Views on Mormonism?

[hosemonkey]

Naf623, this position has always bothered me for the following reasons. We have had laws that made slavery legal. If it were legal today, would the LDS church support it. If not, why? Abortion is legal in this country. It is the law. Do you believe in " obeying, honoring and sustaining" this law? If not, why?

Thanks.

Changes in mormon “doctrine” have almost always been done under compulsion. Prime examples being the practice of polygamy and the third-class status of blacks in the “church” regarding the “priesthood”. mormons quickly changed the doctrine of plural marriage, given by Almighty God Himself, necessary for “exaltation” because admission to the Union was at stake. Statehood was vastly more important than the command of Almighty God, obviously.
The admission of blacks to the “priesthood” was certainly driven by the fact that mormon recruiting in third-world countries was suffering and civil rights activists in this country were looking very unfavorably on the mormon “church.” So…Presto! a new revelation. They try to cop out by saying that the second-class of blacks was only “temporary”, but read Brigham Young’s pronouncement on the condition of blacks, as he as “prophet” saw it. Smoke and mirrors, folks. mormon “doctrine” is as changable as the wind.

 

[hosemonkey]

Brigham Young on Blacks:

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

 

[hosemonkey]

Brigham Young on Blacks:

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

Brigham Young on Polygamy:

“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TexasKnight,

I really do not have time to do your work. If you want a question answered, then ask it so that going back to past links is not required.

Christ was quite clear that there would be NO marriage in heaven. Period. He chided the Sadduces for their lack of knowledge of both Scripture and of the Power of God - and it may be well to think about what He said.

God bless

Nope. So, show me Biblically where, when he said what you quoted, he was referring to marriage? Especially since He earlier stated there would be no marriage in heaven?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Telstar,

You have some really interesting insights about Joseph Smith and his creativity with rituals.

The idea of Baptism of the Dead must have come from some guy that wanted to invent something for the Corinthians to do - so he could coin a ritual. Paul called his hand on this (1Cor 15:29) but, apparently the error continues to this day.

God bless

The whole premise of ‘sealing’ anything the way LDS use it, comes directly from the mind of Joseph Smith. It’s just one of many inventions he used to make his church more distinct from any church in Christendom. He thought it would make it sound more ‘mysterious’ and Biblical, although there are very few things in the Bible that are actually ‘sealed’. It probably comes more from the rituals of Freemasonry than the Bible.

The only ‘saints’ that performed Baptism for the dead for very long, are LDS. Paul was clearly telling the Corinthians that it was a foolish waste of effort and had no meaning, whatsoever, for those that were already dead, because they were already judged, as individuals, in the first Judgement of God. Joseph Smith just loved making up new rituals and laws for ‘his people’ to follow. It gave him a real feeling of power over them, like being a king. Why do you think he wanted to be president?

If God is not divine, then He is not a true God. To say that it makes no difference shows a complete misunderstanding of why we worship God in the first place. If you want to worship a ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’, that’s up to you. But, I guarantee that God will not be amused by your caricature of Him. You’ll most likely be placed in the same category as anyone else that makes up their own ‘god’ (idol) to worship. He won’t care how well you followed the laws that you attribute to that version of ‘god’, even if they are somewhat similar to His Laws.

That doesn’t change my example in the least. The fact is, it could happen, tomorrow.

When Jesus returns, there will no longer be any form of marriage, because it will be the Final Judgement of all souls. No more will ever be born after that day.

God is One in Being, just as the Church is One Body of Christ. Your verbal gyrations over there being some kind of a difference in terminology, don’t mean diddly squat.

Interpretation is the key to understanding the truth of all scripture. God will judge us by our interpretation. If we’re wrong, it won’t go well for us.

No, you put your faith in the false interpretations of Joseph Smith, and not what Jesus actually meant. That’s what you’ll be judged on, no matter how well you followed those false interpretations. Knowledge of the Law, or of scripture, does not trump the Judgement of God on how closely we follow His Word (Jesus). It didn’t help the Pharisees to perfectly quote scripture, because their interpretations were still wrong, and Jesus told them exactly what they were and who they followed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hosemonkey,

Truly amazing. It reminded me of FDR’s effort to ‘pack the court’ while it was actively being debated there was a marked change in some of the rulings … so, “A switch in time saved nine” came to be quip on other changeable policies.

By the way, I thought the US Navy wore white hats and uniforms … yours looks quite dark… this wasn’t a coal burning ship you were on was it…? Forgive my former Army humor…

God bless

Changes in mormon “doctrine” have almost always been done under compulsion. Prime examples being the practice of polygamy and the third-class status of blacks in the “church” regarding the “priesthood”. mormons quickly changed the doctrine of plural marriage, given by Almighty God Himself, necessary for “exaltation” because admission to the Union was at stake. Statehood was vastly more important than the command of Almighty God, obviously.
The admission of blacks to the “priesthood” was certainly driven by the fact that mormon recruiting in third-world countries was suffering and civil rights activists in this country were looking very unfavorably on the mormon “church.” So…Presto! a new revelation. They try to cop out by saying that the second-class of blacks was only “temporary”, but read Brigham Young’s pronouncement on the condition of blacks, as he as “prophet” saw it. Smoke and mirrors, folks. mormon “doctrine” is as changable as the wind.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi, Hosemonkey,

Truly amazing. It reminded me of FDR’s effort to ‘pack the court’ while it was actively being debated there was a marked change in some of the rulings … so, “A switch in time saved nine” came to be quip on other changeable policies.

By the way, I thought the US Navy wore white hats and uniforms … yours looks quite dark… this wasn’t a coal burning ship you were on was it…? Forgive my former Army humor…

Yes indeed.
It was always my thought that mormon “scriptures” should be placed in loose-leaf binders so that when the multitude of changes and “new revelations” were promulgated, it would save the printing. Merely change the related pages. Just a thought.

In my day, sailors wore blue in the winter and white in the summer. Blue in cold climates, white in hot climates. The dark flat hat was worn until about 1965 and afterward abolished, but us old-timers wore it as part of the dress blue uniform. Sailors had been wearing this cap since before the civil war. Before WWII, your ship’s name would be on a ribbon on the front of the cap. During WWII, the ship’s name was removed from the cap for security reasons. All my ships were oil-burners. I am always glad to educate soldiers in the lore of the Senior Service.

 

[Naf623]

Naf623,

Huh? They shall neither MARRY nor be MARRIED

If Jesus is saying that they will not be married, he means there is no marriage in heaven. He is not saying that if you were married on earth you will continue the marriage in heaven.

Finished, done with, no more.

Neither marry (each other): I.e. they will not perform marriage ceremonies for each other (as we do for each other now on earth).
Nor be married (by someone else).
He does not say ‘nor remain married’. ‘Be’ does not only indicate a state of being, but also of something being done.

NAF, we both agree, don’t we, that Jesus founded a church that would be authoritative? I think the Catholic church is the one founded by Christ, constantly and demonstrably in existence, and you think yours was founded by Christ, lost almost immediately, and restored by Joseph Smith. We both think our respective churches have the power of succession, so I’m not sure why this is such a stumbling block for you. Our church also has teachings on modern inventions not specifically in the Bible. We believe our church’s leader is preventing from teaching error in the matter of faith and morals. I’m not sure exactly how you believe your church is guided - my impression is that it’s more of a direct revelation to the present leaders. As your church has changed its position on, for example, abortion, something that to us seems like it can only be right or wrong and NOT a matter of discipline, like whether priests should be able to marry, it does seem to outsiders that not all the revelations can be directly from God unless God is remarkably undecided on right and wrong. This may be too much to bring up in a single post, but someone asked you about polygamy. I can’t think of any examples in the Bible where it is described as anything but ugly and disastrous. In the case of Solomon and Abraham, it came directly from not trusting or obeying God. But yes, it existed, as did divorce, and Jesus told us why that was allowed - because of the hardness of their hearts. God was gentle with His people there, meeting them where they were and taking them someplace better. We see Paul’s instructions about who was allowed to be leaders of the church - among other things, he had to be a husband of only one wife. It just seems like Joseph Smith, living in an era of abolished polygamy, brought back something much lower, not something Godly. I know polygamy is banned from your church today, and we can all see why. You see what polygamist colonies are like. How do you suppose it looked any less selfish or abusive in Smith’s time? Please don’t say it was only a way to protect little old widows. He wasn’t living in the wilderness with dozens of helpless widows, and who was his second wife?

Forgive me, I usually split up posts into separate sections to respond to, but it’s getting late so I hope you will bear with me this way.
You would be essentially correct that we believe that the leaders of the church commune with God/Jesus Christ directly, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to discern their will.
As to our changes of stance on issues: we have not changed our doctrine on the 6th commandment, and still believe ‘thou shalt not kill’ (murder). But may I provide this suggestion with regards abortion (and similar logic applies to other issues). In the early days when aborting a foetus became possible, the availability of a competent physician to adequately comment on the potential psychological effects one way or the other on the mother was much rarer than now (media attention, further study etc.). Perhaps God (knowing all) knew that the medical profession was not yet ready to provide a generally sound opinion as to these effects, and therefore it was better to not allow the procedure at all. However, as science and research moves on, the profession now has many more professionals, with much more research and training available to them, so their opinion is much better informed, and God knows that they can now be trusted to generally make the correct judgement, therefore the time is right that in extremely rare and distressing cases if the opinion of the competent physician is that the physical or psychological wellbeing of the mother will be put at unacceptable risk, it is an option: but even then only after careful consideration and approaching God for His all-knowing confirmation (or not - perhaps in some cases He knows better than the decision of the doctor). Also remember, we do not have any concept of original sin, and therefore we believe that the unborn child is guaranteed their salvation. This means that the well-being of the mother is of greater eternal significance, as her salvation may not be: but if she lives then she continues to have the chance to change this.

Mormonism is seeking to develop its own theology, using the Catholic Church as its perpetual counter point, because the foundation of Mormonism is that our beliefs and our priesthood are corrupt.

Not really true, if the Catholic Church were our ‘perpetual counterpoint’ we would be satanists of almost the worst kind.
That’s a compliment by the way, think about it for a minute…

 

[Naf623]

The real issue however is that Jesus knew exactly what would happen when He and the Apostles were at the massive rock at Caesarea Philippi as recorded in Matthew 16:18.
Christ knew His Father would inspire Peter to proclaim that Christ is the Messiah - and that the Keys (all of the authority to govern Christ’s Church) would be given to Peter.

This is truly a most literal view of the word ‘gates’ - and one that unfortunately misses the idea of a figure of speech. In this particular case we are looking at a metonymy (“Metonymy enables us to use one part or aspect of an experience to stand for some other part (or the whole) of that experience.” An example is when a young man asks the father for the daughter’s HAND in marriage - the young man wants the whole woman - not just an amputated appendage!) We are really looking at the power of Hell as symbolized by its gates. Just the opposite would be to refer to all of Heaven by calling it the ‘Pearly Gates’.

I absolutely agree that Peter was given all of the priesthood keys necessary to govern Christ’s Church, and we do not claim to have any more than he did. The exact same keys are in operation in every temple across the world. I do find it odd that the scriptures hold no record of him ever selecting a successor, given that this would have to have happened before most of it was written, and well before it was compiled.
People only tend to refer to ‘The Pearly Gates’ when speaking of approaching heaven (because those would be the point of entry). I have never heard it used to refer to heaven as a whole. As to the ‘hand’ in marriage: it refers to the ceremony itself, not to the person (or part thereof) that he would like to have. The potential groom would like to take the daughter’s hand in (as in during) the marriage (ceremony).
While I agree that your suggestion is another interpretation, and I am not suggesting it is devoid of logic or reason; I do not agree with it.

If God is not divine, then He is not a true God. To say that it makes no difference shows a complete misunderstanding of why we worship God in the first place. If you want to worship a ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’, that’s up to you. But, I guarantee that God will not be amused by your caricature of Him. You’ll most likely be placed in the same category as anyone else that makes up their own ‘god’ (idol) to worship. He won’t care how well you followed the laws that you attribute to that version of ‘god’, even if they are somewhat similar to His Laws.

Actually, I disagree.
Firstly, I did not intend to suggest that God might not be divine: clearly we’re He not, then He would not be God. What I meant was that given He is divine, what difference do the details of that divine nature make to the validity of His teachings and to the reasons we follow His laws?
Granted my ‘Spaghetti Monster’ comment was flippant, but my point stands that He could be anything at all, and would still be our God and we should still be following His ways. The debate over His exact nature is intellectual at best.

Naf623, this position has always bothered me for the following reasons. We have had laws that made slavery legal. If it were legal today, would the LDS church support it. If not, why? Abortion is legal in this country. It is the law. Do you believe in " obeying, honoring and sustaining" this law? If not, why?

Thanks.

Slavery was never a requirement under law (as in to have slaves, the slaves clearly did not have a choice), abortion is also not compulsory.
I do not have a precise answer as to how we would react to something that legally required us to do something against our Lord’s teachings, or of it actively prevented us doing something completely necessary. I do see that in some countries the church is not allowed to publicly proselyte, not allowed to hold congregational meetings, I believe some places prevent us performing baptisms, and many places have not yet allowed us to construct a local temple. Other than proselytise, we do believe the rest of these things to be essentially vital to our salvation, yet we comply with the laws.

 

[blueadept]

He does not say ‘nor remain married’. ‘Be’ does not only indicate a state of being, but also of something being done.

My LDS wife seemed not to be happy with me in not finding the truth and converting. She really wanted a Temple wedding which I’m sure she will insist upon for her next marriage.

I get to honor my estranged marriage.

One is right and one is wrong and we shall see. Honoring my vows that were blessed in the RCC seems to be the only safe option. :twocents:

 

[manualman]

This is a fantastic article on the subject from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (whom I’m reading a bunch of lately).

irr.org/mit/neuhaus.html

One of my favorite points is that these are somewhat different questions:

1. Is Mormonism christian?
2. Are Mormons christians?

Objectively, the answer to #1 is clearly no since they deny major aspects of christian doctrine.

#2 is not so easy. The definition of a christian is not “one who assents to the doctrines and teachings of christianity.” It is “one who has accepted the Grace offered by God through Christ in his life.”

So my answer is that Mormonism is a non-christian doctrinal system which many well meaning christians mistakenly adhere to. (Fr. Neuhaus explains it better)

 

[Naf623]

This is a fantastic article on the subject from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (whom I’m reading a bunch of lately).

irr.org/mit/neuhaus.html

One of my favorite points is that these are somewhat different questions:

1. Is Mormonism christian?
2. Are Mormons christians?

Objectively, the answer to #1 is clearly no since they deny major aspects of christian doctrine.

This is in no way objective, since this list of doctrines someone must believe to be considered Christian is subjective in itself.
From my viewpoint I could equally make the same statement about Catholicism as you deny doctrines that I consider central to Christianity. I could equally not consider this objective, because it relies on my own beliefs.

 

[hosemonkey]

This is a fantastic article on the subject from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (whom I’m reading a bunch of lately).

irr.org/mit/neuhaus.html

One of my favorite points is that these are somewhat different questions:

1. Is Mormonism christian?
2. Are Mormons christians?

Objectively, the answer to #1 is clearly no since they deny major aspects of christian doctrine.

#2 is not so easy. The definition of a christian is not “one who assents to the doctrines and teachings of christianity.” It is “one who has accepted the Grace offered by God through Christ in his life.”

So my answer is that Mormonism is a non-christian doctrinal system which many well meaning christians mistakenly adhere to. (Fr. Neuhaus explains it better)

`My position exactly. mormons…non-Christian. Well-meaning but duped.
That is about the most charitable thing I can say.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hosemonkey,

Thank you so much for the education … I laughed and laughed and laughed!

By the way, I was thinking about only the President (supreme leader?) getting the inspirations or revelations or prophecies from God - and everyone else being excluded. There really is not much support for this in the bible.

David was inspired directly by God - but it was Nathan that informed David of God’s Will concerning David’s acts of adultery and murder.

Eli was the Chief Priest - but, it was little Samuel whom God spoke to telling Eli that he was in seriious trouble for neglecting his duties.

And, of course, Annas was the High Priest - but, it was Christ who spoke the Word of God - adn Annas was totally left out.

So, when it comes to revelations from God - it looks like God is free to respond to whomever he wishes.

Have a great day - and continue keeping your posts in ‘ship shape’ condition…

God bless

Yes indeed.
It was always my thought that mormon “scriptures” should be placed in loose-leaf binders so that when the multitude of changes and “new revelations” were promulgated, it would save the printing. Merely change the related pages. Just a thought.

In my day, sailors wore blue in the winter and white in the summer. Blue in cold climates, white in hot climates. The dark flat hat was worn until about 1965 and afterward abolished, but us old-timers wore it as part of the dress blue uniform. Sailors had been wearing this cap since before the civil war. Before WWII, your ship’s name would be on a ribbon on the front of the cap. During WWII, the ship’s name was removed from the cap for security reasons. All my ships were oil-burners. I am always glad to educate soldiers in the lore of the Senior Service.

 

[hosemonkey]

This is in no way objective, since this list of doctrines someone must believe to be considered Christian is subjective in itself.

From my viewpoint I could equally make the same statement about Catholicism as you deny doctrines that I consider central to Christianity. I could equally not consider this objective, because it relies on my own beliefs.

we deny mormon “doctrines” that are considered heretical and bizarre by all other Christians ie: polygamy, baptism for the dead, eternal progression, etc, etc, etc. Your defective understanding of the Holy Trinity alone separates you from Christianity. The Catholic Church has the weight of two thousand years of guidance by the Holy Spirit, the mormon “church” has only the word of an egomaniac who dreamed up his own religion. Your “doctrines” are subject to random change and in no way can be relied upon for permanence, you house is built upon sand and is subject to wind and water. Not a good place to be.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Naf623,

Did you go to the link that Manualman presented? If so, it does not sound that way.

Coming out as defensive is not furthering a discussion… and, isn’t that what you want to do?

Maybe I missed something here - but, I think every identified Catholic has posted various serious problems the LDS organization has with basic beliefs of Christianity. I pointed out problems I had with your presentation on the Trinity. Making statements about the Nature of God being of no consequence misses the mark by a ‘country mile’.

As I see it, there is really very little that is either done or preached that comes directly from the Bible - without the filter of the Book of Mormon. I mention this because Christ provided us with everything we need for salvation - and at no point did He hint about Golden Tablets, an angel providing guidance to a group in outside of Palestine or any of these other elements that are contained ONLY in the Book of Mormon. But, don’t just stop at the New Testament - there is nothing in the Old Testament that offers any verification about what is in the Book of Mormon.

I previously mentioned that these two books are in conflict, and you have provided me with nothing to disprove my statement. Ultimately, Catholics (and most Protestants) do not believe in the Book of Mormon - and you have been given the reasons. In my judgment it is time to move forward and not be defensive. If you think Mormonism is Christian - then refute the statements and be done with it. Personally, I do not think you can based on your previous statements - but, this is what makes for dialogue.

God bless

This is in no way objective, since this list of doctrines someone must believe to be considered Christian is subjective in itself.
From my viewpoint I could equally make the same statement about Catholicism as you deny doctrines that I consider central to Christianity. I could equally not consider this objective, because it relies on my own beliefs.

 

[Stephen168]

. All my ships were oil-burners.

Were you a Damage Controlman?

 

[Stephen168]

Objectively, the answer to #1 is clearly no since they deny major aspects of christian doctrine.

It is only one aspect that keeps them from being Christian; they don’t know who Christ is.

 

[hosemonkey]

Were you a Damage Controlman?

No, I wasn’t a Damage Controlman but I was a qualified firefighter. My Navy firefighting training ultimately led to my second career as a professional Firefighter/Paramedic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Naf623,

Where did you come up with “…and WE do not claim to have any more than he did…”?

Did you notice in Matt 16:18 that Christ did not hand out the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, and eleven duplicates to the other Apostles. There was only one set of Keys - and now we hve the job of tracing Church History from Peter - all the way to Benedict XVI (here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm )

This is not a minor issue - Christ identified to all, after Peter’s confession to Christ being the Messiah, that God the Father had revealed this Truth to Peter - and to Peter alone. And, now Christ places Peter as the foundation for Christ’s Church. Please note: Christ did not come back and appoint Martin Luther, or John Calvin or Henry VIII or Joseph Smith as the new foundation - and hand out more Keys.

Concerning what is ‘missing’ (e.g., Peter selecting his successor) in Scripture. If you look at the Bible as though it were a catechism, then you are not looking at God’s Word correctly. John tells us at the end of his gospel that not everything is written. So, what is written is not fluff - it is solid material and those who followed directly after Christ - and their successors and then their successors and so on - had the guidance of the Holy Spirit from that first Pentecost Sunday forward to today. God has not abandoned His Church - built on sinful and frail Peter.

I absolutely agree that Peter was given all of the priesthood keys necessary to govern Christ’s Church, and we do not claim to have any more than he did. The exact same keys are in operation in every temple across the world. I do find it odd that the scriptures hold no record of him ever selecting a successor, given that this would have to have happened before most of it was written, and well before it was compiled.
People only tend to refer to ‘The Pearly Gates’ when speaking of approaching heaven (because those would be the point of entry). I have never heard it used to refer to heaven as a whole. As to the ‘hand’ in marriage: it refers to the ceremony itself, not to the person (or part thereof) that he would like to have. The potential groom would like to take the daughter’s hand in (as in during) the marriage (ceremony).
While I agree that your suggestion is another interpretation, and I am not suggesting it is devoid of logic or reason; I do not agree with it.

OK … does this mean that my argument has both logic and reason and you have just decided not to agree with it so we could have further dialogue? Seriously, why don’t you agree with it?

God bless