DeoOmnisGloria.com

You might be interested in:

JesusNotJoseph.com

and

MormonWiki.org

At the risk of being divisive, one should keep in mind that the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns polygamy. Apparently, this was one of Luther's favorite party tricks. Namely, if you adhere to Sola Scriptura, then monogamy becomes merely a good but unnecessary idea. He even counseled someone to take a second wife without divorcing the first as a way to avoid the sin of adultery.

When I feel like annoying Protestants, I sometimes mention polygamy. This reminds me of a joke...

Mormon tells a Baptist that there are no passages in the Bible that prohibit polygmay. Baptist says of course there is: "no man, can serve two masters".

Jay,
Do you ever spell check your work? It's terrible. Why do you anti-Mormons all have to misname our church? It is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Not the "Church of Latter-day Saints." That "Jesus Christ" part is pretty important.

I am not going to go into all the details of polygamy. There are plenty of websites that one can go to find the truth about what the practice was and what it was not. Jay apparently likes to quote other anti-Mormons as if their assertions are fact. What I do find interesting is that Jay cites changes in doctrine as evidence that a church and its teachings can't be from God because God won't contradict himself. Any yet, the Catholic Church has changed and continues to change many doctrines. Does that mean that the Catholic Church is not of God? According to Jay it does. But, that is just the crescendo of Jay's contradictions in his article. Jay criticizes Joseph Smith for keeping the revelation about plural marriage a secret because he was afraid to publicly reveal it. Then Jay points out that JS was killed for it. Hmmmmm? Maybe that's why he didn't publicly reveal it??? People like Jay wanted to and did kill him. Personally, I think that Jay and those like him publish this type of trash because they see people leaving their flocks in droves for Mormonism; such as those in Massachusetts who have had it with Catholicism and had it with the protection of child molesting priests (if you are going to dish it out be able to take it!) and have come over to Mormonism due to Gov Romney's leadership and character. All that without having to publish “exposés” of other people’s faith. We just give them more than they had. After reading Jay’s article, I take personal satisfaction from having converted many Catholics during my two year mission. The proof of Mormonism is in the character of its people, the truthfulness of its scripture and the divine calling of its prophets. One only need read the Book of Mormon and find out for themselves that it is true.

Dennis,
It is late, so all I will say for now is that I will pray for you my brother. I will pray that you will continue to seek the truth of Christ and not that of a merely a man in one Joseph Smith.
In Truth,
Matthew

Dennis,

I appreciate you attempting to keep cool amidst the flames.

I would like to address a dangerous and common misconception "...the Catholic Church changes and continues to change it's doctrines"

As Aristotle notes, the reality of an object can be described by substance and also by accidents. Substance is the unchanging essence of that item an accident is a variable factor. For example, the substance *car* is not defined by the accident *color*... you can have a red or blue or yellow etc car but it remains just that... a car. In relation to the Catholic church, the doctrines (substance) have been fixed implicitly or explicitly and do not change. Often we mistake a discipline (accident) of the church as a doctrine.

The problem raised by a mercurial substance should be obvious. If a car can become a bike then was it ever a car? If a church can change its constitution (substance) willy-nilly was it really ever a church? Christ said I am the Truth not the truths. He has a bride not a chameleon.

Now how are we to determine doctrine? A council of bishops lead by the pope. Read Acts chapter 15. Does your church determine doctrine like this? Mine always has. How should we know that the church didn't disappear and reappear in a more pure form? We were told that Christ would establish a visible church that would last until the end of time and even at the gates of hell would not prevail against that church Matt 16:18.

In ending I hope you have read some of Karl Keating's stuff... here he addresses some of the doctrinal folly befalling Christianity.

As one might surmise from its name, Christian Book Distributors distributes Christian books, which, given the current usage, means it distributes Protestant books. The latest catalogue features The Church Comes Home by Robert and Julia Banks. The accompanying blurb is unintentionally instructive: "Home churches are as old as the New Testament, and now the Banks[es] help you carry on the tradition in your community of faith! Discover how to start a home church of your own, determine doctrine, form a network with other home churches, and more!"

"Determine doctrine"? Isn’t that the essence of every offshoot from the one Church of Christ?

Martin Luther determined that there is no purgatory (good-bye Maccabees!) and that works play no role in salvation. John Calvin determined that God creates most men precisely to send them to hell. Charles Taze Russell determined that there is no hell and that you’ll go there if you don’t worship at Kingdom Hall. Joseph Smith determined that any man can become a god and can populate his own universe. Mary Baker Eddy determined that death is a figment of the imagination, and then she died. Ellen Gould White determined that the Mother Church is really the Whore of Babylon.

What business did these people have in determining Christian doctrine? None, of course. Not a single one was competent to do so, as they so amply demonstrated. With one or two exceptions, each was a sincere believer, sincerely believing some things that just weren’t so. Luther and Calvin, at least, were fairly well educated, yet they were unable to determine doctrine accurately, having, like the rest of us, reasoning faculties that were impaired at the Fall.

No one, no matter how bright, no matter how sincere, can expect to determine doctrine accurately on his own. Sure, anyone can get one or two things right, by dumb luck if nothing else. But to get the whole corpus of religious truth right? No one has done it—on his own. Only the magisterium of the Church—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—has been able to do it, but not because we’ve been blessed with bright bishops and popes. (Some bishops and popes have been dim bulbs indeed.) The men who, in their ordained lives, make up the magisterium are able to teach rightly not because of any native skills they have, but because the Holy Spirit prevents them from making a botch of it. When a pope speaks ex cathedra, or when the pope and bishops convene in an ecumenical council, what we get is teaching guaranteed to be correct because the deliberations are protected by the Holy Spirit.

We call this infallibility. It is a charism that doesn’t belong to a bishop teaching on his own, to a pope teaching other than ex cathedra, to any priest, religious, or layman in the Catholic Church, and definitely not to anyone outside the Catholic Church, including folks establishing home churches.

In Love

when we were one

Matthew,

Thank you for praying for me. I will pray for you as well. I feel very fortunate that just like Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (among many others), Joseph Smith was able to receive and pass on the truth of Jesus Christ to us. How unfortunate it would be if the world still wandered in the darkness of apostasy. I hope and pray that you too will read the Book of Mormon and pray to ask God of its truthfulness as well as the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. If you do so having faith in Christ and true intent, God will manifest the truthfulness of it all to you by the power of the Holy Ghost as he has done for me and continues to do for thousands.

Dennis

Dennis, I have a few questions:

1. Is polygamy required, optional, or forbidden?
2. What did Joseph Smith and Brigham young say?
3. What did Woodruff say?

One of my friends talked with elders before becoming a Mormon and read Doctrines and Covenenants and some other stuff. My friend asked about polygamy and the seeming flip-flop and the elder had a relatively short answer. I cannot for the life of me remember what it was.

It was something like it was necessary to violate the law of the land at the time because of the persecutions and numerous widows but as they became established, the need to obey the law of the land became more pressing.

When we were one,

Thank you for your remarks. As Samuel L. Jackson's character in Pulp Fiction said, "Allow me to retort!"

Your discourse on change sounds a bit like Bill Clinton trying to weasel out of what the definition of "is" is. Whether you wish to call a practice a doctrine or a doctrine a practice or whatever, both have changed in the Catholic Church and continue to do so.

In regards to the apostasy; the scripture you note does not necessarily refer to Christ's earthly Church. These scriptures cleary point to an apostasy:

Amos tells us that - Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: and they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. - Amos 8:11-12

Sea to sea and north and to the east - to and fro - pretty much the whole world and cannot find the true word of God.

Similarly, John saw in a vision that a beast, representing an agent of Satan, was allowed to "make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." - Revelation 13:7

Note also how John calls all members of the church "saints" and not just those to be venerated.

I could go on and on...

Now I must take issue with your sentence that "Joseph Smith determined…." Truths were revealed to Joseph Smith just like they always have been to prophets. Joseph didn't "determine" anything.

Your reference to Acts 15 is also interesting. Acts 15 doesn't mention a "Pope" or "Bishops." In fact, the word "Pope" is never found in the Bible. What it does refer to is the earthly organization of the church; the head of the church and "apostles" receiving an answer from God via revelation on how to proceed regarding an issue; exactly as is done in Christ's Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, today! Our apostles and prophet meet regularly to receive revelation on doctrine - not to decide it. The doctrine is already decided by God. It simply needs to be revealed or re-revealed directly by God or indirectly by the Holy Sprit depending on the circumstance.

It really comes down to faith. I don't expect to change your mind and you will certainly never change mine. I believe what I believe for very specific reasons. It has nothing to do with academic reasoning or cleverly constructed arguments. It is because I have received a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit telling me that it is true. It is not my intention to contend over belief or doctrine. I only posted a comment here because I just can't understand why people try to destroy other's faith. In my church we do not tear other religions down. We do what we have been commanded to do and let people know our message. It is their choice to accept or reject; a luxury that the Catholic Church has not always allowed those with whom it came in contact. But when you have a group of people who are living to be as honest, chaste, sober, kind, caring as possible; why would people try to destroy that? I can only understand that it must be through jealousy and personal malice. Brigham Young gave the Catholic Church land and money to build a beautiful cathedral in downtown Salt Lake City. When has the Catholic Church (or any other) offered such kindness to the Mormon Church? Never. Instead, we were driven from our homes, had our fathers, children, mothers etc murdered before our eyes and extermination orders pronounced against us. Not unlike our forefathers, the apostles and "former-day Saints" of the New Testament. We don't believe what we believe because we are idiots and dupes as many suggest. In fact, I will put the intellectual capability of my local ward (congregation) up against those of the local parish or protestant congregation any day of the week. None of that matters. What does matter is that we have received a personal witness of the truthfulness of our beliefs and that is what drives us.
Dennis

Dennis,

I agree with you on many points but there are a few obscured by rhetoric. Again to clarify on the concept of "weasel." The Catholic doctrines are written down and fixed. You may wish to look at a catechism or check the Vatican web site... These things are published and have been from the 1st century. If they are fixed there is no *weaseling.*

But when you see a church that adds entire volumes to scripture and runs from the word *determine* have you found your *weasel?*

Beyond that, just because a word (bishop or Pope) does not appear in a verse does not mean it is not elsewhere noted. My friend, that is mala fide... as adept a pied piper as you claim, you know that *bishop* appears no less than 5 times in the KJV. No doubt you are also aware of Corinthian letters begging Pope Clement (who lived from about 20 -100) for spiritual direction. This occurs while John the Beloved is living down the road in Ephesus...yet there is accepting silence from the Beloved.

While we can find bishop, with all due respect, I am having heroic difficulty finding words or concepts to *administrating planets* or a *great war in the New World* amongst the remnants of the Hebrews. Worse even, God lied if what you misinterpret is true about an apostasy...Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." A better interpretation would involve a moral or allegorical sense.

In fact you forbidden from interpreting scripture for that is predicted by Peter to fragment the church!: "2Peter 1: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation...2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."

I agree that we have many common values. I agree that we should be charitable. I also believe that we agree that: Hebrews 6:18: “[I]t is impossible for God to lie.” And we believe instead that Lucifer is the liar: “...When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44). Yet I am having a mettlesome time with the Mormon doctrine of Jesus as the *Spirit brother* of Lucifer, now where does that appear in scripture? There can't be 2 true churches one has to be a lie. So one of us smells like brimstone, hmmm.... The holy Spirit speaks to your bosom and the growing bosomry of Mormonism, what of the growing and I must say rather voluminous bosom of Catholicism? Are not our 2000 year old and 1 billion strong bosoms of equal if not greater value?

Indeed, we won't change the other's mind... but God will offer the needed grace if open.

In Love

when we were one

Dennis,

You seem to me a semi-well reasoned kind of guy, even though you really have given us no defense of the Mormon faith . . .

Let me ask you a few questions:

Why didn’t Christ establish the Mormon Church right away? In other words why was it necessary for whole generations of people to die damned during the apostasy?

If the followers of Christ and the Apostles could have fallen away and completely corrupted the faith so quickly, what makes you think that there is something special about LDS? How can you be so sure that somehow Joseph Smith’s immediate followers have not been corrupted in the same way or will continue to get it right in the future? In other words what is different now that wasn’t before? Was the Holy Spirit’s influence somehow stronger in Smith’s followers than in Christ’s followers? [If I had to pick between the two groups of followers based on their leaders I would most assuredly pick those of Christ and the Apostles.]

How do you interpret this verse:

Matthew 28:18-20

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”

Why bother to issue this command at all if Christ knew, as surely He must have, that within a few more years the church would be totally and absolutely corrupt and apostate. His promise rings kind of hollow doesn’t it?

Doesn’t it bother you that there is absolutely no independent historical or archeological evidence that any of the events described in the book of Mormon did in fact happen? [Ok I admit that that was a loaded question.]

You said, “It really comes down to faith. I don't expect to change your mind and you will certainly never change mine. I believe what I believe for very specific reasons. It has nothing to do with academic reasoning or cleverly constructed arguments. It is because I have received a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit telling me that it is true.”

While I agree that faith is the most important part of the equation, and I am not attempting to downplay your alleged revelation from the Holy Spirit, but reason and knowledge must also come into play. We are told that we must be able to give a reason for the faith that is in us. Therefore, faith must have some basis in “academic reasoning” and “cleverly constructed arguments” and not merely on an experience. Experiences, even alleged experiences with the “Holy Spirit”, tend to be very unreliable in this fallen world.

You said, “I only posted a comment here because I just can't understand why people try to destroy other's faith. In my church we do not tear other religions down. We do what we have been commanded to do and let people know our message. It is their choice to accept or reject; a luxury that the Catholic Church has not always allowed those with whom it came in contact.”

How are we doing anything different than what your church does? We are merely attempting to show you or whoever visits this blog what is Truth and what is not Truth. You are free to avoid this blog at anytime.

You said, “But when you have a group of people who are living to be as honest, chaste, sober, kind, caring as possible; why would people try to destroy that? I can only understand that it must be through jealousy and personal malice.”

What does it profit you to live such a life and still lose your soul? And if we had the Truth that would save your soul, and did not attempt to correct the error of your ways wouldn't that be malicious?

You said, “Brigham Young gave the Catholic Church land and money to build a beautiful cathedral in downtown Salt Lake City. When has the Catholic Church (or any other) offered such kindness to the Mormon Church? Never. Instead, we were driven from our homes, had our fathers, children, mothers etc murdered before our eyes and extermination orders pronounced against us. Not unlike our forefathers, the apostles and "former-day Saints" of the New Testament.”

I would be very careful of you comparing the Mormon persecution to the persecution the early church endured.

You said, “We don't believe what we believe because we are idiots and dupes as many suggest."

No you believe what you believe because you have been duped.

"In fact, I will put the intellectual capability of my local ward (congregation) up against those of the local parish or protestant congregation any day of the week.”

Bring it on! We’ll do it here on this blog.

“None of that matters. What does matter is that we have received a personal witness of the truthfulness of our beliefs and that is what drives us.”

You’re right I can’t persuade you that you didn’t have that experience, but if that is all you are basing your faith on then may God have mercy of your soul.

In Christ,

Thomas

Broken Record,

I’ll do my best to answer your questions even though I get the idea I am walking into a trap here in “enemy” territory! Actually, I don’t consider Catholics enemies at all. We certainly disagree on the question of authority and the resulting doctrinal differences, but we do have a lot in common with each other with some items such as of priesthood authority, church organization and the necessity of sacraments for salvation, etc; ideas that Protestants have rejected. Incidentally, Mormons don’t consider themselves Protestants. But, I digress…..

The best thing to do is take a look at this link. It provides a few answers as to the question of polygamy.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html

Polygamy is one of those very difficult questions to answer. It is an idea that really offends our western sensibilities. In eastern cultures, people think nothing of it as an open practice. In Latin cultures of South America, polygamy is routinely practiced in form of a man having a wife and a girlfriend. It is not unusual and is even accepted for a man to have a wife and family and then to have a girlfriend(s) and family(s) on the side. Regardless of how this is referred to, it is still a form of polygamy. My point here is that people often argue against the Mormon practice of polygamy on basis of it being “unnatural” or “unacceptable” behavior. The question isn’t “does society forbid it?” The question is “does God forbid it?” Now, does the fact that many cultures practice and accept polygamy make it a right or even a good practice? No, not necessarily. But, I believe your blog contained a reference to the fact that the Bible doesn’t reject the practice. There are many instances of Old Testament prophets who engaged in polygamy with the full blessing of God. It should be noted that the practice was a normal part of those societies and cultures. So, we start the discussion from the standpoint that God has authorized the practice in the past.

Let me try to answer the last part of your question first, which really boils down to “why polygamy?” There is no easy answer to this question. The short answer is “it was a commandment.” This leads to the next question, “why was it a commandment?” I don’t know that there is really an articulate answer to this question. I don’t know that anyone really knows. Certainly the practice allowed Mormons to reproduce at a higher rate than non-Mormons and therefore they were able to more quickly establish large stable groups in various communities in the Mountain West. It did enable widows and orphans to have husbands and fathers, which provided stability when government programs were not available to such people. While these things were some of the resulting benefits of the practice, I don’t believe they were there reason for the commandment. My personal belief is that Latter-day Saints at the time had to undergo a kind of Abrahamic test. They had to prove that they really believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet through showing that they would obey commandments given from God to Joseph Smith. I think this is borne out when one looks at the reaction for most of the LDS leadership at the time. Everyone had a difficult time accepting it. Some never did. But those who did, did so not because they desired to satisfy their urges (it would have been a lot easier to do that without the responsibility), but because they believed they were keeping a commandment. It is important to note that only about 10% of Mormons ever practiced polygamy, which speaks to the fact that it was not a commandment to all and was not necessary for eternal salvation for all (only those to whom the commandment was given). I believe that the practice was stopped after Wilford Woodruff poured his heart out to God and received a revelation that he could now put a stop to the practice. Even President Woodruff stated that had he not received the revelation, he was ready to suffer jail, the loss of all church assets etc, just to keep the commandment.

The answer to your first question is “yes!” A more direct answer is that it depends on the situation and the time. Currently polygamy is forbidden as it is no longer necessary for whatever reason. As stated above it was required by some but not by all. I know – a bit confusing!

It should be noted that the first half of Doctrine & Covenants Section 132 refers to temple marriage (sealing for time and eternity) and not polygamy. The polygamy part is only covered by the second half of the section and was a response to a specific question from Joseph about the practice.
I hate to take up this much space on the blog, but I have pasted Brigham Young’s remarks on polygamy below.
Remarks made by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery,
Provo, July 14, 1855.
I have a few words to say concerning one item of doctrine, that I seldom think of mentioning before a public congregation; I refer to the doctrine pertaining to raising up a royal Priesthood to the name of Israel's God, for which purpose the revelation was given to Joseph, concerning the right of faithful Elders, in taking to themselves more than one wife. I frequently hear from others that this doctrine is laughed at and ridiculed; I heard yesterday of its being laughed out of doors, even jeered and sneered out of a Bishop's house.
I am not personally cognizant of any one jeering at and deriding this doctrine; still, I hear that there are some few who are opposed to it. Once in a while sentiments reach my ears which sound very curious and strange, and when I hear them, I do really wish that some were possessed of better sense; I will, therefore, tell you a few things that you should know. God never introduced the Patriarchal order of marriage with a view to please man in his carnal desires, nor to punish females for anything which they had done; but He introduced it for the express purpose of raising up to His name a royal Priesthood, a peculiar people. Do we not see the benefit of it? Yes, we have lived long enough to realize its advantages.
Suppose that I had had the privilege of having only one wife, I should have had only three sons, for those are all that my first wife bore, whereas, I now have buried five sons, and have thirteen living.
It is obvious that I could not have been blessed with such a family, if I bad been restricted to one wife, but, by the introduction of this law, I can be the instrument in preparing tabernacles for those spirits which have to come in this dispensation. Under this law, I and my brethren are preparing tabernacles for those spirits which have been preserved to enter into bodies of honor, and be taught the pure principles of life and salvation, and those tabernacles will grow up and become mighty in the kingdom of our God.
I believe that our children will become mighty in faith, be powerful in defending the truth, and will soon have to take important places in the great work of this dispensation. They may be rude at present, yet, you will find within them the true principles of "Mormonism," and, when our sons become men, they will be men of God, and be useful in accomplishing a good work upon the earth.
The spirits which are reserved have to be born into the world, and the Lord will prepare some way for them to have tabernacles. Spirits must be born, even if they have to come to brothels for their fleshy coverings, and many of them will take the lowest and meanest spirit house that there is in the world, rather than do without, and will say, "Let me have a tabernacle, that I may have a chance to be perfected."
The Lord has instituted this plan for a holy purpose, and not with a design to afflict or distress the people; hence, an important and imperative duty is placed upon all holy men and women, and the reward will follow, for it is said, that the children will add to our honor and glory.
It hurts my feelings when I see good men, men who love correct principles and cling to the counsels of the Church, who have lived near to God for years and have always been faithful, with not a child to bear up their names to future generations, and I grieve to reflect that their names must go into the grave with them.
It would please me to see good men and women have families; I would like to have righteous men take more wives and raise up holy children. Some say, "I would do so, but brother Joseph and brother Brigham have never told me to do it."
This law was never given of the Lord for any but his faithful children; it is not for the ungodly at all; no man has a right to a wife, or wives, unless he honors his Priesthood and magnifies his calling before God.
I foresaw, when Joseph first made known this doctrine, that it would be a trial, and a source of great care and anxiety to the brethren, and what of that? We are to gird up our loins and fulfil this, just as we would any other duty. (High wind and clouds of dust prevented speaking for several seconds.)
It has been strenuously urged by many, that this doctrine was introduced through lust, but that is a gross misrepresentation. (A thick cloud of dust prevented speaking for about two minuets.)
This revelation, which God gave to Joseph, was for the express purpose of providing a channel for the organization of tabernacles, for those spirits to occupy who have been reserved to come forth in the kingdom of God, and that they might not be obliged to take tabernacles out of the kingdom of God.
We are commanded to overcome all our lustful desires, also our pride, selfishness, and every evil propensity that pertains to the flesh, to keep the commandments of God, and all the commandments pertaining to the holy Priesthood.
It is important that we get a victory over our earthly passions, and learn to live by the law of God.
I am aware that care and other duties are greatly increased, by the law which I am remarking upon; this I know by experience, yet though it adds to our care and labor, we should say, "Not my will, but thine, O Lord, be done."
As far as my acquaintance extends, the brethren who have entered into this order, with a pure heart, have enjoyed full as much worldly prosperity as they did before the Prophet Joseph revealed this holy law and order to the Latter-day Saints.
The Lord intended that our family cares should be greater; He knew they would be, yet He is able to bless us in proportion. I know quite a number of men in this Church who will not take any more women, because they do not wish to take care of them; a contracted spirit causes that feeling. I have also known some in my past life, who have said, that they did not desire to have their wives bear any children, and some even take measures to prevent it; there are a few such persons in this Church.
When I see a man in this Church with those feelings, and hear him say, "I do not wish to enlarge my family, because it will bring care upon me," I conclude that he has more or less of old sectarian leaven about him, and that he does not understand the glory of the celestial kingdom.
Says one, "How will you explain this to me?" We understand that we are to be made kings and Priests unto God; now if I be made the king and lawgiver to my family, and if I have many sons, I shall become the father of many fathers, for they will have sons, and their sons will have sons, and so on, from generation to generation, and, in this way, I may become the father of many fathers, or the king of many kings. This will constitute every man a prince, king, lord, or whatever the Father sees fit to confer upon us.
In this way we can become King of kings, and Lord of lords, or Father of fathers, or Prince of princes, and this is the only course, for another man is not going to raise up a kingdom for you.
If I did not feel disposed, in my poverty, to enlarge my family and to build up the kingdom, I could not be acquainted with the difficulties thereof, neither should I be counted worthy to enjoy the blessings conferred upon those who are faithful.
This should be the view taken of this matter, by the whole of this people, and, when a man or woman sees that this principle should be introduced among the Latter-day Saints, they should cease their murmurings.
It is not through lust that men and women are to practise this doctrine, but it is to be observed upon righteous principles; and, if men and women would pay attention to those instructions, I would promise, in the name of the Lord, that you would never find them lustful in their dispositions, and you might watch them as closely as you pleased.
Plurality of wives is not designed to afflict you nor me, but is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God. If any man had asked me what was my choice when Joseph revealed that doctrine, provided that it would not diminish my glory, I would have said, "Let me have but one wife;" not because it is not a great comfort to me to have children, but if I have not children I know them not.
Some of these my brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo; and I have had to examine myself, from that day to this, and watch my faith, and carefully meditate, lest I should be found desiring the grave more than I ought to do.
You will probably wonder at this, and that such should have been my feelings upon this point, but they were even so.
Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.
But the Saints who live their religion will be exalted, for they never will deny any revelation which the Lord has given or may give, though, when there is a doctrine coming to them which they cannot comprehend fully, they may be found saying, "The Lord sendeth this unto me, and I pray that He will save and preserve me from denying anything which proceedeth from Him, and give me patience to wait until I can understand it for myself."
Such persons will never deny, but will allow those subjects which they do not understand, to remain until the visions of their minds become open. This is the course which I have invariably pursued, and, if anything came that I could not understand, I would pray until I could comprehend it.
Do not reject anything because it is new or strange, and do not sneer nor jeer at what comes from the Lord, for if we do, we endanger our salvation. It is given to us, as agents, to choose or refuse, as brother S. W. Richards has set before you, but we are agents within limits, if it were not so there would be no law.
There are limits to agency, and to all things and to all beings, and our agency must not infringe upon that law. A man must choose life or death, and if he chooses death he will find himself abridged, and that the agency which is given to him is so bound up that he cannot exercise it in opposition to the law, without laying himself liable to be corrected and punished by the Almighty.
A man can dispose of his agency or of his birth-right, as did Esau of old, but when disposed of he cannot again obtain it; consequently, it behoves [behooves] us to be careful, and not forfeit the agency that is given to us. The difference between the righteous and the sinner, eternal life or death, happiness or misery, is this, to those who are exalted there are no bounds or limits to their privileges, their blessings have a continuation, and to their kingdoms, thrones, and dominions, principalities, and powers there is no end, but they increase through all eternity; whereas, those who reject the offer, who despise the proffered mercies of the Lord, and prepare themselves to be banished from His presence, and to become companions of the devils, have their agency abridged immediately, and bounds and limits are put to their operations.
The power of the devil is limited; the power of God is unlimited; therefore let us be cautious how we use our liberty and agency, and be careful to choose that which is good and right before the Lord, and then our exaltation is sure.
Below are some quotes from Wilford Woodruff.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Thomas,

Nice note. How long have you been posting here?

Jay,

I live in Salt Lake City, UT. I have always questioned members of the Mormon Church regarding polygamy…just like Dennis they seem incapable of answering my question!!!!!! Most common answers are; “pray…,” “read these Mormon’s site…”, “it was necessary at a time…” It amazes me that members of the Church cannot answer that question concisely. Sad!

I wonder if one day the leader of the Mormon Church has one of those “revelations from God” asking the members to practice polygamy once again, how many Mormon wives would accept it…Dennis, is your family all members of the LDS Church? How many women in your family would accept it? Just a thought!

Mary

Dennis, let me see if I understand your answers to your questions correctly...

1. Polygamy is neither required nor forbidden by any permanent binding moral precept - it is a practice whose value changes with the times. (like the Catholic practice of fasting on certain days of the year - the rules change from time to time, country to country, and believers are required to submit out of obedience)

2. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young allowed polygamy and practiced it themselves.

3. Woodruff discouraged polygamy.

Polygamy is an interesting issue because Martin Luther recommended it and although many claim polygamy to be unwise, I have never seen a Protestant successfully demonstrate, from Protestant principles, that Martin Luther acted "unbiblically" in his counsel.

When we were one,

I haven’t forgotten about you! I will just need some time to go into the more detailed response that your questions/assertions require…..

Thomas,

Let me start by saying that I haven’t tried nor do I plan to launch a full scale defense of the Mormon faith on this blog. There are plenty of websites one can go to that offer sound apologetics for the faith.

However, I do want to answer the questions that you have put to me.

I’ll try to answer following the order in which you asked:

Christ established HIS church right away. He didn’t establish the “Catholic” church, even though that is your claim. The Catholic Church is a fourth century (at best) concoction. It is the result of men who picked up the pieces of what was left of the Church and tried to put it back together without authority (or revelation) from God to do so. However, I do believe that world owes a lot to these men because they did preserve as best they could, the word of God and Christ’s message. However, without revelation or the permanent presence of the Holy Ghost, which was taken from a world wicked enough to kill the Son of God, the teachings and practices became distorted.

Christ did reestablish his Church through Joseph Smith after taking it away soon after the death of the apostles. The “Mormon Church” is what you folks have chosen to call Christ’s church that is on earth today. We didn’t give it that name!

Whole generations of people didn’t necessarily die damned. God being a fair and just God will allow those who lived during that time to have an opportunity to hear and accept the Gospel. However sacred ordinances (sacraments) are necessary for full salvation. Hence, the reason for Temple work where these ordinances (such as baptism for the dead) are performed by proxy on behalf of those who departed the earth without receiving them. They of course have the option to accept them or not. This work will continue even after Christ’s return to the earth and through the ensuing “millennium.” What does your church teach will happen to those living in places or times who never had the chance to hear the word of God? Will they automatically be damned? Hardly seems fair or just…..

The apostasy occurred at some point after the death of the apostles and Christ’s immediate followers and with the cessation of revelation. It was purposeful on the part of God due to the resulting corruption of the church and wickedness of the people. It was prophesied that it would happen. It was not related to the “strength (or lack thereof) of the Spirit.” So, your question is nonsensical in that you are trying to compare Joseph Smith to Jesus Christ when we (Mormons) clearly are not. Further, our claim is that Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and instructed him, hence making Joseph an immediate follower of Christ. We don’t chose Joseph over Jesus as Joseph was sent by Jesus. That would be like saying you chose Peter over Jesus. Makes no sense.
I interpret Matthew 18 just as it was meant; a commandment to those who heard it spoken. The promise doesn’t ring hollow as he was “always” with those who heard him say it.

You say that there is no historical or archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. I disagree. The evidences are many. However, the Book of Mormon was never intended as a field guide to Mesoamerican archeological digs. I will point you to the following website that provides many evidences. http://www.farmsresearch.com/ It offers many evidences. Also, check this site for a very good article. http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

The most important evidence though is a verification of its truthfulness through the Holy Spirit.

Yes, there does have to be reasoning with faith. I believe that if Mormonism is explored fairly, it is a very common sense and reasonable religion. The problem is that what Mormons really believe get so obscured by all of the half truths, out of context statements, and downright lies that people really are not able to find out what Mormons really believe unless they go to the source. I do think it is reasonable that we lived pre-mortally, the we are here on earth to be tested, that Christ died for our sins, that through him we can return to live with our Father in Heaven. I think that it is reasonable the ALL people on the earth are God’s children and that he has revealed himself in a consistent way in other parts of the world (Book of Mormon). I think it is reasonable for the Book of Mormon to have come to light by the gift and power of God to prove to the world that Jesus is the Christ and remembers is children no matter where they live. What a great message! You only reject it because it challenges your beliefs. Your church leaders reject it because it challenges their power. Read it. Pray about it. Find out for yourself.

When I mentioned that the Catholic Church didn't allow people the luxury to chose their own beliefs, I was referring to things like the Inquisition, conquest of America and other such times in Catholic history. Not this blog. I think history bears out that the Catholic Church has never been a big fan of religious freedom.

So you are telling me that a person who lives a good life but is not a Catholic will lose their soul? So if I live my life murdering and fornicating I get the same reward - eternal damnation - as another Mormon or Baptist or Hindu or Muslim who lived life with as many good works as possible? Sorry, even Mormons don’t believe such things. Yes, we believe that there are things one must do to receive the highest reward, but saying that only Catholics will be saved is unreasonable indeed. People will be judged and rewarded according to their hearts, minds, and works. Grace also plays an important part as no reward would come to be without Jesus Christ.

I will certainly compare the persecutions of Mormons to what the early church had to endure. The similarities are striking. We believe that the author of both sets of persecutions is Satan and his attempt was to destroy Christ’s church. You should read about what Mormons were forced to endure in this country. It is unbelievable that this was allowed to go on in the United States even at that time. That is one of the reasons God chose to restore his church in the US. It would have been so much more difficult for the church to survive in any other country. We believe that the US was founded on religious freedom and for this purpose and that the Holy Spirit moved upon Columbus, the framers of the Constitution, George Washington etc, all for the purpose of preparing the earth to restore his Church.

At any rate, I do take exception to your saying that I have been duped. Perhaps it is you who has been duped my friend. Any serious study of Mormon beliefs will show that they are very rational and very reasonable beliefs. They are backed by scripture and most importantly by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Regarding my own spiritual experiences that have been made a mockery of on this blog – I will finish up with Joseph Smiths words:

“So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.”

Sealed with his blood....

Dennis

Broken Record,

I would say that is about right. However, Wilford Woodruff also practiced polygamy until he abolished it.

I wasn't aware that Martin Luther advocated polygamy. That is quite interesting. I'll have to read more about it.

Dennis

Mary,

We aren't incapable of answering your question, you just don't like the answers we give you.

If someone directs you to a website it is because someone else has posted something more articulate there that does answer the question. Do you ever go to the website and read it? How do you expect us to give concise answers to a complex question? I don't see what is sad about it. Frankly, we don't dwell on it as much as you do. You are the one who obviously has a problem with the concept. Please explain to me in six words or less why God allowed (and perhaps commanded) Biblical prophets to practice polygamy. See, not realistic.

It is very doubtful that polygamy will be required again because it already served its purpose. But, I'll play your little game. I don't know if Mormon wives would accept it. If they did, they wouldn't like it. I wouldn't like it. Joseph Smith didn't like it. Brigham Young didn't like it. Read what they said about it. They saw it as a burden. But, they did it out of obedience. Abraham didn't like that he was going to have to murder his own son. But God commanded it and so he obeyed even though he didn't understand why. Fortunately, he didn't have to follow through with that one.

I have a question for you. What drives people to go live in Salt Lake City when they know its full of those "evil" Mormons? Isn't that like complaining about black people and then moving to Detroit? Or did you not know that SLC was full of Mormons before you got there? I am just wondering because I have heard people like you complain and I just don't get it. My ancestors built SLC for their posterity to live in peace away from Mormon haters. Seems like you all waited for the desert to be built into a decent place to live and then showed up anyway. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind non-Mormons living there, but if you are going to complain about it, go somewhere else!

Dennis

Thomas, Matthew, When we were one et al,

I’ll tell you what; since you guys are forcing me to defend every doctrine and practice of the LDS faith, if you guys can defend the following “changes” or “determinations” or “bikes and cars made out of mercury” or whatever you want to call it; if you can explain to me how the following doctrines are Biblical, how they were taught by Christ, and are not changes to the original beliefs, I will recant my testimony and deny my faith in Mormonism. Ready? GO!

1 . Prayers for the dead - 300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross - 300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints - 375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship - 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration - 394 A.D.
6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus - 431 A.D.
7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites) - 526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1 - 593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints 600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics - 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints - 995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood - 1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary - 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences - 1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III - 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest - 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) - 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion -1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma - 1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed - 1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent - 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible - 1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary - 1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council -1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) -1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church -1965 A.D.

Dennis,

Emotional assurance is a very dangerous cause to explain reality.

The world is full of “religious figures” explaining God through their own “visions”…

Please answer the following questions (Please don’t provide links):

1. Nephi describes that he made plates of ore to record the history of his people. Helaman 3:15 says “But behold, there are many books and many records of every kind, and they have been kept chiefly by the Nephites.”

A culture with writings leaves records. Why there is no other archeological evidence of these writing besides what Joseph Smiths claims to have seen in the “golden plates”?

2. The Bible describes permanent settlements like Jerusalem and Bethlehem. These cities have existed for more than 3000 years. Even cities that no longer exist can be proven by historical and archeological studies…scholars know they existed. They leave the temples foundations and the destruction behind.

Why the 30 major cities described in the Book of Mormons such as Nephi, Bountiful and Mantai have no records of whatsoever? For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years ( a big city like Rome!!!), but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.

Joseph Smith says in Alma 32:21, we should only have faith in things which are true, we can easily rule out having faith in those things in life for which there is no evidence for or for which there is evidence against.

...I will pray for you my dear!

Mary

Dennis,

I have just been sitting on the side waiting for answers. You said you would address later. I sense that is not possible.

Here I shall answer you in the format you seem to prefer... goto www.catholic.com and you will find answers to all of your above questions.

If it makes a difference to you, I can take all of them even 1 at a time if it really matters to you. I define *matters* as ... would me showing you the flaws of your false premises make you at least agree with the Catholic position on each point?

In Love

when we were one

Mary,

First a word about what you call “emotional assurance.” This also goes along with the other person’s entry that mocked “burning of the bosom.”

What about the people who were listening to Peter and the apostles preach as spoken of in the book of Acts?

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37)

Should they have just ignored that feeling as a dangerous way to explain the reality of the divinity of Christ? Maybe they should have demanded proof?

Or what about the two men on the road to Emmaus, on the day of Christ's resurrection? They were walking toward the village wondering about the whereabouts of their Savior. He was gone from the tomb; the women had seen the angels, but they hadn't seen Him. Christ, came up and started talking to them, but "their eyes were holden," so they didn't recognize him. As they sat down to eat, Christ blessed and broke bread with them and gave it to them and then their eyes were opened and they knew who He was.

"And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32)

They realized that they should have recognized Christ because of the feeling they had with the man who they didn’t recognize was they same they had when around Jesus. Had you lived back then you probably have dismissed their faith as “emotional assurance.”

Your twisting of Alma’s words (not Joseph Smith’s) is telling. The true verse says “And now as I said concerning faith – faith is NOT to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” In other words having faith without physical evidence.

How about this scripture?

"Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

Christ seems to place more value on having faith, without evidence. Doesn't that make sense? It doesn't take much to believe something that is proven. Why would one need a witness of the Spirit in such an instance? We wouldn't need to have faith. Another problem is that everyone has a different standard of evidence. Atheists say there is overwhelming evidence to prove the Bible untrue. And what may be sufficient evidence for some may not be enough for others.

Yes, the world is full of religious figures who claim visions etc. Christ was one of those figures as were the prophets of the Bible. How do you know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the world? What do you base your testimony on? Written words? How do you know they are the words of God? Because they say so? Your arguments can be used against you. Everything you use to challenge me is used by atheists to challenge all of us in terms of our faith in the Bible, Christ, etc.

Speaking of physical evidence - now to your “drive by” questions. I say that because most anti-Mormons like to drive by, take a couple of “shots” and then keep going without sticking around for the discussion.

You must really have enjoyed the little film “Bible vs. The Book of Mormon” since your questions quote the movie nearly verbatim. Your arguments, as simplistic as they are, are going to take several pages to answer. Let me start with your last question:

I don’t know where you get your stats but Zarahemla was not the size of Rome nor does the Book of Mormon talk about “millions of people”; thousands, but not millions. You have the time period of the Book of Mormon nearly correct. The bulk of Book of Mormon events took place from around 600 BC to 400 AD. There is mention of another group of people (Jaredites) who had arrived in the Americas at around 2000 BC.

You imply that there is no physical evidence of such cities etc. You are wrong. Your movie was very misleading (a common tactic of the anti-Mormon). There are many physical remains of cities in Mesoamerica. Just because they haven’t uncovered a road sign that says “Welcome to Zarahemla” doesn’t mean the city didn’t exist. It doesn’t mean that of all the ancient cities in Mesoamerica, none of them could be Zarahemla. In fact, one LDS archeologist and Book of Mormon scholar suggests a site at Santa Rosa, Guatemala fits the size and geographic features spoken of in the Book of Mormon as well as fitting the time period.

You say that “no city they occupied has yet to be found.” I think you meant “a city they occupied has yet to be found.” How do you know that of the thousands of ancient cities located in Central and South America, the peoples of the Book of Mormon did not occupy them? Where is your evidence of this? You are simply making an assertion with no proof. Someone occupied them. What is your proof that some were not occupied by Book of Mormon peoples?

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of all things historical and archeological when you assert that “even cities that don’t exist anymore can be proven through historical and archeological studies.” Really? Proven? I don’t think so. Even now, scholars don’t agree fully on where or if some of the settlements or place names spoken of in the Bible exist. Further, it wasn’t until recently that there was any real agreement on where Troy (a non-biblical city, but one with historical importance) might be. Some suggested that is didn’t actually exist at all and was just the stuff of legends until recent findings. Even now, scholars are not in agreement if there was actually a Trojan war. These are places with which the west has had contact for thousands of years. According to you, these things are easy to prove because one simply need dig in the ground and find the proof. Far too simplistic I’m afraid. Our contact with Mesoamerica doesn’t even start until the Spanish. Nothing at all was known about these places until Columbus.

In regards to writing; one of the biggest problems with learning (in the secular sense) about the people and cultures of Mesoamerica is the lack of surviving written texts. That doesn’t mean the people didn’t write, it means that what they wrote on didn’t survive. Unlike the dry desert of the middle-east, Mesoamerica is a hot, humid place where nothing survives. I know, because I spent a lot of time in Panama. Everything rots quickly; paper, cloth, wood, leather, whatever. So any writing that survived had to be written in stone (or metal plates). According to archeologists, Stone writing wasn’t practiced until well after the Book of Mormon timeframe. It doesn’t mean they didn’t write, it just means that what they wrote on disintegrated. As such, their languages were not preserved. Scholars don’t know what those people called themselves, much less their cities. It is true that we have not yet found any plates with writing on them. It would be a rare find if we did. Just think, you are a conquering people in 400 AD and you find a cache of records kept on metal (particularly gold) plates among the stuff of the people (Nephites) you just conquered. You can’t read the records. They mean nothing to you. What do you do with the plates? Melt them down and make rings, necklaces, idols, whatever! Or maybe you expected them to show up in the Aztec version of the Smithsonian? 1600 years have passed and anything could have happened to them. We do know that gold was in abundance in that region. That is what motivated the Spanish and Portuguese to conquer the region.

Now as I have said before, there are many evidences that the book is accurate on things that Joseph Smith couldn’t have guessed or made up. So, since you seem to be somewhat of an amateur archeologist, anthropologist, and historian, please explain how these evidences found their way into the Book of Mormon. While I do concede that they are not “proof”, they do point to the plausibility of the Book of Mormon. By divine design the Book of Mormon will never be proven (or disproved) by physical evidence. It can only be proven through the Holy Spirit.

- Writing on Gold Plates. In 1830, not one plate (besides Joseph Smith’s) containing ancient writing was known to have been unearthed. We now know from archeological findings that it was a very common practice in the Middle East, particularly around 600 BC, to put writings, especially religious documents on metal plates. Further, Joseph Smith stated that the title “page” was at the end of the book. The plates unearthed recently in the Mid-East all have the title page at the end. How did Joseph know about these practices?

- In Joseph Smith’s time and even until the last few years, it was considered laughable that a group of Hebrews would use Egyptian (writing of their former enemy), especially something called “reformed Egyptian,” to write down sacred texts. We now know that that the Israelites were very familiar with the Egyptian writing system. Archeologists in the Middle East have found writings in Aramaic that use a modified or “reformed” Egyptian called Demotic. How did Joseph Smith know about this practice?

- The Book of Mormon mentions cement work. Scholars used to criticize the Book of Mormon for this obvious error. Extensive examples of cement work have been uncovered in Mesoamerica. How many more such criticisms will be answered with new discoveries? How did Joseph get it right?

- Ancient Semitic literary tradition uses a poetical structure called “Chiasmus.” Until recently, this structure had not been recognized. However, the Book of Mormon contains many powerful examples of this writing style. How was Joseph Smith able to duplicate a writing style that had not even been identified?

- Olive culture. Jacob 5 in the Book of Mormon was said to be taken from the texts brought by Lehi from Jerusalem and contains a detailed explanation about ancient olive tree cultivation. These details were not available to Joseph Smith or even during his time. How did he get it right?

- Book of Mormon names. People used to criticize Joseph Smith for using the name “Alma” especially for a man as it sounds like feminine Latin. In 1967 a professor in Israel found an ancient document dated during the general timeframe of 600 BC. The professor translated the document and found it to be land deed for “Alma the son of Judah.” The name Sariah was not known to be an ancient Hebrew woman’s name until recently. Similar discoveries have been made about “Aha”, “Mosiah”, “Kish” and “Shule.” Additionally, the words “liahona” and “sheum”, once thought by anti-Mormons to be gibberish, are now known to be ancient words and to make sense in the context of how they appear in the Book of Mormon. How did Joseph guess and make these things up?

There are plenty more where those came from. However, I will wait to write about more evidences until you answer these and explain why they can’t be counted as evidences for the Book of Mormon.

Dennis

When we were one (if that is your real name!),

So are you conceding that those doctrines and practices that I listed are extra-biblical? I don’t really want to read a discourse on the Catholic position on each point. My contention isn’t necessarily with those particular issues (although I don’t believe in them at all), my contention is that the Catholic Church has no authority to act in the name of God and is not Christ’s Church.

I stand by my position on the Apostasy, which is the position of every other Christian denomination (except arguably the Orthodox) with differing opinions on the exact time that it began. I don’t believe the scripture that you quote refers to Peter as the rock at all. I really don’t believe that God would build his Church on any man, as men are imperfect and fallible. I realize that the Catholic Church has made this scripture the foundation of its papal claims, but I believe that Christ refers to himself in the scripture and that he is the rock. This is evidenced by the preceding verses where Peter had just confessed Christ. Further, if God chooses to take the Church from the earth that does not mean the gates of Hell have prevailed against it. The gates of Hell will never prevail against it, whether on the earth or not. Now, I know you are going to give me the whole line again about private interpretation and how I gave no authority to interpret scripture. Says you! Every Christian denomination I know pulls that one out each time a person quotes a scripture that doesn’t jive with the other’s beliefs.

Then you go into the “false prophets” yada yada. Well, that doesn’t mean that every prophet is a false prophet. For there to be false prophets there have to also be true prophets. Hence –

“Surely the Lord God will do nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” Amos 3:7

This also goes along with “adding volumes of scripture.” How can you limit God by not allowing him to add to his own word? He just revealed a few words and went silent? I think God has the right to add to his own word as he sees fit.

If you would like me to address each of your other “drive by” criticisms, I will. But I’ll have to do it when I have more time.

You seem to imply that “might makes right” by referring to the numbers of Catholics on the earth. Perhaps then you should defer to Islam, which contains many more members. You also seem to imply that sheer time of existence makes you correct; although I contend that Catholicism didn’t start until around 400AD. All the same, you should then defer to Judaism or Zoroastrianism. One has to wonder had you lived in the time of Christ where you would have found yourself when the young Jesus began his ministry with only a few followers? From your comments, I believe you would have sided with the more larger more established “establishment” and branded him a false prophet and his church a cult. Had there been blogs back then, you all would be ranting about this false prophet Jesus and filing those rants under “cults.”

Dennis

Dennis,

I am interested in the truth (you avoid reading a website when yet you demand that of others). I guess since you have avoided all of my questions,including my offer to take you by the hand through each of your misrepresentations (pending you be able to admit the Catholic position is correct when shown so) you are not interested in the truth but merely clinging to your transitional object.

You cry out to Mary as she and Thomas showed holes in your logic "drive by." Did you ever think the reason someone does a "drive by" maybe because you have shut the door on reason? Why should I show you that 1 + 1= 2 when you constantly scream, close your eyes and plug your ears that indeed it is = 3? And no I do not admit that any of your contentions are true but fully contend that they are false and have been shown to be so.

In Love

when we were one

In Love

when we were one

Dennis

Aside from teaching you about my faith. Even if you decline to admit 1 + 1 = 2, I am obliged to defend against some of your "drive by" misconceptions (or lies). They would be lies if you know well enough as I suppose. They are misconceptions if you do not know well enough.

I understand that you have "drive byed" popes and bishops we addressed that above from scripture as well as 1st century practices tacitly condoned by living apostles. Yet you continue to beat the drum that the Catholic Church wasn't founded until Constantine and as you well know, that is far from the truth.

I'm sure you know of Ignatius of Antioch. Taken by historians to be the child who is put on the lap of Christ. Antioch had the 1st church. The church fled there after the stoning of Stephen. Acts holds this is the 1st place the word "Christian" is used. History holds that Peter was the 1st bishop of this church. A bishop as noted above was considered an apostle. If an apostle were to die he was replaced by another (Mattias replaces Judas Iscariot). Ignatius is ordained by Peter and trains under John the beloved. He is considered one of John's 2 greatest apostles. In 68 ad the 2nd bishop of Antioch dies and Ignatius rises to replace him. Many of the apostles are still alive at this time including his teacher John in nearby Ephesus. Ignatius writes this of the Catholic Church:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans... Again we have no record of John dispising this teaching of the "Catholic Church" instead we are left with John 17:20-22 Christ's last request before execution "...may they be as one."

His contemporary, another apostle of John and bishop was Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. It has been written... if one did not know the answer he/she was to ask Polycarp. Polycarp is martyred in 155 and this is part of the account of his students:

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155). So it looks like John had taught Catholicism to both Iggy and Poly...and we see no contradiction from the other apostles we just have Ephesians 4:5 calling for 1 faith... you do know that these early christians used the word Catholic because it means Universal don't you?

Lastly you do approve of our protection of scripture. How kind. You do realize that the authenticity of the authors had to be established early. For the bible was not fully produced until the late 300s as you know unlike what you say 1500s. Who vouched for the authenticity? People in line with the writers of course. No doubt you have heard of Irenaeus with the big debate over the Gospel of Judas... It was Irenaeus that denied its validity in the 2nd Century... what does Irenaeus say about this church you say doesn't exist until the *4th century at best.*

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180). Indeed I am scrambling to find dissent to this Catholic church for on your word it cannot exist before 320 at best... but instead I find 1 Cor 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

So there you have it scripture and 1st century Christians talking Catholic. All around a cloud of witnesses! No dissent! But I am befuddled. I can't seem to find the "Jesus as spirit brother of Lucifer." or "Administrating Planets" or "Jesus was just 1 God of many." or "Great American War." I know I must have missed it because you say so... It must have been. Here...goto Ewtn.com they have a good library of the fathers...read on, learn and reason.

In Love

when we were one

When we were one,

Nice try my friend! Either you don’t know your history or you are purposefully misrepresenting it. Bishops were NOT considered apostles. Apostles may have been called generically “bishop” such as when Peter called Jesus the “Bishop of our Souls”, but the office of Bishop was a local leader. The apostles ordained Bishops (while the original twelve were alive) to be local leaders. Even Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (how you see that as the first church, I’ll never understand), stated, “I do not as Peter and Paul issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even now, a servant.”

It was as you say though, that the Apostles were replaced after one died. However, it got to the point that the Apostles were unable to meet and choose more Apostles to maintain the number at twelve. It is at that point that church began to shut down. It could no longer be sustained or centrally run.

Your quote from Ignatius actually makes my original point of apostasy. This quote was a plea from Ignatius for rebellious members who had rejected a righteous bishop to continue to follow the appointed presiding Priesthood officers. Even at that time, parts of the church were in rebellion as change was being forced on it from both inside and out.

I fail to see your point by making so much of the early mention of the word “catholic” (lower case). Catholic simply means “universal”; anyone claiming to have the “one true church” could claim it to be “catholic.” It wasn’t originally meant as a title, it was meant as a description. It also hardly means that those early leaders were teaching “Catholic doctrine” especially as such doctrine is known today. The fact of the matter is that the church and beliefs became increasingly corrupted. For example, Clement of Alexandria adopted Hellenist philosophy to explain God and thus helped to morph early Christian beliefs to conform to a more popular way of thinking. By the time of Constantine, church leaders were appointed politically and were in no way called of God. I will be more than happy at some future date to compare my church’s current teachings with the ancient Christian doctrines, which is exactly what my church is: a restoration of those doctrines; and then to compare your current “Catholic doctrine” to those of the ancient church. I am sure that I will demonstrate clearly which is closer. This will also examine the charge of “Jesus one God of many” to show you that 1+1+1 does in fact = 3 not 1 as your current doctrine teaches. Yes, I am referring to the non-biblical concept of the Trinity.

When you use the words “Jesus as spirit brother of Lucifer”, your intentions are clear. You have no interest in dialogue about this issue. You simply want to string together a few words in an effort to “shock” the reader, just as the charge cited above, knowing that it will take a lengthy explanation to explain the charge. Evangelicals do the same to your church, so I am surprised that you would use the same tactic. You clearly know what the LDS Church teaches about this subject, but you use wording like that to make our beliefs seem outrageous and prevent the serious seeker of truth from continuing to examine our beliefs. Well, here is the short answer anyway:

First, Mormons believe that Jesus is the “firstbegotten” of the Father and was brought into the world as Jesus the Son of God as spoken in Hebrews 1:6. We also believe that we, as human beings, are also spirit children of this same Father and as such the “firstbegotten” is our older brother. God is the father of all spirits. Satan or Lucifer is a fallen angel who wanted to usurp God’s throne (Isaiah 14:12-14) and was subsequently cast out of heaven. He was of significant importance prior to being cast out. Once cast out through his choice of actions and after choosing evil over good, he became the Devil and was allowed to retain some of his power. Since God is the Father of all, he was originally the Father and creator of Satan. So, by default one could say that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. That does not mean that Mormons compare Jesus to Satan or equate Satan to Jesus or any other nonsense. Mormons believe Satan to be evil, the father of all lies, the tempter and so forth just as other Christians do. But you knew that!

I am not sure what you mean by “Administering Planets” or “Great American War.” The later might refer to the Book of Mormon and I will be happy during a future session to show how the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was biblically foretold. Until then,

Dennis

Dennis

Nice duck and creation of history. To believe your inventions I might as well believe Barney the Purple dinosaur as the true continuation of the true church (if he so claimed). For that is how much violence you do to history to make your claims work. Really the church shutting down as John sat on and watched, where does John or Ignatius say this? Where does Polycarp hint at this?... Irenaeus notes the exact opposite...the true Catholic church "covers the known world by 180." How? through the apostolic succession you try to opinion away. "True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

Yet indeed he writes against heretics, I give you that much. But Irenaeus' faith is contiguous with that of his teacher Polycarp and that of John...and consistent with the current Catholic church as you see it. Irenaeus' contemporary Hegesippus confirms this: "Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: 'And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'" Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History. But who is the heretic I again ask? Where are your doctrines espoused in their writings? I see no plurality of gods (polytheism), I see no polygamy, I see none of this spirit brother stuff, I see no administrating planets as you claim after we die. Or war amongst the Hebrew remenants. The only apostasy here must be yours. Your claims are empty they are in your added volumes... you ask why can't you add volumes to scripture? See Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

I find it comforting that you would embrace Ignatius as trying to preserve the real church against apostasy. Lets see what he knows about heretics. "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans hmmm sounds like the true church believes in the real prescence in the Eucharist... does you church?

Hmmm...Greek philosophy and Christianity...introduced by Catholics... Yep!Right there! wrong guy! John the apostle uses the word LOGOS in John 1...look it up learn and reason. Oh reason? Why don't you google Christ and the Socratic method... you may see that at that time the world was Greek...not native american.

Again your claims have been proven to be empty... I will be in and out until Tuesday...Tobias and Matthew know quite a bit about the fathers... until then.

In Love

when we were one

Dennis,

The more I hear from you the more I am struck by the thought that Mormonism is nothing more than repackaged Gnosticism (Satan up to his old tricks.). So fortunately for you in a sense Mormonism is the restoration of an ancient faith. Unfortunately for you Gnosticism was and still is heresy. How do I know? It was shown to be false by the early Christians through their clear and consistent apologetics and because of that it finally disappeared into the mist of time, something the true faith would not do.

Although you cleverly danced around my questions posted earlier you still have not answered them. Let me clarify what I am asking:

1. Why didn’t Christ establish a church that would not fall into apostasy right from the start? Surely you believe that He has done so now in the LDS right?

2. If Christ founded a faith that was quickly corrupted back 2000 years ago, what assurances do you have that the teaching of LDS church has not been as quickly corrupted after the death of Joseph Smith?

I guess what I am attempting to do with asking these two questions is to get you to see the inconsistency of your beliefs. You claim that the LDS has not been corrupted, and yet at the same time you claim that the very same faith was corrupted earlier. What is so different this time around? How can you be so sure that the same faith that was corrupted by inside and outside influences 2000 years ago won’t be or hasn’t been corrupted yet again?

3. Why would Christ bother to issue the command to go into the world and make disciples if he knew, as surely He must have, that within a generation the faith would fall into apostasy? If Mormonism is true what he should have told his disciples was not to waste their time witnessing, that during the next 1800 years the true faith would entirely disappear no matter what they did.

If you have a legitimate answer I’d be happy to hear it, but please don’t dance around the questions as you are merely wasting both of our times.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,

I would go even further and say that the Mormon faith restores something even more ancient than the gnostic heresy.

Lorenzo Snow's teaching (Mormon Elders taught me this - not anti-mormon propaganda) that God was once a mere mortal like us and that we can become Gods as well reminds me of a similar teaching made in the garden of Eden.

Another thing to note is that Mormon's do not believe that Adam sinned (though they believe he transgressed) when he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Once again, it was Mormon Elders who taught me this.

The Restoration is the restoration of something much much older than gnosticism.

Dennis,

Yes, I really think Joseph Smith didn’t like polygamy. I don’t think my husband would like it either…that many wives??? It is indeed a man’s worst nightmare!

Busy now…I will talk to you soon my dear.

Love, Mary

Thomas,

I am not wasting your time. You are free to read or post comments at your whim and wish. I have nothing to do with it. Also, I didn’t evade your questions. I answered them. If you don’t like the answers, that is your business. There are no inconstancies in my beliefs and I will demonstrate that hopefully more clear for you below. I would like to know from you, how you view my religion as Gnostic? What specific points make it so? You call my religion Gnosticism and then knock down Gnosticism as heresy. Just so you know, that is called a strawman argument and is one of the most unethical and cowardly debate tactics.

Ok. Let’s try this again. Your first question is; “Why did Christ establish a Church that would fall into apostasy right from the start?” A couple of points - Christ established the church knowing that those legitimately holding the “keys of the kingdom” would be rejected. It isn’t that Christ failed. It is that men, who have free agency, failed. Christ cannot and will not force people to accept him or his church. There are several biblical New Testament scriptures that point to an apostasy prior to Christ’s glorious return. I will get into those later.

It needs to be pointed out that the “great apostasy” is not without precedent. There were several “apostasies” throughout time. Sometimes they were complete apostasies and sometimes they were near complete with only a handful of people left on the earth that worshiped the true God and did so correctly and with the correct authority. We call these times when the pure truth and authority is on the earth “dispensations.” Each dispensation lasts until the message and/or authority is rejected by all or a majority of the people of the earth. To set this up, I quote Eusebius, "If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth...." In other words, Christianity is as old as time. As old as it is, it comes and goes from the earth according to the faithfulness (or lack thereof) of man. Therefore, each dispensation, starting with Adam, was followed by an apostasy, some sooner, some later. The apostasy that followed Adam’s dispensation was restored by Enoch, and then restored by Abraham, then Moses and so on. Christ began the important dispensation of “the meridian of time.” The reason I believe that the church did not fall into apostasy after Joseph Smith’s death is that Joseph Smith began the “dispensation of the fullness of times” as spoken of in Ephesians 1:10. This dispensation is the last one prior to Christ’s return to the earth in full glory. Doctrine and Covenants 112:30 says “…..is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fullness of times.” Christ told Joseph Smith that this is the last time there will be an apostasy/restoration until he comes again.

Let’s have a look at some of the scriptures that talk about an apostasy after Christ’s death.

Paul spoke of the apostasy when he told the elders at Ephesus that "after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30)
Paul further understood this when he wrote to Timothy, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” (2 Timothy 4:3-5) Paul told Timothy to do his job as an evangelist but indicated that those in charge would stray.

Peter warned “there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2 Peter 2:1-2) Peter was speaking to the members about their immediate future leaders.

While talking about the timing of the return of the Lord, Paul told the Thessalonians "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away (Greek apostasia) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." (2 Thessalonians 2:3) Paul specifically said that the apostasy would overrun the Church, and a few verses later he intimated that it was already underway. "For already the secret power of wickedness is at work, secret only for the present until the Restrainer disappears from the scene." (2 Thessalonians 2:7 NEB)

As talked about before, Amos tells us, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: and they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it." (Amos 8:11-12)

Those are just a few of the scriptures talking about the apostasy that I could come up with off the top of my head. How about a restoration? Here some scriptures that speak to that.

Acts 3:21 states that Jesus Christ will not return until there has been a “restitution” of all things.

In the Old Testament, Isaiah talks about the last days. The following is from chapter 2 of Isaiah (Isaiah 2:2-5) and I believe that it speaks specifically about the Temple in Salt Lake City. In fact, the name “Utah” was given to the state by non-Mormons”, but it means “top of the mountains” in the Ute Indian language. It fits this scripture ironically well!
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.”

An additional scripture is related to your third question and the answer to it. You say that Christ told the apostles to go into the world and make disciples of all nations. Quite correct. It was a literal commandment meant to be fulfilled by those same apostles and they eventually believed that they had made disciples of all nations or at least all known to them. At the day of Pentecost the Book of Acts records that Peter and the Apostles preached to a crowd consisting of men “from every nation under heaven.” (Acts 2:5) Many of these men were converted. They took their beliefs back to their nations with them. Thus Christ’s commission was literally fulfilled as best the Apostles could fulfill it. Now, fast forward to the time spoken of by John in Revelation when he sees the last days and says “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people...." (Revelation 14:6) Why would angels have to renew this Apostolic commission if the Catholic Church had been fulfilling this commission all along?

To recap, there is precedence in the Old Testament for apostasies. Christ came, ushered in a new dispensation that lasted until it was finally rejected. Christ knew it would happen, but still put his church on the earth until it was rejected by man as had been done many times before. Christ knew when he came to earth, people would be wicked enough to kill their own God. Why wouldn’t they be wicked enough to reject his church? He still had to give men the chance. The apostasy is not a reflection of Christ poorly establishing his church, but rather a reflection on the wickedness of men who reject it. The apostasy was prophesied to take place as well as the restoration. There are many more scriptures that talk about the restoration but they have to be viewed in the totality of circumstances and I don’t have the time or space to go into it here. Suffice it to say that the restoration and this dispensation began with the Father and Son’s appearance to Joseph Smith and then included a whole series of events that included Peter, James and John appearing to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to bestow the “keys of the kingdom.” Talk about Apostolic succession! Joseph and Oliver were told that this was the last time Christ’s church would be restored to the earth prior to his return.

Hope that helps!

Dennis

Dennis,

My first question is: have you ever read the original Book of Mormon as “given” to Joseph Smith? I have read 65% of it. I couldn’t even finish it…I highly recommend you to seek for one and read it!

OK- Isn’t CLEAR that Jesus condemned the practice of polygamy?

A man consorting with two women is as adulterous as a woman consorting with two men. Mark 10:11.

I really like this verse because it sends a clear message to both: MAN and WOMAN.

More quotes:

Gen 2:24-husband and wife becoming one flesh.
Mt.19:5-he never said anything about wives, its singular not plural.
1 Tim.3:2,12 1 Cor.7:2- talk about single marriage-having only one wife.

The Prophet Joseph Smith, when he originally wrote the Book of Mormon, took a very strong stand against polygamy as you know.

Jacob 2:23-24: "But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son."Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

Later on, he practiced and denied:

"In 1840 the doctrine was taught to a few leading brethren who, with the Prophet, secretly married additional wives in the following year. . . . Only the secrecy surrounding its practice prevented a wholesale apostacy from the Church in 1844" (The Restored Church, pp.247, 249).

Joseph Smith vigorously denied accusations linking him to polygamy. At the time Joseph Smiths was accused of “"drinking, swearing, carousing, dancing all night, &c., and that he keeps six or seven young females as wives. . . ." (Letter by Parley P. Pratt concerning Augustine Spencer's accusations, in History of the Church, vol. 6, pp.354-55.)

Do you read the History of the Church?

“In 1838 he answered some questions for the Elder's Journal. Question number seven was: "Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?" The answer was: "No, not at the same time" (Elder's Journal, as cited in History of the Church, vol. 3, p.28).”

As you know, the issue of polygamy in your Church is very sour. It strictly goes against the approach to Christianity.

Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created only one wife for Adam.

My dear, I am happy you’re posting your thoughts on this site. I hope we are helping you to find your path in life!

Love, Mary

Dennis,

To say that Christianity is as old as time is simplifying the matter substantially, but I think I get the substance of your argument.

Name me one instance of a complete apostasy, where no one on earth had proper faith, and give me proof from the Bible that it was complete. I count myself as fairly knowledgable about the Bible, but for the life of me I can’t think of one time where everyone was apostate. If one is to follow the genealogies and histories in the Bible, one can trace a single faith from Adam to Enoch (Adam was still alive when Enoch was born); Enoch to Noah (Noah was born only four years after Enoch was taken into heaven. And there is nothing to suggest that the faith died during those four years); Noah to Abraham (once again Noah was still alive when Abraham was born); Abraham to Isaac; Isaac to Jacob; Jacob to his sons; During the subsequent time in Egypt there is nothing in the Bible that states that the Israelites fell away up to the time of Moses as it is obvious that at least Moses’ family didn’t fall away; Then there was Moses; Moses establishing the preisthood