any former mormons out there?

[JonathanKinsman]

I am debating with you at the moment, not with Mr Abanes and his worthless book. If you have truly studied original LDS literature, and have criticisms to make or questions to ask about it, bring it here and we will discuss them; but I am not in the business of trying to refute every anti-Mormon literature published by a bunch of evil and corrupt men on the Internet and in bookstores. That runs into millions of pages; and I am not interested in them.

zerinus

\

Zerinus: you’re not debating anybody.

You’re not fooling anybody either (most of us are ex-LDSers) with your load of hooey about the Book of Mormon and that illiterate, lying, jailbird Joseph Smith. You refuse engagement on your bald assertions about a sect that is so far removed from mainstream Christianity that the Church issued a statement that Mormon baptism is NOT Christian baptism. In simple language for your simplistic reasoning: you’re not a Christian.

Sorry, but your inanity and overt proselytizing IN CONTRADICTION TO FORUM RULES earns you nothing more than disdain and humorous indulging.

You make preposterous claims about history (Arabic literature before the Koran) and refuse even a PM’s request for source for that assertion.

Your idea of the Holy Ghost is to support your idiotic belief in mulitiple gods (including Jesus and God the Father) and bizarre “for all time and eternity” Temple ceremonies that (inexplicably) change throughout the past 30 years. Your theology is not existent: you cannot even demonstrate one example of where the BoM adds to the Bible and its message of Salvation through Jesus.

You’re a fraud, my friend, a non-Christian brain-washed fraud.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Allweather, I think you are standing on the edge of a great precipice that separates the Mormons and RC’s. I’ve noticed many of the posters here and in other threads don’t have much regard for what we’d call the testimony of the HG. You think it’s some device we use to turn off your brain and have you drink the Kool-aid anyway. I think you’re missing out an important part of the gospel going that way. It’s a very real thing, as real as faith and hope and charity.

NO, rmcmullan, what separates Catholics from Mormons is what separates Mormons from Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, Presbytarians, Baptists and a whole Host of traditional Christian denominations which have separated from the Catholic Church:

The lack of a valid Christian baptism.

You guys are Catholic and that’s okay with me but if ever God wanted you to change your church affiliation he would need to give you a severe beating with a big old spiritual two by four. It would be a dramatic life-changing event. Likewise if he wanted to me to become Catholic. But it could happen and then you too would sound like zerinus and know what he means.

I’m calling you out, rmcmullan, you claimed to have been raised a Catholic and I say you are lying in order to proselytize your Mormon views on Catholic Forums.

If you are Catholic as you claim: where were you baptized? Tell me about your FC and your Confirmation. This should be easy for you if you claim being “raised a Catholic.”

And don’t give me that “I was taught the Catechism” statement again, or I will ask some hard questions.

Others in our culture may rate tolerance the highest virtue and imagine that tolerance means indifference to questions about the truth of things (your “I’m OK, you’re OK” approach to saying Mormonism is ‘just like’ Christianity) but the Church teaches the unambiguous claim that Jesus is the only Savior: Lucifer is NOT his “spiritual brother” nor is He one of many gods on many planets with many children.

You’re outted, rmcmullan!

 

[Nan_S]

You’re outted, rmcmullan!

Jonathan,

If you want to drive our Mormon members away or get them to ignore you, you’re making a good start.

The first step to successful evangelization is to build a relationship. If you ever hope to convert them, you have to show them you’re worthy of respect yourself by respecting them first.

It’s the example of Mother Teresa.

Nan

 

[Jana1976]

Thank you Steph! I was able to talk to my daughter a little about it today. She says she’s not drawn. But she is serious about this young man, and his mom is serious about Mormonism.I have been praying and enlisting others’ prayers, so I covet yours also. I had decided to pray especially for the mom (my daughter said that it would indeed be a miracle if she came to Christ, but, like you said, if he could do it for me he can do it for anyone). Thanks for sharing your story, and for your prayers.
Marianne

#1 – Mormons DO believe in Chirst as the Son of God who died for our sins. So “come to Christ” is not quite correct, but we understand the intent

#2 – Family activities are part of the way to get people involved in their Church. If you come to enough of them, you begin to feel obligated to come to Sunday “Sacrament Meeting”. And often there is a lot of pressure, albeit well-meaning, to accept their way of belief as the “one true Church”.

#3 – If his Mom is a strong Mormon and she has a lot of influence in his life, if your daughter continues to be serious about this young man, there will be a lot of pressure for her not to only joing the LDS church, but to “go to the Temple” (the next level of Mormonism) so that they can have a “Temple Marriage” and be “sealed” as a family – which means that they will continue to be a family after death. There is a lot of deeper stuff that goes along with it, but just be aware that the pressures will be there and then you/she will be prepared to handle them.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Jonathan,

If you want to drive our Mormon members away or get them to ignore you, you’re making a good start.

The first step to successful evangelization is to build a relationship. If you ever hope to convert them, you have to show them you’re worthy of respect yourself by respecting them first.

It’s the example of Mother Teresa.

Nan

Nan, having been on that end of the court for years, I will not let those tactics which were taught to me be used against my Faith. If someone claims to have been Catholic and now is Mormon, fine, but I will not take them at their word as I expect them not to take me at my word on any thing I assert.

Respect has nothing to do with argument and discussion on the extreme gulf that separates Mormonism from mainstream Christianity, including our Church.

Rather, it is disrespectful to assume one can say whatever crackpot things about Catholics and their beliefs and expect nothing but a soft murmur in reply. It’s not charity to indulge in someone’s sins as Father Corapi has said on many an occasion.

If a Mormon comes on this site and decides to proselytize (that is against the Forum rules, isn’t it Nan??) then he or she should expect it back.

And what the heck does Mother Teresa have to do with this discussion?? Are we working with lepers here?? That is a total non sequitor, Nan, I have no idea what you mean. Sorry.

 

[Anima_Christi]

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of action, and of service. It is the gospel of “loving thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8). It is the gospel that says, “. . . Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Mathew 25:32). It is the gospel of action and of doing things for others and for God; not one of sitting passively in church and singing praises to God. Hence the LDS Church is service oriented, and teaches that our greatest blessings come when we are actively engaged in the service of God and of doing something for His Church and for others. As you know we do not have a professional clergy. All the work of the Church is done voluntarily by Church members. If your mind is not oriented towards that, then you are right, you would find the LDS Church a very uncomfortable place to be in. But that is not the fault of the Church. You have to look elsewhere for the source of that problem.

zerinus

No professional, paid clergy…do the quorum of the twelve apostles and the first presidency receive a salary from the Mormon Church?

 

[zerinus]

Regarding Arianism, the commonality I see with Mormonism is that Mormonism rejects the Holy Trinity.

That is the commonality we have with the Bible. The Bible’s doctrine of the Deity is not Trinitarian.

Mormons hold that Jesus Christ was a created being, the first-born of God, and the source of all other creation after Him, but that there was a time (however brief) when Elohim existed but Jesus did not.

Mormons hold that Jesus Christ is the “first-born of God,” because that is what the Bible teaches (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14). We believe that He is the source of all of God’s creations, because that that is what the Bible teaches (John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). We believe that He is a separate and distinct personage form the Father, and subordinate to Him (which is not Trinitarian, but biblical) because that is what the Bible teaches (John 14:28; 20:17). It is not strictly correct to say, however, that we believe that Jesus is a “created being,” or that “there was a time that He did not exist,” because that language (created/did not exist) is not used at all in LDS scripture to describe Jesus Christ. The language that is used in LDS scripture to define Jesus is strictly biblical. It teaches all of the above, using much the same language as the Bible, and nothing about Him being “created” or “not existing” at any time. If some LDS writers or teachers have expressed it in those terms, that has been only their attempts at understanding scripture; not what the scriptures actually teach. On the contrary, LDS scripture only emphasises the eternal nature and divinity of Jesus Christ. Here are just a few examples:

Book of Mormon, Title Page:

. . . And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations . . .

2 Nephi 26:

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God.

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, . . .

It’s not quite the same as Arianism, since you also maintain that Jesus rather quickly achieved God-head, and the Arians did not go that far. But the rest is almost spookily similar.

It is anything but! You can find superficial similarities between any two religions if looked for them. There is somebody here has been trying to tell me that Mormonism is Protestantism! You are trying to tell me that it is Arianism! Other people have tried to convince me that it is the same as Islam! Still others have told me that it is paganism! So which one is it? It can’t be all of those at the same time.

This is from the Catholic Answers website:

“Catholic Answers” may be a reliable source of information about Catholicism; but it is not a reliable source for Mormonism. If you wanted to learn about Catholicism, would you go to a Mormon website, or a Protestant website? I doubt it! In the same way, if you want to learn about Mormonism you to a Mormon website—preferably to the Church’s official website.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

Nan, having been on that end of the court for years, I will not let those tactics which were taught to me be used against my Faith. If someone claims to have been Catholic and now is Mormon, fine, but I will not take them at their word as I expect them not to take me at my word on any thing I assert.

Respect has nothing to do with argument and discussion on the extreme gulf that separates Mormonism from mainstream Christianity, including our Church.

Rather, it is disrespectful to assume one can say whatever crackpot things about Catholics and their beliefs and expect nothing but a soft murmur in reply. It’s not charity to indulge in someone’s sins as Father Corapi has said on many an occasion.

If a Mormon comes on this site and decides to proselytize (that is against the Forum rules, isn’t it Nan??) then he or she should expect it back.

And what the heck does Mother Teresa have to do with this discussion?? Are we working with lepers here?? That is a total non sequitor, Nan, I have no idea what you mean. Sorry.

Are you also an ex-Mormon? If so, I understand your ire. I’d love to hear your conversion story.

Rest assured, soft murmurs and indulgence are most assuredly not what our Mormon friends are hearing from me. Extensive, detailed historical and catechetical posts, yes, which are being read with positive, interested responses. A little bit of fun, too. Mushy mumbles, no way. Nothing disgusts me more than a sappy “Jesus loves everyone, isn’t that nice” theology.

Mother Teresa started the biggest and fastest-growing Catholic order in a non-Catholic country by respecting the non-Christian beliefs of her neighbors. She taught the gospel by example, first. If an orphaned child was from a Hindu background, she placed the child with Hindu parents. If an orphan was from a Muslim background, she placed the child with Muslim parents. Eventually, her neighbors figured out that here was a person giving them a level of respect they did not get from anywhere else, and they wanted to be part of it. After that, teaching the gospel with words was easy.

Oh, yes, when it comes to offensive proselytizing, I don’t cave. There was another poster earlier today whose thread and user account have now vanished. He was calling the RCC the “Whore of Babylon” - until I (and perhaps a few others) reported him to the moderators. You are welcome to do the same with any offensive thread or post you find.

Nan

 

[zerinus]

Jonathan,

If you want to drive our Mormon members away or get them to ignore you, you’re making a good start.

Don’t worry, he won’t drive me out! Others have tried that line before; but it don’t work with me. Sometimes there comes a point where the best way to deal with someone is to completely ignore them, never read their posts and never reply to them. He has already past that stage.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

No professional, paid clergy…do the quorum of the twelve apostles and the first presidency receive a salary from the Mormon Church?

There are a very small number of Church officers who must necessarily devote their fulltime to the service of the Church. The First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are among those. They receive a moderate allowance form the Church suited to their needs. But they form less than 1% of the total priesthood officers of the Church. There is no such thing as a “professional” clergy in the Church. Nobody every goes to the college or to the seminary in order to train to become a career clergyman in the LDS Church. Even those you mentioned (the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles) did not enter the service as professional clergymen. They started out their careers in various professions such business, or industry, or medicine etc, and then progressed through the ranks to reach their high offices in the Church; and they usually earned a lot more money in their respective professional endeavours than they do as fulltime officers of the Church. So it is indeed true that the LDS Church does not have a “professional clergy”.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

It is not strictly correct to say, however, that we believe that Jesus is a “created being,” or that “there was a time that He did not exist,” because that language (created/did not exist) is not used at all in LDS scripture to describe Jesus Christ. The language that is used in LDS scripture to define Jesus is strictly biblical. It teaches all of the above, using much the same language as the Bible, and nothing about Him being “created” or “not existing” at any time. If some LDS writers or teachers have expressed it in those terms, that has been only their attempts at understanding scripture; not what the scriptures actually teach. On the contrary, LDS scripture only emphasises the eternal nature and divinity of Jesus Christ. Here are just a few examples:

How does this square with Eternal Progression? If Eternal Progression is true Mormon doctrine, and Jesus progressed from Elohim, there had to be a moment in eternity when Jesus did not yet exist, and another moment in eternity when Jesus was “like unto God” but not yet God (Book of Abraham, chapter 3).

It is anything but! You can find superficial similarities between any two religions if looked for them. There is somebody here has been trying to tell me that Mormonism is Protestantism! You are trying to tell me that it is Arianism! Other people have tried to convince me that it is the same as Islam! Still others have told me that it is paganism! So which one is it? It can’t be all of those at the same time.

And some Protestants would have us believe that Mormonism is like Catholicism!!! IMHO, Arianism comes closer than the others.

"Catholic Answers” may be a reliable source of information about Catholicism; but it is not a reliable source for Mormonism. If you wanted to learn about Catholicism, would you go to a Mormon website, or a Protestant website? I doubt it! In the same way, if you want to learn about Mormonism you to a Mormon website—preferably to the Church’s official website.
zerinus

And a very interesting website the official LDS site is, too. What you will find on a Catholic website, but few other places, are the histories of Christianity from the earliest centuries.

Protestants don’t usually use such histories - except when refuting the DaVinci Code - because then they would have to admit that the early church was undeniably Catholic. Mormons don’t use such histories (IMHO), because they hold to the doctrine of total apostacy immediately with the death of the apostles, which renders anything that followed after as so much historical garbage.

Yet the histories do exist. The same conflicting ideas about the nature of God which we find debated today were debated nearly 2,000 years ago. And a lot of those ideas were anathametized way back then, by the men who were the pupils and successors of the apostles. It’s worth understanding why, even if you hold fast to the Mormon Total Apostacy doctrine.

Hence, the Catholic website link I provided.

Nan

 

[tundramom]

well, I googled zerinus too. I came up with a strange site called “aralis dangers-demons”

Here’s what was posted:

Karenay, the demon of Zerinus, recently appeared to the Shipwrecked, a chaotic spirit of the seas and storms. As quick to laugh as to take offense, he seemed unable to remember much beyond the moment, seemingly forggeting conversation he had shared but moments before. He is also a collector of lost things, and it is said that his vale contains many treasures and items from those lost on this island.

 

[zerinus]

How does this square with Eternal Progression? If Eternal Progression is true Mormon doctrine, and Jesus progressed from Elohim, there had to be a moment in eternity when Jesus did not yet exist, and another moment in eternity when Jesus was “like unto God” but not yet God (Book of Abraham, chapter 3).

The phrase “eternal progression” is another one of those things that does not occur in LDS scripture, and I have yet to find someone that can give me a clear, accurate definition of it with scriptural support. If you can give me such a definition, then I will be in a position to tell you whether it is true LDS doctrine or not, or how it relates to Jesus Christ. I don’t know what you mean by “progressed from Elohim”. The expression “like unto God” does indeed occur in the Book of Abraham (3:24), and apparently it is used in reference to Jesus, which is an entirely biblical concept. The Bible describes Jesus as the “brightness of his {God’s} glory, and the express image of his {God’s} person” (Hebrews 1:3). Here is the full context:

Hebrews 1:

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, . . .

This is not much different from the Book of Abraham’s “like unto God”. It is also spoken in the same context as the Book of Abraham, which is the creation of the world.

And some Protestants would have us believe that Mormonism is like Catholicism!!!

Indeed they do! That is because like the Catholics we don’t believe in salvation by faith alone without any works, which is the main bugbear of Protestantism.

IMHO, Arianism comes closer than the others.

Go and tell that to Allweather, because he is convinced that Protestantism comes closer—or to Evangelicals for that matter, because they think that Catholicism comes closer!

And a very interesting website the official LDS site is, too. What you will find on a Catholic website, but few other places, are the histories of Christianity from the earliest centuries.

Thank you! I hope you will spend lots of time there!

Protestants don’t usually use such histories - except when refuting the DaVinci Code - because then they would have to admit that the early church was undeniably Catholic. Mormons don’t use such histories (IMHO), because they hold to the doctrine of total apostacy immediately with the death of the apostles, which renders anything that followed after as so much historical garbage.

We do believe in the apostasy; but that does not mean that Christian history is “garbage”. Not at all. We don’t put it on our website because there are plenty of authoritative sources for that information on the Internet and in the libraries and bookstores. We put on the site what is relevant to Church members, and which they cannot conveniently obtain all in one place elsewhere.

Yet the histories do exist. The same conflicting ideas about the nature of God which we find debated today were debated nearly 2,000 years ago. And a lot of those ideas were anathametized way back then, by the men who were the pupils and successors of the apostles. It’s worth understanding why, even if you hold fast to the Mormon Total Apostacy doctrine.

Well, that is “history”! We have nothing against history!

zerinus

 

[Karin]

well here is a nice mormon chart of eternal progression…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Karin]

oh and the painter of the picture…
Elder Leonidas Devon Mecham

Former acting-president of the Australian Mission

 

[zerinus]

well here is a nice mormon chart of eternal progression…

Nan is a serious debater. She has a scholarly approach to things. She will not be impressed by your cheap anti-Mormon fireworks.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

Don’t worry, he won’t drive me out! Others have tried that line before; but it don’t work with me. Sometimes there comes a point where the best way to deal with someone is to completely ignore them, never read their posts and never reply to them. He has already past that stage.

zerinus

this is hilarious. Zerinus used to post here as amgid and once upon a time he attempted to debate and was proven so wrong about mormonism from his own sources that he went away and then snuck back as amgid. He now “ignores” anyone who knows his past postings and has proven him wrong. He has been wrong about what the Mormon church teaches and is certainly wrong about it and Joseph Smith being true. The amgid to zerinus thing is nothing more than going form a to z. cute but trite.

 

[majick275]

There are a very small number of Church officers who must necessarily devote their fulltime to the service of the Church. The First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are among those. They receive a moderate allowance form the Church suited to their needs. But they form less than 1% of the total priesthood officers of the Church. There is no such thing as a “professional” clergy in the Church. Nobody every goes to the college or to the seminary in order to train to become a career clergyman in the LDS Church. Even those you mentioned (the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles) did not enter the service as professional clergymen. They started out their careers in various professions such business, or industry, or medicine etc, and then progressed through the ranks to reach their high offices in the Church; and they usually earned a lot more money in their respective professional endeavours than they do as fulltime officers of the Church. So it is indeed true that the LDS Church does not have a “professional clergy”.

zerinus

once again incorrect. ALL gerneal authorities in the LDS church are entitled to a compensation package based on their “rank”. In the early days of mormonism (back when they published financial reports) patriarchs charged for blessings and local priesthood leaders took a cut of the tithes. There are still “stipends” fro various positions and there ARE full time paid positions within the LDS church. That includes soem of church education services, some of the Temple positions, social services, etc. Nothing inherently wrong with paying these folks just in trying to pretend it doesn’t exist. This whole no paid ministry thing is a leftover from the old temple ceremony where sectarian minsters were portrayed as hirelings of Satan. The implication being that only satans dupes would accept pay to preach or teach. It used to be that even local building custodians were paid. Then they all got laid off and it’s a"volunteer" duty that gets passed around. Guess the wards weren’t making their targeted margins.

Many LDS general authorities (like Boyd K. Packer) have ALWAYS worked for the LDS church. It sure seems to have paid off for him. He doesn’t seem to be any less affluent than any of the others. the LDS church has always had paid clergy. Quit lying about it.

 

[Marat]

I really don’t want to get involved in this thread, but I will anyhow. I am LDS, or formerly LDS. Pretty much everything I’ve read here has been answered at this website. fairlds.org/apol/

Most of the points presented have been talked about so many times to members they shut themselves off from talking about it. Whether they know the answer or not, they know an answer is available somewhere. It won’t shake their testimony.

I’ve said it before (well not here, but many other times) that the most productive approach to converting a LDS is to show them how your own faith is better than theirs. Teach them the truth, how their was no apostasy, and therefore no need of a Joseph Smith to restore the church. Sharing truth with love will make more difference than trying to tear down the faith of another.

 

[majick275]

Nan is a serious debater. She has a scholarly approach to things. She will not be impressed by your cheap anti-Mormon fireworks.

zerinus

well then she won’t be fooled by your deliberate deceit either. We have had this eternal progression before back when you were amgid. YOUR quotes defined it quite nicely. anyone can go to the LDS website and search for eternal progression and see what the LDS church teaches about that in their own lesson manuals. Mormons have taught since Joseph Smith time that worthy men can become Gods. they can have their wives with them for all eternity having spirit children who can then go on to become Gods too. Making these men Gods of Gods. It has been taught that this how our God became divine. It is taught in the Temple today and is in Mormon scriptures. Checkout D&C 132 for starters. but don’t forget that mormon prophets addressing the church in general conference is considered scripture too.