any former mormons out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mwashabaugh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Allweather said:
I’m more and more tending to think that Zerinus is a missionary who has been assigned to inhabit the internet and perform his work in and amongst Christians. It seems to me that this would be an ideal place for missionary activity, given the large number of people, many of whom are searching for a religion, who spend time on various boards. Today at work I was imagining him in a room full of missionaries in front of computers, each in a cubicle, with one or two or three overseers walking around, supervising, offering help with arguments and sources. I picture him being in his twenties, maybe in college or just out of college. Considering his spelling and writing skills, he might want to get a refund from that college. I think that this sort of missionary setup probably helps to explain why he is so persistent, and has appeared here under at least two usernames. It doesn’t seem likely that he is a potential Catholic, though I continue to hope that he is. No, I think that this is a mission for him, and I suspect that rmcmullen is his good-cop partner. The two of them probably sit side-by-side in the cubicles.

The other possible explaination for his persistence is that he is actually investigating the Catholic faith for himself, and is simply working through all the arguments, thrashing them out, perhaps hoping to be persuaded to remain Mormon. Either possibility has merit.

Another thing that I’ve noticed is that he has a fairly obvious British Commonwealth “sound” to him. He sometimes spells color “colour” and employs various phrases that are not American. I also notice that the times of his postings are in the overnight hours, which suggests that he is in a distant land, perhaps in Europe, but not likely in Canada or South America.

In any case, I’m glad he’s here. If not for Zerinus, we’d have no worthy Mormon upon whom to practice our witnessing skills. I have learned a LOT from him, and you can bet yer bottom dollar that everything I’ve learned will be used to good effect in the months and years ahead as I engage Mormons in evangelizing debate. We’ve got quite a few Mormons out here in the western U.S. I hope to see many of them come home to the Truth. Thanks, Z!
Click to expand...
I can see that you are now doing your nuts over me. Congratulations! That is to be expected. People who reject divine truth lose the spirit of God, and eventually turn into nutcases. You are heading down the right path!

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
I can see that you are now doing your nuts over me. Congratulations! That is to be expected. People who reject divine truth lose the spirit of God, and eventually turn into nutcases. You are heading down the right path!

zerinus
Click to expand...
well that describes you perfectly
 
Majick, it’s true that there are a lot worthwhile things in the old journals and the like but there is always the question of their authenticity. Recording and publishing nowadays is very different than it was a century ago. I guess I feel it’s sort of like D&C 91:
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
Click to expand...
The main problem I have here is when people who mostly just want to criticise pick out obscurities and demand they be defended. I have a hard time explaining anything like that. I actually feel a lot better grounded discussing polygamy than eternal progression because it’s mentioned a fair amount in the Old Testament whereas there’s almost nothing on the eternal progression thing even in the Mormon scriptures. I think it’s like what we discussed before, a principle that underlies many of our beliefs. But, anyway, I like to stick authoritative sources.

And that’s a particularly bad introduction into a discussion of angels and saints since there is also little (at least Biblically) to go on. I hear you on the cherubim. The only biblical suggestion of angels being a separate species than man I can see is Hebrews 2. And it’s way fuzzy for me to understand:

** 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. **

Also, if anyone has any objections with KJV, let me know where I can cut & paste NIV. Also, is tundramom just being facetious? Wouldn’t Catholics call Moroni a saint and not an angel?
 
zerinus said:
I can see that you are now doing your nuts over me. Congratulations! That is to be expected. People who reject divine truth lose the spirit of God, and eventually turn into nutcases. You are heading down the right path!

zerinus
Click to expand...
Angel and man is the same So your saying that a train and an airplane are the same thing because they can be used to travel. And a Bible and the Book of Mormon are the same because they teach truth or lies. But a woman and a man are not the same because the woman was made for mans use, right! Now that is nuts or raisns or coulod be a grapefruit:thumbsup: .
 
rmcmullan said:
Majick, it’s true that there are a lot worthwhile things in the old journals and the like but there is always the question of their authenticity. Recording and publishing nowadays is very different than it was a century ago. I guess I feel it’s sort of like D&C 91:

The main problem I have here is when people who mostly just want to criticise pick out obscurities and demand they be defended. I have a hard time explaining anything like that. I actually feel a lot better grounded discussing polygamy than eternal progression because it’s mentioned a fair amount in the Old Testament whereas there’s almost nothing on the eternal progression thing even in the Mormon scriptures. I think it’s like what we discussed before, a principle that underlies many of our beliefs. But, anyway, I like to stick authoritative sources.

And that’s a particularly bad introduction into a discussion of angels and saints since there is also little (at least Biblically) to go on. I hear you on the cherubim. The only biblical suggestion of angels being a separate species than man I can see is Hebrews 2. And it’s way fuzzy for me to understand:

** 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. **

Also, if anyone has any objections with KJV, let me know where I can cut & paste NIV. Also, is tundramom just being facetious? Wouldn’t Catholics call Moroni a saint and not an angel?
Click to expand...
Mormons remind me of desperate children trying to blame a broken window on everything around them including the glassmaker rather than accept responsibility for their own foolish thoughts and actions…
 
40.png
rmcmullan:
Also, is tundramom just being facetious? Wouldn’t Catholics call Moroni a saint and not an angel?
Click to expand...
I’m not being facetious and why would we call Moroni a Saint?
  1. He didn’t exist
  2. Even if he had existed, he hasn’t been declared a Saint by the Roman Catholic Church.
in Christ
Steph
 
zerinus said:
Actually, the Bible says quite a lot about it. Etymologically, the English word “angel” is derived from Greek, where it means literally “messenger”. The Hebrew equivalent of it also means exactly the same thing—a “messenger”. Hence Satan also has his own “angels” (Matt 25:41), who are nothing more than the evil spirits that followed him in the pre-existence when he rebelled against God, and now act as his agents or messengers. Thus anyone who can act as God’s agent or messenger can be called God’s “angel,” including mortal men living here on earth. That is why in the Revelation of John the Lord refers to the overseers of the churches established on earth as angels (Rev 3:1, 7, 14). Needless to say, if those people could act as God’s agents or His “angels” while they lived as mortals here on earth, it stands to reason that after they had died and become resurrected, where their spiritual powers are enhanced, they can act even more fully in the capacity of God’s ministering agents, or His “angels”. Indeed, the angel that appeared to John, and showed him the great vision that is known as the Revelation, identified himself as “thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book” (Rev 22:9). In fact, whenever angels have appeared to and ministered to mankind, they have appeared as “men” (see Genesis 18:1-2, 8; Luke 24:4-5; Acts 1:10-11). They have never been anything other than men. Matthew tells us that after the resurrection of Christ, “the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many” (Matt 27:52-53). How did they “appear unto many,” unless as “resurrected” (hence supernatural) beings who were acting as God’s agents—i.e. His “angels”? Paul goes even further, and tells us that in judgement day members of the church will “judge angels” (1 Cor 3:3). How could they “judge angels,” unless those “angels” had been men accountable for their actions in this life for which they could be judged? The Lord told His Twelve Apostles that in the resurrection they should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Daniel informs us that in the resurrection “judgment was given to the saints of the most High” (Daniel 7:22); John the revelator tells us the same thing is Rev 20:4: “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them”. These are of course the saints of God who are “co-judges” with Jesus and His Apostles of the rest of mankind; and those “angels” whom they shall judge are none other than men. All have to be judged, the wicked as well as the righteous. The righteous are those who are the “angels,” while the wicked are those to whom the Lord shall say, “Depart from me . . . into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41). These of course will become the devils angels, just like those who had joined him in the pre-existence. Thus angels are indeed men, either in this life or in the next, who are capable of acting as God’s messengers or agents.

zerinus
Click to expand...
what is important is the ancient hebrew denotation AND connotation of angels. NOT the literal greek which came later. That is worse than prooftexting.

What definition was derived from the Greek messenger should tell us something of the perceived meaning:

thefreedictionary.com/angel

That gives some context as the understanding of what angel meant in the Bible when the greek word “messenger” was applied.
now the hebrew word? (from answers.com)

“Angel” is also used in the English version of the Bible for these three Hebrew words:…
Code: 
* אביר, abbir Hebrew word #47 in Strong's, Psalms 78:25 (lit. "mighty")
* אלהים, Elohim Hebrew word #430 in Strong's, Psalms 8:5
* the obscure שנאן, shin'an Hebrew word #8136 in Strong's, in Psalms 68:17
so SOMETIMES messenger but certainly with a “special” conotation.

shoot read the whole article:
answers.com/topic/angel

pay special attention to the part labeled “angels in the tanakh”

you see the writers of the old testament used a number of different words that we tend to just call “angels”. a thorough study of the bible shows us a number of types of angels such as cherubim and seraphim and chayot. to call a human an angel is a metaphor not literal. The “angel” of the church of ephesus could be a human but not a real angel. They are called this to signify that are angelic as they act on gods behalf. sometimes they act as messenger (prophets) others as a different role aligned with cherubim or seraphim or archangel as teh metaphor applies.

It is typical of Joseph Smith to “dumb down” the Bible so that it says what you want when anyone who takes time to study and understand it in the context it was written in will see a completely different (and much deeper, all encompassing) message written in it. (this once again showing the value of sacred tradition when properly paired with sacred scripture)🙂
 
rmcmullan said:
Majick, it’s true that there are a lot worthwhile things in the old journals and the like but there is always the question of their authenticity. Recording and publishing nowadays is very different than it was a century ago. I guess I feel it’s sort of like D&C 91:

The main problem I have here is when people who mostly just want to criticise pick out obscurities and demand they be defended. I have a hard time explaining anything like that. I actually feel a lot better grounded discussing polygamy than eternal progression because it’s mentioned a fair amount in the Old Testament whereas there’s almost nothing on the eternal progression thing even in the Mormon scriptures. I think it’s like what we discussed before, a principle that underlies many of our beliefs. But, anyway, I like to stick authoritative sources.

And that’s a particularly bad introduction into a discussion of angels and saints since there is also little (at least Biblically) to go on. I hear you on the cherubim. The only biblical suggestion of angels being a separate species than man I can see is Hebrews 2. And it’s way fuzzy for me to understand:

** 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. **

Also, if anyone has any objections with KJV, let me know where I can cut & paste NIV. Also, is tundramom just being facetious? Wouldn’t Catholics call Moroni a saint and not an angel?
Click to expand...
read my link on angels in the tanakh and you will see a number of biblical references to the various angels and their descriptions.
 
Okay Majick, I checked the link and see where you’re coming from. Very interesting! I don’t remember anything about “venerating angels” though when I was a young Catholic boy and even my teacher in Catholic school said that guardian angels were mostly fanciful.

You don’t have to dis my man Joseph Smith, your anti-Mormon stance is well understood.
 
rmcmullan said:
Nan, also on your other posts you say that Catholics do not believe that you can become an angel? Can you give me some references? How aboout the Mount of the Transfiguration where Elijah & Moses appeared?
Click to expand...
Hello,

Humans not becoming angels is one of those things that we learned very early. Angels are purely spiritual, non-corporeal creatures whose abode is the heavens. Humans have bodies, and when we join Jesus in heaven we will still have bodies, albeit glorified ones. Humans do not become angels, simply because our nature in heaven is to have a body, and the angels’ nature is to remain pure spirit.

I know of plenty of scripture references that talk about how humans in heaven have glorified physical bodies. I don’t know of any non-Mormon scriptures that talk about angels having physical bodies in heaven.

The role of angels is to be messengers of God. In fulfilling their duties, they sometimes take on the appearance of a human, even to the point of temporarily using a form that resembles a body. But that apparent body is a simple construct to facilitate their actions as messengers. When their duties are done the construct is swept away; it does not accompany the angel back into heaven.

Moses and Elijah are two of the twenty-four elders found in chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of the Revelation (among other places). Having attained perfection they already have their glorified bodies, and this is what the apostles saw on the mountain. Elijah, in fact, did not even die; he was taken to heaven body and soul together by a whirlwind in a fiery chariot. (2 Ki 2:11-12)

I’ve never had to address this issue from an apologetics standpoint before, so I’m going to have to do a little digging for references. Bear with me. I could quote you the Catholic “standard work”, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you’d like. (Did you know the modern edition was written under the direction of Pope John Paul II, with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger - now better known as Pope Benedict XVI - at the head of the commission which wrote it? You don’t get much more official than that.)

Nan
 
Several people have asked me to explain why I left the Mormon church. I will try. For the most part, after alot of studying I came to these conclusions:
  1. The inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s changing doctrine. See Ensign 11 [August 1981]:69-70).
  2. The discrimination of the african americans…and I quote from Mormon Doctrine pp.527-528: “negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned”…
    Yes I know that has changed, however, do you know why? The Mormon church was being sued for discrimination but the prophet had a revelation instead…
  3. Their belief in more than One God. Expressions like; as “the Gods called,” “the Gods ordered,” and “the Gods prepared” (occur 45 times in Abraham 4-5.) The mormon church taught that God was once a man like us.
    5.Then, there was the issue of polygamy. I knew the only reason the church changed the doctrine was because Utah couldn’t become a state if they didnt. Another revelation happened…
  4. The most disturbing situation was when my bishop told me that he had seen Christ in the temple. I asked him if the second coming is here and why isn’t Christ among “all” of his children and my bishop had no response…
    I could mention alot more but for the sake of time I wont.
My own opinion: I believe that if good LDS people would study and really learn what goes on today and what went on from the beginning they would think differently. However, most LDS people are taught not to question. They rely on faith and read the Book of Mormon. And frankly, most are scared to even research. I think they are really afraid that they will find the truth and the entire world that they live in will no longer exist. Think about it… wouldn’t you be afraid?
 
Nan_S said:
Hello,

Humans not becoming angels is one of those things that we learned very early. Angels are purely spiritual, non-corporeal creatures whose abode is the heavens. Humans have bodies, and when we join Jesus in heaven we will still have bodies, albeit glorified ones. Humans do not become angels, simply because our nature in heaven is to have a body, and the angels’ nature is to remain pure spirit.

I know of plenty of scripture references that talk about how humans in heaven have glorified physical bodies. I don’t know of any non-Mormon scriptures that talk about angels having physical bodies in heaven.

The role of angels is to be messengers of God. In fulfilling their duties, they sometimes take on the appearance of a human, even to the point of temporarily using a form that resembles a body. But that apparent body is a simple construct to facilitate their actions as messengers. When their duties are done the construct is swept away; it does not accompany the angel back into heaven.

Moses and Elijah are two of the twenty-four elders found in chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of the Revelation (among other places). Having attained perfection they already have their glorified bodies, and this is what the apostles saw on the mountain. Elijah, in fact, did not even die; he was taken to heaven body and soul together by a whirlwind in a fiery chariot. (2 Ki 2:11-12)

I’ve never had to address this issue from an apologetics standpoint before, so I’m going to have to do a little digging for references. Bear with me. I could quote you the Catholic “standard work”, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you’d like. (Did you know the modern edition was written under the direction of Pope John Paul II, with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger - now better known as Pope Benedict XVI - at the head of the commission which wrote it? You don’t get much more official than that.)

Nan
Click to expand...
Nan, thank you for this very interesting and informative post. :blessyou:
 
Kristine1957 said:
My own opinion: I believe that if good LDS people would study and really learn what goes on today and what went on from the beginning they would think differently. However, most LDS people are taught not to question. They rely on faith and read the Book of Mormon. And frankly, most are scared to even research. I think they are really afraid that they will find the truth and the entire world that they live in will no longer exist. Think about it… wouldn’t you be afraid?
Click to expand...
Chris,

I was afraid. But ultimately, I was more afraid of God than man. Fortunately I still have all the same friends, and my family has been pretty “ok” about my becoming Catholic . That can be rare, I know. I feel very very blessed. I try to be supportive of my loved ones, knowing how important their faith is to them. I basically keep my mouth shut about the things we’re discussing here. And I pray for them all. I know God will lead them if and when they are ready.

God Bless You. :getholy: Thanks for your post.

(BTW…I’m not sure about the Mormon church being sued for discrimination at the time of the change in the Priesthood. I’d never heard of that??)
 
truthsilence : I hope Im posting this right… Why do you try to keep your mouth shut here??? Just wondering…:confused:

This is what I had been talking about the way I see it the church hurried and changed the rule because of the lawsuit: On July 18, 1974, the Salt Lake Tribune reported: "A 12-year-old boy scout has been denied a senior patrol leadership in his troop because he is black

Since the boy cannot hold the priesthood, he cannot become a patrol leader.

Shortly before Boy Scout officials were to appear in Federal Court Friday morning on charges of discrimination, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a policy change which will allow black youths to be senior patrol leaders, a position formerly reserved for white LDS youths in troops sponsored by the church. An LDS Church spokesman said Friday under the “guidelines set forth in the statement, a young man other than president of the deacons quorum could (now) become the senior patrol leader if he is better qualified”. - (Salt Lake Tribune, August 3, 1974).

Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball “had been subpoenaed to testify” in the suit (Ibid., Oct. 23), but on Nov. 7, 1974 the Tribune reported: “A suit claiming discrimination against blacks by the Boy Scouts of America was dismissed Wednesday in federal court…all parties to the suit…signed an agreement stating the alleged discrimination ‘has been discontinued.’”

God bless
 
Z or RMC:

How could any public revelation, or private revelation for that matter, be of equal or greater value than the ministry of Jesus Christ? Christ was fully God and fully human. It seems to me, his words and his teachings should have more weight. How do you reconcile the apparent contradictions between some Mormon teachings teachings of Jesus Christ, himself?

I would appreciate a thoughtful response.

In Christ,
Michael
 
Allweather said:
Wait a minute. Before, you were going on and on about how scripture proves this and scripture proves that. Now, you say you don’t need scripture. Which is it? Do you see how you wiggle? When scripture can be used, you use it, even if incorrectly. When it can’t be used, you say, we don’t need it anyway, we’ve got ongoing revelation.

Also, what is this about a “completely new dispensation of the gospel”?? I thought this was a restoration of the lost gospel, not something entirely new. Which is it? Restoration of that which was lost thru apostasy? Or something entirely new? Or both?

But the REAL question is, if polygamy is taught according to this new dispensation, and it is valid without reference to what has been revealed by the DEFINITIVE REVELATION OF CHRIST, then why does the LDS church not practice it today?
Click to expand...
They gave it up, so Utah could become a state. Moreover, they had to put a ban on polygamy in the state constitution.

Michael
 
zerinus said:
AS you know, LDS believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and modern Christendom, which includes Catholicism, is nothing more than a remnant of a dead and apostate religion, which has absolutely no divine authority and legitimacy before God, and is doomed to eventual dissolution and disbandment as the true Church that God has established in the last days (as prophesied in scripture) will continue to progress and increase until the purposes of God are fulfilled. You as a representative of a dead and apostate religion play your part well to hate and wage war against the true Church of God, but you will fail.

Much has been said about the prophecies of Joseph Smith not coming to pass. Allow me to quote you a prophecy from him that has come to pass, and will continue to come to pass until it is completely fulfilled:

No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. Persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame; but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done. (History of the Church, 4:540.)

I am not interested in your slurs and innuendos against the LDS Church.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Can you provide any proof, outside of quotes from Joseph Smith or LDS resources, to prove that an apostacy occurred? Surely, if such an event, or process occurred, there should be some historical, verifiable proof.

In Christ,
Michael
 
Nan_S said:
I know of plenty of scripture references that talk about how humans in heaven have glorified physical bodies. I don’t know of any non-Mormon scriptures that talk about angels having physical bodies in heaven.
Click to expand...
I would really like all the catechism and other references you have time for. URL’s are good. Also, if you have the references I quoted above, great, I wasn’t even sure that Catholics believed that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top