Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi Kat...we have a few questions...
1. Were you born into Mormonism, or did you "convert" ?
Can I say, "Both?" I was born to LDS parents who encouraged me to question (maybe even doubt on occasion) and to figure out for myself what I believed. When I was young, I used to attend my Church's "Testimony Meeting" which is held once a month. At that particularly service, which preempts our regular service that week, members of the congregation are encouraged to stand up and express their feelings about the gospel of Jesus Christ, bearing witness to one another, so to speak, of their faith in Christ and sharing faith-promoting experiences. I would often hear my little friends (9 and 10 years old) stand up and profess that they knew the LDS Church's teachings were true. Even at that young age, I used to think, "No, you don't. You just know what your parents have told you. Maybe Patty's church (she was our Catholic friend) is the true church. You don't even know the difference between our teachings and hers." My point in mentioning this is that I had an interest in comparative Christianity at a very young age. So, I do feel as if I can say that even though I was raised in the Church, I did not just accept its teachings without a lot of faith, study and prayer.
I'm answering your other question in a separate post.
You're not alone, Ilene. You're just one of the few who will actually admit it. I'd be happy to answer your questions. I'm going to do so in the same format as I started out with, though. I hope that's okay. In other words, I'll take the questions one at a time.
Why do Mormons believe in polygamy?
We believe that polygamy, or plural marriage, as we often call it, is an “eternal principle” that is practiced only when God authorizes it for His own purposes and that is strictly forbidden at all other times.
You are no doubt aware that a number of the Old Testament prophets had many wives. Abraham is perhaps the best known of these, although I could name several others. I have heard people say that God just “turned a blind eye” to Abraham’s plural marriages, that while He did not actually condemn the practice, He definitely did not approve of it. That’s certainly not what I have come to expect of God. Had He really disapproved of Abraham’s multiple marriages, I think we can be certain He would have spoken up. But He didn’t. He never once condemned Abraham. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a single person in the Old Testament God chose to bless more than He did Abraham. He blessed him specifically because he was obedient.
According to the Church’s official site, “In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle.” The practice was officially announced in 1852 (although a few plural marriages took place before that date) and was officially discontinued about 40 years later. But why would God have commanded Joseph to institute a practice that initially appears to contradict that which we read in 1 Timothy 3 (which teaches that monogamy is God's will)?
In the Book of Mormon, we read (the italics are mine), “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Here the Lord is stressing (I don’t think that’s too strong a word) that monogamy should be the general rule and should be observed at all times except when He specifically commands His people for the purpose of “raising up seed” to Him. In other words, it appears that he commands the practice only at times when a righteous man’s progeny (children dedicated to honoring and serving the Lord) would not increase as quickly as the Lord wishes it to. We believe this to have been the case in the early days of Mormonism. When the Church was founded in 1830, there were just six members. It grew quickly, but the members were persecuted to a degree that the average American is oblivious to. (Did you know, for instance, that ours is the only religion in the United States that has ever had an official "extermination order" issued against it? In fact, it was legal to kill a Mormon anywhere in Missouri until as recently as 1976.) At any rate, hypothetically speaking, if this new church was, in fact, the re-establishment of ancient Christianity as it has always claimed to be, it would have been critical that its numbers increase at least as quickly as possible, so that within even a couple of generations, the likelihood that it disappear altogether would be significantly reduced.
Today anyone who is found to be in a polygamous relationship is excommunicated. There are no extenuating circumstances. The "Mormon polygamists" you may see in the news from time to time are not members of our Church, but of offshoot groups. They are not in any way affiliated with us nor are we with them.
I just don't understand how it could be such a big deal and then a few years later done away with. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132 That does not read like something that can be added and removed.
I have noticed that a couple LDS break off groups have basically said the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price were more instructional or stores than scripture.
Since there does seem to be a history of adding and removing doctrine based on the times,(or prophet revelation) do you ever see that the LDS church may do something similar?
If so how would that affect your faith? If the LDS church became mainstream Christian and still used a lot of the pioneer stories and BoM stories as just that, stories, would that be ok with you and the members?
I just don't understand how it could be such a big deal and then a few years later done away with. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132 That does not read like something that can be added and removed.
Keep in mind that we believe the principle to be eternal, everlasting. The practice, however, is another matter. Also keep in mind that one of our Articles of Faith (the closest thing you will find in our church to a creed) states "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." When the Latter-day Saints first began to practice polygamy, there were no laws against it. Men who had two or three wives (who entered into the union of their own free will) were financially supporting them, and as difficult as life for polygamous families could be at times, the practice was hurting no one. It was when laws were enacted to prohibit it that problems arose.
Despite the efforts of the Church leadership to clarify the doctrine the doctrine to outsiders, to explain rationale behind its practice and to point out that it was, in fact, not illegal, Americans from all religious backgrounds united against the Latter-day Saints. Anti-Mormon literature exposing “the truth” about polygamy and the degradation of Mormon women was everywhere. Missionaries abroad were often attacked by angry mobs; several here in the United States were murdered. For the next thirty years, a series of anti-polygamy laws were sponsored in the United States Congress, but most of them failed to pass. The Morill Anti-Bigamy Act, however, was signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln. Although this act banned plural marriage, since nobody had bothered allocating any funds to actually enforce it, this law ultimately had very little effect on the members of the church.
In 1882, Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which declared polygamy to be a felony. The law made it impossible for anyone living in a polygamous family to hold public office, to serve on a jury or to vote. But that wasn’t all. It wasn’t just the civil rights of polygamist members of the Church that were affected, but the civil rights of all members of the Church who believed in the doctrine of plural marriage, regardless of whether or not they were participating in it. Adulterers and fornicators, on the other hand, had no such penalties applied and did not lose their rights. The Edmunds-Tucker Act, which was signed into law five years later (1887) effectively imposed fines of up to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years for anyone convicted of practicing polygamy. It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the federal government to confiscate Church property in excess of $50,000.
This was one of the most difficult periods of time in Church history. Many LDS men and some women were forced to go underground to avoid arrest. Code words were devised so that polygamist families could be warned by telegraph when federal officials were on their way to Utah. Polygamous Latter-day Saints lived in fear of being exposed. While many who were caught and convicted were sent to Utah’s territorial penitentiary, some were sent to out-of-state prisons as far away as Detroit and there served out their sentences. It goes without saying that life in prison must have been pretty horrible, but it wasn’t just the prisoners who suffered. Without a means of support, not one wife and her children, but several wives and many children were left behind to live in poverty. By the end of the 1880s, Utah’s economy, as well as the family life and social structure of the Latter-day Saints had been severely affected.
Plural marriage had been practiced openly during most of Brigham Young’s administration. It had continued throughout John Taylor’s administration. After John Taylor’s death, in 1887, the keys of authority were held for two years by the Quorum of the Twelve. Finally, Wilford Woodruff, was sustained as the fourth President of the Church. During his tenure as Prophet, the political crusade against the Church continued to intensify. Within just a few short months after he was sustained, Wilford Woodruff came to the undeniable conclusion that, this time, the Church was literally going to be destroyed. After surviving nearly sixty years of persecution, it was essentially going to be wiped off the face of the earth. It was one thing to fight the mobs. It was quite another to fight the Feds.
President Woodruff prayed; the Apostles prayed. And finally the answer came. The time had come for plural marriage, as an earthly practice, to come to an end. On September 24, 1890, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve sustained a document that came to be known as the Manifesto. It was approved by the membership of the Church a couple of weeks later at the October General Conference. Between 1890 and 1904, some members of the Church continued to practice polygamy in both Canada and Mexico since the Manifesto had only forbidden illegal marriages, and there were no laws against it north or south of the border. In 1904, a second manifesto was issued by President Joseph F. Smith, prohibiting plural marriage by Church members anywhere in the world.
Anyone Mormon who has ever talked to a non-Mormon about President Woodruff’s revelation has heard the same criticism, that being that he simply caved under pressure, that there was no such thing as a “revelation.” Here’s what President Woodruff had to say about it, after his revelation had been accepted by the Church:
“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… the imprisonment of the First Presidency and [the] Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which 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?…
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… all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign… 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…. 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 want to say this: I [would] have let all the temple go out of our hands; I [would] 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.”
It's impossible to say how long the practice would have continued had the members of the Church been permitted to live their lives and practice their religion in peace. But they weren't. In order for the Church to survive, the practice absolutely had to be discontinued.
If you are a good Mormon, do you get to be a God on another planet?
Well, that would be a huge oversimplification of LDS doctrine. But then we do believe that with God, nothing is impossible. It's entirely possible, and well within the teachings of Mormonism, that you, as a good Catholic, could do so, too.
This question concerns what the Latter-day Saints call the doctrine of Eternal Progression, which is exactly what the name implies -- the belief that God has made it possible for His sons and daughters to continue to learn and progress quite literally forever.
Before we get down to the nitty-gritty, let's let's clear up two big, big misconceptions:
(1) We do not believe that any of us will ever be equal to God, our Eternal Father in Heaven. He will always be our God and we will always worship Him.
(2) Nothing we could possibly do on our own could exalt us to the level of deity. It is only through the will and grace of God that man is given this potential.
We believe, as you may know, that ours is the re-established Church Jesus Christ established during His ministry here on earth. It would follow, then, that we believe we are teaching the same doctrines as were taught then and accepted by Jesus’ followers. Throughout the New Testament, there are indications that this doctrine (known as deification or exaltation) is not one the Latter-day Saints invented, but that the earliest Christians understood and believed it, as well.
Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21 are the four I like best. Through these verses, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations.
Now, if these promises are true, what do they all boil down to? To the Latter-day Saints, they mean that we have the potential to someday, be “godlike.” One of our prophets explained that "we are gods in embryo." If our Father is divine and we are literally his "offspring", as the Bible teaches we are, is it really such a stretch of the imagination to believe that he has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity?
There is considerable evidence that the doctrine of deification was taught for quite some time after the Savior’s death, and accepted as orthodox. Some of the most well-known and respected of the early Christian Fathers made statements that were remarkably close to the statements LDS leaders have made. For example:
In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and than later as Gods?”
At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”
And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.”
Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.”
And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”
Much more recently, the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said much the same thing in his book "Mere Christianity." This particular quote is really worth paying attention to. It expresses the belief that mankind's potential is far greater than most of us realize and is almost to the letter how a Mormon would explain the doctrine:
“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."
Finally, according to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”
I know you are trying to soften my question, but you never really answered it. Can I be a god on a another planet? And is the God of this planet, once a person that lived on some other planet?
I have noticed that a couple LDS break off groups have basically said the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price were more instructional or stores than scripture.
Since there does seem to be a history of adding and removing doctrine based on the times,(or prophet revelation) do you ever see that the LDS church may do something similar?
Well, the reason that they're breakoff groups in the first place is that they don't see the books as the revealed word of God. Since we do, I would say the liklihood of the main Church ever going that direction is virtually nil.
Quote:
If so how would that affect your faith? If the LDS church became mainstream Christian and still used a lot of the pioneer stories and BoM stories as just that, stories, would that be ok with you and the members?
We don't want to be "mainstream." If we were mainstream, it would mean denying everything we hold to be true. We believe that all four books in our canon are, in fact, scripture, the word of God. For us to suddenly say, "Okay, they're not really scripture, but hey, they're great stories, they're great teaching tools," would be the same thing as mainstream Christians saying the same thing about the Bible. No, we are absolutely content to be what we are. We wouldn't be saying that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price were scripture if we didn't believe with all our hearts that they were.
It's impossible to say how long the practice would have continued had the members of the Church been permitted to live their lives and practice their religion in peace. But they weren't. In order for the Church to survive, the practice absolutely had to be discontinued.
It is funny, I don't realy have a problem with plural marriages, as long as it isn't like the FLDS with young girls trapped in a compound. I think the LDS were realy mistreated over that doctrine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Well, the reason that they're breakoff groups in the first place is that they don't see the books as the revealed word of God. Since we do, I would say the liklihood of the main Church ever going that direction is virtually nil.
We don't want to be "mainstream." If we were mainstream, it would mean denying everything we hold to be true. We believe that all four books in our canon are, in fact, scripture, the word of God. For us to suddenly say, "Okay, they're not really scripture, but hey, they're great stories, they're great teaching tools," would be the same thing as mainstream Christians saying the same thing about the Bible. No, we are absolutely content to be what we are. We wouldn't be saying that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price were scripture if we didn't believe with all our hearts that they were.
The reason I ask is because I was reading about the World Wide Church of God and how after their "prophet" died the next leader did away with a lot of his teachings and went more mainstream. They did lose a lot of members but they still exsist. I wondered what would happen if a LDS prophet changed drastically like that.
I know you are trying to soften my question, but you never really answered it.
I'm sorry you saw it that way. I thought I gave you a very comprehensive answer -- based on what has been revealed, and not resorting to speculation.
Quote:
Can I be a god on a another planet?
I don't know. You have the same inherent spark of divinity I have. If I can be a goddess on another planet, there is no reason why you couldn't be a god on another planet. The problem with your question -- with your wording, in particular -- in that there is nothing in the LDS canon that says we will be "a god on another planet." We are taught that we can become as our Father in Heaven is, but we are given no further specifics. I know you'd like to be able to pin me down on this, but I'm afraid you're going to have to just be disappointed. The whole matter of being "a god on another planet" is a kind of spin on the doctrine of Eternal Progression, as interpreted by non-Mormons. I have told you essentially all I can without simply making things up.
Quote:
And is the God of this planet, once a person that lived on some other planet?
We have no official doctrine stating anything about God's beginnings. Two of our former prophets, Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow taught something to this effect that God was once a man, but their words were never canonized. As a Catholic, you know what it means when the Pope speaks ex cathedra. Well, to put it in a way that should make sense to you, neither of these men ever spoke "ex cathedra," so to speak. In other words, they were simply stating what they personally believed to be true, Joseph Smith in a funeral sermon and Lorenzo Snow in a poem he wrote (for his daughter or granddaughter, as I recall).
About all I can say about the possibility of this teaching being true is that, if it were true, it would have been during a period of time prior to what the Bible describes as "the beginning." In other words, it would have been before the clock started ticking, because we know that by "the beginning" (i.e. the beginning of the creation of our universe) God was God. He was who He is now and will be forever. Also, if we have been given the potential to become like Him at some distant time in the eternities to come, I suppose it is conceivable that the reverse may have also been true.
This is a difficult question because, as I said, everything that has ever been said on the subject is a matter of speculation and opinion. We have never had an official statement concerning God becoming God, and you could attend LDS Church worship services for 62 years, as I have done, without ever hearing a single sermon on the subject. It simply isn't something we are as concerned about as other people seem to be. If and when God tells us more, though, I'll make sure you're among the first to know.
Thanks for the questions, everybody. I'm off to bed, but if there are more tomorrow, I'll answer them when I get home from work. And thanks for the civility so far. Hilgi, I just saw your post #17. I'll get to it tomorrow as well.
I know you are trying to soften my question, but you never really answered it. Can I be a god on a another planet? And is the God of this planet, once a person that lived on some other planet?
I dont want to answer for Katzpur, but it seems as if you are looking for a soundbite to make a value judgement. Its really not that simple, but I think she did say we have the divine potential. We do have God's DNA after all, but as I said you cant look at a concept that is new to you and not look at the entire context.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was born to LDS parents who encouraged me to question (maybe even doubt on occasion) and to figure out for myself what I believed. When I was young, I used to attend my Church's "Testimony Meeting" which is held once a month. At that particularly service, which preempts our regular service that week, members of the congregation are encouraged to stand up and express their feelings about the gospel of Jesus Christ, bearing witness to one another, so to speak, of their faith in Christ and sharing faith-promoting experiences. I would often hear my little friends (9 and 10 years old) stand up and profess that they knew the LDS Church's teachings were true. Even at that young age, I used to think, "No, you don't. You just know what your parents have told you. Maybe Patty's church (she was our Catholic friend) is the true church. You don't even know the difference between our teachings and hers." My point in mentioning this is that I had an interest in comparative Christianity at a very young age. So, I do feel as if I can say that even though I was raised in the Church, I did not just accept its teachings without a lot of faith, study and prayer.