since the meridian of time; and if so, in which of the numerous churches of these modern times do we find such signs following the
professed believers? See Mark 16:17.

I affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church GRADUALLY drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken; and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in
spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist.

If therefore the Church of Christ is to be found upon the earth today it must have been re-established by divine authority; and the holy priesthood must have been restored to the world from which it was lost by the apostasy of the Primitive Church.

I do further state that while mankind may pray to, receive answers and blessings from the Eternal Father, this in no way reflects the legitimate succession of the priesthood.

We affirm that the great apostasy was foretold by the Savior Himself while He lived as a Man among men, and by His inspired prophets both before and after the period of His earthly probation. And further, we affirm that a rational interpretation of history demonstrates the fact of this great and
general apostasy.

Before we take up in detail the specific predictions referred to, and the evidence of their dread fulfillment, we may profitably devote brief attention to certain general considerations.

Respecting the foreknowledge of God, let it not be said that divine omniscience is of itself a determining cause whereby events are inevitably brought to pass. A mortal father who knows the weaknesses and frailties of his son may by reason of that knowledge sorrowfully predict the calamities
and sufferings awaiting his wayward boy. He may foresee in that son’s future a forfeiture of blessings that could have been won, loss of position, self-respect, reputation and honor; even the dark shadows of a felon’s cell and the night of a drunkard’s grave may appear in the saddening visions of that
fond father’s soul; yet, convinced by experience of the impossibility of bringing about that son’s reform, he foresees the dread developments of the future, and he finds but sorrow and anguish in his knowledge. Can it be said that the father’s foreknowledge is a cause of the son’s sinful life? The son, perchance, has reached his maturity; he is the master of his own destiny; a free agent unto himself. The father is powerless to control by force or to direct by arbitrary command; and, while he would gladly make any
effort or sacrifice to save his son from the fate impending, he fears for what seems to be an awful certainty. But surely that thoughtful, prayerful, loving parent does not contribute to the son’s waywardness because of his knowledge. To reason otherwise would be to say that a neglectful father, who
takes not the trouble to study the nature and character of his son, who shuts his eyes to sinful tendencies, and rests in careless indifference as to the probable future, will by his very heartlessness be benefiting his child, because his lack of forethought cannot operate as a contributory cause to dereliction.

Our Heavenly Father has a full knowledge of the nature and dispositions of each of His children, a knowledge gained by long observation and experience in the past eternity of our primeval childhood; a knowledge compared with which that gained by earthly parents through mortal experience with their
children is infinitesimally small. By reason of that surpassing knowledge, God reads the future of child and children, of men individually and of men collectively as communities and nations; He knows what each will do under given conditions, and sees the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge is based on intelligence and reason; He foresees the future as a state which naturally and surely will be; not as one which must be because He has arbitrarily willed that it shall be.
I affirm that I will never read a post this long and boring.
 
I don’t want to clutter this up too much, because there are a lot of things that need addressing by wussup and Zerinus, but this deserves some attention, too. Hopefully wussup will be able to clarify this for us. In #314 wussup wrote:
In the words of Jerry Porath, the Catholic Church is in a constant state of Doctrinal Development.
After some questioning, he corrected himself and stated the following:
Another correction. I meant to say Jerry Usher, not Jerry Porath.
What I want to know is, what is the context in whichJerry Usher made such a statement? Seems to me that wussup is trying to link Catholic “doctrinal development” to Mormon doctrinal instability, and I just highly doubt that they are comparable in any way. We have demonstrated that Mormonism has a wiggly doctrinal foundation. The Mormon reply seems to be that, so does Catholicism, and Jerry Usher is being heralded by wussup as stating that Catholic doctrine is also subject to “change.” Let’s clear this up wussup, by providing the exact context in which Jerry Usher made this statement. Thanks.
 
Arti’st-
Dude, will you stop screaming at me? I am a truck driver, I work my gluteus maximus off. I drive 10-11 hours a day legally 😉 , unload trailers, and am more than likely old enough to be your Grandpa. Chill out. I will give you my answer but they may take a while to get out to you.

Allweather-
The context I am placing the jerry usher comments in is he uses the term doctrinal development respective of on going evolution in Catholic Theology. For example, today he or his guest were talking about the evolution of holy water in the 70’s - 80’s being replaced (i believe he said it was unauthorized) with sand or pebbles, and the Vatican issued a bull ordering the stoppage. He also discussed the change in how the eucharist and prayers were to be performed relative to kneeling or not kneeling, etc… As a LDS who believes in revelation changing the performance of such ordinances, I wouldn’t have a problem, but one of the constant themes herein is the constancy of the RC.

Mr. S-
Your argument for the RC is the same circular logic we are accused of. Since this about when the RC became apostate, “that would certainly put your founder” is a straw man argument and has nothing to do with the RC per se. Ditto for Arti’st. The validity of the LDS Church is not in question. Only if there is a need for a restoration of all things. Addressing the perceived weakness’ of other faiths does not address the question. Getting crazy again, and assume you are correct and the LDS is false, I (the persuer of truth) am still faced with the dilemma of determining the same question, is a restoration necessary.

Also, Arti’st, you used 6 different font styles in your note to emphasize your point. I am an old man, somewhat irritable with failing eyesight. Doing this makes for difficult reading. Note how Allweather only changes his font once for emphasis?

Allweather,
Is polygamy an ‘important’ part of LDS faith? Not anymore than it is for the Jewish faith. It is a doctrine God uses periodically as he feels the need. Second, the men had just as heavy a burden with polygamy as the woman, just different. Remember Paul’s adminition for ‘men love your wife’. Following through on this would be very challenging. I have a hard enough time with one. I have no desire (to put it mildly) for a second wife.

Finally, for this blurb (pardon the split infinitive), you folks keep using the ad populum argument. Because the RC has been around for a long time means definitively it has either been right for a long time or wrong for a long time. Zerinius was correct when he used an example to illustrate there are other faiths out there with a longer track record of steady doctrine from established tomes. These include Buddhism, Confusionism, Hinduism (with the Baghavagita and the Vedas), Judaism, and almost as long, Islam. This is not the thread to address the veracity and perceived faults of different religions, this only illustrates the RC is relatively a newcomer to the seen for at least a couple of these.

T-Maque-
Then don’t read it.
 
It has been suggested: Is the fact of the great apostasy, – the virtual overthrow and destruction of the Church established by Jesus Christ, – to be regarded as an instance of failure in the Lord’s plans? Is it a case of defeat in which Satan was victor over Christ? Consider the following. What mortal has yet measured the standard by which Omniscience gages success or failure? Who dares affirm that what man hails as triumph or deplores as defeat will be so accounted
when tested by the principles of eternal reckoning?

The history of the world abounds with instances of the temporary triumph of evil, of justice seemingly miscarried, of divine plans for the time being frustrated, of God’s purposes opposed and their consummation delayed.

We read of the Lord’s covenant with Israel. Unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob He declared that their descendants should be a people chosen for His special service among the nations. Through that lineage the Savior of mankind was to be born; in the posterity of Abraham all nations of the earth were to be blessed. Blessings beyond the heart of man to conceive, beyond the mind of man to comprehend, were promised on condition of loyal allegiance to Him who proclaimed Himself their God and their King. Moreover the Lord predicted calamity and suffering, individual affliction and national disgrace, if Israel departed from the service of Jehovah and yielded to the enticements of their heathen neighbors who knew not God. Think you that the Lord was ignorant of the course His people would choose? Did He fail to
foresee that Israel would follow the evil way, forfeiting the blessings and reaping the harvest of sorrow? Jehovah’s plans failed not, though the realization of the blessings so abundantly promised has been long delayed. Equally forceful with the prediction of calamity in case of sin, was the promise of eventual restoration to favor. The dispersion of Israel already accomplished, was to be followed by the gathering of Israel now in progress.

What would have been the world’s verdict as to the success or failure of the mission of the Christ, had a vote been taken at the time of the crucifixion? Seemingly His enemies had triumphed; He who proclaimed Himself the Messiah, the Son of God, the resurrection and the life, over whom death could not prevail, had suffered the fate of malefactors, and His body was in the tomb. But the verdict of the centuries, which is the verdict of the eternities to come, acclaims that “failure” as the greatest triumph of the ages, the victory of victories.

Even so with the Church. For a season the powers of evil triumphed, and the spirit of apostasy ruled. But beyond the darkness of the spiritual night the glorious dawn of the restoration was seen in prophetic vision, and both the night with its horrors, and the awakening day with its splendor, were foreseen and foretold.
 
Addressing comments made to date:
Due to my time consideration, I will address them newest to oldest. Please do not feel slighted if I don’t get to the point of an older posting, just ask me to address it. Again, there will be days at a time when it will be impossible to seriously address the questions.
One more VERY important note. I bring these points up academically. I know how I would answer them if I were Catholic. But alas, I am not, and will prefer to address them with the experts. Please try not to take offense. My goal is not to prosylitize, but rather to inquire.

Majik-
I have already given examples. It is very tedious to repeat oneself over and over again. However, given your respectful request, examples will be forthcoming.

I do not suffer fools lightly, and sir, you are being a fool. Which part of this statement due you specifially disagree with? Or are you just disagreeing to be disagreeable. Please produce a mature argument. Regarding the omniscience of God, Joseph Smith said in 1830’s the Christian world had it wrong. God was not all places present, but was at all times present, past, present, and future. This is quite an interesting observation. The common RC and Protestant believer with a scientific frame of reference considered the Bible statement that God was light. As such, light was an ether present everywhere. This concept came back to haunt the churches when quantum mechanics realized the limitations of light (did not travel at an infinite speed). However, the LDS doctrine was quite an interesting spin. For those who have studied a little bit of physics, the consequence of this is a defacto all places present and all time. The reason I am fascinated by Heidegger’s Sein unt Zeit is because he delves into this concept.
No, I affirm the statements were I so state. I don’t need you to place words in my mouth.
If you disagree with the use of analogies, take it up with Christ. He was aware of the value and limitations of analogies.
Again, it is amazing how much more you know of my Church than do I. For instance, I was always under the impression the King Follet Sermon was given at the funeral of King Follet (first name, last name), now I know from such learned men as yourself it was actually at a General Conference.
Ohh! I get it, this is a Bible Bashing forum, not one given to serious thought. Not particularly ‘apologetic’, but hey Dude, its your derriere at the judgement bar of God…

Allweather-
I lament with your wifes battle over the polygamy issue. It is a hard cross to bear. Do you think it is more difficult than being asked of God to make an Abrahamic Sacrifice? If God asked me, I couldn’t do it. I would fail. Thank God he has not asked me. Could you imagine receiving a visitation from God telling you to take your son to the mountains, tie his hands and cut his throat as sacrifice? Man, that would take some real security. Me? I would think I had gone insane.
 
It has been suggested: …



What would have been the world’s verdict as to the success or failure of the mission of the Christ, had a vote been taken at the time of the crucifixion? Seemingly His enemies had triumphed; He who proclaimed Himself the Messiah, the Son of God, the resurrection and the life, over whom death could not prevail, had suffered the fate of malefactors, and His body was in the tomb. But the verdict of the centuries, which is the verdict of the eternities to come, acclaims that “failure” as the greatest triumph of the ages, the victory of victories.

Even so with the Church. For a season the powers of evil triumphed, and the spirit of apostasy ruled. But beyond the darkness of the spiritual night the glorious dawn of the restoration was seen in prophetic vision, and both the night with its horrors, and the awakening day with its splendor, were foreseen and foretold.
What is your SOURCE for this long quotation, wussup??

It isn’t your own, so enlighten us as to the Mormon author’s name.
 
To think one simple question would lead to 350+ posts.

Boy are my questions good!!!
 
To think one simple question would lead to 350+ posts.
Boy are my questions good!!!
Well, you gotta discount all the “I answered it many times on another post” (at least 50) by Zerinus, and wussup throwing unattributed Mormon authored quotations in (around 9) and you, our good friend, counting your own postings!

As to the answer of the OP: it never came because there were too many loose ends to the Mormon “logic” on this thread.

So many of our posts were begging for direct answers and, alas, none were forthcoming.

You want fireworks? Start a thread asking for comparisons between Islam and Mormonism.

That will overload CA’s driver!

Pax Christi

Jonathan
 
Place the following if you can.
I can. You lifted it from this website, which expounds the teachings of LDS apostle James Talmage as found in his book Jesus the Christ. Follow the link and scroll down to “Chapter 2 - the Apostacy Predicted”. There you will find wussup’s post.

wussup, you really should cite your sources.

Paul
 
Although reading Jesus the Christ is an excellent recommendation. I was unaware it was on line.
 
Majik-
I have already given examples. It is very tedious to repeat oneself over and over again. However, given your respectful request, examples will be forthcoming.
good tehn we can discuss them one at a time.
I do not suffer fools lightly, and sir, you are being a fool. Which part of this statement due you specifially disagree with? Or are you just disagreeing to be disagreeable. Please produce a mature argument. Regarding the omniscience of God, Joseph Smith said in 1830’s the Christian world had it wrong. God was not all places present, but was at all times present, past, present, and future. This is quite an interesting observation. The common RC and Protestant believer with a scientific frame of reference considered the Bible statement that God was light. As such, light was an ether present everywhere. This concept came back to haunt the churches when quantum mechanics realized the limitations of light (did not travel at an infinite speed). However, the LDS doctrine was quite an interesting spin. For those who have studied a little bit of physics, the consequence of this is a defacto all places present and all time. The reason I am fascinated by Heidegger’s Sein unt Zeit is because he delves into this concept.
nice… but i think you are way down a rabbit trail. I opine from the bible that God is not limited by physics or any other attempt by man to define what he doesn’t understand in terms that he does. course i’m a “fool” (whatever that means).
No, I affirm the statements were I so state. I don’t need you to place words in my mouth.
If you disagree with the use of analogies, take it up with Christ. He was aware of the value and limitations of analogies.
i don’t have a problem with Christ since he is all knowing. I do have a problem with you stating opinion as fact.
Again, it is amazing how much more you know of my Church than do I. For instance, I was always under the impression the King Follet Sermon was given at the funeral of King Follet (first name, last name), now I know from such learned men as yourself it was actually at a General Conference.
well i didn’t know it was YOUR church. I studied it for years as a believer. do your research man. you can easily verify this from LDS sources. sunday april 7, 1844 general conference. it was called the funeral sermon for elder king follett but was given in his honor at conference. it was not a graveside speculation. you really should read up on the nature of God as taught by the LDs church. here are some good links to BYU sources. those shouldn’t be “anti-mormon”

lds-mormon.com/godsname.shtml

lds-mormon.com/changod.shtml

mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm
Ohh! I get it, this is a Bible Bashing forum, not one given to serious thought. Not particularly ‘apologetic’, but hey Dude, its your derriere at the judgement bar of God…
my derriere is quite comfy. this is for serious thought and NOT for unfounded assertions based on someones burning bosom. I suggest you take religion more seriously and actually seek to WORSHIP God lest you experience further burning sensations.
 
Addressing comments made to date:
Allweather-
I lament with your wifes battle over the polygamy issue. It is a hard cross to bear. Do you think it is more difficult than being asked of God to make an Abrahamic Sacrifice? If God asked me, I couldn’t do it. I would fail. Thank God he has not asked me. Could you imagine receiving a visitation from God telling you to take your son to the mountains, tie his hands and cut his throat as sacrifice? Man, that would take some real security. Me? I would think I had gone insane.
wssup, I’m 51 and my eyes are not all that great anymore either, just want to make sure you get the gist of my main question, and I eagerly await your answers, this should be good, Also, as to your above statement, not to be harsh, but I don’t believe for ONE MINUTE that you can dare to compare ‘Abrahamic Sacrifice’ to Polygamy. Polygamy damages women spiritually, morally, intellectually, and destroys their dignity. But what Polygamy is really all about, in MY opinion is, Sex. Mans desires…the lure of obtaining multiple partners. THAT was one of Joesph Smiths basic driving forces and it still underlies the Mormon ‘mans’ dream world. It is a bad situation for women, for the children, it’s bad financially, socially, but not sexually wssup, oh not sexually. Your sexual desires compels you to qualify and justify it as ‘Abrahamic’ in nature, what a joke. Why did the Israelites abandon it, why did Christianity condemn it, why did Christ reject it, why did most pre and post modern societies reject it. The early Israelites were, as God called them, "stiff necked people", raw, coarse, ignorant, superstitious wanderers, not ready for the fullness of Gods laws, but they matured. The old ways were not the new ways, what was considered necessary, was later rejected as a *TRUE civilized *society emerged. But Mormons cling to this ‘stiff necked peoples’ uncivilized ways, and why is that? Because you also, are ‘stiff necked’, and are motivated by human desires rather than what GOD desires. Wssup, Polygamy is a curse, not a blessing. As long as you embrace these things, refuse to really throughly examine YOUR religion, and put it to the same litmus test you appear to use elsewhere, as long as you waste your time picking through Catholic history and teachings, as long as you spend more time trying to disprove someone else’s religion, you will never be able to see the truth. You fear finding the truth of Mormonism because of what finding the truth would mean to your life, and so keep yourself buried elsewhere. Maybe you should exert as much energy and scrutiny on unverifiable Mormon writings, wild historical claims, and putting your own LDS Authorities and how they conduct your theology under the same microscope you do here. Now, this is only MY OPINION wssup!!! I’m sure you’ll say you do, but I really, really, really, really doubt that.:rolleyes:
 
Allweather-
I lament with your wifes battle over the polygamy issue. It is a hard cross to bear. Do you think it is more difficult than being asked of God to make an Abrahamic Sacrifice? If God asked me, I couldn’t do it. I would fail. Thank God he has not asked me. Could you imagine receiving a visitation from God telling you to take your son to the mountains, tie his hands and cut his throat as sacrifice? Man, that would take some real security. Me? I would think I had gone insane.
Jesus taught clearly about marriage. Catholic and Protestant Christians have never disagreed over very much of this teaching. Mormons have had a revelation in which Mormon women are to make a sort of “Abrahamic sacrifice” by allowing their husbands to make babies with other women, and call it holy. Yes, that must’ve been a terrible cross to bear for many Mormon women. There are testimonies recorded which bear witness to this agony.

A few months ago, I was at the fiance’s father’s house, along with some visiting members of the family, all Mormons, some practicing, some not. I got into a discussion with the dad about the apostasy. Her brother’s wife, listening nearby, leaned over to my fiance and said, well, what about the Dark Ages? This brought about a short conversation between them that convinced my fiance that the sister-in-law knows nothing about the Dark Ages. This illustrates the nature of Mormon apostasy teaching: It is thin, not based on historical information, and Mormon people are not given any details. It is just thrown out there and expected that Mormon faithful will swallow the pill.

During the same discussion, I mentioned Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s many wives, and the whole idea of Mormon polygamy as adultery. This is another area of Mormon belief about which modern Mormons are woefully ignorant. I could almost HEAR the gears gnashing in the sister-in-law’s brain. Her husband wanted to change the subject quickly, saying about Joseph Smith’s many wives, “It doesn’t matter.” Well, I say it DOES matter. It matters very, very much.
Polygamy is a sin, and a crime. It demeans women, and men, too. It is a pagan practice that has no place in Christian, civilized societies. If Mormons had faced up to it 100 years ago and said, well, it was an aberration, and we’re sorry for that, and won’t do that again, then we could move on. But no. Mormons STILL believe in polygamy. It is still practiced among many Mormon sects. The main LDS branch in Salt Lake City believes that polygamy will come back some day, probably on earth during the millenium, and certainly is being practiced in the Celestial Kingdom amongst the manly gods.
 
. The main LDS branch in Salt Lake City believes that polygamy will come back some day, probably on earth during the millenium, and certainly is being practiced in the Celestial Kingdom amongst the manly gods.
hehehehe

Heaven to me (IMHO) is having one truly loving wife. 👍

(did I say that right dear?)
 
II am sorry zerinus, I truly have tried to understand.
I got so far, but your last post has truly beat me.
I still cannot grasp how God would choose John as an Apostle, then withdraw his ministry because the church apostasized.
If John was one of the original Apostles, why didn’t God speak to Him and tell him that His church was going all wrong, and get John to restore it?
Because we had to wait for Joe Smith to be born to set things right again:rolleyes: Come on, don’t worry about this crazy nonsense. John was so special, he was given charge of the Mother of God, …and you worry about Zerinus and his crackpot opinions and ideas. He’s out there. And desperately trying to inject conjecture and opinion to sustain a Mormon belief system that is so readily built upon opinion and conjecture that it is ready to fall over. There’s no evidence for ANY of his ideas other than what he’s told by LDS apologist who try desperately to solidify their wiggly theology. It’s the old,… 'well we’re still here and we believe this and that, so lets backtrack and try to **formulate **some reality to our beliefs’, but that means ignoring much and misrepresenting even more.
He tries to re-interpret history and yet, all LDS history is built on ‘feelings’ and assuming what Joe Smith proclaimed was true, because 'I
feel it to be so’
and therefore it must be, and yet Zerinus questions the factual, well researched, well documented, highly studied and expounded Early Church history,…well that’s a riot. At least WE have that to look into and research, which works in conjunction with the Church and it’s Authority. Zerinus is a robot, he’s lost, but Wssup, I’m not so sure about.
 
Yeesh, you people are a lot older than your writing implies. Regarding comments to Allweather, I was not comparing the Abrahamic Sacrifice to polygamy in terms of a burden imposed by the Lord as a test. However you seem to think that it would be easier to sacrifice your child than to practice polygamy. That is ridiculous.
Polygamy is a very polemic subject. One can give reasons for it being socially unacceptable, and many of these reasons would be true. What it is not is ‘adulterous’. According to Church Law one had to be married into polygamy to have sexual relations. Furthermore, assuming it is of God, polygamy is not an immoral action, (consider Sarah), it was not a sin, and it was not a crime until Congress passed laws. It is both now. Note, it is my opinion Sarah also had issues with the situation. Also, according to the last statistics I had on the total numbers of polygamous relationships, the highest it reached was 3%, lower than the national average (Harrington, The Mormon Experience).
Anyway, my point with bringing up the comparison was to illustrate that I understood Allweather’s fiance’s issues with polygamy. Period. I meant to imply nothing more.
Still going through stuff. Talmage did not address the subject as well as I want regarding very early history. The main problem is there is not a dirth of literature until well into the 3rd century, and even then there is not a lot.
 
Yeesh, you people are a lot older than your writing implies. Regarding comments to Allweather, I was not comparing the Abrahamic Sacrifice to polygamy in terms of a burden imposed by the Lord as a test. However you seem to think that it would be easier to sacrifice your child than to practice polygamy. That is ridiculous.
Polygamy is a very polemic subject. One can give reasons for it being socially unacceptable, and many of these reasons would be true. What it is not is ‘adulterous’. According to Church Law one had to be married into polygamy to have sexual relations. Furthermore, assuming it is of God, polygamy is not an immoral action, (consider Sarah), it was not a sin, and it was not a crime until Congress passed laws. It is both now. Note, it is my opinion Sarah also had issues with the situation. Also, according to the last statistics I had on the total numbers of polygamous relationships, the highest it reached was 3%, lower than the national average (Harrington, The Mormon Experience).
Anyway, my point with bringing up the comparison was to illustrate that I understood Allweather’s fiance’s issues with polygamy. Period. I meant to imply nothing more.
Still going through stuff. Talmage did not address the subject as well as I want regarding very early history. The main problem is there is not a dirth of literature until well into the 3rd century, and even then there is not a lot.
Well it’s great to assume that every action undertaken by man, can be considered, ‘of God’ and therefore ‘not immoral’ simply because it is in the Old Testament. So are many things deemed ‘barbaric’ and ‘archaic’. Polygamy, sir, contradicts every civilized societies idea of decency and when you mention polygamy within the context you did, you IMPLY much.
 
Again, Dupre, you are wrong.
Really? Okay…Let’s compare your post to cumorah.com/language/greatapostasy.html
40.png
wussup:
Regarding our present inquiry we accept as demonstrated facts the establishment of the Church of Christ under the Savior’s personal administration and the rapid growth of the Church in the early period of the apostolic ministry.
the website:
In proceeding with our present inquiry we accept as demonstrated facts the establishment of the Church of Christ under the Savior’s personal administration and the rapid growth of the Church in the early period of the apostolic ministry.
You changed “In proceeding with” to “Regarding”. Clever.
40.png
wussup:
A question of the utmost importance is: Has the Church of Christ, thus authoritatively established, maintained an organized existence upon the earth from the apostolic age to the present? Other questions are suggested by the first. If the Church has continued as an earthly organization, where lies the proof or evidence of legitimate succession in priestly authority, and which among the multitude of contending sects or churches of the present day is the actual possessor of the holy priesthood originally committed to the Church by the Christ, its founder?
the website:
A question of the utmost importance is: Has the Church of Christ, thus authoritatively established, maintained an organized existence upon the earth from the apostolic age to the present? Other questions are suggested by the first. If the Church has continued as an earthly organization, where lies the proof or evidence of legitimate succession in priestly authority, and which among the multitude of contending sects or churches of the present day is the actual possessor of the holy priesthood originally committed to the Church by the Christ, its founder?
Very good, wussup! You got every word exactly right!
40.png
wussup:
Furthermore, have the spiritual gifts and graces by which the early Church was characterized and distinguished been manifest on earth through the centuries that have passed since the meridian of time; and if so, in which of the numerous churches of these modern times do we find such signs following the
professed believers? See Mark 16:17.
the website:
Again, have the spiritual gifts and graces by which the early Church was characterized and distinguished been manifest on earth through the centuries that have passed since the meridian of time; and if so, in which of the numerous churches of these modern times do we find such signs following the professed believers ?
You changed “Again” to “Furthermore”. Otherwise, you lifted it verbatim.

continued later…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top