What do Mormons REALLY Believe?

[Famule]

I believe it because the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true.

The Book of Mormon is the record of an ancient people who lived on the American Continent many centuries ago, which was made known to Joseph Smith by revelation, and delivered to him by an angel, and translated by the gift and power of God.

There are many way. When I read the Book of Mormon, and the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true, that is proof to me that he was trustworthy. Another way is to read his own personal writings, biography, and history. When I do that, I find that his sincerity shines through them. When you read any book, how do you know the author is sincere, and is telling you the truth? Apparently there is a way that you can know. Well, it is also possible to know that about Joseph smith.

The precise manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated was never described in detail by himself personally. In fact, he stated that it was not the will of God that it should be made known. Such descriptions come from secondary sources whose accuracy cannot always be trusted. What we know is that it was a miraculous event, and took place by the power of God and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

zerinus

This is very sad. All you have to do is look at a little (and I mean very little) logic to see that mormonism is false. They believe in the Bible, but half of their teaching contradict it. The story of the tablets is so fairytale-like, it shows me that Joseph Smith was not a good storyteller. Most of the stories in the Book of Mormon are parts of stories from the Bible with names and subject matter mixed up and blended together. It is too bad that so many people have been pulled into this cult.

 

[BDawg]

i’m sorry i didn’t realize the NT passage was in dispute. matthew 19, mark 10, 1 corinthians 6, ephesians 5.

Hi Maj,

As I read them, these passages say that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but as I said, Mormons agree that this is usually the rule. I asked for a New Testament passage that says that the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets who practiced polygamy were wrong to do so.

In the Bible, we have some passages that teach monogamy, and some that seem to allow for polygamy. We reconcile these by saying that sometimes God commands one, and sometimes the other, depending on the circumstances. You seem to reconcile them by saying that monogamy is always the rule, and the Old Testament people were wrong to practice polygamy.

Fine. I’m just asking for some support for your interpretation.

I supported my interpretation by pointing out that God gave David Saul’s wives. (David was already married, by the way.) I also supported my interpretation by appealing to St. Augustine, because I thought Catholics might listen to him more than me. You support your interpretation by appealing to the CCC and NT passages that support monogamy, but as I said, this is a moot point. I already agree that monogamy was the rule in the New Testament Church. I’m asking you to support your assertion that Old Testament polygamy was WRONG. How could it be wrong, if God gave David Saul’s wives? There are also provisions for plural marriage in the Law of Moses. (I can look them up, if you like.)

the OT itself does a pretty good job of demonstrating the harmful consequences of polygamy. not my opinion, Bible!

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere! Can you show me where the Old Testament says that the “harmful consequences” you refer to were the result of polygamy, rather than just the result of regular human lust and sinfulness? I’ve never seen such a passage, but maybe you have.

when did augustine become one of the top 2 ECF’s? do you believe mormon doctrine to be completely defined by Mconkie?

You should check out, for instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo,” at the following URL.

newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

The article starts out with the following quotation from the famous Catholic historian, Philip Schaff.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) is “a philosophical and theological genius of the first order, dominating, like a pyramid, antiquity and the succeeding ages. Compared with the great philosophers of past centuries and modern times, he is the equal of them all; among theologians he is undeniably the first, and such has been his influence that none of the Fathers, Scholastics, or Reformers has surpassed it.”

For most of the Catholic commentators I’ve read, Augustine is THE most influential Christian theologian. Some of them place St. Paul or St. Thomas Aquinas first, but then Augustine is always at least second.

This is why I’m a little surpised at your anti-Augustine schtick.

 

[wmscott]

Hi BDawg, its me again, I have a question to post #30 in which you stated “But wait a second. Mormons don’t consider scripture to be perfect. The Book of Mormon has many warnings against judging the scriptures merely by a few “mistakes of men.” This is perfectly in line with what Brigham Young said about no revelations being given in their perfection to sinful men.”

Are you referring to Sacred Scripture (Holy Bible) or something else?

Again thanks for the responses yesterday, I have been following the couple of threads on Mormons to try and figure out what’s up. I applauded you for your candor and honesty, what we all need to know is that we all do not have to believe the same way, but do need to respect each others beliefs and their right to them no matter what our own beliefs tell us.

 

[majick275]

Hi Maj,

As I read them, these passages say that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but as I said, Mormons agree that this is usually the rule. I asked for a New Testament passage that says that the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets who practiced polygamy were wrong to do so.

In the Bible, we have some passages that teach monogamy, and some that seem to allow for polygamy. We reconcile these by saying that sometimes God commands one, and sometimes the other, depending on the circumstances. You seem to reconcile them by saying that monogamy is always the rule, and the Old Testament people were wrong to practice polygamy.

Fine. I’m just asking for some support for your interpretation.

you have yet to show it ever being commanded. you also have yet to show that LDS doctrine teaches monogamy as the norm. let me ask it this way…what type of marriage will exist in the celestial kingdom?

I supported my interpretation by pointing out that God gave David Saul’s wives. (David was already married, by the way.) I also supported my interpretation by appealing to St. Augustine, because I thought Catholics might listen to him more than me. You support your interpretation by appealing to the CCC and NT passages that support monogamy, but as I said, this is a moot point. I already agree that monogamy was the rule in the New Testament Church. I’m asking you to support your assertion that Old Testament polygamy was WRONG. How could it be wrong, if God gave David Saul’s wives? There are also provisions for plural marriage in the Law of Moses. (I can look them up, if you like.)

i believe those scriptures show more than monogamy as a “rule” they explain the fundamentals of the divine institution of marriage. they also explain the rationale behind OT deviations from same, especially where moses is concerned. if jesus tells us that God intended for the two to become one how can anything else not be wrong?

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere! Can you show me where the Old Testament says that the “harmful consequences” you refer to were the result of polygamy, rather than just the result of regular human lust and sinfulness? I’ve never seen such a passage, but maybe you have.

don’t…just stop… we can read the bible and see quite obviously what the problems were. hagar, ishmael, ishmaels resulting descendants, jacobs family, david’s family. sure you can say each individual case was the result of individuals sins but the field is well fertilized by the sin of polygamy. now on the other hand what possible benefits could result from polygamy?
your one verse (that i consider pretty shaky) in the BoM at best intends it for procreation yet we see no evidence of that being a specific benefit of polygamy. I would also counter with what jesus told the sanhedrin about raising seed to abraham.

You should check out, for instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo,” at the following URL.

newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

The article starts out with the following quotation from the famous Catholic historian, Philip Schaff.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) is “a philosophical and theological genius of the first order, dominating, like a pyramid, antiquity and the succeeding ages. Compared with the great philosophers of past centuries and modern times, he is the equal of them all; among theologians he is undeniably the first, and such has been his influence that none of the Fathers, Scholastics, or Reformers has surpassed it.”

For most of the Catholic commentators I’ve read, Augustine is THE most influential Christian theologian. Some of them place St. Paul or St. Thomas Aquinas first, but then Augustine is always at least second.

This is why I’m a little surpised at your anti-Augustine schtick.

well those are scholars and theologians with no part in the magisterium. they can give opinions but not binding dogma. i will clarify my position as well. augustine was one of the prominent ECF’s and much of what he wrote is of great benefit because his background in rhetoric enabled him to eloquently present his case. having said that though most catholic scholars agree that augustine was wrong about certain doctrinal points. that is understandable given that he lived in a time when little written dogma or even scripture was widely available.
this is why i compare him to mconkie (or possibly orson pratt or maybe even sidney rigdon) these LDS examples were all respected and produced materials that were (and still are) widely used for catechizing mormons. yet they all have serious doctrinal flaws despite their status as “oracles of the lord” which augustine never claimed to be. now if you could show an ecumenical council decree or a papal bull saying polygamy was okay…

 

[BDawg]

Hi BDawg, its me again, I have a question to post #30 in which you stated “But wait a second. Mormons don’t consider scripture to be perfect. The Book of Mormon has many warnings against judging the scriptures merely by a few “mistakes of men.” This is perfectly in line with what Brigham Young said about no revelations being given in their perfection to sinful men.”

Are you referring to Sacred Scripture (Holy Bible) or something else?

Hi Dubya,

Mormons use the word “scripture” in a couple different ways. Here they are:

1. Canonized writings accepted officially by the Church. These include the Bible (we don’t include the Apocrypha), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. You can check out any of them at:

scriptures.lds.org

1. Anything God says through his authorized servants is considered “scripture” in a less official and binding sense. We are expected to cultivate a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit, so that we can recognize when the word of the Lord is being spoken to us.

In neither case do we believe that “scripture” is perfect and whole. We are a pack of sinful slobs down here, and God reveals as much as we need or can swallow in our present condition, and leaves us to our own devices on the rest.

This is why these kinds of discussions can get bogged down. Someone says that Brigham Young said x, and a Mormon says, “that was an opinionion, and there have been others.” Then the first person gets their panties in a wad and splutters something about Brigham Young claiming to be the oracle of God, etc. Well, for us, he was just as good an oracle of God as any of the prophets in the Bible.

Consider this quotation by William H. Barnes, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at the Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God. He says that “the relationship between the divine and human ‘authors’ of scripture has never been easily delineated.” He goes on, “Today all but the most extreme Jewish and Christian fundamentalists recognize the complicated and heterogeneous origins of the Bible and that it contains statements that in any other literary work would be considered erroneous.” (William H. Barnes, “Inspiration and Inerrancy,” The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 304.)

That was an ASSEMBLIES OF GOD scholar saying that! Can you imagine? So it seems to me that the LDS simply have a more realistic idea of prophets and prophecy.

 

[zerinus]

This is very sad. All you have to do is look at a little (and I mean very little) logic to see that mormonism is false. They believe in the Bible, but half of their teaching contradict it. The story of the tablets is so fairytale-like, it shows me that Joseph Smith was not a good storyteller. Most of the stories in the Book of Mormon are parts of stories from the Bible with names and subject matter mixed up and blended together. It is too bad that so many people have been pulled into this cult.

It is too bad that you don’t know what you are talking about.

zerinus

 

[zaffiroborant]

you have yet to show it ever being commanded.

I’ve asked this before on other sites and never gotten an answer.

 

[PaulDupre]

Maybe you could find something in the Catechism, or some other official Catholic document, saying that Old Testament polygamy was wrong.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Other offenses against the dignity of marriage

2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

2388 Incest …

Note that the Catechism places polygamy in the same category as incest. Both are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.
There are instances of incest reported in the bible, too. that does not mean that they were commanded by God.

Paul

 

[BDawg]

you have yet to show it ever being commanded. you also have yet to show that LDS doctrine teaches monogamy as the norm. let me ask it this way…what type of marriage will exist in the celestial kingdom?

Hi Maj,

Celestial marriage will be the norm–possibly both polygamous and monogamous.

 

[BDawg]

Note that the Catechism places polygamy in the same category as incest. Both are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

Thanks, Paul,

This is closer to the mark, but I’m asking for an official Catholic condemnation of Old Testament polygam. I understand that polygamy is outlawed Catholicism right now–I just wonder how the polygamy of the patriarchs, etc., is rationalized. I gave Augustine’s rationalization, but nobody has given real support for any other.

 

[BDawg]

you have yet to show it ever being commanded.

Hi Maj,

Well, here’s the best I can do. In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, God commanded the Israelites to follow the custom of “levirate marriage.” That is, if a married man died without children, his next brother was supposed to marry the dead man’s wife, and continue the dead man’s lineage through the wife. THIS INCLUDED YOUNGER BROTHERS WHO WERE ALREADY MARRIED. So, there’s your example of God commanding polygamous marriages in the Old Testament. It’s a little indirect, but that’s how the system worked.

 

[MHalsey]

Hi Maj,

Well, here’s the best I can do. In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, God commanded the Israelites to follow the custom of “levirate marriage.” That is, if a married man died without children, his next brother was supposed to marry the dead man’s wife, and continue the dead man’s lineage through the wife. THIS INCLUDED YOUNGER BROTHERS WHO WERE ALREADY MARRIED. So, there’s your example of God commanding polygamous marriages in the Old Testament. It’s a little indirect, but that’s how the system worked.

Really?? That’s not what I see.

5"When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her.
6The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel.
7If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’
8Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’
9his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’
10And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as ‘the family of the man stripped of his sandal.’

Where do you see that this includes a man already married.

Indirect indeed.

 

[majick275]

Hi Maj,

Celestial marriage will be the norm–possibly both polygamous and monogamous.

i assert that LDS teaching is consistent that it is polygynous only. i would contend that celestial marriage is by definition of D&C132 polygynous

 

[majick275]

Hi Maj,

Well, here’s the best I can do. In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, God commanded the Israelites to follow the custom of “levirate marriage.” That is, if a married man died without children, his next brother was supposed to marry the dead man’s wife, and continue the dead man’s lineage through the wife. THIS INCLUDED YOUNGER BROTHERS WHO WERE ALREADY MARRIED. So, there’s your example of God commanding polygamous marriages in the Old Testament. It’s a little indirect, but that’s how the system worked.

so is that God or moses?(deut. 1:1) jesus words seem to indicate that some of the mosaic law was from moses rather than God. in any case it does not specifically mention cases where the surviving brother is already married and thus is at best an argument form silence.

 

[BDawg]

so is that God or moses?(deut. 1:1) jesus words seem to indicate that some of the mosaic law was from moses rather than God. in any case it does not specifically mention cases where the surviving brother is already married and thus is at best an argument form silence.

Here’s my tally.

As evidence for the proposition that Old Testament polygamy was ok by God, I have presented:

1. God telling David that He had given David Saul’s wives, even though David was already married, and He would have given David even more. (2 Samuel 12)
2. The fact that the Law of Moses has provisions for plural marriages (e.g., Deuteronomy 21:15).
3. The fact that the Law of Moses commanded levirate marriage, which in practice entailed plural marriages (even though it’s not specifically mentioned.) (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
4. St. Augustine saying that Old Testament polygamy was not inherently wrong.

As evidence for the proposition that the Old Testament polygamy was not ok by God, you have presented:

1. Several passages in the New Testament saying that, at that time, it was proper only to have one wife. (This doesn’t really address the question of Old Testament polygamy, though.)
2. You mentioned a passage where Jesus said that God had allowed the Israelites to divorce because they were too weak to live up to the way things should be. (This is an argument by analogy, but doesn’t directly address the issue, either.)
3. A passage from the CCC that says polygamy=bad, but does not specifically condemn the polygamy of Old Testament figures. (Somewhat persuasive for Catholics, at least.)

Personally, I think I’ve made the stronger case, although a variety of interpretations are possible, at least.

 

[BDawg]

so is that God or moses?(deut. 1:1) jesus words seem to indicate that some of the mosaic law was from moses rather than God.

Really? Can you give the reference? That could be a useful passage for Mormons to show that scripture isn’t perfect.

 

[AMDGtoo]

1. The fact that the Law of Moses commanded levirate marriage, which in practice entailed plural marriages (even though it’s not specifically mentioned.) (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

That the practice of levirate marriage entailed plural marriages is only the LDS spin on it. (It doesn’t say and it could just as easily be understood that if the man was already married, this custom couldn’t apply. IOW we just don’t know, and shouldn’t go leaping to assumptions.) We’ve asked where this shows that God approved of polygamous unions and we have gotten none, so it doesn’t look as if you can claim this point as “proving” the better case.

Besides that, unless you can “prove” that the Great Apostasy did actually occur, then the “case” falls to the authority of the Church to decide the disagreement (see Matthew 18:17) and she is the one who says polygamy is a crime against the dignity of marriage.

 

[BDawg]

That the practice of levirate marriage entailed plural marriages is only the LDS spin on it.

Not so. Even the Wikipedia article on polygny says, “The biblical institution of a levirate marriage was a positive provision towards polygyny”. See this URL:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny#The_Hebrew_Bible

 

[majick275]

Here’s my tally.

As evidence for the proposition that Old Testament polygamy was ok by God, I have presented:

1. God telling David that He had given David Saul’s wives, even though David was already married, and He would have given David even more. (2 Samuel 12)

actually you have nathan telling david the lord said that. nowhere do we see david being commanded to take them

1. The fact that the Law of Moses has provisions for plural marriages (e.g., Deuteronomy 21:15).

moses law not gods law. look at the sections that the lord dictated versus what moses instituted

1. The fact that the Law of Moses commanded levirate marriage, which in practice entailed plural marriages (even though it’s not specifically mentioned.) (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

same as above

1. St. Augustine saying that Old Testament polygamy was not inherently wrong.

awful thin quote by augustine who had no doctrinal authority and was shown to be wrong on other doctrinal issues

As evidence for the proposition that the Old Testament polygamy was not ok by God, you have presented:

1. Several passages in the New Testament saying that, at that time, it was proper only to have one wife. (This doesn’t really address the question of Old Testament polygamy, though.)

none of these were limited to THAT time. the speak to the institution of marriage that God intended.

1. You mentioned a passage where Jesus said that God had allowed the Israelites to divorce because they were too weak to live up to the way things should be. (This is an argument by analogy, but doesn’t directly address the issue, either.)

the relevance here is that mosaic law was implemented by moses because of the inadequacies of the people and it differs from Gods law

1. A passage from the CCC that says polygamy=bad, but does not specifically condemn the polygamy of Old Testament figures. (Somewhat persuasive for Catholics, at least.)

the CCC contains dogma. that is unchanging. it is an eternal principle

Personally, I think I’ve made the stronger case, although a variety of interpretations are possible, at least.

i disagree but it’s a good discussion

 

[majick275]

Really? Can you give the reference? That could be a useful passage for Mormons to show that scripture isn’t perfect.

matthew 19. it doesn’t show scripture to be imperfect. the pentateuch tells us when moses was speaking versus God. some of the OT is history that we need to know for spiritual growth but not every word in the bible is God speaking. it tells us when others are speaking as well.