ex-mormon wants to talk

[jediliz]

three weeks ago was the feast day of my parish’s patron saint. My pastor got special permission from the Bishop to celebrate Mass that weekend as a feast day Mass… Our patron saint is very important to my parish as she gave her life to Jesus - living a very devout prayerful life in the convent until she died.

Why would anyone WANT to become a “god” or “goddess”…sounds like something SATAN would suggest to someone… “ye shall become like gods”…

Now why would you want to become a “god” and live on your own planet?

And I’m sorry, but saying that GOD the father had PHYSICAL sexual intercourse with Jesus’ mother is just disturbing…

 

[Mom_of_5]

Zakuska:

Been there done that… they talked more about St this or St that than they did Jesus or God.

Ever tried an LDS Sacrament Meeting? Maybe “you people” should try one.

Hmm me neither .no plates passed around our congregation… all Donations are done descretly after words.

Thats why Im LDS.

You are very right. No plates passed in LDS. You meet with your Bishop once a year to determine your fair share, NO less than 10% of gross income. You pay or you don’t get a Temple recommend. so you are punished if you don’t pay. I can be a Catholic and not give a penny and still go into the most beautiful Cathedrals in the world to worship Jesus. We do not give testimony to any “man”, St’s are not worshipped, but held up as good examples of how we should live.That is why the homily is sometimes built around the life of a saint. We pray (talk) to them to ask them to pray (talk) to God about/for us and our intentions. My husband (X-LDS) explained that in LDS famlies, children are taught to give testimony of Joseph Smith as soon as they can talk and walk. I went to an LDS Sunday service. When it was time to give testimony, mostly children got up and said, “I know that J.Snith is a true prophet…” Jesus was never mentioned in the testimony of any of them. MY testimony is for Jesus.

Love and peace

Mom of 5

 

[Mom_of_5]

Zakuska:

You’ve obviously never atended mass in rome.

Thats why Im LDS.

I have been to Mass in Rome, Italy, actually St. Peters. “LDS” was never heard from anyone on our entire tour of Italy, much les in Mass.

Love and peace,

Mom of 5

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

What the crapp happened here? Amazing how threads get so easily derailed. And Zakuska, you really shouldn’t egg them on. We had quite an interesting discussion going on.

 

[Writer]

If this has already been touched on, I’m sorry… Still making my way through the previous posts, but wanted to make my observation before I go do some yard work this morning.

My wife and I are leading a discussion group at our church on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The section we covered this week (we only just begun) centered on the place of new revelation or personal revelation in the Church. It got me thinking of LDS quite a bit this past week. One simple observation concerning the LDS seems hard for them to counter. Their new revelations from ol’ Joe Smith would lead us to believe in a God who is imperfect or fickle. As St. John of the Cross wrote.

***In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word—and he has no more ***to say… because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

Do we believe in a perfect and unchanging Creator, or one that looks at creation and basicaly observes that Christ was not enough and selects a thief and a swindler to accomplish His “new and improved” will upon the earth? To beleive in the LDS theology, then, is to believe in a false creator, and therefore they can’t really be described as Christians. This is not to say they are bad people, of course. My family has had close relationships with members from this church repeatedly since we were married. They are, by and large, wonderful and kind people who just can’t be said to believe in the same God as Catholics and mainline protestants.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Hola, Writer. That’s an interesting observation you make. I’ve never heard it before. The LDS perspective on this is that God certainly is unchanging. For that reason he will always continue to give us revelation, and the fact that he would stop would mean that he changes. So, even after Christ’s resurrection there was continual revelation through the apostles. Nowhere in scripture does it say that that revelation should have been ceased. This is the problem. Many non-restorationalist churches believe that it was God’s will that the last Twelve as recorded in the Bible were to be the last Twelve period, even though the Bible doesn’t actually say that. So, LDS believe the apostles were killed and hence no more written revelation for that time period. It was an apostasy of the people, not the will of God, that made that happen. That shouldn’t be too odd, though. There is a lapse between Old and New Testament prophets as well. There were predictions for that apostasy, and that’s exactly what it was. It wasn’t God’s will to send famine and thirst of hearing the word of the Lord over the earth, but the people’s. Therefore, since God respects man’s free will, he lets such things occur.

 

[Writer]

Chris Jodrey:

Hola, Writer. That’s an interesting observation you make. I’ve never heard it before. The LDS perspective on this is that God certainly is unchanging. For that reason he will always continue to give us revelation, and the fact that he would stop would mean that he changes. So, even after Christ’s resurrection there was continual revelation through the apostles. Nowhere in scripture does it say that that revelation should have been ceased. This is the problem. Many non-restorationalist churches believe that it was God’s will that the last Twelve as recorded in the Bible were to be the last Twelve period, even though the Bible doesn’t actually say that. So, LDS believe the apostles were killed and hence no more written revelation for that time period. It was an apostasy of the people, not the will of God, that made that happen. That shouldn’t be too odd, though. There is a lapse between Old and New Testament prophets as well. There were predictions for that apostasy, and that’s exactly what it was. It wasn’t God’s will to send famine and thirst of hearing the word of the Lord over the earth, but the people’s. Therefore, since God respects man’s free will, he lets such things occur.

As we read in the Gospel of John: “In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the begining with God. All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be.” Later we read “…And the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.”

If we acknowledge that Jesus is indeed God and therefore perfect, then we understand that there is nothing further to be said to the Church as a whole in regards to further revelations. Jesus does not need to improve upon Himself. Othewrwise, we are saying God is imperfect and given to change and inconsistency, which is contrary to Scripture. Private revelations do still take place, but these are not incorporated into the deposit of faith. In other words, private revelations represent continued communication from God, but these are intended for the individual or the community as a means to assist them through history. Private revelations may take place to help a Christian negotiate a particularly difficult time of life, but they will never change the fundamental nature or core of our faith. This is the difference.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I don’t think you are saying that Jesus is the Bible, are you? Could you clarify a little?

I believe in what John wrote, but I don’t think it can all be taken literally either. Maybe I just don’t understand you quite yet.

 

[Writer]

Chris Jodrey:

I don’t think you are saying that Jesus is the Bible, are you? Could you clarify a little?

I believe in what John wrote, but I don’t think it can all be taken literally either. Maybe I just don’t understand you quite yet.

I think this boils down to a kind of mystery. If, however, we view the Bible as God’s truth revealed to the world, then His Son can also be seen as the perfected demonstration of God’s truth. I suppose The Bible might be seen as a dim reflection of God’s truth when compared to Christ, who is the truth itself, perfect and made man and brilliant in His glory. It is a mystery, however, and knowing more about the Greek term used here for “word” might shed additional light on our understanding.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I believe that Christ is the personification of everything good, and yes, scripture takes on some of those aspects and teaches us what Jesus taught, which makes them very related, although also very different. One is the Savior, the other is the tool we use to get to know him better.

What I understood from your original post is that because Jesus is the perfected Word, AKA the Bible, we need no more, and should seek no more revelation. I think this conclusion is a little stretched though. Basically, God sends us truth when we are ready to receive it. Remember that LDS believe in modern-day revelation, which presupposes that we don’t yet have a perfect knowledge of spiritual things. This has more to do with the concept of scripture than Christ himself.

Of course, there is much in the Bible yet to be understood, and with the help of additional light we can understand it all better. Often people think that these new books of canon are agregations to what we already have, making everything even more of a mess, but that’s not so in my experience. The Book of Mormon greatly clarifies what’s in the Bible. That is, of course, if you believe in the Book of Mormon. If not, then it is blasphemy. And this is exactly why it is so vehemently attacked.

 

[Writer]

Chris Jodrey:

I believe that Christ is the personification of everything good, and yes, scripture takes on some of those aspects and teaches us what Jesus taught, which makes them very related, although also very different. One is the Savior, the other is the tool we use to get to know him better.

What I understood from your original post is that because Jesus is the perfected Word, AKA the Bible, we need no more, and should seek no more revelation. I think this conclusion is a little stretched though. Basically, God sends us truth when we are ready to receive it. Remember that LDS believe in modern-day revelation, which presupposes that we don’t yet have a perfect knowledge of spiritual things. This has more to do with the concept of scripture than Christ himself.

Of course, there is much in the Bible yet to be understood, and with the help of additional light we can understand it all better. Often people think that these new books of canon are agregations to what we already have, making everything even more of a mess, but that’s not so in my experience. The Book of Mormon greatly clarifies what’s in the Bible. That is, of course, if you believe in the Book of Mormon. If not, then it is blasphemy. And this is exactly why it is so vehemently attacked.

As far as Christ being the same as the Bible, that’s not my meaning. Like I said earlier, our understanding of “the word became flesh” is a mystery. While it is a mystery, however, what is clear is that the appearance of Christ was God’s perfect revelation of Himself and giving of himself to mankind. To imply, then, that something significantly more needs to be said, or is required, does several things. First, it flies in the face of Scripture and the tradition of the Church. Second, it would mean that Christians in the last two-thousand years were somehow inferior to the one’s of today and not ready for the full revelation. (If we read the great religious writers of the past such as Saint Augustine, do we really think that writers of today have a better grasp of the faith than he did? I think not…) Third, it implies an imperfect and changing God. A god who changes His mind concerning the manner of revelation of Himself to man would not be a god I would be to keen on following. What’s next… Is this new and improved god going to appear and say, “Whoops! Rats, I didn’t mean to say all that. My mistake. My new prophet is Frank from Frankurt. He’ll correct the problems. He’s my new man.” I don’t need magic spectacles to see that something is a little fishy about that line of reasoning.

Of course, God speaks to us still through His word, nature, etc. Those private revelations, however, will never contradict what He has said before, since truth cannot contradict or change the nature of truth.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I think I understand you now.

To imply, then, that something significantly more needs to be said, or is required, does several things. First, it flies in the face of Scripture and the tradition of the Church.

Are you sure about that? Jesus’ atonement was the climax, the most important part, and there was a lot leading up to it. There is also a lot to be said after the fact. Basically, Christ transcends time itself, meaning that “when” this actually happened is irrelevant. Because of him, people in ages past, present, and future can repent and be saved. Remember that scripture continue for a good 65 more years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Nowhere in it does it say that it was about to end, so I’m not sure why you think that scripture goes against modern revelation for that reason. As far as RCC tradition, important decisions are still made by the Papacy and if you believe that God is directing the Pope in those decisions then I think you also believe in modern revelation, and I fail to see any reason for you to think of that differently than scripture.

Second, it would mean that Christians in the last two-thousand years were somehow inferior to the one’s of today and not ready for the full revelation.

No, not them, but their fathers, yes. The apostasy happened as a result of the years during and after the death of the apostles. This does not mean that all those Christians were bad people, but rather that the world as a whole was not yet ready for a restoration to truth.

(If we read the great religious writers of the past such as Saint Augustine, do we really think that writers of today have a better grasp of the faith than he did? I think not…)

Depends on where you’re coming from. If you’re Catholic then all is well and good, but LDS would disagree with many things he wrote.

Third, it implies an imperfect and changing God. A god who changes His mind concerning the manner of revelation of Himself to man would not be a god I would be to keen on following.

Me neither. This is why it’s so important to have continuing revelation. But, I’m not sure why you think that having continuing revelation implies a changing god… Could you explain? Because I feel the opposite way about it.

What’s next… Is this new and improved god going to appear and say, “Whoops! Rats, I didn’t mean to say all that. My mistake. My new prophet is Frank from Frankurt. He’ll correct the problems. He’s my new man.” I don’t need magic spectacles to see that something is a little fishy about that line of reasoning.

Of course that wouldn’t be good. Are you rying to say that such is the case in the Mormon church? If so, why do you think that?

Of course, God speaks to us still through His word, nature, etc. Those private revelations, however, will never contradict what He has said before, since truth cannot contradict or change the nature of truth.

You see, I believe that God speaks to us the same way he did in Old and New Testament times. Nothiing has changed there. If it wasn’t for the apostasy that would’ve been the case from then to now. It is imperative to be careful and not confuse “contradiction of old scripture by new scripture” with “contradiction of man’s interpretation of old scipture by new scripture” or “contradiction of old scripture by man’s interpretation of new scripture” or even “contradiction of man’s interpretation of old scripture by man’s interpretation of new scripture.” Hopefully I am clarifying this a little. If not, just ask.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear Chris Jodrey;

I think that a distinction needs to be drawn between “revelation” and development of doctrine. Rather than post it all, here’s a link to the Catechism that discusses revelation and its relationship to Jesus Christ:

God Comes to Meet Man

I would not concede (as you suggest in your last post) that the Pope’s ability to declare doctrine adds anything to revelation. The deposit of faith was fixed by Christ and His apostles. (Nothing the Apostles taught was new doctrine, it was what was taught to them by Christ, so even after Christ’s death although there was a revealing of doctrine, it was Christ’s revelation to the Apostles that was taught. We believe that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit in declaring the truth from what has already been revealed. Because there is no new revelation, there can be no change in God’s laws, only refinement.

With ongoing revelation there is the possibility of change. The best example from your church history is the doctrine concerning plural marriage. First, it was understood by the early mormon church that plural marriage was not just allowed, but mandatory for salvation. But by the late 1800s new revelation declared multiple wives to be wrong and improper. It this evidence of a consistent God or an inconsistent God?

One other thought that I would interject into our discussion - there is no historical evidence supporting the “Great Apostasy” so there is no historical basis supporting Joseph Smith’s “Restoration” Sadly, for the LDS posters I’ve met on this thread, I’ve seen very little in the way of scholarly attempts to address the lack of evidence that prior to the death of the last Apostle the early christian church was essentially the same as the LDS church in its doctrine. Without establishing the truth of a “Great Apostasy,” LDS theology has no legitimate claim to be the once true and now “restored” gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Chris Jodrey:

No, not them, but their fathers, yes. The apostasy happened as a result of the years during and after the death of the apostles. This does not mean that all those Christians were bad people, but rather that the world as a whole was not yet ready for a restoration to truth.

This is a good example of what I was referring to in my prior post as a fundamental problem with the LDS belief system. Here, you simply assume that the “great apostasy” happened and thus, there was a need for a restoration. Doesn’t this contradict Christ’s promise to Peter that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church. (Mt. 16:18.) For the restoration to be necessary, the “gates of Hell” must have prevailed over the Church for about 1800 years, right?

If you believe that the world, as a whole, was not yet ready for the truth when Christ came, then you are implying Christ picked the wrong time for his incarnation. Is that really what you believe, that Christ fouled in 32 A.D., so he had to do it all over again in North America in the 1800s? Again, this begs the question - where is the evidence of a total “foul up?” Where is the evidence of the Great Apostasy? (Hint - you can stop looking because there is no such historical evidence.) History proves that from its earliest beginning the Church was, remained, and always will remain Catholic. The early church - beginning with the Apostles, taught distinctly Catholic beliefs. Please look into it with an open mind. I already have, and am convinced in the historical proof validating the Catholic Church we know of today as the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Hey, Robert.

I think we’re pretty much talking about the same thing. What exactly is revelation? I would describe it as God’s word given to man. You said that the Pope is guided by the Holy Ghost. Is that not direction from God? If the RCC has experienced a development of doctrine over the years, I doubt you would say that that was due solely to the reasoning of smart men, but rather that they were inspired to see such things the way they did. Is that not revelation? Maybe you don’t believe in anything as being equal in authority with the Bible, but from all I can tell, Catholics definitely believe in modern revelation on a world-wide scale. Would you disagree to that?

The deposit of faith was fixed by Christ and His apostles. (Nothing the Apostles taught was new doctrine, it was what was taught to them by Christ, so even after Christ’s death although there was a revealing of doctrine, it was Christ’s revelation to the Apostles that was taught.

Right, so why has that stopped?

With ongoing revelation there is the possibility of change. The best example from your church history is the doctrine concerning plural marriage. First, it was understood by the early mormon church that plural marriage was not just allowed, but mandatory for salvation. But by the late 1800s new revelation declared multiple wives to be wrong and improper. It this evidence of a consistent God or an inconsistent God?

What you may see one way I see another. Really, the concept of plural marriage never changed. In the Book of Mormon where the practice is condemned, it allows an exception (Jacob 2:30). Basically, to use this against the LDS is to use it against all of Christianity and even Judaism. For a long time in the Old Testament plural marriage was perfectly acceptable. Then, things changed, and it was outlawed. If we apply your stated criteria there then the God of the Old Testament was also a changing God. However, that’s not the case, obviously. How would you justify that occurence in the Bible?

One other thought that I would interject into our discussion - there is no historical evidence supporting the “Great Apostasy”

Neither is there any evidence fully supporting that there was no great apostasy. It’s a matter of faith either way you look at it. There’s a good book called “Restoring the Ancient Church:
Joseph Smith and Early Christianity” by Barry Bickmore that compares the LDS Church to early Christianity and takes a brief look at evidences of the apostasy. You can read it free online here. There are evidences for the apostasy in many forms, which seem pretty convincing to me, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you remained unmoved by it, as I would probably not be very convinced by your arguments either. I’ve argued the apostasy before and realized that there’s not enough evidence either way and that it basically comes down to opinion. You could give me your links and I could give you mine, but the most that would happen is that we would learn more about each others’ perspectives. That’s all.

I would recommend you check out the current end of the thread "Question " in the Apologetics section.

This is a good example of what I was referring to in my prior post as a fundamental problem with the LDS belief system. Here, you simply assume that the “great apostasy” happened and thus, there was a need for a restoration.

Don’t you assume that the great apostasy didn’t happen and thus, there was no need for a restoration?

Doesn’t this contradict Christ’s promise to Peter that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church. (Mt. 16:18.) For the restoration to be necessary, the “gates of Hell” must have prevailed over the Church for about 1800 years, right?

It depends what you think that statement means. It has several other possible interpretations than the one you apply there. For example, the Church is made up of the humble followers of Christ. You should remember that “apostasy” doesn’t actually mean that the Church was torn down from outside, but rather it was all due to rebellion from within. Would the Church still be the Church if there were no more Christians in it? Another option, very famous among Mormons, as Hugh Nibley theorized for a long time, is the interpretation that this refers rather to the underworld literally, and that death would not overcome the valiant saints in the end. This also can have a great significance and insight into the work for the dead.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

If you believe that the world, as a whole, was not yet ready for the truth when Christ came, then you are implying Christ picked the wrong time for his incarnation. Is that really what you believe, that Christ fouled in 32 A.D., so he had to do it all over again in North America in the 1800s?

I’m not sure I get you there. I thought you were familiar with the basic doctrine of apostasy and restoration, and especially of the mission of Christ. Just to recap a little then: Obviously the world wasn’t ready for the truth when Christ came. That’s unarguable. That’s why when he speaks to his apostles in John he very clearly separates them from the world. The believers’ group was relatively small and the incredulous world around them wasn’t. Christ’s mission meant he had to be crucified. He had to go at a time when the world would not be ready to receive him. As for the Church he left, it stayed separated from the world still. Those who became his disciples were in the world but not of the world. When the apostasy began to take shape the world took over once again and the Church disappeared. The only thing that was redone in the 1800s was the formation of the Church. You seem to be thinking that Christ’s sole purpose in coming to earth was to build his Church, and that’s simply not correct. His purpose was to perform the infinite atonement and make it possible for all men to return to him. The Church is very important, which explains why it was restored, as it is essential in spreading the knowledge of that atonement. But, again, that wasn’t the main reason Jesus had come.

From your post it seems that you consider the LDS view of the apostasy to be a “foul up” on God’s part, although I’m very certain you wouldn’t be able to quote any member or authority ever saying that. We don’t think of it that way. It was a “foul up” due to the natural man, not God’s poor planning. He knew it would happen and he allowed it because, well, he’s not here to force us into things we don’t want to do. We choose our actions and then take the consequences. The great apostasy was essentially a consequence of the actions of Church members and other outside powers of the time.

So, the world needed to be prepared so that the gospel could be restored. Note that the foundation of the LDS was in the United States, the only nation of the time where freedom of religion was given that thoroughly, yet how much the saints were persecuted anyway. To me, this is an evidence that it was done as soon as possible, yet even then the world was far from ready, and still is, really.

You might want to check out some of the basics about the LDS Church before we go any further. You could try www.mormon.org or talk to the missionaries some time, although you’d probably want something a little more comprehensive. If you want more information just PM me or something.

 

[majick275]

Chris Jodrey:

Just to recap a little then: Obviously the world wasn’t ready for the truth when Christ came. That’s unarguable.

Not so fast. It must be arguable because most Christians do believe that Christ came at the right time. The time that God determined. The world was ready. Christ gave us the Gospel and we still have it, preserved form that very time. We see an unbroken line of believers following him form that time to the present. Worshipping him at great risk to life and limb. These early Christina martyrs were still dying for the faith long after the last Apostle had departed. That would seem contraindicted if the LDS apostasy were fact.

Logic dictates that if Christ himself started a church then unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary the church is still there. What appears illogical is that God would leave the entire planet without his church for 1800 years. When has that happened before in scripture? Why would God do that to people? There is no purpose served in starting a church and then taking it right back, especially for that long a time. He has always warned his followers when they strayed, punished them when necessary yet ALWAYS temained their God. At the height of Israel’s worst sinning he stayed with them, calling them to repentance. When there was no repentance he destroyed many in the flood of Noah yet he stayed with Noah and his “church” stayed on earth. Same with Sodom and Gomorah.

Look at what Jesus says, “I am with you always” and “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. Does any of this sound like a God who just takes his entire gospel/church/etc. away for over a millenium after having it PERFECTLY established by Jesus Christ himself?

What we see in JS is his own belief system evolving over time in such a way as to completely change the entire doctrine of his church. We do NOT see the same or even a similar church as the Apostles of the new testament had. we don’t even see the same church as in the BoM! the LDS church of today is very different than the LDS church of JS. Most of all it is the polar opposite of the church that Jesus founded. The exaltation of man versus the humble worship of God. Look at the thief on the cross and see the church of Jesus. Look to the serpent in the garden for the church of joseph smith.

That the LDS church was persecuted is no more a sign of “truth” than what happened to David Koresh in Waco. Many of the reasons for persecution are even the same!

Glory be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I made a thread called “The Great Apostasy.” Please take your arguments about the apostasy there. I’ll reply there later.

Majick, if you’re still interested you can respond to my last post from a ways up before everyone went crazy.

 

[Zakuska]

Mom of 5:

I have been to Mass in Rome, Italy, actually St. Peters. “LDS” was never heard from anyone on our entire tour of Italy, much les in Mass.

Love and peace,

Mom of 5

Thats not what I was refering too… I was refering to the Much words and pomp that goes into the mass.

 

[jmj_revert]

beccaboo,

Praise God for your leaving the Mormon church. I left Mormonism in 1998 to return to the Catholic faith. I was a Mormon for 11 years, married in the temple, served a mission, and I served in many leadership positions (the last being Elder’s Quorum President). Like you I kept running into things that did not jibe with logic. However, it still took 11 years before my family left Mormonism. Stay close to the Lord and He will always direct you.

Lord bless,
Lowell Johnson