Polygamy?

Semper_Fi_1 · May 30, 2005

BJ Colbert:

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

No, not according to the Catholic belief. The Catholic and Christian belief is that God is Three Persons in One God. Not One person = One God. God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is an eternal being (three seperate persons in one Divinity), never created (this is why Christ is Begotten), and never changed. It really is quite simple. What you explained as a Catholic belief is a heresy called modalism. Let me ask you this, when Jesus Christ told the pharisees that when they speak ill of the works that Jesus Christ did that they were blaspheming the Holy Ghost? Only God can be blasphemed. Also let me ask you this, how can a mere man take on the entire sin of the world?

BJ_Colbert · May 30, 2005

catsrus:

I’m sure you don’t mean mormon prophets…do you?

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.

Yes I do mean our prophets, the prophets of the OT and NT were the prophets of all Christians. We recognize and honor them as we do the prophets of the Book of Mormon. They are equally important to us.
You are right the protestant bible has a few less books. Do you know why? I think I would like to know that, as I have wondered how that came about.
I am not offended by your views of your own church, in contrast to our beliefs. I only get a bit testy when I am told what I, as a member of the LDS church, believe when I know it is not true.
Terrigator, I appreciate your views of what you remember being taught, but I have been a member since birth, except for the 20 years I left the church. They have never dwelled on the concept of the possibility of other gods existing in the universe. They have mentioned the possibility, but never have I had a lesson in Sunday School, Relief Society or any other meeting where they have stated such a fact as being fact. As far as eternal progression, I quoted above from the Catholic Bible and from a Catechism book that St John evidently believed in eternal progression and believed that man should become like God if he could, at least he should try his best to follow the teachings of Christ and become as God is.
What does that mean to you?
To me it means just what the LDS church teaches, which is to try to reach perfection, and if you do reach perfection, which few will accomplish, then you may become like your Father in Heaven. No one has ever reached perfection except Jesus Christ, so I try not to dwell on the actual end, but on the day to day task of trying my best to be a good person and follow Christ’s teachings. It is just one step at a time. Right now I am trying to keep the Sabbath Day holy. For me with a Catholic husband who likes to do recreational things on Sunday, it is more difficult. But, he is pretty good about recognizing my belief in keeping the Sabbath, so I let go once in a while and go to a store or something he wants to do on the Sabbath. We both start Sunday with attending each other’s church.
Whether some LDS believe they are going to be gods, does not affect me or my beliefs. It should not affect yours either, as I think the ones who think they will be gods have a big surprise coming. I for one do not personally know any LDS who are, or think they are going to be gods. That would not be known until the judgement day so there is no reason to even speculate about it. It is kind of like your saints. Some make it to sainthood and some do not, most do not.

BJ

PS.
As for the definition of saint in our church, it means a person who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, hence we are all saints if we are doing our best to follow Him. As in the name of our church,“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”

Semper_Fi_1 · May 30, 2005

The Anthanasian Creed pretty well sums up the universal Christian belief.

Semper_Fi_1 · May 31, 2005

That link didn’t work, so I’ll just post it in full here:

*]Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
*]Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
*]And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
*]Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
*]For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
*]But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
*]Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
*]The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
*]The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
*]The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
*]And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
*]As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
*]So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
*]And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
*]So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
*]And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
*]So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
*]And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
*]For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
*]So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
*]The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
*]The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
*]The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
*]So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
*]And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
*]But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
*]So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
*]He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
*]Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
*]For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
*]God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
*]Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
*]Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
*]Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
*]One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.
*]One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
*]For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
*]Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
*]He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
*]From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
*]At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
*]and shall give account of their own works.
*]And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
*]This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

marty1818 · May 31, 2005

It’s hard to say whether Mormons are considered Christian. I do know however, the LDS no longer believe in polygamy as being acceptable. there are Mormons who still believe it is but do against the LDS teaching.

matt

Semper_Fi_1 · May 31, 2005

marty1818:

It’s hard to say whether Mormons are considered Christian. I do know however, the LDS no longer believe in polygamy as being acceptable. there are Mormons who still believe it is but do against the LDS teaching.

matt

The Catholic Church doesn’t consider them Christians because they are a henotheistic religion and their belief of God is sorely confused. According to the dictionary, Mormons are Christians, however, according to the Holy Bible, they are not. I’ll trust the Bible on this one.

marty1818 · May 31, 2005

Semper Fi:

The Catholic Church doesn’t consider them Christians because they are a henotheistic religion and their belief of God is sorely confused. According to the dictionary, Mormons are Christians, however, according to the Holy Bible, they are not. I’ll trust the Bible on this one.

I didn’t explain myself well. I meant from the Mormon standpoint on whether they are Christian. Catholic’s obviously don’t though consider them to be Christian.

matt

boppysbud · May 31, 2005

BJ Colbert, I moved my questions from one thread to another becuase I thought you may have missed them in the other dieing thread.

The questions still stand however. Could you or another Mormon try and aswer them please?

How do you know what current official Mormon doctrine is? Is it all that easy to change? Does the current Prophet make statements that change or that remove or change the statements and writings of previous Prophets, do they alter or do away with the teachings and writtings on the General Authorities and the Journal of Discourses? As others have said here Mormon teaching used to say “as God is man once was, as God is now men may hope to become”. Yet this was all changed when Gordon Hinkley granted his Christmas interview to Larry King on CNN and stated “I don’t know that we teach that, I don’t know if we ever taught that.”

Other examples are the Blood Atonement doctrine formerly taught by Brigham Young and brought into reality by the Dannites and at the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But now Mormons say that doctrine was never taught and never existed. But all one has to do is read Brigham Young’s statements and the statements of others in the Journal of Discourses to know this was taught and practiced as Mormon doctrine for years.

Also the doctrine of Plural Marriage was taught as an “everlasting covenant” by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, now it is set aside.

The Book of Mormon has been changed many times, in the early editions it said that Mary is the mother of God, but was changed later to “Mother of the Son of God”.

Likewise the Book of Mormon was changed quite recently from “White and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome”.

What if anything is Mormon doctrine that does not change?

Is it any wonder that people “gentiles” are confused by Mormon doctrine when it changes all the time. It is a constantly moving target.

In my youth is was taught that Mormons were unique and definitly not mainstream orthodox Christians. Now Mormons try to pass themselves off as just another Evangelical denomination in their print ads, and ads on TV. Mormon missionaries conceal the more outre teachings of Mormonism like multiple “gods”, Mrs. God, the brptherhood of Jesus and Satan until after the convert is RE-baptised and then the church makes it very difficult to leave Mormonism.

stillsmallvoice · May 31, 2005

Hi all!

The Patriarchs and other great men in the Tanakh (what we call what Christians call the “OT”) were polygamous, although our Sages tell us that they were exceptions to the general rule and until it was banned, polygamy was very uncommon. Of all the myriad Sages mentioned in the Talmud, ferinstance, none is mentioned as having more than one wife. Jewish law did permit a man to take more than one wife as long as he could support them all equally. But around 1000 CE (what we say instead of “AD”), leading European rabbis pronounced a ban on polygamy, which, as I’ve said, was never very widespread anyway. This ban was eventually adopted by rabbis in Islamic countries as well, except for Yemen. Polygamy, as rare as it was, was not unknown among the now, all-but-vanished Yemenite Jewish community. Most Yemenite Jews have moved to Israel. While the Israeli Chief Rabbinate has confirmed & reissued the ban on polygamy for all Jews, those Yemenite Jews who came to Israel with more than one wife were not required to divorce all but one. There still are a few elderly polygamous Yemenite Jews still living but as they pass on, the institution will die with them.

I’ve had Mormon pro-polygamists shriek at me that our rabbis are daring to change God’s endorsement of polygamy. We do not believe that He has endorsed polygamy at all; rather, we believe that He has given us the sacred institution of marriage & has authorized our Sages to regulate it. Thus, polygamy is something that we can keep or drop; we’ve chosen to drop it.

Be well!

ssv

catsrus · May 31, 2005

originally posted by BJ Colbert
You are right the protestant bible has a few less books. Do you know why? I think I would like to know that, as I have wondered how that came about.

In 1534, Martin Luther, in his “translation” of the Bible, grouped the deuterocanonical books at the end of the OT and dubbed them “not equal to the sacred scriptures”. He came to his conclusion partly because he could not abide the Doctrine of Purgatory reflected in 2Maccabees and mostly because of his arrogance. Afterwards, the Books were deleted altogether by the “reformers”. Luther also tried to throw out the Book of James because he wished to press his personal doctrine of justisification by faith alone.
The Council of Trent in 1546, in reaction to the “reformers”, formally defined the original version of the OT. Before Luther and his minons, a formal declaration had not been necessary because there had been no question.
This is a rather simplistic answer but the entire story is available from many sources.
I used: Chapter 2 of Unabridged Christianity by Fr. Mario P. Romero

BJ_Colbert · May 31, 2005

catsrus:

In 1534, Martin Luther, in his “translation” of the Bible, grouped the deuterocanonical books at the end of the OT and dubbed them “not equal to the sacred scriptures”. He came to his conclusion partly because he could not abide the Doctrine of Purgatory reflected in 2Maccabees and mostly because of his arrogance. Afterwards, the Books were deleted altogether by the “reformers”. Luther also tried to throw out the Book of James because he wished to press his personal doctrine of justisification by faith alone.
The Council of Trent in 1546, in reaction to the “reformers”, formally defined the original version of the OT. Before Luther and his minons, a formal declaration had not been necessary because there had been no question.
This is a rather simplistic answer but the entire story is available from many sources.
I used: Chapter 2 of Unabridged Christianity by Fr. Mario P. Romero

Thank You, I will try to read more about it, I find your answer very interesting. As my husband and I read more of the Catholic bible and compare to the KJV, we both had that question.
BJ

BJ_Colbert · May 31, 2005

stillsmallvoice:

Hi all!

The Patriarchs and other great men in the Tanakh (what we call what Christians call the “OT”) were polygamous, although our Sages tell us that they were exceptions to the general rule and until it was banned, polygamy was very uncommon. Of all the myriad Sages mentioned in the Talmud, ferinstance, none is mentioned as having more than one wife. Jewish law did permit a man to take more than one wife as long as he could support them all equally. But around 1000 CE (what we say instead of “AD”), leading European rabbis pronounced a ban on polygamy, which, as I’ve said, was never very widespread anyway. This ban was eventually adopted by rabbis in Islamic countries as well, except for Yemen. Polygamy, as rare as it was, was not unknown among the now, all-but-vanished Yemenite Jewish community. Most Yemenite Jews have moved to Israel. While the Israeli Chief Rabbinate has confirmed & reissued the ban on polygamy for all Jews, those Yemenite Jews who came to Israel with more than one wife were not required to divorce all but one. There still are a few elderly polygamous Yemenite Jews still living but as they pass on, the institution will die with them.

I’ve had Mormon pro-polygamists shriek at me that our rabbis are daring to change God’s endorsement of polygamy. We do not believe that He has endorsed polygamy at all; rather, we believe that He has given us the sacred institution of marriage & has authorized our Sages to regulate it. Thus, polygamy is something that we can keep or drop; we’ve chosen to drop it.

Be well!

ssv

SSV I appreciate your writing on the practice of polygamy, but did you read what I wrote above? The LDS church has not practiced polygamy since 1890 and when they did practice it, there were only a very few men chosen to do so. There are NO current members of the Church who practice polygamy and NO pro-polygamist members of the LDS Church, so how could they scream at you as you claim above? That is really absurd, and I would want you to give names and places that this occurred if it is true.

BJ

BJ_Colbert · May 31, 2005

boppysbud:

BJ Colbert, I moved my questions from one thread to another becuase I thought you may have missed them in the other dieing thread.

Read the Articles of Faith and the Bible and the Book of Mormon, D&C, these are our doctrines and have not changed. We believe in continuing revelation from God through our prophet, just as God gave guidance to the prophets of old. God gives us the information He wants us to have, at the time we are ready to accept and understand it. Also, as in the Catholic Church, there are times when doctrine has been explained in more detail to clarify.
Just as the above post about the Trinity, that took the Catholic Church 400 years to clarify. With 44 different explanations of something so simple and pure. As the Catholics in these threads have told me when I asked why something was added or changed in the Catholic Church, it wasn’t doctrine, only keeping up with the times. As in changing the Latin to English, and not eating fish on Friday. Having some masses with rock and roll bands and others more traditional. etc. etc.

We do believe that man must follow the teachings of Jesus Christ to reach heaven. We try to be like Him as much as we can. We must try to reach perfection, because he asked us to. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.
Your own Bible says in the first letter of St John “Beloved are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” 3:2 And in his first letter to Corinthians, St Paul say;"At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially:then I shall know fully, as I am fully known"13:12
There simply are many things we do not know fully yet, that will be revealed when God want us to know those things. Gordon B. Hinckley was stating the fact that some members have speculated, but this was never taught as a doctrine. People are human and speculate a lot over the nature of God and man. As in this thread. I am sure some Catholics have mis-stated their beliefs. As some Mormons, myself included have mis-stated our beliefs. It is just not humanly possible to know everything. Most of the time I am talking from personal knowledge and I am a baby when it comes to knowing scripture and church history.

It was not taught as doctrine, but practised by many people in the West as it was being settled. As civilization developed, laws became more civilized and just as in the Southern states there are no longer slaves, and black people have rights. This country developed and progressed to where it is now, many things practiced then by our civilization are no longer practised. Just as the practice of the Catholic Church in the early years, to torture people into becoming members. Your own church history is pretty gruesome to say the least.

Read what I said above on May 29th post, it is a complete description of Polygamy as practised briefly by the Mormon Church.

Yeh and read those 44 descriptions of the Trinity, if that is not confusing I don’t know what is. Do you really understand that explicitly?

Just your perception, we are what we have always been and believe what we have always believed.

As far as missonaries concealing anything about the church, they only have 4 discussions and will answer any questions they can, but with such limited time, they can’t bring up and discuss everything in the gospel in only 4 hours total. The Gospel of Jesus Christ can not be intellectualized or no one would believe in Christ. How far fetched is that? Dying and rising again? Really now tell me another one.
I am sorry I have run out of time, that is all I know about those questions. The church is not at all difficult to leave. I know as I left for 20 years and came back. To leave, just go to the Bishop or Stake President and tell them you no longer believe and would like to be removed from the rolls of the church. If anyone calls on you tell them you do not want contact.
Believe me it is much more difficult to come back into the church that it is to leave. I hope this has helped a little bit.
BJ

UBERROGO · Jun 1, 2005

WanderAimlessly:

I expect this will be the next battlefield after the so-called “gay marrage” is played out. In fact, I am supprised that the ACLU has not filed any law suits on this in hehalf of Muslims (I think some can have upto four wives in Islam).

PF

Since i’ve been in iraq for a while now i have learned that muslims let thier brothers sleep with thier wived while they are away, and that muslims have about 3 - 4 wives. as opposed to the yazidi religion which thinks they are much more holy - only 2 max wives.

Munawar · Jun 1, 2005

UBERROGO:

Since i’ve been in iraq for a while now i have learned that muslims let thier brothers sleep with thier wived while they are away, and that muslims have about 3 - 4 wives. as opposed to the yazidi religion which thinks they are much more holy - only 2 max wives.

Hello Uberrogo,

If this is true, this is a cultural abberation. Islam does not allow another man to sleep with a man’s wife.

Muslim men are allowed to marry 4 wives, if they can take care of all three 100% equally. Meaning if he buys a 2001 Dodge Caravan for one, then he has to get the same model for the 2nd and 3rd and 4th.

Munawar

The_Eurasian · Jun 1, 2005

Munawar

MSJ, the Muslim from Bangladesh.who was suspended by Catholic Answers, Forum - pointed out that in Muslim society, attempted rape is considered “rape in Muslim society” but “not rape in western society.” I would like to tell you, and Christians and Muslims that with regards to this particular point, that what MSJ said is true. Jesus is a prophet to Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, JESUS DOES SAY IN THE GOSPEL THAT IF A MAN LOOKS AT A MARRIED WOMAN WITH LUST, THE MAN HAS ALSREADY COMMITED ADULTERY IN HIS HEARtT.

As a Roman Catholic, I thank MSJ for pointing this out. Christians have forgotten or overlooked this point. BUT JESUS’ OPINION ON ADULTERY SEEMS TO ME CONSISTENT TO THE MUSLIM , ISLAMIC VIEW OF RAPE

mormon_fool · Jun 4, 2005

Jerusha:

He was called “Joe”, he called himself “Joe”

Not really. A general observation is that only (for the most part) his enemies or critics called him “Joe” to deride him. A few neutral personalities like James Gordon Bennett, a contemporary editor of a New York paper, might also fit in that category. All his friends called him Joseph. The only places I see in Mormon literature the designation “Joe” it is quoting or paraphrasing critics of the church.

I enjoy your posts and recognize much intelligence in them. But just to let you know, it is hard for me to give full credibility to someone uses “Joe” for Joseph Smith, even if no contempt is intended.

Sincerely,
fool

stillsmallvoice · Jun 4, 2005

Hi all!

BJ Colbert, in light of what you’ve posted, the “Mormon pro-polygamists” who have shrieked at me (not on CAF) must’ve been Mormon schismatics/heretics/excommunicates.

Be well!

ssv

Jerusha · Jun 4, 2005

Thank you.

But just to let you know, it is hard for me to give full credibility to someone uses “Joe” for Joseph Smith, even if no contempt is intended.

God forbid that I would ever be given full credibility.

mormon_fool · Jun 4, 2005

Jerusha:

Thank you. God forbid that I would ever be given full credibility.

LOL! That is something we all should work at but can’t really achieve, myself included. That is if we want to do more than just preach to choir.

Thanks for your charitable response to my nit-pick.

Later,
fool

Polygamy?

Semper_Fi_1

Guest

BJ_Colbert

Guest

Semper_Fi_1

Guest

Semper_Fi_1

Guest

marty1818

Guest

Semper_Fi_1

Guest

marty1818

Guest

boppysbud

Guest

stillsmallvoice

Guest

catsrus

Guest

BJ_Colbert

Guest

BJ_Colbert

Guest

BJ_Colbert

Guest

UBERROGO

Guest

Munawar

Guest

The_Eurasian

Guest

mormon_fool

Guest

stillsmallvoice

Guest

Jerusha

Guest

mormon_fool

Guest