Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Why is Diana wrong to disagree with the church over this matter?
- Status
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
And I’m quite sure the other churches that believe in the BOM believe they are the original church not you guys. They have as much right to call themselves Mormon as you do to call yourselves Christian.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I actually agree with you.
The problem here is the perception of what Trinitarianism IS, and how it tends to be explained to, or rather argued about with, Mormons.
I think that, because the perception of Mormon belief in the Trinity is that there are three separate Gods (which, by the way, isn’t quite accurate), that when people talk to us about the concept, they end up going waaaaay into modalism.
In fact, that happens so often that it doesn’t surprise me in the least that to most Mormons, “Trinitarianism = modalism,” because when folks start in on us about the concept, they emphasize the ‘substance sharing’ over ‘separation of Persons’ by a LOT.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Murdock you have it exactly right…even to the percentage of people who think that Jesus may have been polygamous…1% or less.
You are also exactly right in that the church doesn’t teach either way about Jesus being married or not. I suppose that to most orthodox Christians, the fact that we do not actively declare that He was NOT is heretical enough, though!
As for me, I see absolutely no evidence for His being polygamous. He was, after all, a very upright Jew of His time; while polygamy wasn’t unheard of, it was also not usual. There is little evidence, other than cultural, that He was married at all.
I think He may have been, and the most likely spouse was Mary Magdalene. However, as I have already mentioned, the reason I think so is purely cultural…definitely ‘circumstantial’ evidence. It would make no difference to His work or His purpose to me either way. I rather hope He did have that companionship, too, though.
I guess my reaction to Paul and others is to this really odd insistance anti’s seem to have that our beliefs are dictated by our leaders–that every one of our leaders MUST be considered to be oracles from God, and never anything else, and that, therefore, everything said or written by any Mormon who holds the priesthood must be seen in the same light as biblical scripture.
It is truly annoying. WE know better. How come people who neither like, nor believe, us get to tell us who we have to listen to, what a prophet is, and what our beliefs really are?
(snort)
I know Mormons who are strict 24/7 creationists. Not many, but I know 'em. I know Mormons who believe that Jesus was single…and now you, the first Mormon I have EVER met who thought He was polygamous.
Never mind. It never changes…but the thing that truly astounds me is that Catholics have this same exact problem with anti-Catholics. They KNOW how twisted and wierd their doctrine gets when presented by those who dislike and fear them–so how can they turn around and do it to anybody else?
D
dianaiad
Guest
My personal opinion is what it is, Murdock. If the definition of “Mormon” is “someone who believes that the Book of Mormon is scripture and that Joseph Smith was a prophet,” then we can’t deny that title to anybody who qualifies…even if they aren’t LDS.
I can’t think otherwise and hold the opinion I do about the title “Christian.”
The problem referred to by those who get upset about the use of “Mormon” by the polygamist groups is also very real; most people equate 'Mormon" with the biggest group; the CoJCoLDS. I’m quite certain that you have encountered, as have I, idiots who ask you (in your case) how many wives you have, or (in mine) if I"m 'the first wife or an ‘under’ wife (or ‘sister-wife’ or whatever) .
My answer is more useful to the questioner, I think, than “Mormons don’t practice polygamy.” It’s “no, only small splinter sects practice polygamy. I’m LDS…the main group, and we don’t.”
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
The funny thing is that Zaffiroborant posted actual beliefs of the LDS church (God the Father has a body, pre-mortal existence), and you just present a caricature that is a heretical notion of Trinitarianism. To say that God is a “three headed monster with one body” is not a Trinitarian view, and shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Unless that was the intent.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Yes I agree, the tendency in the West is to emphasize the “oneness” of the three Persons (or begin with the “oneness” premise first), which makes it a little more difficult to talk about the “threeness”. In contrast, the East tends to emphasize the “threeness” first.I actually agree with you.
The problem here is the perception of what Trinitarianism IS, and how it tends to be explained to, or rather argued about with, Mormons.
I think that, because the perception of Mormon belief in the Trinity is that there are three separate Gods (which, by the way, isn’t quite accurate), that when people talk to us about the concept, they end up going waaaaay into modalism.
In fact, that happens so often that it doesn’t surprise me in the least that to most Mormons, “Trinitarianism = modalism,” because when folks start in on us about the concept, they emphasize the ‘substance sharing’ over ‘separation of Persons’ by a LOT.
As far as a Mormon belief in “three separate Gods”, from what I understand, either Joseph Smith or another apostle/President has said that there are “three Gods”, and in the Book of Abraham, chapter 4, the creation story is told, and talks about how “the Gods” created. So, it seems that in Mormonism, it is okay to talk about “three Gods” that are also “one God”, one in purpose.
L
LongJourney
Guest
It is a Mormon view. Note the huge death tolls that accompanied Jesus’ appearance in North America in III Nephi. Zerinus is actually anti-Mormon.
T
thegreypiper
Guest
Well, to be fair to the Mormons, a lot of Protestants aren’t entirely clear on the distinctions between orthodox Trinitarianism and some of the more subtle variations, or are not necessarily committed to any particular view. Modalism in particular gets a bit of a pass, especially among the more “progressive” flavors, as it is slightly more comprehensible and sounds a bit more rational. And of course the most freethinking of all go the other way and concede that there may be a God, but that this uncouth, uneducated carpenter from Nazareth was nothing but that but had a gift for public speaking.
Oddly enough, it is the Assemblies of God, a denomination usually thought very fundamentalist, which is specifically and adamantly Modalist. I’m not sure how much Joe Smith might have been exposed to them (were they around then??) but overall it is not surprising that Smith may have imbibed a very confused idea of what the Trinity actually is.
Oddly enough, it is the Assemblies of God, a denomination usually thought very fundamentalist, which is specifically and adamantly Modalist. I’m not sure how much Joe Smith might have been exposed to them (were they around then??) but overall it is not surprising that Smith may have imbibed a very confused idea of what the Trinity actually is.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
The Assemblies of God is actually orthodox Trinitarian. I believe you’re thinking of Oneness Pentecostalism, which is a type of modalism.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Actually, from what I know, most of those splinter groups are not particularly anxious to to be called “Mormons” either, because in the common psyche the term “Mormon” is most commonly associated with the LDS Church; and they have no more desire to be mistakenly identified with us, than we wish to be identified with them. It is those hostile to the LDS Church who want to make that association, because they think that way they can spread disinformation about the Church, and portray it in a negative light.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Excuse me,but your post does not indicate that level of rabid anti-Mormonism which is generally held by those who refer to Joseph Smith as “Joe Smith.”
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with 'Joe" as a name; my grandfather’s name was Joe, short for “Joseph.” It’s just that the only folks who call Joseph Smith “Joe” are virulently anti-Mormon. They know that we do not refer to him as “Joe,” consider that doing so is disrespectful of our beliefs, and when someone refers to Joseph Smith as “Joe,” it is an instant clue, to Mormons, that the speaker is about to get nasty, disrespectful and downright rude. As a result, someone who calls Joseph Smith “Joe” is shooting himself in the foot if he wants a civil debate with a Mormon.
As to your supposition, you might have a point. It did take me a very long time to find out what Catholics thought Trinitarianism was. As I posted earlier, people dealing with Mormons are so determined to shoot our view of the Godhead down that they invariably go modalist on us.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I can’t claim to have received a personal revelation telling me that Jesus was not married; but my theological understanding is that He most likely wasn’t, for the following reasons:
Firstly, it is obliquely implied in the following verses:
Matthew 19:
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
This need not necessarily imply that Jesus was not married. It could mean that He was married, but that He abstained from having marital relations when He began his public ministry. But it definitely implies one of those two things. It either means that He was not married at all; or that He discontinued His marital relationships when He began His ministry; and in my opinion, it most likely means the first.
The other reason why I believe this is that Jesus was groomed from birth to be a “sacrificial lamb”. His ministry didn’t begin when He was thirty; it began when He was born. He was “about his father’s business” when He was twelve. It is just that His public ministry among the Jews did not begin until He was around thirty. And in my opinion, it would have been inconsistent with that appointment for Him to be preoccupied with marital relations or the problems of raising a family—especially knowing that He was going to bereave them when at a very young age.
Under the old Mosaic Law the sacrificial lamb was to be one of the “first year without blemish”. I haven’t studied at what age sheep become sexually active; but I am guessing that a lamb of the first year would not have been old enough to, or at least the season would not have been right for it to do so.
As for it being “too painful” not to think of Him having been married or had children, I think He had a lot bigger pains to worry about than that. And as a result of those bigger pains He became the Father of many more children than He would have ever been by being married, as Isaiah has written of Him:
Isaiah 53:
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation ? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall ***see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: ***by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
That is how He begat His children. He didn’t need to get married to have kids.
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
This is just one of the things that would be repulsive to most Christians, in line with lucifer being Jesus’ Spirit brother. This is precisely the reasons we can not call Mormons Christians.
To us, all Christians Jesus is God, the second person of the Holy Trinity. He being God, we being created by and through Him as all things were created through Him and for Him. . When you make this claim you are having this made up God have sex with His created creatures, this would be us. It really strikes a blow against what is Christian.
What makes Jesus really stand out is that He came to do the Fathers will perfectly; He was in the Fathers perfect grace. He lessoned himself and took on flesh in order to save us, not looking for anything for himself other than doing His mission, sent by His Father.
Do you know how crazy this all sounds? You are clearly showing us another type of God. I do admire your honesty. Keep in mind that nothing you are putting forth is found in the Scriptures, rather you are adding something very foreign and strange. We could go over the scriptures in the Chritsian lite, that would be in context.
Anyway
God Bless you
www.utahmission.com
To us, all Christians Jesus is God, the second person of the Holy Trinity. He being God, we being created by and through Him as all things were created through Him and for Him. . When you make this claim you are having this made up God have sex with His created creatures, this would be us. It really strikes a blow against what is Christian.
What makes Jesus really stand out is that He came to do the Fathers will perfectly; He was in the Fathers perfect grace. He lessoned himself and took on flesh in order to save us, not looking for anything for himself other than doing His mission, sent by His Father.
Do you know how crazy this all sounds? You are clearly showing us another type of God. I do admire your honesty. Keep in mind that nothing you are putting forth is found in the Scriptures, rather you are adding something very foreign and strange. We could go over the scriptures in the Chritsian lite, that would be in context.
Anyway
God Bless you
www.utahmission.com
D
dianaiad
Guest
I can only assume that you didn’t read a single post that a Mormon made to this thread.
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
Murdock, you think it would be sad if Jesus never felt the love of a women or raised children while on earth? As if He would have missed something right? First of all because He is God the eternal Son He has not only experienced the true Love that is Between the Father and the Son through their Holy Spirit He is love itself.
Anything that is pure Goodness in your relationship with your wife and your Children is only because of Jesus. How could He be sad not to have married and had Children? Do you not know that He is the One, that through Him you have your wife and Children? That He includes His Spirit and His love in your relationships so you can receive a sense of what He Himself is, one in being with His Farther?
What we have been given as humans is life, unless you hand it over to Jesus you will have no life in you. You all need to separate yourselves from yourselves and your mode of thinking. It is all so contrary to Catholic belief , Catholic being Christ’s own body. We being adopted into it.
The only thing that is really sad, that you should meditate upon is that the God of the Cosmos made Himself man, came down to earth and took on your sins and mine, one who did not know sin took on your sin and died with them in Him. Then because He is God He rose. If you live a life of true confession you to can rise in Him because of Him. Jesus being married ….no way as he is the Sacrament of Marriage itself. It begins with accepting the Most Holy Trinity as Christians accept it. You have to know your place and appreciate it for what it is. Created for Jesus! Because His love will never be contained. He gives this life, His life as the ultimate gift to His creation.
Anything that is pure Goodness in your relationship with your wife and your Children is only because of Jesus. How could He be sad not to have married and had Children? Do you not know that He is the One, that through Him you have your wife and Children? That He includes His Spirit and His love in your relationships so you can receive a sense of what He Himself is, one in being with His Farther?
What we have been given as humans is life, unless you hand it over to Jesus you will have no life in you. You all need to separate yourselves from yourselves and your mode of thinking. It is all so contrary to Catholic belief , Catholic being Christ’s own body. We being adopted into it.
The only thing that is really sad, that you should meditate upon is that the God of the Cosmos made Himself man, came down to earth and took on your sins and mine, one who did not know sin took on your sin and died with them in Him. Then because He is God He rose. If you live a life of true confession you to can rise in Him because of Him. Jesus being married ….no way as he is the Sacrament of Marriage itself. It begins with accepting the Most Holy Trinity as Christians accept it. You have to know your place and appreciate it for what it is. Created for Jesus! Because His love will never be contained. He gives this life, His life as the ultimate gift to His creation.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
On the contrary, his post reflects very clearly that he has.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
The Book of Mormon Made Simple:
A conman who used stones to fool people into thinking he could find buried treasure decided that treasure seeking was not the best way to scam, especially after he was arrested for it. He heard that all over his county, people were seeing God. So he decided he would, too. So he saw God when he was 14, or 15, and no, it was just a personage, no, it was 2 personages, no, it was God, no, it was God and Jesus and angels, no it was only one angel, and God said his sins were forgiven, no, God said his sins were forgiven. But then, maybe having a church is a better way than treasure seeking to scam money…hmmmm…ok…here is what happened…God and Jesus appeared and said all churches were bad.
He then saw a spaniard, oops, no…salamander, no…an angel…who gave him a book of gold plates that weighed about 50 pounds but became light as a feather when he had to run over rocky terrain with a bad leg to outrun three men in the dark.
Anyway, to read these gold plates, he needed something to read them with…Hey! He ALREADY had those magic treasure-seeking rocks! He could use THOSE!
But what to do? He needed to write something. Wait! His friend had a book by Solomon Spaulding! He can use that book, copy parts of the Bible…and have hisself a book! Luckily, no one will ever have the science to prove that the things in his book never really existed when he said they did…and since he did not really know the lands, no one would ever be able to find where any of the millions of people lived and their huge cities existed so no one can ever, ever excavate…except for at Cumorah…where we know nothing exists, so how can we cover that up?
I know!!! We will hold a pageant there every year!!!
The End
A conman who used stones to fool people into thinking he could find buried treasure decided that treasure seeking was not the best way to scam, especially after he was arrested for it. He heard that all over his county, people were seeing God. So he decided he would, too. So he saw God when he was 14, or 15, and no, it was just a personage, no, it was 2 personages, no, it was God, no, it was God and Jesus and angels, no it was only one angel, and God said his sins were forgiven, no, God said his sins were forgiven. But then, maybe having a church is a better way than treasure seeking to scam money…hmmmm…ok…here is what happened…God and Jesus appeared and said all churches were bad.
He then saw a spaniard, oops, no…salamander, no…an angel…who gave him a book of gold plates that weighed about 50 pounds but became light as a feather when he had to run over rocky terrain with a bad leg to outrun three men in the dark.
Anyway, to read these gold plates, he needed something to read them with…Hey! He ALREADY had those magic treasure-seeking rocks! He could use THOSE!
But what to do? He needed to write something. Wait! His friend had a book by Solomon Spaulding! He can use that book, copy parts of the Bible…and have hisself a book! Luckily, no one will ever have the science to prove that the things in his book never really existed when he said they did…and since he did not really know the lands, no one would ever be able to find where any of the millions of people lived and their huge cities existed so no one can ever, ever excavate…except for at Cumorah…where we know nothing exists, so how can we cover that up?
I know!!! We will hold a pageant there every year!!!
The End
L
LongJourney
Guest
There is an ancient proverb in Hancock County Illinois that goes: “Once you start to lie, you have to keep track of your lies. You might as well not even start to lie, because sooner or later, you will be found out.” :juggle:
T
thegreypiper
Guest
I stand corrected.
- Status