any former mormons out there?

[Allweather]

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

I’m quoting one of your Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who served until his death. AFAIK he was not excommunicated or censured. This book came right out of the local Deseret bookstore. Since McConkie served in a much, much, much higher position within the LDS church than you do, I’m putting much, much, much more weight on his words than yours. I’m not “telling (you) what (you) believe.” I’m telling you what Bruce R. McConkie, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, says you believe.

You suggest I “try to find out from us what we believe.” That is why I read Bruce R. McConkie. To find out what LDS believe. Yet, you say, you do not run away from LDS doctrine. Yes you do. Why? I think it is because LDS doctrine is weird. That’s why the little missionaries don’t get into it with their sales prospects. The first order of business is to make people think that Mormonism is just a happy type of Christanity. Right? Family Home Evening and food storage.

 

[mjf001]

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

zerinus

This is the problem. The LDS seem to have their own unique definitions for alot of things. It makes it difficult to have a rational, logical discussion of anything.

 

[mjf001]

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

I have a problem with Joseph Smith, he doesn’t seem credible as a prophet of God.
The Book of Mormon is not the Bible and was written by JS, if you believe his account of things.
Therefore, I find everything JS wrote, and all doctrines that stem from him or his scriptures to be suspect.

 

[mjf001]

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

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

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

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

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

zerinus

More unproven assertions. Assertions aren’t facts. There was no apostacy and you can’t prove there was one by repeatedly asserting that there was an apostacy. To prove something, one must provide evidence. Something that’s clearly lacking in each and every one of your posts regarding the so called apostacy.

 

[mjf001]

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

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

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

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

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

When he died in 1985, I remember my parents and everyone I knew thought very highly of him. He may not have been the prophet, but it sure seemed to me he was held in a great deal of esteem.

 

[Nan_S]

[Regarding angels not having bodies] 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.

We’ve gotten waaayy off the subject of angels, but I did promise to put a wrap on angels and their lack of bodies.

The best biblical reference I have for the nature of angels comes out of the Book of Tobit, which is one of the deuterocanonicals. You won’t find it in a modern KJV, but it was part of the 1611 edition. It is in all Catholic bibles.

After spending a considerable time aiding and advising Tobit’s son, Tobias, the angel Raphael reveals himself:

Tobit 12:15-21 I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord." Stricken with fear, the two men fell to the ground. But Raphael said to them: “No need to fear; you are safe. Thank God now and forever. As for me, when I came to you it was not out of any favor on my part, but because it was God’s will. So continue to thank him every day; praise him with song. **Even though you watched me eat and drink, I did not really do so; what you were seeing was a vision. **So now get up from the ground and praise God. Behold, I am about to ascend to him who sent me; write down all these things that have happened to you.” When Raphael ascended they rose to their feet and could no longer see him.

Here is the primary section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the nature and role of angels. (The high points are quoted below; click on the link to read the rest.) Para 327 begins the section saying angels are spiritual only, animals are corporeal only, humans are both spiritual and corporeal.

327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God “from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.”

I. The Angels
The existence of angels—a truth of faith
328 The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls “angels” is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.

Who are they?
329 St. Augustine says: "‘Angel’ is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is ‘spirit’; if you seek the name of their office, it is ‘angel’: from what they are, ‘spirit,’ from what they do, ‘angel.’" (St. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 103, 1, 15: PL 37, 1348) With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they “always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven” they are the “mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word.”

330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.

332 Angels have been present since creation and throughout the history of salvation, announcing this salvation from afar or near and serving the accomplishment of the divine plan: they closed the earthly paradise; protected Lot; saved Hagar and her child; stayed Abraham’s hand; communicated the law by their ministry; led the People of God; announced births and callings; and assisted the prophets, just to cite a few examples. Finally, the angel Gabriel announced the birth of the Precursor and that of Jesus himself.

336 From its beginning until death, human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession. “Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life.” Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.

That last paragraph, 336, gives the Catholic Church’s authentic teaching on Guardian Angels. Their existence and aid are a genuine teaching of the church. It is unfortunate that your childhood teacher who said differently was so jaded and skeptical. She was wrong.

And now, back to the topic at hand…
Nan

 

[zerinus]

I’m quoting one of your Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who served until his death. AFAIK he was not excommunicated or censured. This book came right out of the local Deseret bookstore. Since McConkie served in a much, much, much higher position within the LDS church than you do, I’m putting much, much, much more weight on his words than yours. I’m not “telling (you) what (you) believe.” I’m telling you what Bruce R. McConkie, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, says you believe.

You suggest I “try to find out from us what we believe.” That is why I read Bruce R. McConkie. To find out what LDS believe. Yet, you say, you do not run away from LDS doctrine. Yes you do. Why? I think it is because LDS doctrine is weird. That’s why the little missionaries don’t get into it with their sales prospects. The first order of business is to make people think that Mormonism is just a happy type of Christanity. Right? Family Home Evening and food storage.

You can talk to yourself that you know Mormon doctrine better than Mormons do until dooms day, but you don’t. The leadership of the LDS church has always confirmed that the standard of LDS doctrine is always the standard works, and nothing else. Here are some quotes:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation)

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

If it is not in the standard work, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth. (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement Era, January 1969 p.13)

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine. (B. H. Roberts, Deseret News (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.)

zerinus

continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . continued

Even Bruce R. McConkie has confirmed these same instructions:

My suggestion, relative to all doctrines and all principles, is that we become students of holy writ, and that we conform our thinking and our beliefs to what is found in the standard works. We need to be less concerned about the views and opinions that others have expressed and drink directly from the fountain the Lord has given us. Then we shall come to a true understanding of the points of his doctrine. (Bruce R. McConklie, Fireside address was given at BYU on 1 June 1980.)

Even in your favourite book, Mormon Doctrine, he has said that:

The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 111.)

And you will find all this doctrine confirmed in LDS scripture itself, the standard works:

D&C 33:16: “And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.”

D&C 42:12: “And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.”

D&C 42:59: “Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures {i.e. standard works} for a law {i.e. understood in its widest sense, includes doctrine}, to be my law {and doctrine} to govern my church;”

Even Bruce R. McConkie, in that very passage that you had quoted, does not say that “universal apostasy” means that there were no more true Christians or good Christians left. He mentions universal apostasy, which means what I told you it means.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

Joseph Smith was the first President of the Church, wasn’t he? And when Joseph Smith declared he had new revelations from God, as in the King Follett Discourse… well, you see where I am going with my question…

Nan

 

[zerinus]

We’ve gotten waaayy off the subject of angels, but I did promise to put a wrap on angels and their lack of bodies.

The best biblical reference I have for the nature of angels comes out of the Book of Tobit, which is one of the deuterocanonicals. You won’t find it in a modern KJV, but it was part of the 1611 edition. It is in all Catholic bibles.

As far as I know. The deuterocanonicals, also known as the Apocrypha, were canonized by the Catholic Church in 1546. It was not a part of the canon before that time. The LDS Church has not canonized the Apocrypha, and does not consider it scripture.

After spending a considerable time aiding and advising Tobit’s son, Tobias, the angel Raphael reveals himself: . . .

The “angel” in the book of Tobias also says that if you burn a fish’s heart on fire, the smoke will drive away evil spirits! (Tobit 6:5-7.) That sounds more like witchcraft to me than scripture. Do you honestly think that is the word of God?

On the subject of angels, we believe there are two kinds of heavenly beings that can minister to mankind as God’s messengers or agents, hence His “angels”. The first kind are what the scriptures call “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:23). These are the spirits of holy men, prophets and patriarchs etc, that have passed on to the next life, but have not yet been resurrected. These do not have physical bodies, and can only minister to mankind as spirits; therefore they fit your description of “angel”. Before the resurrection of Christ, all angelic ministrations to mankind were of this kind, since before that time no resurrection of anyone had taken place—unless they had been people that had been translated, as was the case with Elijah and Enoch; or unless they had been mortal men worthy enough to act as God’s agents or messengers, hence His “angels”. The second category are resurrected beings, which we have already described. So in a sense some of your arguments are valid. Angelic visitations in the OT were mostly or nearly always of spirit beings without any physical bodies; but they were still the spirits of men, not of some other category of God’s creations.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Joseph Smith was the first President of the Church, wasn’t he? And when Joseph Smith declared he had new revelations from God, as in the King Follett Discourse… well, you see where I am going with my question…

Nan

Didn’t you read your own quote? Do you really want me to quote it to you again?

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

Did you miss that then?

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

/. . . continued

Even Bruce R. McConkie has confirmed these same instructions:

My suggestion, relative to all doctrines and all principles, is that we become students of holy writ, and that we conform our thinking and our beliefs to what is found in the standard works. We need to be less concerned about the views and opinions that others have expressed and drink directly from the fountain the Lord has given us. Then we shall come to a true understanding of the points of his doctrine. (Bruce R. McConklie, Fireside address was given at BYU on 1 June 1980.)

Even in your favourite book, Mormon Doctrine, he has said that:

The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 111.)

And you will find all this doctrine confirmed in LDS scripture itself, the standard works:

D&C 33:16: “And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.”

D&C 42:12: “And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.”

D&C 42:59: “Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures {i.e. standard works} for a law {i.e. understood in its widest sense, includes doctrine}, to be my law {and doctrine} to govern my church;”

Even Bruce R. McConkie, in that very passage that you had quoted, does not say that “universal apostasy” means that there were no more true Christians or good Christians left. He mentions universal apostasy, which means what I told you it means.

zerinus

Here is another quote I have found for you weather man, from none other than your favourite Bruce R. McConkie:

One of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works [is that] they are the standard of judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence." (Bruce R McConkie, “Finding Answers to Gospel Questions”)

Did you get it this time? Comprehende? Yea? Nay?

zerinus

 

[christianley]

Here is another quote I have found for you weather man, from none other than your favourite Bruce R. McConkie:

One of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works is that they are the standard of judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence." (Bruce R McConkie, “Finding Answers to Gospel Questions”)

Did you get it this time? Comprehende? Yea? Nay?

zerinus

Since Mormon scriptures have absolutely no validity, who cares?

 

[zerinus]

Since Mormon scriptures have absolutely no validity, who cares?

That is a deeply hypocritical comment. The issue here is not the validity or lack of it of LDS scripture; it is what authenticates LDS doctrine—and weather man and Nan S seem to “care enough” to what to debate it.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

That is a deeply hypocritical comment. The issue here is not the validity or lack of it of LDS scripture; it is what authenticates LDS doctrine—and weather man and Nan S seem to “care enough” to what to debate it.

zerinus

LDS doctrine is whatever the current prophet says it is. Scriptures aren’t doctrine – doctrines are derived from “scriptures”. Joseph Smith’s King Follett sermon was derived from his interpretation of Mormon scriptures as any reading of the sermon will show. I think the LDS Church’s own Gospel Principles manual is very good at showing what the doctrines of the church are. Your scriptures are not confined to the private interpretation of Zerinius, but are what the brethren in SLC say about them. Your “private interpretation” which usually amounts to a “private denial of LDS doctrine” can be ignored.

 

[zerinus]

LDS doctrine is whatever the current prophet says it is. Scriptures aren’t doctrine – doctrines are derived from “scriptures”. Joseph Smith’s King Follett sermon was derived from his interpretation of Mormon scriptures as any reading of the sermon will show. I think the LDS Church’s own Gospel Principles manual is very good at showing what the doctrines of the church are. Your scriptures are not confined to the private interpretation of Zerinius, but are what the brethren in SLC say about them. Your “private interpretation” which usually amounts to a “private denial of LDS doctrine” can be ignored.

Didn’t you read the quotes? Go and read them again. I didn’t invent those quotes you know. They were sopken by the leadership of the Church, including two former Presidents.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

Didn’t you read the quotes? Go and read them again. I didn’t invent those quotes you know. They were sopken by the leadership of the Church, including two former Presidents.

zerinus

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and several other LDS prophets taught that God the Father was once a man who had his own Father. Do you believe their teachings are compatible with LDS scriptures?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Here are a few selected quotes from Bruce R. McConkie’s volume Mormon Doctrine

1. Here is Allweather’s initial quotation from McConkie. Zerinus is not contesting that this quotation is bogus, or taken out of context.

It is important to see McConkie’s UNDERSTANDING of the Mormon assertion of ‘aspostasy.’ To him, ‘universal’ means EXACTLY what Allweather and others of common sense (and belief in the conventional meanings of words) means: “the nations of the earth,” which pretty much means, Zerinus, UNIVERSAL.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

My copy of Mormon Doctrine

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

1. You will notice that Allweather has taken McConkie’s quotation (in my prior posting) from a book entitled Mormon Doctrine.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

You can talk to yourself that you know Mormon doctrine better than Mormons do until dooms day, but you don’t. The leadership of the LDS church has always confirmed that the standard of LDS doctrine is always the standard works

, and nothing else. /

1. Here Zerinus stresses that unless a book uses the ‘standard of LDS doctrine’ then it is NOT Mormon doctrine.