This is what I mean by keeping track of which denomination is Christian:


Admittedly this would be easy peasy for the Mormon church since they deem all baptisms outside of the LDS faith as invalid. No need to keep track of them.


Origen has been proven wrong about what he claimed others to believe.
Mormons have been proven to cherry pick quotes and claim they mean something contrary to the original author.
So without reading the complete work we don’t know what Origen was actually saying. And if Origen was claiming that ALL Jews believed that God was made of flesh and bone, I would not assume Origen was correct until we have quotes from ALL the Jews to know if it was true.


There is a book called Mormon Doctrine which until recently was Mormon doctrine. It talks disparagingly about Catholic beliefs. My Mormon friend could tell me what Catholics believed but not much about Protestants.

Yes, I was never taught about other religions in my religion classes and the CCC does not teach about other religions.


I didn’t say that Origen wasn’t ever accurate.

I asked why you are using Origen to define the God of Judaism?

And at the same time, you question whether Jews have the right to define the God of Judaism.

Am I understanding you correctly?


Even if Origen said it, don’t the Jewish people have the right to define the God of Judaism in their principals of belief?

I don’t believe Origen over Judaism 101.


It was a formal teaching of Judaism, similar to a creed, in the 12th century by Maimonides:

In his Commentary on the Mishnah , Maimonides outlined 13 principles of Jewish belief, itself a controversial undertaking in predominantly non-creedal Judaism. (Many Jews sing a poetic adaptation of these 13 principles called Yigdal at the end of Shabbat prayer services each week.) Maimonides’ third principle is that God has no body. Although a universal premise today, it was not necessarily so in 12th-century Judaism. In fact, some medieval mystics even wrote treatises detailing the measurements of God’s body.

This is a very interesting article about Jewish teaching.


The Utah Mormons are different from all the other Mormons who did not follow Young.

Sections on polygamy were added by Brigham Young. RLDS were composed of the followers of Smith who rejected polygamy. They deny Smith ever practiced or taught polygamy.

Deification was also a teaching brought into prominence by Young and other Utah Mormon leaders.


They think of themselves as Mormon. If Mormonism is defined as a follower of Joseph Smith. Utah Mormons, Brighamites, those who follow Brigham Young, always think of themselves as the only legitimate followers of Smith. Of course the other branches of Mormonism view themselves as the legitimate descendants of Smith’s original religion.

I’d say, none are like the original. The original was much more influenced by American Transcendentalism, than any of the existing Mormon churches today. Young and subsequent Utah Mormon leaders are wayyyy more dogmatic than Smith ever would have been.


This was the Mormon Church’s official position on polygamy both during, and for decades after Joseph Smith (D&C 101:4):

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

Then, in the late 1800s came D&C 132 which changed all of that . . .


Wow. Wow.

I never knew this!! Thanks for sharing Lemuel.
Yet, Smith did have all those other wives.


FWIW, all those other wives were followers of Young, and who talked about their so-called polygamy longggg after Smith’s death. There is no way to verify their accounts…and Mormons make up history to match what they believe. So personally, I’m not on board either way with Smith being a polygamist or not. A serial adulterer, perhaps, with Young and his followers embellishing much later.


Thanks for clarifying your thoughts on that, Rebecca.
It does make one think.


Wow-so I want to make sure I understand…

Joseph Smith was found to have had relationships with multiple women other than his wife.:ballot_box_with_check:

There is no doctrine regarding polygamy until years later.

It’s possible that the polygamy doctrine was created years later in order to justify Smith’s relationships?


But, wasn’t this just their public teaching on polygamy when in reality the LDS church still privately taught and believed in the institution of polygamy?


That’s interesting . . . I’m guessing that’s why so many sections of the D&C are omitted from the CoC version. I’m curious to compare the sections that were added by Brigham Young to the ones that were omitted in the CoC version of the D&C. Do you happen to have a list or resource I could use to find that information?

Oh, he practiced polygamy . . . you can’t really deny that.

Makes sense.


What is the difference between polygamy and extramarital affairs?


Presumably, you wouldn’t call your honey-on-the-side your husband/wife.


That’s what we are discussing.

Did Joseph Smith refer to those women as his wives at the time or was that doctrine of spirit wives (not sure the terminology) created later to protect his image?


Polygamy is when you have more than one wife. Extramarital affairs are romantic or sexual relationships outside of marriage, but have not been officially wed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit