Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Brilliant idea!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For LDS only...some tricky questions
- Thread starter Truth_Faith13
- Start date
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You noticed that, too, huh?
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Sorry no Im not casual! Katz has "known" me since I first joined the church and so is probably used to me by now.
I can understand that some things we wont fully know until we have died but if there is a way to understand things now, I like to have the information
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
And why in the world are you apologizing for that???? It's a great thing!
And if you apologize for that great quality, I will launch a digital pillow at you all the way across the Atlantic.I can understand that some things we wont fully know until we have died but if there is a way to understand things now, I like to have the information
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
No need to apologize. You ask some hard questions, but they keep us on our toes. The thing is, I think we both know that you're sincere and not just trying to be argumentative. You just want to make an informed choice this time around. That's absolutely to be commended -- even if you choose not to return to Mormonism.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Digital pillows are no fun. We need to attack in person. When are you free for a trip to England?
Totally!!!!
Dumb potty training getting in the way!
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Thankyou Katz
The missionaries have been around several times this week (they are helping me paint my house!). They had asked me how I wanted the lessons and I said to go back to basics and pretend I had never heard of the church. I dont ask them many questions (especially the tough ones), I save that for you guys and the branch president. My original missionaries didnt really teach me the lessons - entirely my fault not theirs!
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Katz - at the start of the thread you mentioned that Clear was very knowledgeable about the Book of Abraham? Have you seen him around thw forums lately?
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
So as Jane knows, I post on a catholic forums as well. One of the responses I had were the following and I would be interested to hear your thoughts, especially as it does contain questions I have considered? eg polygamy still being accepted as an eternal principle
I can tell just from the post who posted this. Suffice it to say her unyielding hateful attitude to everyone else drove me away from CAF for months, severely wounded my opinion of the Catholic people, and caused a several month cancelation of my inter-faith research into Catholicism.
Anyway, I'll break her post down in the next couple of posts, focusing on the more controversial parts. Feel free to ask for any elaboration. Her words are labeled "anti-Mormon" because it is an accurate description. She has had all of the objections answered repeatedly but continues to knowing post false information.
(Sorry for the chip-on-the-shoulder. I really cannot stand people who exist off of blind hatred and lies about other people. True faith and strength does not crumble when you are charitable, respectful, and honest about other people).
Last edited:
Anti-Mormon: "The LDS have "official teaching" manuals for the teaching of their beliefs. They can be easily found online with a simple google search. Here are a couple of points"
Jane: Notice how she fails to distinguish that teaching manuals are imperfect non-scriptural documents.
Anti-Mormon: "The LDS say the bible is true as far as correctly translated leaving room for them to change it in a way that supports their belief system. They also created other "scripture" such as the Book of Mormon. They believe their "scripture" is just as important as the bible."
Jane: The caveat "as far as it is translated correctly" is a respect for the Bible-- we're not going to accept a sub-par translation. And yes, all scripture is equally important. Rest of her claims are just untrue.
Anti-Mormon: "The LDS still believe in polygamy. While many of the mainstream LDS don't practice it on earth (although many sects do) they believe marriage is eternal"
Jane: There are no other LDS sects. LDS is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's only 1 church. There are groups which have broken away from the LDS Church, but by definition they not LDS.
Anti-Mormon: " For a man to earn a higher place in heaven he needs more than one wife. "
Jane: False.
Jane: Notice how she fails to distinguish that teaching manuals are imperfect non-scriptural documents.
Anti-Mormon: "The LDS say the bible is true as far as correctly translated leaving room for them to change it in a way that supports their belief system. They also created other "scripture" such as the Book of Mormon. They believe their "scripture" is just as important as the bible."
Jane: The caveat "as far as it is translated correctly" is a respect for the Bible-- we're not going to accept a sub-par translation. And yes, all scripture is equally important. Rest of her claims are just untrue.
Anti-Mormon: "The LDS still believe in polygamy. While many of the mainstream LDS don't practice it on earth (although many sects do) they believe marriage is eternal"
Jane: There are no other LDS sects. LDS is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's only 1 church. There are groups which have broken away from the LDS Church, but by definition they not LDS.
Anti-Mormon: " For a man to earn a higher place in heaven he needs more than one wife. "
Jane: False.
Anti-Mormon: "A man can be "sealed" to several women on earth if widowed or divorced, but a woman may only be sealed to one man."
Jane--
Fact: Yes LDS believe that marriage is eternal. Yes, some men through time were polygamous and will be allowed to continue to be so throughout the eternities (God isn't going to make them "pick"). Therefore, men are allowed to have a sealing ordinance performed binding them to more than one wife.
There was no time God sanctioned a women to marry multiple men. Therefore, the ordinance is not set up that way.
In regards to widows and widowers today: the ordinance framework doesn't change come some date in time. No, it stays the same. Men are allowed to be sealed to more than one women (doesn't necessary mean that they will be together, but that they will have the possibility). Conversely, a women is not allowed to be sealed to more than 1 man, and if she is a divorcee/widower and chooses to be sealed to her new husband instead, that is her choice. (Note: this is current policy, not scripture).
Big picture stuff--
Is the idea of being with your family forever messy? Yes. But heck, things are messy with families in general- even when it's just trying to get a dozen people together for a holiday meal. We don't really understand a lot of logistics involved with eternal families-- nor could we! It's way beyond our understanding!
An overriding principle to remember when dealing with sealings is that the sealing ordinances we perform on Earth today are our flawed best guess on things. A sealing doesn't automatically mean these people will be together forever. Rather it means they have the opportunity to be together forever. We also don't know for sure who will fully accept Christ and their sealing ordinances. There's a also a lot of complex logistics we don't really understand as well in regards to things like second marriage.
But God's got this: he's in control! There is no doubt that He will make sure that things work out so that each of us is beyond comprehension happy.
Jane--
Fact: Yes LDS believe that marriage is eternal. Yes, some men through time were polygamous and will be allowed to continue to be so throughout the eternities (God isn't going to make them "pick"). Therefore, men are allowed to have a sealing ordinance performed binding them to more than one wife.
There was no time God sanctioned a women to marry multiple men. Therefore, the ordinance is not set up that way.
In regards to widows and widowers today: the ordinance framework doesn't change come some date in time. No, it stays the same. Men are allowed to be sealed to more than one women (doesn't necessary mean that they will be together, but that they will have the possibility). Conversely, a women is not allowed to be sealed to more than 1 man, and if she is a divorcee/widower and chooses to be sealed to her new husband instead, that is her choice. (Note: this is current policy, not scripture).
Big picture stuff--
Is the idea of being with your family forever messy? Yes. But heck, things are messy with families in general- even when it's just trying to get a dozen people together for a holiday meal. We don't really understand a lot of logistics involved with eternal families-- nor could we! It's way beyond our understanding!
An overriding principle to remember when dealing with sealings is that the sealing ordinances we perform on Earth today are our flawed best guess on things. A sealing doesn't automatically mean these people will be together forever. Rather it means they have the opportunity to be together forever. We also don't know for sure who will fully accept Christ and their sealing ordinances. There's a also a lot of complex logistics we don't really understand as well in regards to things like second marriage.
But God's got this: he's in control! There is no doubt that He will make sure that things work out so that each of us is beyond comprehension happy.
Anti-Mormon: "Single women or female children who pass away before being able to married or "sealed" are assigned to men in their version of heaven. For those who are adults and unmarried there is a certain less than attitude among others."
Jane: False. The word "assigned" means done without a person's consent-- God doesn't work that way. Our right to choose is foundational. A single person (male or female) will have the opportunity to be sealed to another person. God's not going to leave anyone up a creek due to lack of opportunity or the choices of others.
Anti-Mormon: "As Christians we believe marriage is a vital sacrament for those called to marriage and also recognizes that not everyone is called to married life even if they are not called to a religious vocation."
Jane: False. This is specifically a Roman Catholic belief. Several different Catholic churches also allowed for married priests. Many other Christian denominations believe in sacramental marriage/singlehood/preisthood at all.
Anti-Mormon: "But married or single our ability to go to heaven is not based on someone else's status within the church."
Jane: Neither does it with LDS. Everyone has the opportunity, and it is not dependent on someone else's choice. Even those whom do not honor a marital sealing will be beyond-comprehension happy.
Jane: False. The word "assigned" means done without a person's consent-- God doesn't work that way. Our right to choose is foundational. A single person (male or female) will have the opportunity to be sealed to another person. God's not going to leave anyone up a creek due to lack of opportunity or the choices of others.
Anti-Mormon: "As Christians we believe marriage is a vital sacrament for those called to marriage and also recognizes that not everyone is called to married life even if they are not called to a religious vocation."
Jane: False. This is specifically a Roman Catholic belief. Several different Catholic churches also allowed for married priests. Many other Christian denominations believe in sacramental marriage/singlehood/preisthood at all.
Anti-Mormon: "But married or single our ability to go to heaven is not based on someone else's status within the church."
Jane: Neither does it with LDS. Everyone has the opportunity, and it is not dependent on someone else's choice. Even those whom do not honor a marital sealing will be beyond-comprehension happy.
Last edited:
Anti-Mormon: "The LDS claim to be Christians which is a fairly recent change."
Jane: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have always celebrated being disciples of Christ. We are our own unique church, but also share commonalities with other Christian churches. Our willingness to associate with other Christian churches and be acknowledged WITH them has varied over time.
In the 1800's when someone saying they were a "Christian" meant that they mobbed attacked LDS folk, no LDS didn't want to be associated with that. In the 2000's such barbaric behavior is (mostly) gone and "Christian" general means "disciple of Christ" (it's true definition), which LDS are happy to to take on.
I'll get to the rest of this after church.
Jane: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have always celebrated being disciples of Christ. We are our own unique church, but also share commonalities with other Christian churches. Our willingness to associate with other Christian churches and be acknowledged WITH them has varied over time.
In the 1800's when someone saying they were a "Christian" meant that they mobbed attacked LDS folk, no LDS didn't want to be associated with that. In the 2000's such barbaric behavior is (mostly) gone and "Christian" general means "disciple of Christ" (it's true definition), which LDS are happy to to take on.
I'll get to the rest of this after church.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
(This is going to take two posts.)
Truth, thank you for posting this. I’m really quite relieved that you have asked for a second opinion on these things.
It appears as if your Catholic source has attempted to paraphrase his/her understanding of our doctrines, and quite frankly, hasn’t done a very good job. Included in this essay are numerous misleading statements and a few outright falsehoods. (I won’t go so far as to call them “lies,” since I believe a lie to be an intentionally inaccurate statement and I don’t know how much the individual who posted this information actually knows about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But they definitely are “falsehoods.”)
Yes, we do believe the Bible to be the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly.” Why would anyone want to be bound by a mistranslation? The writings found in the Bible were recorded, safeguarded, transcribed, translated and compiled over many centuries by well-meaning but fallible human beings. It would be extremely naïve to assume that it is a perfect record. Furthermore, the Bible that even the Catholic Church uses today does not contain all of the same books that were part of the Christian canon in the earliest centuries after Christ. Numerous changes (with respect to which specific books have been considered canonical) have been made over the years.
The fact that we believe the Bible to be incomplete and undoubtedly imperfect does not mean that we do not hold it in the highest regard. In our adult Sunday School classes, we study it every two years out of four. The other two years are dedicated to study of The Book of Mormon and The Doctrine and Covenants. And when we are studying it, we are studying it to learn God’s word, not to pick it apart or to try to figure out which passages may have been “translated incorrectly.” We use the King James Version of the Bible, containing exactly the same text as the KJV Bibles used by any Protestant churches. Furthermore, we never, ever, ever “change the Bible in a way that supports our belief system.” The text of our 2016 Bible is exactly the same as the text of our 1830 Bible was. (That’s the first example I found of a flat out inaccurate statement, and not merely a misleading one.)
And yes, we do believe our “scripture” is just as important as the Bible. Why shouldn’t anything that God has said be valued to the same extent as something else He has said? Why must all writings be contained within the cover of a single book in order to be equally valuable?
Wow. Where do I even begin? At the beginning, I guess. We still do believe in polygamy as a principle. If two or three women were consensually married the same man here on earth and those marriages were performed by someone holding the proper authority, those women will all be married to that man in Heaven. I’m grateful that this is the case; if it were not, my great-grandmother would suddenly find herself husbandless, since she was his second wife. Yes, we do believe it is God’s intention that our marriages be eternal. As we are told in Ecclesiastes, “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever.” If a couple is married by the power of God, there is no reason to assume that God will dissolve that marriage in the next life. As far as “many of the mainstream LDS [not still practicing polygamy],” goes, I can’t speak to the intention of the writer, but the phrasing suggestions that while many don’t practice it, many others do. This, of course, is categorically false. Plural marriage is an excommunicable offense in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. No extenuating circumstances.
Here's one thought for you to consider... Do you believe that Lutheranism is a Catholic sect? Probably not. The Lutheran Church, as well as all other Protestant Churches, broke off from the Catholic Church, but once they did, they were not "a Catholic sect." They were merely a Church that can historically be tied to Catholicism but is not considered by anyone today to be "a Catholic sect." The exact same thing is true with respect to the FLDS and other splinter groups that split from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These can historically be tied to us, but they are in no way a part of us today.
If we truly believed that “for a man to earn a higher place in heaven, he needs more than one wife,” neither Thomas Monson nor Gordon Hinckley, nor the vast majority of latter-day prophets and apostles could look forward to being "in a higher place in Heaven." We’d be saying that Abraham and Isaac would make it, but not Peter or Paul. That’s ridiculous. Why would we teach that a man needs more than one wife to earn the highest place in Heaven and then excommunicate any man who takes a second wife? I don’t think the writer of this post thought that one through very carefully. Furthermore, nobody is simply going to be “assigned” a spouse in Heaven. That’s not how God works. Besides, we are told in the Bible that no one will either “marry or be given in marriage” in Heaven. Marriage is an earthly sacrament/ordinance. (Note: The Bible does not say that no one will “be married” in Heaven, only that marriages will not be performed there.)
Truth, thank you for posting this. I’m really quite relieved that you have asked for a second opinion on these things.
It appears as if your Catholic source has attempted to paraphrase his/her understanding of our doctrines, and quite frankly, hasn’t done a very good job. Included in this essay are numerous misleading statements and a few outright falsehoods. (I won’t go so far as to call them “lies,” since I believe a lie to be an intentionally inaccurate statement and I don’t know how much the individual who posted this information actually knows about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But they definitely are “falsehoods.”)
Yes, we do believe the Bible to be the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly.” Why would anyone want to be bound by a mistranslation? The writings found in the Bible were recorded, safeguarded, transcribed, translated and compiled over many centuries by well-meaning but fallible human beings. It would be extremely naïve to assume that it is a perfect record. Furthermore, the Bible that even the Catholic Church uses today does not contain all of the same books that were part of the Christian canon in the earliest centuries after Christ. Numerous changes (with respect to which specific books have been considered canonical) have been made over the years.
The fact that we believe the Bible to be incomplete and undoubtedly imperfect does not mean that we do not hold it in the highest regard. In our adult Sunday School classes, we study it every two years out of four. The other two years are dedicated to study of The Book of Mormon and The Doctrine and Covenants. And when we are studying it, we are studying it to learn God’s word, not to pick it apart or to try to figure out which passages may have been “translated incorrectly.” We use the King James Version of the Bible, containing exactly the same text as the KJV Bibles used by any Protestant churches. Furthermore, we never, ever, ever “change the Bible in a way that supports our belief system.” The text of our 2016 Bible is exactly the same as the text of our 1830 Bible was. (That’s the first example I found of a flat out inaccurate statement, and not merely a misleading one.)
And yes, we do believe our “scripture” is just as important as the Bible. Why shouldn’t anything that God has said be valued to the same extent as something else He has said? Why must all writings be contained within the cover of a single book in order to be equally valuable?
Wow. Where do I even begin? At the beginning, I guess. We still do believe in polygamy as a principle. If two or three women were consensually married the same man here on earth and those marriages were performed by someone holding the proper authority, those women will all be married to that man in Heaven. I’m grateful that this is the case; if it were not, my great-grandmother would suddenly find herself husbandless, since she was his second wife. Yes, we do believe it is God’s intention that our marriages be eternal. As we are told in Ecclesiastes, “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever.” If a couple is married by the power of God, there is no reason to assume that God will dissolve that marriage in the next life. As far as “many of the mainstream LDS [not still practicing polygamy],” goes, I can’t speak to the intention of the writer, but the phrasing suggestions that while many don’t practice it, many others do. This, of course, is categorically false. Plural marriage is an excommunicable offense in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. No extenuating circumstances.
Here's one thought for you to consider... Do you believe that Lutheranism is a Catholic sect? Probably not. The Lutheran Church, as well as all other Protestant Churches, broke off from the Catholic Church, but once they did, they were not "a Catholic sect." They were merely a Church that can historically be tied to Catholicism but is not considered by anyone today to be "a Catholic sect." The exact same thing is true with respect to the FLDS and other splinter groups that split from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These can historically be tied to us, but they are in no way a part of us today.
If we truly believed that “for a man to earn a higher place in heaven, he needs more than one wife,” neither Thomas Monson nor Gordon Hinckley, nor the vast majority of latter-day prophets and apostles could look forward to being "in a higher place in Heaven." We’d be saying that Abraham and Isaac would make it, but not Peter or Paul. That’s ridiculous. Why would we teach that a man needs more than one wife to earn the highest place in Heaven and then excommunicate any man who takes a second wife? I don’t think the writer of this post thought that one through very carefully. Furthermore, nobody is simply going to be “assigned” a spouse in Heaven. That’s not how God works. Besides, we are told in the Bible that no one will either “marry or be given in marriage” in Heaven. Marriage is an earthly sacrament/ordinance. (Note: The Bible does not say that no one will “be married” in Heaven, only that marriages will not be performed there.)
That is the case with Mormons, too. Married or single, our ability to go to Heaven is not based on someone else’s status within the Church.
Last edited: