any former mormons out there?

[geraldffff]

I can see that you have gone right off the rails already. I am here to debate with our Catholc friends. Debate is good fun. It stimulates the mind, forces you to think logically, and makes you do research to find the answers, and helps you to learn, both about your own religion as well as of others’.

I don’t recall having started a thread in this forum. I may have, but I don’t recall it, since they have been so few (if any). I only reply to posts made by others. My responses are always appropriate to their posts. I have never initiated any conversation. The conversations have always been started by others, and I have joined in to reply to them. If people round here don’t want me to talk about Mormonism, the answer is simple, don’t start a thread on it, and don’t talk about it! I won’t if you don’t!

zerinus

:thumbsup You have been reasonable but you thought contain inescapable fallacies: Mitt Romney, a Mormon may be on the presidentil ballot next year. Can I trust him on his change of heart with regard to his new stance that God forbids a so called right to an abortion? Thanks for the education on Mormon thought Z. Your negative comments with reguard to the apostle Paul are quite simular to the negative comments the JW’s make about the apostle Peter and Thomas. It is of interest to me that any person who might realize their human limitations would be so bold as to challenge the authority of men appointed by and personally aquainted with Jesus Jesus, who claimed to be no less than the great “I AM”. Scarry thought to me to malign and bear false witness to thoes who appointed!!! If your right and there is no “real” God then your ok, if your wrong, then theres hell to pay. Would not want to stand next to you in an electrical storm. Peace

 

[Nan_S]

If that is true, then all eternal beings, such as spirits which we know are eternal (and also our bodies after the resurrection), are either part of God’s essence, which is a nonsensical concept; or else they are like God—i.e. eternity is part of their essence.

Which one is it?

zerinus

This is where the Mormon teaching differs from the traditional Christian.

To a Mormon, spirits (I would call them souls) are eternal; i.e., no discernable beginning, and no end. I can’t put my finger on the specific passage in the Mormon standard works that covers this, but I do remember seeing it. Under this definition I suppose spirits could be like God, with eternity part of their essence.

To a traditional Christian, only God is eternal. Angels’ and human spirits/souls are immortal; they have a specific beginning and then continue on with no end. Human souls begin at the time of human, bodily conception and angels’ souls began when God created the heavens. In the case of Adam, the first man, his immortal soul was created when God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”

And, oh yes, despite the popular bedtime stories sometimes told to distraught children, in traditional Christian teaching humans do not become angels.

So it seems we are talking about two completely different concepts that happen to share the same name.

Nan

 

[Nan_S]

Because it (polygamy) is currently contrary to the law of the land, and one of the doctrines of the Church is that we must abide by the laws of the land.

zerinus

I’m curious. And this really is a serious question. Seems to me I remember reading earlier that only those Mormons in polygamous marriages could ascend to the highest level of the Celestial heaven.

Does this mean:

1. that mainstream Mormons are prevented by American civil law from reaching the highest level of heaven? (knowing that splinter groups still practice polygamy), or,
2. that the Mormon prophets have a new revelation that polygamy is no longer necessary to attain the highest level of heaven, so long as non-Mormon civil law prohibits polygamy? or,
3. that polygamy is still necessary, but that the properly disposed Mormon men will marry the necessary additional wives after they die on Earth and ascend to the lower levels of heaven?

Nan

 

[Nan_S]

:thumbsup You have been reasonable but you thought contain inescapable fallacies: Mitt Romney, a Mormon may be on the presidentil ballot next year. Can I trust him on his change of heart with regard to his new stance that God forbids a so called right to an abortion?

I’d still vote for Mitt Romney before I’d ever consider voting for John McCain or anybody the Democrats put on the ballot.

 

[Kristine1957]

Hello, I was born and raised LDS and left the church.
First I studied… alot for about a year…I studied not only the Book of Mormon but several books about this religion and several others.
I also asked alot of questions and the answers were usually I needed to read the book of mormon, pray, go to church and stop questioning the church.
I had a family friend ask if I wanted to go to RCIA just to see what I thought… well I started attending RCIA classes along with my family and we were all baptised 13 years ago.
I can honestly say I have never been happier in my entire life! I can tell you more about the reasons why I left if you would like to know. If you have any questions feel free to let me know!
May God bless you and your family…

 

[Nan_S]

Hello, I was born and raised LDS and left the church.
First I studied… alot for about a year…I studied not only the Book of Mormon but several books about this religion and several others.
I also asked alot of questions and the answers were usually I needed to read the book of mormon, pray, go to church and stop questioning the church.
I had a family friend ask if I wanted to go to RCIA just to see what I thought… well I started attending RCIA classes along with my family and we were all baptised 13 years ago.
I can honestly say I have never been happier in my entire life! I can tell you more about the reasons why I left if you would like to know. If you have any questions feel free to let me know!
May God bless you and your family…

Welcome home, Kristine.

I had the nerve to question many churches. I found that the Catholic Church was the one place unafraid of questions, because this is where the answers are found, even the answers to the hard questions.

Yes, we are interested in your reasons.

Nan

 

[geraldffff]

Hello, I was born and raised LDS and left the church.
First I studied… alot for about a year…I studied not only the Book of Mormon but several books about this religion and several others.
I also asked alot of questions and the answers were usually I needed to read the book of mormon, pray, go to church and stop questioning the church.
I had a family friend ask if I wanted to go to RCIA just to see what I thought… well I started attending RCIA classes along with my family and we were all baptised 13 years ago.
I can honestly say I have never been happier in my entire life! I can tell you more about the reasons why I left if you would like to know. If you have any questions feel free to let me know!
May God bless you and your family…

Praise Jesus , welcome home. It’s good to be in a place where asking questions is part of our duty, aint it. If you havent read this whole thread it is pretty interesting.

 

[geraldffff]

Welcome home, Kristine.

I had the nerve to question many churches. I found that the Catholic Church was the one place unafraid of questions, because this is where the answers are found, even the answers to the hard questions.

Yes, we are interested in your reasons.

Nan

We definately need to elect another Pro-life, hetersexual marriage protecting president and secure the supreme court for at least the next generation. I would be facinated to hear Kristine1957 story with special attention to the positive issues related to Mormon life and the religious teaching that are the most troubling to one who is trying to be holy. This particular fourm was started by a person searching for ways to rescue a loved one from being enveloped by mormonism. How with kindness should one deal with a loved one who is flirting with mormonism.

 

[Allweather]

There is plenty of historical evidence that the Jews practised polygamy in the time of Christ, and and for several centuries thereafter. Here are a couple of references I have found for you:zerinus

Zerinus, the first link you provided is this:

houseofdavidministries.com/Biblical_marriage.html

What is House of David Ministries?

Sorry, I have not had time to read that page in detail, except for the conslusions. It appears to be a group that teaches polygamy. Is it a Mormon group?

The second link you gave is this:

lovethatworks.org/index.html

Because I’m overwhelmed by a problem at work right at the moment, I have not had time to study this material in any detail. However, I did read the mission statement of the group that published this page. This is it:

"Our Mission:

"Attaining a satisfactory level of love and companionship through intimate relations is an unalterable, fundamental need of all human beings. The Institute for 21st Century Relationships exists to facilitate the fulfillment of the human potential for relating, and to support the freedom of consenting adults to discover and to practice the intimate relationship structure that best meets their emotional and human needs. We champion the basic human right to do so free of governmental, societal or institutional coercion or favoritism.

We seek, through education, research, and support, to create a climate in which all forms of ethical, consensual and fulfilling relationship styles are broadly understood and are equally respected and honored as legitimate choices."

Same question. What is this group. Are you familiar with them? Do you agree with their teachings? Are they related to Mormonism in any way?

 

[Allweather]

Wrong! What I am saying is that:

1. LDS doctrine does not contradict biblical scripture.
2. Everything that LDS doctrine teaches does not have to be proved from biblical scripture for it to be valid.

zerinus

From what I can see, and I’m far from an expert, is that quite of bit of Mormon doctrine appears to be in-line with “biblical scripture” (by use of which term I assume you mean the Bible as opposed to Mormon “scriptures” such as the BoM and whatnot). But LDS doctrine has changed over the years. What was doctrine in 1850 is no longer doctrine. What was promoted feverishly in 1885 was quashed by 1895. So, LDS doctrine is not something easily nailed down for examination. Considering the solidity of Biblical sources compared to the fluidity of LDS doctrines, I wonder if it isn’t a little odd for one to hold, now, in 2007, that “LDS doctrine does not contradict scripture.”

I must remind that I am not an expert on LDS doctrine. I’ll leave it for you, Zerinus, and others, to illuminate that for me, and all. I understand that you are running away from the Mormon past, or at least, parts of it. You appear reluctant to embrace the wild statements of some Mormon leaders. Yet one aspect of the Mormon past, polygamy, is something that you enthusiastically support and promote. How do you reconcile your love for and support of polygamy with current Mormon doctrine?

As for your statement in #2 quoted above, that LDS teaching does not have to proved from “biblical scripture” for it to be valid: Seems to me, the key word is “valid.” What is valid within the framework of the Cult of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al, could not be valid within the framework of orthodox Christianity. Your statement seems to reflect the low esteem in which Mormons hold the Bible. Joseph Smith couldn’t reconcile many of his teachings with the Bible, so he started altering it, a project that was ongoing when he was murdered in 1844. Your statement #2 is revealing, not only in the sense of it being a sort of article of faith for Zerinus, but that it reflects the sense of Mormonism at-large, that the Bible is not to be trusted, nor is the Church that wrote it to be trusted.

 

[Allweather]

It is both. It is the dispensation of the fullness of time. It is a dispensation in which all the truths that had been revealed in previous dispensations will be revealed; and also many things will be revealed that had been hidden from the foundation of the world.

zerinus

What we call “dispensationalism” is associated with a particular brand of Protestant fundamentalism, but I’m sure you knew that. How does the Mormon view of dispensationalism compare with the Protestant fundamentalist view of it?

I suppose (though this is by no means a scholarly description) that in Catholic terms, the period between the birth of Jesus Christ and today, is one dispensation, “the new and everlasting covenant” as is said in the Mass. All that is needed has been revealed by and through Jesus Christ. The Church that Jesus founded upon the Apostles has found no new “truths” that have been “hidden from the foundation of the world.” Catholics certainly do NOT agree with the notion that Jesus is changing course from time to time. Apparently, though, from the Mormon point of view, God does, indeed, change course from time to time. Even if only to make himself in accord with United States law.

 

[Allweather]

I don’t think it is very nice of you to destroy Zerinius’ fantasy of hundreds of wives with whom he can make love all the time while creating spirit bodies for his many planets for all eternity.

This is not a fantasy that will be easily destroyed! I’m struck, in your description of it, though, with how similar this seems to what is said of some Islamic ideas of Virgins in Heaven, or whatever that is. Someone else described Joseph Smith as being the American Mohammed. There do seem to be a lot of parallels.

FWIW my opinion is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were extremely carnal men who, being fairly well isolated by distance and the problems of travel and communication, were able to act out their carnal fantasies among the ladies who either idolized them, or were intimidated by them with threats of damnation. The fact that Smith practiced his sexual deviancy in private for so many years before finally revealing it to the world at large suggests that he was not particularly proud of it, and needed that period of time to work out a theory of polygamy that could be bought by the True Believers, if not by many of the women victims, let alone by Christian American society.

Nowadays, there are Mormon True Believers, like our friend Zerinus here (I’m still wondering what is rmcmullen’s take on this whole polygamy thing, maybe he will weigh in soon) who still promote polygamy. I’m guessing, that Zerinus is a man. I’m also pretty sure that most Mormon women find polygamy to be distasteful, just as Emma Smith did, and the many Moromon women of the past who were victimized by it. This is why I like to highlight polygamy when I talk to Mormons. Polygamy has been the single most important factor in leading my fiance out of Mormonism.

 

[zerinus]

I’m curious. And this really is a serious question. Seems to me I remember reading earlier that only those Mormons in polygamous marriages could ascend to the highest level of the Celestial heaven.

That is not correct.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, the first link you provided is this:

houseofdavidministries.com/Biblical_marriage.html

What is House of David Ministries?

Sorry, I have not had time to read that page in detail, except for the conslusions. It appears to be a group that teaches polygamy. Is it a Mormon group?

I am not familiar with the website, and I am not interested in their beliefs etc. I was only searching for the relevant information. The information they had provided was documented, with a quotation from Josephus, who was a Jewish historian of around the time of Jesus. Unless you are accusing them of outright lying and misquoting Josephus, the quote is evidence that polygamy was practised by the Jews in the time of Jesus.

The second link you gave is this:

lovethatworks.org/index.html

Because I’m overwhelmed by a problem at work right at the moment, I have not had time to study this material in any detail. However, I did read the mission statement of the group that published this page. This is it: . . .

The same thing here. I am not interested in who they are and what they believe in. The quote I had given from them was well reasoned, and appeared to be well researched, and that is all I care about. If you think that the information they had provided was not correct, it is up to you to prove otherwise. I had no reason to question the acuracy of it.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

From what I can see, and I’m far from an expert, is that quite of bit of Mormon doctrine appears to be in-line with “biblical scripture” (by use of which term I assume you mean the Bible as opposed to Mormon “scriptures” such as the BoM and whatnot). But LDS doctrine has changed over the years. What was doctrine in 1850 is no longer doctrine. What was promoted feverishly in 1885 was quashed by 1895. So, LDS doctrine is not something easily nailed down for examination. Considering the solidity of Biblical sources compared to the fluidity of LDS doctrines, I wonder if it isn’t a little odd for one to hold, now, in 2007, that “LDS doctrine does not contradict scripture.”

I must remind that I am not an expert on LDS doctrine. I’ll leave it for you, Zerinus, and others, to illuminate that for me, and all. I understand that you are running away from the Mormon past, or at least, parts of it. You appear reluctant to embrace the wild statements of some Mormon leaders. Yet one aspect of the Mormon past, polygamy, is something that you enthusiastically support and promote. How do you reconcile your love for and support of polygamy with current Mormon doctrine?

As for your statement in #2 quoted above, that LDS teaching does not have to proved from “biblical scripture” for it to be valid: Seems to me, the key word is “valid.” What is valid within the framework of the Cult of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al, could not be valid within the framework of orthodox Christianity. Your statement seems to reflect the low esteem in which Mormons hold the Bible. Joseph Smith couldn’t reconcile many of his teachings with the Bible, so he started altering it, a project that was ongoing when he was murdered in 1844. Your statement #2 is revealing, not only in the sense of it being a sort of article of faith for Zerinus, but that it reflects the sense of Mormonism at-large, that the Bible is not to be trusted, nor is the Church that wrote it to be trusted.

This post is nothing more than a subtle form of Mormon bashing, and it is not worthy of my reply.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

What we call “dispensationalism” is associated with a particular brand of Protestant fundamentalism, but I’m sure you knew that. How does the Mormon view of dispensationalism compare with the Protestant fundamentalist view of it?

I suppose (though this is by no means a scholarly description) that in Catholic terms, the period between the birth of Jesus Christ and today, is one dispensation, “the new and everlasting covenant” as is said in the Mass. All that is needed has been revealed by and through Jesus Christ. The Church that Jesus founded upon the Apostles has found no new “truths” that have been “hidden from the foundation of the world.”

I don’t know what the Protestants believe about dispensations (or Catholics for that matter), and I don’t care. Our idea of a dispensation is the biblical one. It is what Paul is talking about here:

Ephesians 1:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.

We believe the LDS Church is this dispensation that Paul was writing about.

Catholics certainly do NOT agree with the notion that Jesus is changing course from time to time. Apparently, though, from the Mormon point of view, God does, indeed, change course from time to time. Even if only to make himself in accord with United States law.

This is nothing more than a cheap slur and worthless innuendo against the LDS Church. You seem to be out of your depth; you have lost the argument against LDS, and you are left with nothing more than to cast aspersions and launch cheap innuendos against the LDS Church. That is not the kind of discussion I am interested in.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

I don’t know what the Protestants believe about dispensations (or Catholics for that matter), and I don’t care. Our idea of a dispensation is the biblical one. It is what Paul is talking about here:

Ephesians 1:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.

We believe the LDS Church is this dispensation that Paul was writing about.

This is nothing more than a cheap slur and worthless innuendo against the LDS Church. You seem to be out of your depth; you have lost the argument against LDS, and you are left with nothing more than to cast aspersions and launch cheap innuendos against the LDS Church. That is not the kind of discussion I am interested in.

zerinus

Here’s a little bit about dispensationalism, a theology invented in the 19th century:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea3.asp

And another one:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902chap.asp

 

[Karin]

IThis is nothing more than a cheap slur and worthless innuendo against the LDS Church. You seem to be out of your depth; you have lost the argument against LDS, and you are left with nothing more than to cast aspersions and launch cheap innuendos against the LDS Church. That is not the kind of discussion I am interested in.

zerinus

you know you have made this allegation several times here and on other threads…always when someone points out the fact(s) that the LDS

 

[zerinus]

Here’s a little bit about dispensationalism, a theology invented in the 19th century:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea3.asp

I have some ideas about it. I read Scofield’s Bible a long time ago where it was first popularized (it is actually a very good Bible, and has very meaningful cross-references). But I am not terribly interested in it to be honest. Allweather’s aim in bringing all these things up is to cast aspersions and innuendos that we have borrowed our ideas from here and there, which is not worth a cent as far as I am concerned. Nobody believes that except him.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

I am not familiar with the website, and I am not interested in their beliefs etc. I was only searching for the relevant information. The information they had provided was documented, with a quotation from Josephus, who was a Jewish historian of around the time of Jesus. Unless you are accusing them of outright lying and misquoting Josephus, the quote is evidence that polygamy was practised by the Jews in the time of Jesus. zerinus

That’s kinda what I thought. I know who Josephus was, but I have not read his material extensively… only small snippets here and there, apparently the same as you. There is the one small quote attributed to Josephus, a quote BTW that could be read more than one way, seeing as how it is not accompanied by any context to speak of. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am saying that, according to what I know, polygamy was not a feature of orthodox Jewish life. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that “ancient” Hebrews incorporated polygamy, as they did other pagan practices and religions, in opposition to God’s wish for them. After all, this is described in the Bible. But this was not something that was desireable from God’s point of view, but rather, tolerated by him, as He tolerated so many things that the Hebrews did in disobedience… up to a point. God’s original plan involved ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN, as in, Adam and Eve. Bone of Adam’s bone, flesh of Adam’s flesh. Catholics, and virtually all Protestants, too, believe that this is the divine model for marriage, and this is borne out in Catholic faith for 2000 years. Polygamy reduces women to the status of cattle. I frankly am amazed that any educated man could promote, even enthusiastically, polygamy as something divinely ordained.