Polygamy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter _ChristPaladin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BJ Colbert:
Simply a difference in believing that God is constantly putting on different hats pretending to be 3 different beings, or is really 3 different personages. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. We believe they are three.
Before the Nicean Council the Catholic Church also believed there could be 3, but the Council decided once and for all there was only one God wearing 3 hats and playing all the parts of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I find it a lot easier to believe that God is not a confusing God, but very logical and believable. He is who He says He is, and Jesus Christ is His Son, the Holy Spirit is the mediator between our Father in Heaven and us. They are three, and LDS worship all three as One. 👍 BJ
Click to expand...
Nothing could be further from the truth and this guy’s understanding of Christian theology is sorely misguided. The Council of Nicea was called to combat the heresies of modalism which stated that there was one god altogether and that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit did not always exist co-eternally but rather that it was always the Father, not one God in three persons. When you add the Trinity, of course it is going to be 1+1+1=3, but how do you add to eternity (God)? You don’t. The Trinity is more like 1x1x1=1, not 1+1+1 since they were never really seperated.
 
ABRAHAM, HIS 3 WIVES, AND PROBLEMS CENTURIES, GENERATIONS LATER

Abraham had an old sterile wife Sarah(Sarai) to whom the three angels said that next time they visit, she would already have a child.

But Sarah and Abraham had another idea of their own. So instead of treating Hagar as a slave, he treated her biologically as his 2nd wife. And out of that is born ISHMAEL.

Nothing is impossible to the Lord, and indeed, the sterile Sarah did become pregnant as foretold by the 3 angels. And though it was she that masterminded the idea of making Hagar pregnant, now she was angry and jealous. So she plotted to send Hagar away, AND POOR PREGNANT HAGAR WAS OFF TO THE HOT DESERT TO DIE. You see? One sin can lead to another, to another, to another. And before you know it, you can turn into a murderer. BUT THANKS TO GOD!!! GOD SENT THE ARCHANGEL GABRIEL TO HAGAR AND HER CHILD ISHMAEL FROM WHO DESCEND THE MUSLIMS!!!

And so, because of GOD’s action, Sarah and Abraham did not become murderers. BUT WE ARE PAYING FOR THEIR SINS TODAY!!! RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE, THE ANGEL GABRIEL FORETOLD THAT HER CHILD WOULD NOT BE A GIRL BUT A BOY. AND THEY DID NOT HAVE ULTRASOUND TECHNOLOGY DURING THOSE YEARS!!! NOT ONLY THAT!!! THE ANGEL GABRIEL FORETOLD THAT ISHMAEL WOULD GROW UP TO BE A MAN THAT WOULD PRODUCE A LOT OF TROUBLES AND PROBLEMS TO HIS FELLOWMEN. AND INDEED, THE DECENDANTS OF ISHMAEL HAVE PRODUCED LOTS AND LOTS OF PROBLEMS WORLD WIDE THROUGH THE CENTURIES!!!

Yes, you wonder why doves, dolphins, cows, elephants are gentle while eagles, hawks, sharks, tigers, lions are not. BUT GOD CAN MAKE ANY ANIMAL GENTLE OR FIERCE IF HE WANTS TO. I THINK THAT"S HOW HE MADE THE DECENDANTS OF ABRAHAM FROM THE THREE WIVES HE HAD. LIKE THE CONSEQUENCES OF ORIGINAL SIN, DECENDANTS OF ABRAHAM AND SARAH, HAGAR, KETURAH ARE TODAY PAYING THE PRICE FOR THEIR SINS!!!
 
BJ Colbert:
Whoa, I can almost feel the spittle from your mouth hitting me in the face. Who is filled with hatred and racism? I know some southern Catholics who belonged to the ku klux clan. Besides the misquote above is “pure and delightsome”. The book was written before the 60s when values and treatment of blacks changed in all the US.
There are many black Mormons one prominent person is Gladys Knight(the singer) and a temple in Ghana in an area of the world that is all black persons. Who are you anyway? God?
Click to expand...
Nope, I don’t know, or hate you (none of what I posted was my personal writing, mostly stuff from your church leaders). I’d just like you to consider some of the facts put forth and make up your own mind. I do know quite a bit about the LDS since my fiance grew up Mormon 😉
 
Jo's_Dad:
Now your just being downright disrespectful. You can argue the doctrine, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that, but referring to Joseph Smith as “Joe” is blatently offensive and disrespectful.
Click to expand...
Why’s that? My name is Joseph Crook but if in a couple of centuries I’m referred to as Joe Crook, what’s the difference?
 
Quoting from your Catholic book on the belief of Catholics in God.

Three Persons, One God
The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic faith. Upon it are based all other teachings of the Church. In the New testament there is frequent mention of the Father, the Son , and the Holy Spirit. A careful reading of these passages leads to one unmistakable conclusion: Each person is presented as having qualities that can belong only to God. But if there is only one God, how can this be(199-202)?
The Church studied this mystery with great care and, after four centuries of clarification, decided to state the doctrine in this way: in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit----truly distinct one from another. Thus , in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three gods but one God”(249-256)

Notice it says the church took four hundred years to figure this out. Do you think the men who decided the meaning of Trinity might have asked God and had the correct answer a little sooner than 400 years. Hmmmm It only took the Mormons a couple of years to get the definition straight from God Himself. I myself get answers to my prayers. Why didn’t they just pray for the answer to their questions? Why? Because they trusted their own mis-guided definition of the Godhead and they were obviously confused and wrong.
Just pray, you can know who your Father is without the definitions of man. He will manifest to you that He is God the Father, and that He has a Son called Jesus Christ, who He sent to suffer, bleed and die for the sins of all mankind, and that there is His mediator, God the Holy Spirit.
It is so simple, I can’t understand why it took the Catholics 400 years to figure out the wrong thing.
Bj :confused:
 
BJ Colbert:
Quoting from your Catholic book on the belief of Catholics in God.

Three Persons, One God
The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic faith. Upon it are based all other teachings of the Church. In the New testament there is frequent mention of the Father, the Son , and the Holy Spirit. A careful reading of these passages leads to one unmistakable conclusion: Each person is presented as having qualities that can belong only to God. But if there is only one God, how can this be(199-202)?
The Church studied this mystery with great care and, after four centuries of clarification, decided to state the doctrine in this way: in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit----truly distinct one from another. Thus , in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three gods but one God”(249-256)

Notice it says the church took four hundred years to figure this out. Do you think the men who decided the meaning of Trinity might have asked God and had the correct answer a little sooner than 400 years. Hmmmm It only took the Mormons a couple of years to get the definition straight from God Himself. I myself get answers to my prayers. Why didn’t they just pray for the answer to their questions? Why? Because they trusted their own mis-guided definition of the Godhead and they were obviously confused and wrong.
Just pray, you can know who your Father is without the definitions of man. He will manifest to you that He is God the Father, and that He has a Son called Jesus Christ, who He sent to suffer, bleed and die for the sins of all mankind, and that there is His mediator, God the Holy Spirit.
It is so simple, I can’t understand why it took the Catholics 400 years to figure out the wrong thing.
Bj :confused:
Click to expand...
But you don’t mind taking half the things you know about your religion from another book put together by the Catholic Church (i.e. The Bible) ;)?
 
BJ,

When Christ was praying in the woods to His Father, was he praying to Himself :confused:
 
Since you are all talking about the Mystery of the Holy Trinity instead of Polygamy, I HAVE SOME GEOMETRIC MODELS THAT MIGHT BE GOOD ANALOGIES TO CONVINCE YOU THAT INDEED IT IS TRUE THAT GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON, GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ONE GOD.
 
BJ, you and I have discussed the issue of multiple gods in other threads, so I won’t rehash in great detail here. Actually, you have tended to talk around me, I am assuming because I am an apostate to be avoided at all cost. At any rate, I am tired of the “did not, did too” argument over what the church taught (until recently, that is.) I know what my husband and friends and relatives grew up believing, and what I myself was taught as a convert.

Your quote of Joseph Smith’s “many gods” does not equate with your defense of the Mormon view of the trinity. He was referring to the concept that more gods existed in the universe than the god or gods of this world. It also ties in with the eternal progression of man, and the well-known phrase “as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” This phrase neatly sums up what Mormons, at least in Utah, were taught up to at least sometime in the 1990’s, and a teaching which it seems they are now actively trying to deny. By tying the Joseph Smith’s statement about multiple gods to the “mistaken understanding” of man becoming like god, you are conveniently ignoring the first half of the formula. Can you find biblical evidence for God being as man once was?

The issue of eternal progression is one of the reasons that polygamy was accepted by the Mormon faithful, because they had a view of their possible future that involved the need to have many (spirit) children. Along with, of course, the view of themselves as constituting the lost tribes of Israel, which meant that they could revert to certain (but not all) OT practices.
 
Semper Fi:
BJ,

When Christ was praying in the woods to His Father, was he praying to Himself :confused:
Click to expand...
According to the Catholic belief, He WAS praying to Himself. That is what I can’t understand. Why don’t you see that He is God the Father and He has a Son, Jesus Christ, and there is a Holy Spirit. So simple, but the Catholics are so confused about it and therefore they call it a mystery. I know who my Father in Heaven is and I know He is separate from His Son, my redeemer Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit bears witness to my soul that this is true.
BJ 🙂
 
40.png
TeriGator:
BJ, you and I have discussed the issue of multiple gods in other threads, so I won’t rehash in great detail here. Actually, you have tended to talk around me, I am assuming because I am an apostate to be avoided at all cost. At any rate, I am tired of the “did not, did too” argument over what the church taught (until recently, that is.) I know what my husband and friends and relatives grew up believing, and what I myself was taught as a convert.

Your quote of Joseph Smith’s “many gods” does not equate with your defense of the Mormon view of the trinity. He was referring to the concept that more gods existed in the universe than the god or gods of this world. It also ties in with the eternal progression of man, and the well-known phrase “as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” This phrase neatly sums up what Mormons, at least in Utah, were taught up to at least sometime in the 1990’s, and a teaching which it seems they are now actively trying to deny. By tying the Joseph Smith’s statement about multiple gods to the “mistaken understanding” of man becoming like god, you are conveniently ignoring the first half of the formula. Can you find biblical evidence for God being as man once was?

The issue of eternal progression is one of the reasons that polygamy was accepted by the Mormon faithful, because they had a view of their possible future that involved the need to have many (spirit) children. Along with, of course, the view of themselves as constituting the lost tribes of Israel, which meant that they could revert to certain (but not all) OT practices.
Click to expand...
Terrigator, I am not ignoring you, I just don’t understand your explanation. Did you read what I wrote above? I discussed polygamy as this thread asked about Polygamy as it refers to Mormons, then someone posted about the Godhead and I took a reference from my Catholic husband’s book about what Catholics believe that God is. Then I said why did it take 400 years to find out who God is? etc etc. You have simply taken the Mormon belief of eternal progression(we do believe that we should always progress and try to follow Christ’s example and be more like Him we believe that a few may actually attain the goal of perfection) and embellished and made a talk that was given long ago, about there being other gods in the universe a major part of the Mormon faith, when it actually is hardly mentioned. What I quoted above is the official Church belief and that is all there is to it. No one knows, how many gods there may be in the universe, we only know and worship one. So no matter if you disagree, there is still only One GOD THE FATHER. Can you understand that concept? Only ONE GOD THE FATHER, and HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST, and HIS MEDIATOR OR MESSENGER, THE HOLY SPIRIT. These three entities make up the GODHEAD, which is ONE IN PURPOSE, to bring about the salvation of mankind. What part of this is not clear to you? :eek: BJ

As far as the guy saying I take quotes from the Catholic bible, who made it the Catholic bible? I quoted from our bible which is the King James Version. Since it was written by our prophets of the NT and OT and they belong to all people, then you can only claim your official Catholic Bible, not our KJV, even though they are pretty close to the same words, with a few additional books in the Catholic version. :rolleyes: BJ
 
40.png
need_to_know:
Why’s that? My name is Joseph Crook but if in a couple of centuries I’m referred to as Joe Crook, what’s the difference?
Click to expand...
I guess that means it wouldn’t offend you to have someone call your pope Benny, then would it? I think it smacks of disrespect, but then I am very old fashioned. I was taught to address people by their titles or in a respectful manner. To use nick names or shortened names when a person has never been called by any name but his proper name is to me very disrespectful. But, if you like your pope to be called Benny then go ahead and call Joseph Smith whatever. It is your choice, and only shows how you were raised, without good manners apparently. 🙂 BJ
 
originally posted by BJ Colbert
I quoted from our bible which is the King James Version. Since it was written by our prophets of the NT and OT
Click to expand...
I’m sure you don’t mean mormon prophets…do you?
originally posted by BJ Colbert
you can only claim your official Catholic Bible, not our KJV, even though they are pretty close to the same words, with a few additional books in the Catholic version. :rolleyes: BJ
Click to expand...
It’s that your protestant Bible has a few less books than than the original not that we have additional books…

Now, back to polygamy folks.
 
BJ Colbert:
It is your choice, and only shows how you were raised, without good manners apparently. 🙂 BJ
Click to expand...
I’m going to use the virtue of prudence here and not rise to that.😉
 
Jo's_Dad:
Now your just being downright disrespectful. You can argue the doctrine, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that, but referring to Joseph Smith as “Joe” is blatently offensive and disrespectful.
Click to expand...
Paying Joe a great compliment is disrespectfull? I lived in Utah with Mormans, I worked with Mormons, some of my best friends ARE Mormon. My family were the only non-LDS in the entire neighborhood! Do you even know a Mormon? All the Mormons I know call him Joe or Joseph.

By the way, it’s more disrespectfull to call them Mormons because they prefer the terms LDS, Saints or Latter Day Saints. I know many people who think LDS is a drug so I use the term Mormon to clarify who I talk about.

Anyway, if I offended you then I apologize to you.

Go in Gods peace,
 
I originally posted this in the “Mormons and the Gospel” thread where the response was a profound silence,
Mormon Fool and BJ Colbert, I know this is an old thread that has been ressurected, and in fact I don’t even know whether either of you is still around to read this.

"BJ you have said that Catholics think they know about Mormonism than the Mormons, and I can see how you may have gotten that impression.

But…

It is very difficult to understand the LDS faith. You have the writtings of former prophets, yet the concept of continuing revelation means to my understanding that the current prophet can invalidate things said and written by previous prophets. You have the writtings and statements of the Journal of Discourses and the general authorities, yet these can all be wiped out by the current prophet, as in the Blood Atonement thread. And then you guys say that the only source of official Mormon doctrine is the Bible, BOM, D&C and POGP. What is the purpose of all these writings and statements if they all can be wiped out or ignored when teaching changes?

No, I do not hate or mean to be disrespectful to Mormon teaching, but for the life of me I can’t even understand what it means with all the changes."

That was the last post in that thread. I would still like some answers from the Mormons here. How does one know what Mormons beleive when your doctrine keeps changing? Can you see my confision here?

And I will continue to call Mormons Mormons, and not “Saints” or Latter Day “Saints”.

Apparently Mormons think that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is a “Saint”. Catholic teaching is very different in this matter, we believe that the Saints are very special, holy people. We do not believe that everyone is a “Saint”.
 
BJ Colbert:
These three entities make up the GODHEAD, which is ONE IN PURPOSE, to bring about the salvation of mankind. What part of this is not clear to you? :eek: BJ
Click to expand...
BJ, I’m not going to rehash the whole discussion we had in other threads, particularly the one about what the Mormon church taught for many many years. Until the last decade or so, apparently.

Suffice it to say that the Mormon teaching, known to ALL the good Mormons that I knew in Utah, myself included, was that the god of this world, our “Heavenly Father”, once was a man, and that he progressed in the way that we are to progress. The men of this world who hold the priesthood and abide by all the teachings of the church would go to the celestial kingdom in the next life and continue their progression to perfection and, ultimately, to becoming gods. That IS what was taught, at least in Utah up to 1990, notwithstanding the fact that Gordon Hinckley decided to back away from that supposed eternal precept. This was taught in Sunday school, Relief Society, Priesthood meetings, Stake conferences and regional conferences.

I have no problem understanding what you say. I just happen to disagree with it, based on what I was taught, what my husband was taught, and what friends and family were taught.

I applied that precept to polygamy, which is, after all, what this thread was about. The two precepts are tied together.

Since we cannot agree on this, there is really no point in continuing. Again, it’s a matter of he said, she said, and it’s not of any value to anyone. However, I appreciate the fact that you acknowledged me personally, because previously I felt as if I were in the Outer Darkness. :bigyikes:
 
BTW BJ, before things get hot, I want to explain something. It has never been my intent to attack the Mormon church or to engage in any sort of hostile conversations with any of you. My purpose is not to portray the church or its members as evil or corrupt. All I have ever done was to contrast Mormon teachings with those of the Catholic church, and let others decide for themselves.

Since I have been out of the church for 16 years, and out of Utah for 15, I cannot speak for what they teach now. If you remember back to one of my earliest posts in this forum, I was utterly astounded to discover that they no longer teach the eternal progression of man and god. That was considered, at one time, to be the immutable plan for God’s chosen ones.

All I can do is present what I was taught, from both friends, family, and from official church documents and authorities. If they no longer teach that, I can still attest to the fact that these things were taught as part of the fullness of the gospel that we were all expected to believe. I am not here to rip into any of you, I am just trying to present the facts as they were up until I lost touch with current church thinking.

I have friends and family still in the church, and I do not think ill of them. I am sure that my mother-in-law must be in heaven, because she loved Jesus very much. So please don’t take any of my statments of fact as personal attacks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top