Posted on 09/12/2014 6:28:11 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
According to Latter-Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) President Orson Hyde, Jesus was married to several women, including Mary Magdalene, and had biological children.
"..[In John 2,] Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. ... We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. ... I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me. ... I shall say here, that before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation?"
-- Hyde, at the Mormon General Conference, on 6 October 1854. (Printed in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 82.)
Apparently, this position had support from Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, and others.
The LDS organization has since denied these claims. A spokesman said, "The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine."
Still, Hyde's is an allowed position within Mormonism. That is concerning.
Of course, Christ is the figurative Bridegroom -- but He is not so literally, in a carnal sense! Also, for the record, the "seed" of His mentioned in Isaiah 53:10 refers to our spiritual relationship with Him, in the sense of John 12:24 and Galatians 3:26.
—
Follow me, Answering Protestants, and Catholic Analysis on Twitter, Like Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to me or Catholic Analysis on YouTube.
—
HA! 'ZACKLY! Thanks for pointing that out.
I’m the one providing the support for the doctrine, not hijacking.
And you are correct in your statements about the wedding at Cana.
“...pulled out of his hat.”
I see what you did there!
Worth a repost!
He already has. The church is His bride, and He is not an adulterer.
excellent summary.
//If the sole reason for Jesus’ incarnation was to just be a good example to others, you might have a point.//
And that is the core of LDS Christology.
And similar in assumptions. However I do get along well with many of the Catholics, I’m even allowed on caucus threads because of my academic area(Medieval mystics).
That handful of Catholics here ended my interest in becoming a Catholic, a few years ago.
Of course not. As God and man, there's no reason to believe he couldn't have children. How would that take away from Jesus as part of the trinity?
I disagree with the person (JR?) that labeled mormonism on FR as "other Christian. There is a FR label in the "Religion Topics" "Other non-Christian" that better fits mormonism.
This article I’m a Mormon, Not a Christian rather spitefully addresses the topic.
I want to be on record about this. I’m about as genuine a Mormon as you’ll find — a templegoer with a Utah pedigree and an administrative position in a congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am also emphatically not a Christian. "I hope Mormonism eventually realizes that it doesn’t need Christianity’s approval and will get big and beat up all the imperious Christians who tormented it when it was small, weird and painfully self-conscious. Mormons are certainly Christian enough to know how to spitefully abuse their power."
When you start out with an invalid premise everything that follows is invalid.
Then go ahead and deny that Scripture is a second class authority at best for Rome, and see how far you get. .
You want to quote Catholic teaching great it would do no harm and might do some good. But don't misquote it.
I have referenced Catholic teaching which contradicts you, so do you deny that Catholic teaching see Mormons as Prots, and even as Christians?
Catholics believe that the faith is on a three legged base. Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium, all EQUAL
Wrong, and a fundamental error, as Scripture and Sacred Tradition only consists of what Rome decrees they are and only authoritatively mean what she says they mean, and thus she is effectively the supreme authority.
And under Roman reasoning, God is the source of both Scripture and RC teaching, the latter defining the former, and thus it is simply impossible for there to be any conflict.
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church... it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church. - (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
But which she is the autocratic judge of. For indeed, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Thus when faced with challenges, no less than Bellarmine argues,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228. .
And thus as Keating asserts,
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption]
Thus you are not to objectively search the Scriptures as a faithful RC in order to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching, but instead your assurance rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. Which excludes any from correcting her official doctrine.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” “The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
But which premise was not how the church began. Now i am sure you can spin what Rome has said, or even find some things that may seem to contradict it out of the preponderance of published papist prolixity, but the fact remains that your assurance rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome which she clams for herself, not the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
Nailed it.
Joseph Smith was a Protestant. He then went off and began his own "reformation." There is no difference between Smith, Luther, Calvin etc...
BTW, The Pope even said while Protestants are separated brethren, Mormons are not and not protestants. Also Catholics will accept Protestant baptism for conversion, but not Mormon baptism.
The Pope did not make this a dogmatic statement. And further not all protestant baptisms are accepted. There are several that do not use the Trinitarian formula.
That is not the only reason or even the most important reason. You have never once knowingly misrepresented Catholic doctrine or dogmatic teaching. You obviously disagree with some of our faith, but do not intentionally state that we believe various things that we don't
Learn to read what I wrote not what you wish I had wrote.
Those verses were beautiful, weren’t they?
Uh-huh. I thought so.
LOL
Thus according to him,
Catholics are the only "real Christians,"
But they may be Catholic or protestant,
Mormons and protestants all are on the exact same level due to shared denials of basic Catholic doctrines.
And as "heresy is heresy," there is no distinction to be made, then "There is no difference between Smith, Luther, Calvin etc.."
and that "Mormonism is no different/worse than Protestantism."
And that the Pope did not make "Protestants are separated brethren" a dogmatic statement.
Yet as shown, his own church denies that Mormon believers are Christian, thus they cannot be Protestant believers.
Then, after his sweeping shotgun statements, and after his assertion that only Catholics are "real Christians," and after contrary Catholic statements making clear distinction btwn Mormonism (non-Christian) and properly baptized Prots (Christian), he responds to "you will decide who is or who is not a Christian, not by what they teach but whether they belong to a group called catholic" that he is being misunderstood. Then affirms that Mormonism is no different/worse than Protestantism.
I do understand your LOL for thus verga is manifested to be a fringe myopic RC within the variety of members in the church of Rome.
I am sure there is more, but that should suffice, thanks be to God.
I have, and not what you may wish you did. If you want to claim miscomprehension of your unequivocal statements then it is your fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.