any former mormons out there?

[christianley]

Why am I not surprised that one of you brought this up? This is a typical tactic when a Mormon is cornered on the falseness of the Book of Mormon. They’ll start in on the Bible.

Why would I believe the Bible and not the Book of Mormon? Well, I just need to pull out a map. I’ve been to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capurnum, The Sea of Galilee, Masada, and various other places in the Holy Land.

Who has ever been to Zarahemla? Anyone??? Anyone??? No? WHY??? Because it’s NOT THERE. JS made it up. Even the Hill Cumorah isn’t, by Mopologists standards, in New York.

Steph

I agree. This is a common Mormon apologetic tactic. It encourages people to doubt the Bible. I find that Mormons really don’t have a lot of faith in Jesus once they’ve been challenged. In fact once they abandon the Joseph Smith fantasy they tend to discount religion altogether and become agnostics or atheists. Just go over to exmormon.org and you’ll find many once faithful Mormons who lose their faith in the Book of Mormon and then toss Jesus out as well. It is one of the most pitiable things I have seen since coming to grips with the dishonesty of Mormonism. Ultimately, Mormons believe in the Mormon Church, but have little faith in Jesus. Once the Mormon Church is exposed they often drift away from Jesus altogether. Thank goodness I believed in Jesus before becoming a Mormon.

 

[Allweather]

Now I’m curious as to why you believe the Bible. Surely you’ve noticed the stark contrasts in the different accounts of the resurrection? The bloody wars that preceeded and followed “Thou shalt not kill?” What evidence is there of Jesus’ ministry?

Mainly because I’m not that much of a Bible expert, I take a more simplistic approach to why I believe what the Bible tells us. I believe it because I believe in the Church that Jesus founded upon the Apostles. The Church came first. The Bible came along later, and was written BY the Church. The Bible is one expression of the Apostolic teaching that came from the men who walked and talked with Jesus for some three years. I believe what the Church teaches. I’m not smart enough to have my own beliefs with regard to God. What I believe isn’t important. left to my own devices, I will always believe in idiocy. Jesus founded a Church. That Church lives today, and teaches the same things it taught in Jesus’ day. There is no other worldly institution that compares to the Catholic Church. No government, no nation, no language, no religion compares to it. Longevity and continuity are some of the best arguments for validity, IMHO. We don’t need complex arguments to know these things. Even a child, even a dummy like me, can see this, because it is so obvious.

Don’t spend your life defending the indefensible! The people you lead away from the True Church will not be very grateful to you in eternity.

 

[Allweather]

I agree. This is a common Mormon apologetic tactic. It encourages people to doubt the Bible. I find that Mormons really don’t have a lot of faith in Jesus once they’ve been challenged. In fact once they abandon the Joseph Smith fantasy they tend to discount religion altogether and become agnostics or atheists. Just go over to exmormon.org and you’ll find many once faithful Mormons who lose their faith in the Book of Mormon and then toss Jesus out as well. It is one of the most pitiable things I have seen since coming to grips with the dishonesty of Mormonism. Ultimately, Mormons believe in the Mormon Church, but have little faith in Jesus. Once the Mormon Church is exposed they often drift away from Jesus altogether. Thank goodness I believed in Jesus before becoming a Mormon.

Yes. My fiance has been spending evenings fascinated by these stories of former Mormons, hundreds of them, who became atheists and pagans after leaving Mormonism. At first, she asked me several times why this would be? She’d ask, how could someone leave Mormonism and not become a Catholic? I told her that, first, she is fortunate in that she was raised and baptized Catholic, so that she already had faith. (In fact, she never learned much of the facts about Mormonism, but had assumed that it was just like Christianity). Second, she was lucky that her prayers for me didn’t result in what she had originally hoped: that I would become Mormon. I went back home instead, to the True Church. I guess she just picked the right guy!! But more important, I picked the right gal. If not for her extreme faith in God, which transcended all religion, I doubt that I would’ve been prayed back into the Church. These people, of which I am convinced there are very, very many, are the ones I feel most deeply for. They know almost nothing about the origins and teachings of Mormonism, yet their faith is like a mountain, not a mere mustard seed.

We need these people back in the Church. Mormons! Stop tricking these deepfaith people into your false religion! If you insist on following a lie, go on ahead, but leave these children alone.

 

[rmcmullan]

The Bible is the witness of Jesus’ ministry. We know that Peter and Paul were real people who really lived. They wrote separate testimonies of their encounters with Jesus. We don’t have any evidence that Nephi or Moroni lived. I don’t worry about the different accounts of the resurrection because ultimately they all claim the same thing – Jesus was resurrected. That different people would relate different aspects of the same event doesn’t bother me one bit. There are still bloody wars after the command “Thou shalt not kill.” That’s just a proof of humanity’s imperfection. What does any of this have to do with the trustworthiness of the Bible as compared to the Book of Mormon? The two of them can’t even be compared. We know Pilate existed. We know the Romans were in charge in Jerusalem. We know there was a Christian community testifying of Jesus’ ministry during the first century. You’d have to be a fool to completely discard those contemporary witnesses. That doesn’t mean you have to believe them, but we don’t have that evidence for Nephites or Lamanites. All we have is archaeological and DNA evidence which contradicts the story told in the Book of Mormon.

No, I want to know why you trust the Bible.

 

[christianley]

No, I want to know why you trust the Bible.

I just told you why I trust the Bible. It developed from a Christian (and Jewish) community which existed before and after the time of Jesus. There is no good reason that I’ve found to doubt the Bible.

You Mormons don’t have anything like that. There is no ancient evidence for a first century Christian Church in the midst of the Americas. None. Zip. Nada. All you want to do is attack the the Catholic Church and the New Testament witness we have which came from first century Christians who lived with Jesus and experienced his resurrection.

I could say more about my own personal experience with Jesus that would amount to private revelation. But that private revelation doesn’t contradict the witness of the ancient Christian community like Mormonism does.

 

[rmcmullan]

I could say more about my own personal experience with Jesus that would amount to private revelation. But that private revelation doesn’t contradict the witness of the ancient Christian community like Mormonism does.

I’m totally okay with your private revelation. And if you want to say that your private revelation that Jesus is God led you to believe the Bible because it’s His witness, that would only make sense. If you are okay with one witness because you believe their testimony is accurate, that’s okay too. And am I right in saying that you have considered the second witness but don’t believe they are reliable? Is this what you are saying. Cause if it is it’s a very sensible reply.

 

[christianley]

I’m totally okay with your private revelation. And if you want to say that your private revelation that Jesus is God led you to believe the Bible because it’s His witness, that would only make sense. If you are okay with one witness because you believe their testimony is accurate, that’s okay too. And am I right in saying that you have considered the second witness but don’t believe they are reliable? Is this what you are saying. Cause if it is it’s a very sensible reply.

I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is reliable. I think I’ve made that clear. I accepted it until the evidence against the Book of Mormon became so overwhelming that I could no longer trust my original decision about it. At the same time I came to believe the evidence in favor of the Catholic Church and the Bible is trustworthy.

 

[zerinus]

Apostasy in the Mormon (and other cults’) view means that the entire Christian/Catholic Church, from top to bottom, in all areas of the world, RENOUNCED the religion. That is what apostasy means, to RENOUNCE. And, the renunciation had to be UNIVERSAL and COMPREHENSIVE. I have asked this question of Mormons in face-to-face conversation, and they have replied that, yes, the apostasy was/is universal and comprehensive, encompassing all: Popes, bishops, priests, lay people. Everyone.

Just for the record, that is not the LDS definition of the Apostasy. We believe that a major apostasy did occur in the early Christian church, which resulted in the loss of divine authority in the church; but that does not mean that all the Christians that came after in the centuries that followed were not Christians or that they did not have a genuine saving faith in Christ. On the contrary, modern LDS scripture teaches quite the opposite. And you are wrong in saying that that is what LDS believe. If you talk to any LDS who has the most basic understanding of LDS doctrine, they will confirm what I have just said.

zerinus

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Just for the record, that is not the LDS definition of the Apostasy. We believe that a major apostasy did occur in the early Christian church, which resulted in the loss of divine authority in the church; but that does not mean that all the Christians that came after in the centuries that followed were not Christians or that they did not have a genuine saving faith in Christ. On the contrary, modern LDS scripture teaches quite the opposite.

And you are wrong in saying that that is what LDS believe. If you talk to any LDS who has the most basic understanding of LDS doctrine, they will confirm what I have just said.

zerinus

1. Then according to Mormon pantheology, ANY organized church or assembly IS NOT needed to assure salvation for a Christian! Forget Apostasy, “modern LDS scripture teaches quite the opposite.”

Of course, LDS scripture is…what? Book of Mormon? Journal of Discourses? Pearl of Great Price? What is it?

Any answer given, Zerinus, will only contradict what you have written on this thread about what constitutes “scripture” in the Mormon worlds view.

1. After the Mormons apostasized, the JWs took over, then the Assemblies of God, the Pentacostals and now the Moonies hold the “true revelation from God” of this planet.

Where, I humbly ask, is it in “Mormon scripture” that God intended the Mormon church to be the “true” church of planet Earth’s god?

 

[rmcmullan]

I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is reliable. I think I’ve made that clear. I accepted it until the evidence against the Book of Mormon became so overwhelming that I could no longer trust my original decision about it. At the same time I came to believe the evidence in favor of the Catholic Church and the Bible is trustworthy.

Is it a problem with the Book of Mormon or with Joeseph Smith? It’s everything that came after the BOM, isn’t it?

 

[artist3189]

Wow, oh wow,… I am so blown away by these posts. I just can’t fathom how Mormons can go around and around like this. It is so obvious that their religion doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny and yet, here they are, firing away, but mostly ignoring the really hard facts weighing heavily against them. They wish to ‘challenge’ the Catholic faith but do little serious ‘challenging’ of their own faith. I feel great sorrow for zerinus and rmcmullan. They seem like very good people. It’s a shame God can’t utilize them as DEFENDERS of the Holy Catholic Church rather than detractors. God would do wonderful things with them through the Holy Spirit, (for our Mormon friends, the Third person of the Blessed Trinity). I could see zerinus and rmcmullan dressed for battle, finally using Gods fullness of Truth as a great weapon!!!. Both of you, please continue to ask questions, maybe God will open your eyes and hearts to follow the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. You’d make powerful Catholics!

 

[Allweather]

Just for the record, that is not the LDS definition of the Apostasy. We believe that a major apostasy did occur in the early Christian church, which resulted in the loss of divine authority in the church; but that does not mean that all the Christians that came after in the centuries that followed were not Christians or that they did not have a genuine saving faith in Christ. On the contrary, modern LDS scripture teaches quite the opposite. And you are wrong in saying that that is what LDS believe. If you talk to any LDS who has the most basic understanding of LDS doctrine, they will confirm what I have just said.

zerinus

I asked that very specific question of an LDS leader of some sort in a small group one Sunday after sacrament meeting. I wanted to be clear that, when they spoke of apostasy, that they were speaking of UNIVERSAL and COMPREHENSIVE. That was his answer to me, that, yes, it was, and is, UNIVERSAL and COMPREHENSIVE. That it ecompassed the entirety of Christian peoples, from the Pope, through the bishops, and all the way down to the least lay person.

Here are a few selected quotes from Bruce R. McConkie’s volume Mormon Doctrine which I have in front of me:

“This UNIVERSAL apostasy began in the days of the ancient apostles themselves…”

“With the loss of the gospel, the nations of the earth went into a moral eclipse called the Dark Ages. Apostasy was UNIVERSAL.”… “And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel.”

“If modern churches do not conform to the New Testament pattern of the true Church, then the non-conforming organizations are apostate.” (in other words, all non-Mormons are apostate)

There is more, but you get the idea. UNIVERSAL is defined by Webster’s this way:

1: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society universal health coverage
2 a : present or occurring everywhere b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions universal cultural patterns
3 a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of mankind) a universal state universal practices b : comprehensively broad and versatile a universal genius
4 a : affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable b : denoting every member of a class a universal term
5 : adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size) a universal gear cutter a universal remote control
–uni£ver£sal£ly -s(-)l\ adverb
–uni£ver£sal£ness -sl-ns\ noun

No, Z. You are wrong. Your LDS authorities believe that the so-called apostasy was and is UNIVERSAL, which means everywhere among everyone. You are trying to run away from your own doctrine, just as you always do. Frankly, I think the only LDS doctrine you haven’t run away from is polygamy. Polygamy, you support enthusiastically, whole-heartedly.

 

[christianley]

Is it a problem with the Book of Mormon or with Joeseph Smith? It’s everything that came after the BOM, isn’t it?

I stayed in the Mormon Church for a long time because I continued to believe in the Book of Mormon inspite of Joseph Smith. I even considered switching to the Community of Christ. But then I began to see the Book of Mormon itself was utterly without merit as divine scripture. I tried for a while to believe in it as some type of inspired myth, but of course the LDS Church wouldn’t accept that. After awhile the inspired myth theory became unacceptable because I came to understand the Book of Mormon was not necessary. And then when I began to seriously investigate the history of the Christian Church it became clear to me that only the Catholic Church held onto all of the important teachings, especially in its understanding of the Eucharist, abortion and divorce. It fulfilled Christ’s statement that the Church would always stand without the gates of death prevailing against it. That ended my search, and I am now happy to be Catholic! The Church’s steadfastness against moral relativism is assured because it is exactly what the Lord Jesus claimed it would be.

 

[rmcmullan]

They wish to ‘challenge’ the Catholic faith but do little serious ‘challenging’ of their own faith.

Do you really feel like you’re being challenged? That’s not my intention. If you really feel that way, I can stop. I am trying very hard not to proseltyze but I might be failing miserably at that. Surely it would be a waste of time on the Catholic forums?

 

[rmcmullan]

I stayed in the Mormon Church for a long time because I continued to believe in the Book of Mormon inspite of Joseph Smith. I even considered switching to the Community of Christ.

Christianley, what do you think of the following Book of Mormon scripture:

Mormon 9:3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?
4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.
5 For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you.
6 O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day.

Because, as I understand it (I’m still learning all this stuff, I might be wrong) most Protestants would object sternously to it. Particularly the Calvinists and Lutherans. So it would make sense for you to go Catholic. Or is this scripture not very remarkable to you?

 

[Allweather]

Do you really feel like you’re being challenged? That’s not my intention. If you really feel that way, I can stop. I am trying very hard not to proseltyze but I might be failing miserably at that. Surely it would be a waste of time on the Catholic forums?

I’m not sure where proseletyzing begins or ends. Anyone who truly believes his religion is always in that mode. Besides, there are only two possibilities that explain why you and Z hang out here: either you are proseletyzing, or you are being proseletyzed. Probably both. You’re working on us, we’re working on you. In the process, we’re all getting educated, and so are an awful lot of lurkers.

 

[christianley]

Christianley, what do you think of the following Book of Mormon scripture:

Because, as I understand it (I’m still learning all this stuff, I might be wrong) most Protestants would object sternously to it. Particularly the Calvinists and Lutherans. So it would make sense for you to go Catholic. Or is this scripture not very remarkable to you?

These scriptures actually seem very Arminian to me. The Arminians were best represented in Joseph’s day by the Methodists. Faith is important to Methodists, but it also needs to be followed by a conversion of your life as demonstrated by your works. Arminians believed people could lose their salvation if they backslid. I suspect Joseph would have heard these same type of exhortations in camp meetings around Palmyra. It is interesting to see the parallels between some of the things said in the Book of Mormon and then compare them to sermons from the 19th century in that time period. This is one of the things that Grant Palmer does in his book “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.”

The scripture then is really not very remarkable to me at all. It is the normal type of theology available in camp meetings around Joseph’s time. I think it is remarkable to reflect on the growth of Methodism in the 19th century – it grew from an extremely small sect to one of the dominant churches of our day. It is reflected today in the Evangelical churches such as the Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God. There are two main branches of Protestantism in America – Calvinism and Arminianism. The Arminian wing is represented strongly in the Methodist and other holiness churches of our own day and is actually the dominant strain in American Protestantism reflecting a strong belief in freewill. Mormonism has carried these teachings to an extreme.

Arminianism is the closest thing in Protestantism to Catholicism. It is too bad they largely have rejected the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That is the highest form of Christian worship available and has been preserved by the Catholics and to some extent the Eastern Orthodox. Reducing the Lord’s Supper to merely a memorial meal is one of the worst aspects of modern Protestantism. Without it it is almost impossible in my opinion to really have the power to change lives. In fact, I don’t know how anyone can become perfect without regularly partaking of the Lord’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. That is really the center of Catholicism.

 

[zerinus]

I asked that very specific question of an LDS leader of some sort in a small group one Sunday after sacrament meeting. I wanted to be clear that, when they spoke of apostasy, that they were speaking of UNIVERSAL and COMPREHENSIVE. That was his answer to me, that, yes, it was, and is, UNIVERSAL and COMPREHENSIVE. That it ecompassed the entirety of Christian peoples, from the Pope, through the bishops, and all the way down to the least lay person.

Yes, it is universal, because the divine authority has been completely lost. There is no institutionalized church on earth today that possesses that authority from God—apart form the LDS Church. In that sense of the term yes, it is true that the apostasy was universal. But no LDS would tell you that that means that there were no good Christians left in the world.

Here are a few selected quotes from Bruce R. McConkie’s volume Mormon Doctrine which I have in front of me:

Bruce R. McConkie does not define LDS doctrine. He speaks for himself. Many of his opinions are mistaken, and are not supported by the Church. LDS doctrine is defined in the LDS standard works. If you don’t know them, go and read them, and find out for yourself first hand what LDS believe.

No, Z. You are wrong. Your LDS authorities believe that the so-called apostasy was and is UNIVERSAL, which means everywhere among everyone.

Yes, it is universal, but it does not mean “everyone everywhere”.

You are trying to run away from your own doctrine, just as you always do.

I am doing no such thing. I know LDS doctrine a lot better than you do. Instead of telling us what we believe, I suggest you try to find out from us what we believe.

Frankly, I think the only LDS doctrine you haven’t run away from is polygamy. Polygamy, you support enthusiastically, whole-heartedly.

I don’t run away from anything. I neither “support polygamy” not “oppose” it. I tell the truth about it as it is, like I do with everything else.

zerinus

 

[JonathanKinsman]

This sounds a lot like, “The answer is ‘maybe’ and that’s final!”

 

[Allweather]

Bruce R. McConkie does not define LDS doctrine. He speaks for himself. Many of his opinions are mistaken, and are not supported by the Church. LDS doctrine is defined in the LDS standard works. If you don’t know them, go and read them, and find out for yourself first hand what LDS believe.zerinus

My copy of Mormon Doctrine is the 1966 second edition, and is the 20th printing, from 2000. The 1966 edition was approved by the LDS First Presidency, wasn’t it? It was the 1958 edition that met with disapproval by the LDS leadership. After McConkie toned it down, it was approved and re-issued in 1966.

Doesn’t this mean that it speaks for LDS authority?

McConkie was in the First Council of the Seventy from 1946 until 1972, at which time he was called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, where he served until his death in 1985.

Yet, he doesn’t speak for the LDS church? Even though this 1966 edition had First Presidency approval?

You say I should read the “standard works” to find out what LDS really believe. Evidently some LDS people DO believe what McConkie wrote. I’ll bet you do, too.