any former mormons out there?

[JonathanKinsman]

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

1. **Zerinus **was kind enough to highlight the crucial sentence in his byzantine thinking.

You will notice the publication date of the quoted book is **1973 **which is within the time of McConkie’s republished book Mormon Doctrine.

So it from Zerinus’ own thinking, McConkie is correct is asserting what “Universal Apostasy” means as per Allweather and everyone else on this thread: it means ‘everyone,’ “the nations of the earth.”

 

[JonathanKinsman]

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

1. Yeah, Zerinus, we get it this time!

A. McConkie writes a book entitled Mormon Doctrine.

B. The book is based upon the ‘standard works’ which McConkie himself says it must be in order to be LDS Doctrine.

C. You quote McConkie himself which verifies what Allweather and others have said about ‘universal apostasy.’

D. You deny that McConkie has written anything remotely close to ‘LDS Doctrine’ with the same quotations that McConkie uses to give his statements from Mormon Doctrine LDS authenticity.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

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

This is what is truly sad, Zerinus: you don’t seem to “read the quotes.” Your own church tells you why it is ‘LDS Doctrine’ and you deny even that.

The inconsistency boggles the mind: unless it is in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, it is “not scriptural,” yet the Book of Mormon contradicts all of the tenets of the Christian faith: divinity of Christ; exclusiveness of the One God; completion of direct revelation; the list has been gone over many a time on these threads with ex-Mormons and others.

But Zerinus sees no contradiction. He only sees gentiles in Jews and apostasy in those who follow the Lord and His teachings.

Let us continue to pray for the conversion of his soul.

 

[christianley]

This is what is truly sad, Zerinus: you don’t seem to “read the quotes.” Your own church tells you why it is ‘LDS Doctrine’ and you deny even that.

The inconsistency boggles the mind: unless it is in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, it is “not scriptural,” yet the Book of Mormon contradicts all of the tenets of the Christian faith: divinity of Christ; exclusiveness of the One God; completion of direct revelation; the list has been gone over many a time on these threads with ex-Mormons and others.

But Zerinus sees no contradiction. He only sees gentiles in Jews and apostasy in those who follow the Lord and His teachings.

Let us continue to pray for the conversion of his soul.

Actually, the Book of Mormon supports the divinity of Christ and even supports the doctrine of the Trinity. Whether or not direct revelation has been completed really does depend upon your definition of revelation – private direct revelation is surely still available. I don’t think many people who have read the Book of Mormon believes it contradicts all of the tenets of the Christian faith. It is the later revelation of Joseph Smith as found in the Book of Abraham which proclaims multiple gods, etc. Even the Book of Abraham can be interpreted in an orthodox way, but that is not how most Mormons tend to interpret it. Doctrine and Covenants 132 which talks about eternal marriage contradicts the scriptures. The Book of Mormon is pretty orthodox (especially if you are a Campbellite like Sidney Rigdon).

 

[majick275]

well, until you get to the end where Joseph hurriedly addressed most of the controversial religious issues of his day. (in a very “evangelical” anti-catholic way)

 

[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?

That doctrine was first taught by Joseph Smith at the funeral sermon of someone by the name of King Follett; hence the sermon came to be popularized as the “King Follett discourse”. In the early days of the Church, that doctrine gained popularity, especially since it was taught by Joseph Smith, and many people accepted it on face value without scrutinizing it too much; hence it was also taught by others in the Church. In recent times, however, that doctrine has come under greater scrutiny, and the leadership has determined that it is not a valid doctrine since it is not taught, and cannot be derived from the canonized scriptures of the Church.

It IS a doctrine of the Church that man has the potential to achieve divinity. That doctrine is taught in clear terms in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is one of the canonized scriptures of the Church. It was also taught in the early Christian church, and it can also be derived from biblical scripture. Joseph Smith apparently made the jump, in an unguarded moment, from that doctrine to the conclusion that God Himself must have originated through the same process. Well he made a mistake. He was careless in his thinking. God has not revealed anywhere in His scriptures, either to him or to anyone else, how He came to be. He should have been more careful and stuck close to what God had revealed to him, and not speculated about what He hadn’t. Luckily he didn’t make many of those mistakes. In fact, I don’t know of any other. So we can make allowance for that, given that man is weak and fallible, and liable to err. I would far rather focus on the mighty truths and the great scriptural volumes that were revealed to him—the marvellous Book of Mormon, great revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the wonderful mysteries of the Pearl of Great Price—than on this one error that he made.

Do you remember the story of Noah in the Bible? He was a mighty prophet and a great patriarch. He was the progenitor of all the human race that is alive today. Then one day he made a stupid mistake. He got himself drunk, and exposed himself indecently in his tent. He had three great sons. Two of them covered up his error, and one of them mocked. The two that covered up were blessed, and the one that mocked was cursed. You know on whose side I would rather be.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

That doctrine was first taught by Joseph Smith at the funeral sermon of someone by the name of King Follett; hence the sermon came to be popularized as the “King Follett discourse”. In the early days of the Church, that doctrine gained popularity, especially since it was taught by Joseph Smith, and many people accepted it on face value without scrutinizing it too much; hence it was also taught by others in the Church. In recent times, however, that doctrine has come under greater scrutiny, and the leadership has determined that it is not a valid doctrine since it is not taught, and cannot be derived from the canonized scriptures of the Church.

It IS a doctrine of the Church that man has the potential to achieve divinity. That doctrine is taught in clear terms in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is one of the canonized scriptures of the Church. It was also taught in the early Christian church, and it can also be derived from biblical scripture. Joseph Smith apparently made the jump, in an unguarded moment, from that doctrine to the conclusion that God Himself must have originated through the same process. Well he made a mistake. He was careless in his thinking. God has not revealed anywhere in His scriptures, either to him or to anyone else, how He came to be. He should have been more careful and stuck close to what God had revealed to him, and not speculated about what He hadn’t. Luckily he didn’t make many of those mistakes. In fact, I don’t know of any other. So we can make allowance for that, given that man is weak and fallible, and liable to err. I would far rather focus on the mighty truths and the great scriptural volumes that were revealed to him—the marvellous Book of Mormon, great revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the wonderful mysteries of the Pearl of Great Price—than on this one error that he made.

Do you remember the story of Noah in the Bible? He was a mighty prophet and a great patriarch. He was the progenitor of all the human race that is alive today. Then one day he made a stupid mistake. He got himself drunk, and exposed himself indecently in his tent. He had three great sons. Two of them covered up his error, and one of them mocked. The two that covered up were blessed, and the one that mocked was cursed. You know on whose side I would rather be.

zerinus

Show me where the church has disavowed that doctrine (other than in a newspaper or magazine interview where Hinckley was trying to hide it). Remember Hinckley says you don’t get your doctrine from the public press. The Church has never disavowed the doctrine that God was once a man who had a Father. The hymn “If You Could Hie to Kolob” is still in the hymnbook for heaven’s sakes. Remember these lines:

If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

Do you think the LDS Church would have that hymn in the hymnbook if they had disavowed that doctrine? You’ve got to be kidding.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

quote=zerinus;1808339]

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)
Christianley: You are correct and I should have been clearer. This is the passage which I meant to refer to in my shorthand way of “unless it is in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.”

Doctrine and Covenants (my personal favorite for silliness) is brimming with tautologies, especially 42:12!

Along the lines of “The Book of Mormon is the fullness of the Gospel, because Doctrine & Covenants says so.”

Of course, we know the Holy Spirit doesn’t lie and she told me that the Book of Mormon is not inspired, but derivative; not holy, but hole-y; not the fullness but for foolishness…oops, I am starting to use the same arguments as Zerinus!

 

[JonathanKinsman]

That doctrine was first taught by Joseph Smith at the funeral sermon of someone by the name of King Follett; hence the sermon came to be popularized as the “King Follett discourse”. In the early days of the Church, that doctrine gained popularity, especially since it was taught by Joseph Smith, and many people accepted it on face value without scrutinizing it too much; hence it was also taught by others in the Church. In recent times, however, that doctrine has come under greater scrutiny,

and the leadership has determined that it is not a valid doctrine since it is not taught, and cannot be derived from the canonized scriptures of the Church.

zerinus

Gosh! I love how Zerinus gives us these hanging curveballs! Look at the highlighted sentence! The original prophet, the one with the ‘seer stone’ who knew that ‘Egyptian’ language no one else in history has used or knows, HE is called into question by LATER “leadership.”

This reminds me of how the old Soviet Union would rewrite their own history (and attribute inventions by Westerners, such as Marconi, to some ‘son of the people’s revolution.’

Keep writing Zerinus, this is fun!

 

[zerinus]

Show me where the church has disavowed that doctrine (other than in a newspaper or magazine interview where Hinckley was trying to hide it). Remember Hinckley says you don’t get your doctrine from the public press. The Church has never disavowed the doctrine that God was once a man who had a Father. The hymn “If You Could Hie to Kolob” is still in the hymnbook for heaven’s sakes. Remember these lines:

If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

Do you think the LDS Church would have that hymn in the hymnbook if they had disavowed that doctrine? You’ve got to be kidding.

I can see that you are being “tutored” by someone, and I know by whom. Normally I shouldn’t be replying to your post at all; but I am going to make an exception on this occasion and reply. But if I perceive that you have been “tutored” again, I will refrain from reading your posts in the future or replying to them. I am here to debate with you; but not with your invisible “tutor” by proxy through you.

So, as to your question of why the Church has not disavowed that doctrine by an official declaration, the answer is that it is not the policy of the Church to do so. Rather, the Church’s policy, when such errors are discovered, is to simply refrain from teaching it until it dies of its own accord. As President Hinckley has pointed out in those newspaper articles, that doctrine is no longer being taught publicly in Church, and that is true. If you look at the preachings and sermons of the Church leaders from the pulpit during the past couple of decades, you will find that it hardly if ever gets a mention. It will eventually die out of its own accord.

There are at least two good reasons for this. The first is that the faith of some Church members is weak, and such sudden and drastic change in doctrine might have a negative effect on their faith and testimony. Remember what Paul taught about the “eating of meat” in Romans chapter 14. The same situation applies here. It is neither charitable nor wise to destroy someone’s faith over an error in doctrine. The second reason is a practical one. The hymn book is not the only place where this doctrine appears. It crops up in all kinds of Church publication. It would be a mammoth task, and an enormously expensive job to replace all of these (otherwise very good) publications merely because of an error in doctrine. Corrections and the necessary adjustments will be made over time as publications are revised and reedited. That is how the necessary corrections are eventually made.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

but the “king follett sermon” wasn’t just given at some guys funeral it was given in general conference to thousands of members gathered for the express purpose of being taught doctrine by their prophet.

the teachings were perpetuated by successive prophets and you can still find this doctrine being taught TODAY in the manuals available at the LDS website.

Zerinus/amgid is incorrect about the policy of the LDS church as well. (again) Brigham Young taught Adam-God theory and they didn’t just “let it die”. Spencer Kimball publicly denounced it as false doctrine and gave the “correct” LDS teaching. Interestingly enough Gordon B. Hinckley has confirmed that Brigham Young did in fact teach that in an interview in recent times.

I find the accusation of “tutoring” hilarious. I haven’t tutored anyone. all of my posts have been public. It’s not just my opinion it’s truth and once again A/Z decides that anyone who correctly explains the truth with supporting evidence must be ignored. Not because they are incorrect but because they were tutored by someone he disagrees with. wonder what he will change screen name to when that tactic fails and he has to start over.

 

[christianley]

I can see that you are being “tutored” by someone, and I know by whom. Normally I shouldn’t be replying to your post at all; but I am going to make an exception on this occasion and reply. But if I perceive that you have been “tutored” again, I will refrain from reading your posts in the future or replying to them. I am here to debate with you; but not with your invisible “tutor” by proxy through you.

So, as to your question of why the Church has not disavowed that doctrine by an official declaration, the answer is that it is not the policy of the Church to do so. Rather, the Church’s policy, when such errors are discovered, is to simply refrain from teaching it until it dies of its own accord. As President Hinckley has pointed out in those newspaper articles, that doctrine is no longer being taught publicly in Church, and that is true. If you look at the preachings and sermons of the Church leaders from the pulpit during the past couple of decades, you will find that it hardly if ever gets a mention. It will eventually die out of its own accord.

There are at least two good reasons for this. The first is that the faith of some Church members is weak, and such sudden and drastic change in doctrine might have a negative effect on their faith and testimony. Remember what Paul taught about the “eating of meat” in Romans chapter 14. The same situation applies here. It is neither charitable nor wise to destroy someone’s faith over an error in doctrine. The second reason is a practical one. The hymn book is not the only place where this doctrine appears. It crops up in all kinds of Church publication. It would be a mammoth task, and an enormously expensive job to replace all of these (otherwise very good) publications merely because of an error in doctrine. Corrections and the necessary adjustments will be made over time as publications are revised and reedited. That is how the necessary corrections are eventually made.

zerinus

What are you talking about? I was a Mormon for 32 years, returned missionary, EQ President for five years, ward clerk, executive secretary, etc., etc., etc. I worked for the religion bibliographer at the BYU library for a couple of years. I’ve got a little bit of understanding of Mormon doctrine without the tutoring you are talking about …

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I can see that you are being “tutored” by someone, and I know by whom

. Normally I shouldn’t be replying to your post at all; but I am going to make an exception on this occasion and reply. But if I perceive that you have been “tutored” again, I will refrain from reading your posts in the future or replying to them. I am here to debate with you; but not with your invisible “tutor” by proxy through you.

Zingers from Zerinus !!

---

Wow! I thought Zerinus didn’t like me, now I suspect he thinks that I have been “tutored!” O please tell us, tell us: who is this mysterious ‘Tutor’?

“But if I perceive…” Oh uh, looks like threats are coming! It’s another Ad Hominem attack! No, wait, he’s not calling names anymore, Zerinus has taken the HIGH GROUND: he will “refrain from reading your posts.”

If this continues, Zerinus will be ONLY reading his own posts and disagreeing with what he claims is Mormon church doctrine. Wait a minute, he’s doing that already.

So, as to your question of why the Church has not disavowed that doctrine by an official declaration, the answer is that it is not the policy of the Church to do so. Rather, the Church’s policy, when such errors are discovered, is to simply refrain from teaching it until it dies of its own accord.

I know, Gentle Readers, that highlighted sentence gives the lie to Mormon scripture (whatever canon is being loaded for the moment) being the “fullness of the Gospel.” After all, how can anything be a correction of some “apostasized church” and then found later to be BY THE MORMONS themselves as “errors.”

You allege us to be “tutored” (whatever the heck you mean by that) but at least our dogma, our faith, our “scripture” has not been “neutered” by successive “Presidents” who get it from (evidently in the Mormon scheme of things) an errant god.

Mormon doctrine in error? No such thing. Let it “die of its own accord” and when those pesky Christians point out mormon moronic doctrinal assertions, claim that Hinckley killed them in some newspaper interview.

After all, its what most Mormons read and remember anyway.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

There are at least two good reasons for this. The first is that the faith of some Church members is weak, and such sudden and drastic change in doctrine might have a negative effect on their faith and testimony. Remember what Paul taught about the “eating of meat” in Romans chapter 14. The same situation applies here. It is neither charitable nor wise to destroy someone’s faith over an error in doctrine.

Sorry, everybody, but this is TOO GOOD to be true! Praise God Almighty!

Zerinus puts his finger on the problem with Mormonism: it isn’t about the Cycle of Redemption. It isn’t about God’s plan for mankind. It isn’t about love and loving. It’s about (drumroll)

someone’s faith based upon faulty doctrine !!

We just can’t let them lose ‘faith’ because their ‘faith’ was based upon some errant mormon doctrine! Heck no! We got to protect them from themselves: they don’t know what they should understand about Mormonism. Forget the lack of historical proof on the so-called 13th tribe and all their inventions and wars and whatnot, remember the Mormon mantra:

"The first [reason] is that the faith of some church members is weak, and such sudden and drastic change in doctrine might have a negative effect on their faith and testimony."

None of us, Zerinus, could have said it better. They’re your words and they are damning to mormonism.

Thanks for your support. Keep up the good work.

Welcome home everybody, welcome home.

Pax Christi

 

[truthsilence]

Welcome home everybody, welcome home.

Thank you, JonathanKinsman.

I’m sure I won’t be the only one here who will tell you, I Am So Very Grateful To Be Home…All praise, honor, glory and thanks be to God.

It’s exhausting just reading this stuff. Not all that long ago, I suffered the same.

So incredibly grateful to God for leading me home.

 

[tundramom]

Thank you, JonathanKinsman.

I’m sure I won’t be the only one here who will tell you, I Am So Very Grateful To Be Home…All praise, honor, glory and thanks be to God.

It’s exhausting just reading this stuff. Not all that long ago, I suffered the same.

So incredibly grateful to God for leading me home.

AMEN!!! My sentiments exactly truthsilence!!!

I’m so glad that God lifted the blinders from my eyes and showed me Himself. Not only for myself, but for all the members of my family. I pray one day that He will lead them Home as well.

in Christ
Steph

 

[truthsilence]

Some of the Early Church Fathers, most notably Origen, who was probably the greatest of the early Christian theologians,

Remember waaaay back on this thread when Zerinus made the comment above, about Early Church Father, Origen? I was just reading through some ECF writings (Z, you really should try reading the ECF’s as a Catholic It is so much more edifying.)

Soooo, I’m reading along and came to this part from Z’s favorite ECF. I thought it was worth posting:

Origen
“Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind” (Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 [A.D. 225]).

“John says in the gospel, ‘No one has at any time seen God,’ clearly declaring to all who are able to understand, that there is no nature to which God is visible, not as if he were indeed visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer creature, but because he is by nature impossible to be seen” (ibid. 1:1:8)

:yup:

More ! More ! More! :clapping:

Should we start a new “sub topic” of the ECF’s ? Should we see together, how well the Catholic church holds up?

 

[truthsilence]

AMEN!!! My sentiments exactly truthsilence!!!

I’m so glad that God lifted the blinders from my eyes and showed me Himself. Not only for myself, but for all the members of my family. I pray one day that He will lead them Home as well.

in Christ
Steph

Steph,

I will offer my prayers for your family. I pray for mine always, as well.

God Bless.
ts

 

[truthsilence]

More **Catholicism **from Z’s favorite ECF.

Origen

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

“No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon. . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages” (ibid.).

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages” (ibid.).

…I predict Zerinus will most likely start in with the backpeddling… “oh that Origen, he didn’t always stick to Official Mormon Doctrine” Or even more likely, he’ll ignore this post altogether.

 

[truthsilence]

Origen

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Like I was saying… Or, what were you saying?..Zzzzz?