any former mormons out there?

[Allweather]

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

The second of the two links Zerinus provided dives right into the discussion that was started by NDM. That one shows pretty convincingly that Mormon arguments for a universal apostasy are even thinner than their arguments that Jesus and his Apostles were polygamists.

To me, the best argument that the universal apostasy is a lie, is the art and architecture, the acts and works, and the fact that the Churh which Jesus established upon the rock of Peter and the Apostles never died, and in fact lives today. We don’t need complex arguments to know this. It is apparent from simply taking a look around us. Apostate people wouldn’t build fantastic cathedrals to the glory of God. They wouldn’t spend their lives creating great art and music to the glory of God. They’d spend their lives getting high, and wasting their time.

We can use the same argument to prove that polygamy was once practiced by the LDS church, under its authority and auspices. We know this because there are still Mormons today who practice it, and others who don’t practice it because it is against the law, yet who defend and support it by the use of misreadings of holy Scripture and perverse argument.

 

[truthsilence]

truthsilence : I hope Im posting this right… Why do you try to keep your mouth shut here??? Just wondering…

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

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the information on the Boy Scouts. I had never read too much about the actual time frame, on what was happenning that lead up to the ban being lifted, in 1978. So after I read your post I did a search on “Priesthood ban lifted 1978”. Wow.

I was always disturbed by the Priesthood ban, and confused by all the so-called explainations for it. I found it easier to sweep under the rug, I’m ashamed to say. This is just one more thing about the LDS religion that obviously, didn’t come from God.

What I mean about keeping my mouth shut is that I don’t bring these issues up with my LDS family or friends. They know where I stand, but if I were to start telling them all the things that are wrong with their religion, they wouldn’t be my friends for very long. It wouldn’t serve any purpose other than to push them away, cause anger, and hurt. I just pray for them.

God bless you,
ts

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Blacks were forbidden to hold the Priesthood in the LDS Church because they were supposed to be under the curse placed upon CAIN, whose descendants they are said to be.
It was explained to me that the Line of Cain was preserved through the Great Flood by Ham’s black wife named Egyptus.

The bad pre-human spirits were born into black skinned bodies as a punishment for their not supporting the Good Spirits when Lucifer rebelled.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[Sophie]

Blacks were forbidden to hold the Priesthood in the LDS Church because they were supposed to be under the curse placed upon CAIN, whose descendants they are said to be.
It was explained to me that the Line of Cain was preserved through the Great Flood by Ham’s black wife named Egyptus.

The bad pre-human spirits were born into black skinned bodies as a punishment for their not supporting the Good Spirits when Lucifer rebelled.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

Yes, this racist theory was originally used by pre-Civil War American Christian slave owners to try to justify owning black people as slaves and was adopted by early mormon leaders in the 1800’s My mormon son-in-law recently tried to tell me that Bigfoot is Cain because he wanders to earth and has dark colored fur!! I tried to reasure him that Bigfoot is not Cain and to read the book of Genesis. The true curse God gave Cain was not to allow him to farm the land any longer. Cain was afraid he would be killed because he killed his brother, Able. So God gave him a mark of protection. Scripture does not say what this mark was. This mark of protection is what mormonism erroneously misconstrues as a curse of black skin on Cain from God. One more misinterpretation of scripture by the mormon organization. And one more proof that mormonism is not God’s true church!

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I have already discussed that subject at length in these threads:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=111484

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115490

zerinus

Zingers from Zerinus !!

First Link: Zerinus was asked at #62, what exactly was this “Apostasy and Restoration” hooey that Mormons claim.

Of course, Zerinus/Amgid avoided the question until other posters chimed in a “me too, me too” second.

He gives these answers:

#91: "The Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true. I have read the Book of Mormon, and I know by the testimony of the Holy Spirit that it is true."

Of course, many of you ex-mormons will recognize this response: it is the pat, memorized one given for the ‘burning in my bosom’ feint.

Well, gee, this didn’t satisfy any of the readers and posters with IQs above 25 (I just made it!), so our magic chameleon trots out the SPECIFIC, EVENT REQUESTED, SCRIPTURAL (from the BIBLE), HISTORICAL proof:

#97: "By the Apostasy we mean the loss of divine authority to lead the church."

Without missing a beat, Zamgid, a few obfuscations down, drops the Mormon H (for Hooey, of course) Bomb:

#97: "Apostasy and Restoration has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind since creation began. Whenever a church, or a dispensation of the gospel has apostatized [sic], God has established a new church, and this is no exception to it."

Here are the Zingers, Zerinus :

1. You believe in multiple gods, yet your statement specifically refers to one God and one creation.
2. If, as you hallucinate, that God establishes a “new church” whenever this Mormon concept of A & R occurs, then, by DEFINITION your Mormon/LDS church HAS BEEN REPLACED by more recent (such as JWs and Assembly of Gods and the Moonies) churches who claim the same thing you do. There is no end to this idiotic claim of ‘apostasy and restoration.’ (Here folks is another example of the striking similarities between Mormonism and Islam (or what the Church used to call Mohammetism) which claimed that the Jews and thus Christians [ie, Catholics] apostasized way back in the time of Abraham).
3. There is NO way to determine ‘divine authority’ outside of what was given to St Peter and was included in the canon (no BoM allowed, no Koran allowed, no Book of Uranchi allowed) by Pope Athanasius in 382 AD.
4. If you claim there is in that contradictory, poorly written novel called the Book of the Hebrews (retitled the Book of Mormon with KJV additions of whole chapters from Isaish) then you are preaching in the wrong place. You will never make sense because your conclusion (LDS good) comes before your premise (Catholicism-including the Scriptures-bad).
5. If you think the Bible is wrong (and your contention that the BoM completes it is really, really stupid since there is nothing NEW in the BoM that adds to what is in the Bible) due to almost 2000 years of Tradition and teaching of the Church and the agreement on the historical authenticiy and divine inspiration of the Hebrew Tanakh and the NT, then anything you say WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE BIBLE or TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN customs and practices is void ab initio, without merit and shows you to be nothing more than a mouthpiece on a mission

May God (the one, Holy, and Triune) bless you and lead you home.

Pax Christi

 

[mjf001]

I have already discussed that subject at length in these threads:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=111484

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115490

zerinus

I am aware of these threads and your lack of response, in the form of unproven assertions, in these threads. However, having said that, I asked my question because you’ve brought up the apostacy twice in this thread as justification for your views. I obviously rejected the apostacy when I came home to Christ’s church. So, I thought I’d try again to get a response to my question regarding proof for the apostacy, which you’ve ignored several times already. If you don’t want to address this issue, how about answering my other questions. Do you care to address them? A thoughtful response, devoid of unprovable assertions or sarcastic comments would be greatly appreciated.

Michael

 

[rmcmullan]

Thanks Nan S, Majick275 and christianley for the links on the angels.

 

[Kristine1957]

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

Well the way I feel now there isn’t anything greater than God and his teachings that are in his Holy Bible. And for me its easy now. I don’t believe what the mormon church has to say anymore. My proof is all I need especially when I feel God’s presence so strong when Im taking communion there is no other way! I just wish “ALL” of God’s children would come home as I have.

May his spirit be with you always…

 

[mjf001]

Well the way I feel now there isn’t anything greater than God and his teachings that are in his Holy Bible. And for me its easy now. I don’t believe what the mormon church has to say anymore. My proof is all I need especially when I feel God’s presence so strong when Im taking communion there is no other way! I just wish “ALL” of God’s children would come home as I have.

May his spirit be with you always…

I’m glad you found your way home. I thank God every day that he helped me see the light and called me home to his church and the Eucharist. I agree with your post. May God send them the graces in their lives to help them come home, too.

Michael

 

[zerinus]

I am aware of these threads and your lack of response, in the form of unproven assertions, in these threads.

I believe that evidence of the Apostasy is unmistakable and clear. I had given those evidences in my previous discussions. If you want to turn a blind eye to them, that is your problem, not mine.

However, having said that, I asked my question because you’ve brought up the apostacy twice in this thread as justification for your views.

I frequently bring up the Apostasy as justification of my views. The Apostasy is central to the theology of LDS. The Apostasy justified the Restoration. Unfortunately, the Apostasy did occur; and fortunately, so did the Restoration!

I obviously rejected the apostacy when I came home to Christ’s church. So, I thought I’d try again to get a response to my question regarding proof for the apostacy, which you’ve ignored several times already.

I have done no such thing. Answers have been given time and time again, but you choose to turn a blind eye to them.

If you don’t want to address this issue, how about answering my other questions. Do you care to address them? A thoughtful response, devoid of unprovable assertions or sarcastic comments would be greatly appreciated.

Which other questions? I don’t know of too many, except for the following:

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.

There are two problems with that. The first problem is that you are presenting it as an “either/or” case. That is the wrong way to took at it. That would be like saying that because I had breakfast today, I shouldn’t need lunch tomorrow. The Book of Mormon answers that question best, so I will let it speak for itself. You can read it in 2 Nephi 29.

The second problem with your question is that you are ignoring the Apostasy. I agree that Jesus was fully divine and fully human; but if the church that He established went into apostasy, which it did, then it lost its divine authority and legitimacy, and a restoration is required. The Book of Mormon informs us that because of the Apostasy the Bible that we have today is not complete (see 1 Nephi 13). Many “plain and precious parts” have been removed form it, which required a restoration.

How do you reconcile the apparent contradictions between some Mormon teachings teachings of Jesus Christ, himself?

I don’t know of any such contradictions.

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

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

Well I this is thing I never understood. The Book of Mormon is a second witness of Jesus Christ. He came here after His resurrection and taught and administered to His people. He called apostles and established a church. It’s all in the Book of Mormon but people say “A Bible? A Bible? We already have a bible!” I know it’s a matter of faith but I would think, since it is the creator of the world and your Saviour, you would want to at least know a little more about it. I am constantly amazed at people’s lack of curiosity.

 

[Nan_S]

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.

Ok. Check back with me this evening. Yesterday evening was busy, between with my bible study class, and getting locked out of the car, and buying my daughter her college books…

Nan

 

[christianley]

Well I this is thing I never understood. The Book of Mormon is a second witness of Jesus Christ. He came here after His resurrection and taught and administered to His people. He called apostles and established a church. It’s all in the Book of Mormon but people say “A Bible? A Bible? We already have a bible!” I know it’s a matter of faith but I would think, since it is the creator of the world and your Saviour, you would want to at least know a little more about it. I am constantly amazed at people’s lack of curiosity.

What is there to know? The Americas were settled by Siberians who migrated to the Americas long before the Nephites supposedly arrived. The archaeological and mtDNA research has proven that. There was no developed civilization in the Americas which was the result of a Middle Eastern migration. Those are facts of history. There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus visited the Americas after his resurrection. That’s really all you need to know to debunk the Book of Mormon and Mormonism. I was curious enough to read the Book of Mormon many, many times. I have also looked at the claims made by Joseph Smith and am now convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mormonism’s claims are empty. Even if Joseph Smith had never come up with his bizarre theology, the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s initial claims of receiving gold plates from an angel have been completely debunked. Are you curious enough to check into Mormon history and read books like “No Man Knows My History” by Brodie or “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” by Grant Palmer? It’s all pretty clear when you read these books. Even if you read an apologist like Bushman’s “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling,” you will find the alarm bells ringing.

 

[majick275]

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.

snip

I don’t see how you can do this. the D&C and BoM were published under the same challenges that you mentioned for the JoD (while ignoring the more modern works that I mentioned). The JoD and other works like it were commissioned by the first presidency of that time and there were many years that they were in circulation in which they could have been corrected if erroneous. I find it significant that the LDS leaders of that time felt comfortable that they were correct transcripts of their talks. I find it even more telling that CURRENT LDS manuals frequently reference them.

I would also point out the various iterations of the BoM and the D&C as evidence that the early LDS DID in fact quickly identify and correct flawed church publications back then.

If I were to follow your reasoning on this then I would have to see the Bible as questionable. ( obvious since Mormons depend on that being the case) BUT the BoM and D&C and BoA all fit in that category and are especially suspect since source materials are for the most part unavailable to use in correcting them and they were published by the same folks in the same timeframe and locations as the other teachings of LDS Prophets that you seem so intent on waving off.

eternal progression and polygamy in LDS doctrine and practice can only be fully understood when seen the way their LDS “restorers” taught them.

 

[Allweather]

The second problem with your question is that you are ignoring the Apostasy. I agree that Jesus was fully divine and fully human; but if the church that He established went into apostasy, which it did, then it lost its divine authority and legitimacy, and a restoration is required. The Book of Mormon informs us that because of the Apostasy the Bible that we have today is not complete (see 1 Nephi 13). Many “plain and precious parts” have been removed form it, which required a restoration.
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.

That is impossible.

We can all agree that the grave sin of apostasy has always existed among individuals, and even among groups. But it has never been comprehensive and universal, top to bottom. If it had, then we’d never have had Christendom. All one has to do is a little historical reading to know that men of great faith have lived in every age, and do so live today.

In order to believe the myth of a comprehensive and universal apostasy, one has to close one’s mind and believe the impossible. Universal apostasy is an easily disproven theory that certain cult builders needed to make their unholy cases against God’s True Church. Without an apostasy, there could be no so-called restoration, and no need to re-write the Bible, no need for an ambitious, arrogant, polygamist prophet, or the cult of that prophet.

We don’t need complex arguments. This is as plain as the nose on Zerinus’ face. He can see it, too. But, like all cultists, whenever the nose starts to appear, he closes his eyes and sings the mantra: I believe there is an apostasy, I testify, the BoM is true, Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, Gordon Hinckley is a true prophet of God, the Mormon church is true. Ya Da, Ya Da, Ya Da.

Anything to be weird and different. God has called all to be unified under the authority of the Church that Jesus established, an act described in Matthew 16, where Jesus promised us his protection and guidance. Mormons, in claiming a comprehensive, universal apostasy, have, in effect, called Jesus a liar. But, Jesus doesn’t lie. God never abandoned His Church. Even though various sinful men and women have abandoned His Church at various times and places, and even though stubborn men and women like Zerinus and Mormons refuse to get with the program and unify with God’s Church, God is nevertheless NOT a liar, He never abandoned his Church, the Church NEVER ceased to exist. I pity men who call Jesus a liar. Those are the true apostates.

 

[Allweather]

Well I this is thing I never understood. The Book of Mormon is a second witness of Jesus Christ. He came here after His resurrection and taught and administered to His people. He called apostles and established a church. It’s all in the Book of Mormon but people say “A Bible? A Bible? We already have a bible!” I know it’s a matter of faith but I would think, since it is the creator of the world and your Saviour, you would want to at least know a little more about it. I am constantly amazed at people’s lack of curiosity.

Curiosity is one thing. Apostasy is another. It is fine to be curious and to read materials apart from Scripture. It is NOT fine to apostasize from the Church that Jesus founded.

I haven’t read the BoM through, because I find it objectionable, and frankly I don’t have time or energy to do objectionable things. The BoM may be pretty OK science fiction, and I do very occasionally read some fiction. But, because the BoM is one of the many foundations of Mormonism, it is associated in my mind with a false religion that has drawn millions of people away from the Church that Jesus founded.

See the words in your quote above that I highlighted. That Bible existed some 1700 years before the BoM was claimed to have been unearthed by a money digger named Smith. And Jesus founded His Church even before that. Why would any sane man abandon the true faith to follow a bizarre cult of polygamy and blasphemy?

 

[christianley]

Curiosity is one thing. Apostasy is another. It is fine to be curious and to read materials apart from Scripture. It is NOT fine to apostasize from the Church that Jesus founded.

I haven’t read the BoM through, because I find it objectionable, and frankly I don’t have time or energy to do objectionable things. The BoM may be pretty OK science fiction, and I do very occasionally read some fiction. But, because the BoM is one of the many foundations of Mormonism, it is associated in my mind with a false religion that has drawn millions of people away from the Church that Jesus founded.

See the words in your quote above that I highlighted. That Bible existed some 1700 years before the BoM was claimed to have been unearthed by a money digger named Smith. And Jesus founded His Church even before that. Why would any sane man abandon the true faith to follow a bizarre cult of polygamy and blasphemy?

Mormons have to be able to give us something beyond “warm fuzzies” to help us see the Book of Mormon is reliable. They can’t. I can get the same warm fuzzies from watching “The Song of Bernadette.” At least St. Bernadette had a lot of witnesses.

 

[rmcmullan]

What is there to know? The Americas were settled by Siberians who migrated to the Americas long before the Nephites supposedly arrived.

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?

 

[christianley]

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?

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.

 

[tundramom]

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?

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