The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[Cowboy_Pete]

Maybe not, but isn’t it a fact that that woman will never enter the top level in heaven, which I think is called the celestial kingdom?

No. To be exalted in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, she needs to be married to a faithful LDS person, but not necessarily married in this life, and not necessarily married to someone that was LDS in this life. Her husband might convert in the spirit world. After he dies, his kids will probably do the temple work for him, which includes baptism, then the work sealing his marriage for eternity. If he accepts this, in the spirit world, then they may exalted together, serving God in the highest capacity. Otherwise she could be a minstering angel in the Celestial Kingdom. Or she might be sealed to someone else and thus exalted.

This world isn’t the end of the road.

To be sure, there will always be those who build for themselves “a hell in heaven’s despite,” to steal a phrase from William Blake. Mormons who twist the theology to their despair, put unwarranted pressure on others, as if they could color coordinate their heavenly mansions by compulsive behavior on earth. If you think about it, I bet you can think of some Catholics that act like that as well, who use unreasonably narrow interpretations of doctrine in order to control and manipulate each others’ lives.

In short, NewSeeker’s got less to fear for his eternal family than I do, as a mormon alcoholic with just 3 days since my last drink.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Curious as to how you explain the polygamy of early Mormonism, and the fact that that is now “forgotten” and no longer practiced.

Yes, I know that there have been changes in some of the superficial Church practices–none at the level of the Sacraments, though.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Polygamy wasn’t the teaching during what’s called mormonism’s “early” period but rather started in late Nauvoo, and carried on during Brigham Young’s time.

The Book of Mormon taught that Polygamy is generally a very bad thing, but specified that during certain times, that in order to multiply numbers, that the Lord might temporarily command it. See Jacob 2. So basically it’s like Ark Building. It applies only when God commands it. IIRC, God hasn’t commanded anyone to build an ark since Noah.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Yes, I know that there have been changes in some of the superficial Church practices–none at the level of the Sacraments, though.

To Baptise means literally to immerse, and I believe that your own histories will reflect that baptism was originally done by immersion.

We haven’t changed the sacrament of marriage, but merely the policy of how many women that a man can marry, if the first consents.

 

[jediliz]

no mormon has ever been able to give me a clear precise answer to my question: What was the EXACT year of the apostasy? And why would CHRIST abandon his church for 1800 years? The answer is there was NO APOSTASY! And Christ has NEVER abandoned his Church. He also never went to North America…he ascended into Heaven 40 days after his Resurrection. He didn’t take a detour to North America. Why would he? He had much to do in Heaven before his 2nd Coming.

 

[mwok]

Polygamy wasn’t the teaching during what’s called mormonism’s “early” period but rather started in late Nauvoo, and carried on during Brigham Young’s time.

The Book of Mormon taught that Polygamy is generally a very bad thing, but specified that during certain times, that in order to multiply numbers, that the Lord might temporarily command it. See Jacob 2. So basically it’s like Ark Building. It applies only when God commands it. IIRC, God hasn’t commanded anyone to build an ark since Noah.

What about the Ark of the Covenant?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, you said that Telstar was right about the term “Jackmormon” when Telstar said that Jackmormons were folks who had doctrinal disagreements with the church. That’s flat out wrong. The term used to mean non-LDS persons who protected us from persecution, and thus became subject to persecution themselves. Jackmormon simply means a lapsed mormon. Today, the term Jackmormon is generally used to refer to mormons who drink, smoke, or don’t go to church.

Most jackmormons are self-identified. I am a jackmormon. The LDS church actually encourages its members not to use the term jackmormon, but rather to use the gentle term “less active member.” No one in my ward would call me a jackmormon, other than my poor wife, when I call her drunk and ask her to pick me up.

Is the WoW doctrinal? If you drink, isn’t that a firm indication that you are in disagreement with the doctrine?

You might find this to be of interest.

sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/52631643-80/mormon-church-lds-says.html.csp

Consider the evolution of the term “Jack Mormon.”

A Jack Mormon once referred to a guy who drank coffee or a glass of wine with dinner, maybe smoked a cigar and went fishing on Sunday, but who was still considered part of the Mormon tribe. To many, it was an appellation of affection. Legend has it that an LDS president, possibly Spencer W. Kimball, said he liked the smell of tobacco in church because it meant “a smoker felt welcome.”

The label “Jack Mormon,” Birch says, was a “legitimate way to communicate an identity and was associated with a range of attitudes and behaviors that remained within the Mormon family.”

That moniker is rarely heard today, he says, and when it is, it is almost always “devoid of the endearing qualities it once possessed.”

Instead, it is a form of “boundary maintenance,” Birch says, “in which those who self-identify as Mormons, but do not practice the faith, are viewed with increased suspicion. The dynamics of Mormonism in the global arena have moved toward an identity more closely tied to clean living and faithful practice, leaving less room in the Latter-day Saint imagination for the Jack Mormon.”

PS: According to mtolympus, you’re not a good source to getting a handle on what Mormons are thinking these days.

 

[Guitarjesus7]

no mormon has ever been able to give me a clear precise answer to my question: What was the EXACT year of the apostasy? And why would CHRIST abandon his church for 1800 years? The answer is there was NO APOSTASY! And Christ has NEVER abandoned his Church. He also never went to North America…he ascended into Heaven 40 days after his Resurrection. He didn’t take a detour to North America. Why would he? He had much to do in Heaven before his 2nd Coming.

One thing I find particularly interesting about Mormon teaching is that God had a plan for the new world, and it only seems fitting that it would be so. I’m not a Mormon, but why wouldn’t Jesus have visited North America? Did he not also have people there, that could have benefited to learn about him, and not be forcefully converted by the Spanish?

 

[mtolympus]

Is the WoW doctrinal? If you drink, isn’t that a firm indication that you are in disagreement with the doctrine?

PS: According to mtolympus, you’re not a good source to getting a handle on what Mormons are thinking these days.

Hey! It sound like Cowboy Pete’s wife keeps him pretty much up to date.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Hey! It sound like Cowboy Pete’s wife keeps him pretty much up to date.

No. I’m the one that was raised in the church; she was raised by Jackmormons, and that’s where she was coming from when she remarked bitterly that I’ve got no excuse. And she’s right.

Rebecca:

Is the WoW doctrinal?

Yes.

Rebecca:

If you drink, isn’t that a firm indication that you are in disagreement with the doctrine?

Is Charity doctrinal in the Catholic Church, Rebecca? When you behave uncharitably, and when you complain about the Mods here telling you to speak charitably to Non-Catholics, is that a firm indication that you are in disagreement with Catholic doctrine? Or are you just acting inconsistently with what you know to be right?

I’m not sure whether to characterize your question as ignorant or sadistic. Since it amuses you to open my self-inflicted wounds, know that I started drinking because I was angry with God over something that had happened to one of my children. I used self-pity as an excuse to do something I knew was wrong. Now I find it hard to stop drinking, not out of doctrinal difference with my church but because I’m an alcoholic. When I drink, the way I drink would be considered sinful in Catholicism as well as in mormonism. I’ve had Catholic friends tell me as much. Do you think that there no believing Catholics, fully Orthodox in their beliefs, that drink to excess? That pray to God every day for the strength to get through the day without a drink? Well I just got back from an AA meeting and I disagree with you.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Consider the evolution of the term “Jack Mormon.”

A Jack Mormon once referred to a guy who drank coffee or a glass of wine with dinner, maybe smoked a cigar and went fishing on Sunday, but who was still considered part of the Mormon tribe.

I’m a hardcore alcoholic, and my ward still treats me as part of the tribe. My church building hosts 12-step meetings twice a week in English and in Spanish. My Elder’s Quorum president came over to my house Monday morning before work at 7:30 AM to see how I’m doing since my family left me.

To many, it was an appellation of affection.

Yes. I remember my dad briefing me before we visited a family 30 years ago, saying that the man was a Jackmormon. (The man’s name was actually Jack, which confused me as a kid ) His family was active but he smoked and didn’t go to church.

Legend has it that an LDS president, possibly Spencer W. Kimball, said he liked the smell of tobacco in church because it meant “a smoker felt welcome.”

Legend? That was quoted less than 2 years ago in General Conference. Maybe his attitude isn’t shared so much in Utah, but it’s certainly that way in our Las Vegas ward.

The label “Jack Mormon,” Birch says, was a “legitimate way to communicate an identity and was associated with a range of attitudes and behaviors that remained within the Mormon family.”

That moniker is rarely heard today, he says

That is true, only because the church has become sensitive about words, and has pushed the term “less active member.” Which while polite, is less endearing.

and when it is, it is almost always “devoid of the endearing qualities it once possessed.”
Instead, it is a form of “boundary maintenance,” Birch says, “in which those who self-identify as Mormons, but do not practice the faith, are viewed with increased suspicion. The dynamics of Mormonism in the global arena have moved toward an identity more closely tied to clean living and faithful practice, leaving less room in the Latter-day Saint imagination for the Jack Mormon.”

I disagree. There’s not much mormon literature or film out there, but consider the movie Brigham City, the kindly protrayal of the jackmormon smoking police officer. Most everyone has a relative like me, and we aren’t treated with rejection. Some pity, and for the proud that’s hard to bear, yes. But rejection usually goes the other way. You’re pretty strong evidence of that yourself, Rebecca.

According to mtolympus, you’re not a good source to getting a handle on what Mormons are thinking these days.

Is that what you actually said, MtOlympus, or is Rebecca distorting your meaning? Is a member who isn’t in good standing because of a Word of Wisdom problem of 3 years running, necessarily not a good source for what Mormons are thinking these days?

 

[mtolympus]

I find it interesting that you found a history of the council and its subsequent events in a book written before the council took place. I would have to say I doubt you read the book.

I gave the references for the books I read. In post 309. Check it out.

This is the Mormon myth that is refuted by history.

Any references?

If you review posts 295, 297 & 298, your point has been already shown to be false. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian. He was Constantine’s Bishop and had influence over him and his family. Not only was Eusebius not banished he was put in a prominent position. He baptized Constantine.

It is not my point, it is history. It is true that Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian. He was the Bishop who presented the Arian Case in 325 AD since Arius was not a Bishop. I don’t know if Eusebius signed the creed or if he was bannished. However, what ever happend in 380 AD cannot disprove the history of 325 AD.

This is more Mormon fiction. Constantine was under the influence of the Arians so your claim makes no sense. Constantine was a politician not a theologian.

This information certainly didn’t come from the LDS Church. And it is not my claim. I am simply passing on what I read about history from a source I beleive to be unbiased.

Bishops did not hold POLITICAL sway, Constantine and his successors did; and they were mostly Arians due to the influence of the Arian Bishops at Constantinople. The Arians held political sway over the Empire during the Council, until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. If Nicea was the result of politics, the out come would have went with the Arians, not the Orthodox Christians.

It is true that bishops didn’t hold political sway. In 325 AD the Arians were a small minority that presented their case in the council. They were shouted down by the majority of bishops who believed in the divinity of Christ. What happend in 380 AD has no bearing on what happened in 325 AD.

 

[jediliz]

One thing I find particularly interesting about Mormon teaching is that God had a plan for the new world, and it only seems fitting that it would be so. I’m not a Mormon, but why wouldn’t Jesus have visited North America? Did he not also have people there, that could have benefited to learn about him, and not be forcefully converted by the Spanish?

Missionaries also came later…ever hear of the North American Martyrs? Isaac Jogues? He was a french missionary, not Spanish.

And Jesus did have a plan…but it wasn’t His duty to go to North America. The missionaries of the Church founded when he was ALIVE, not a “church” 1800 years AFTER his death, would come bring the good news of the Gospel to the new world. He ascended to Heaven 40 days after the Resurrection, He didn’t take a detour.

 

[mtolympus]

Is that what you actually said, MtOlympus, or is Rebecca distorting your meaning? Is a member who isn’t in good standing because of a Word of Wisdom problem of 3 years running, necessarily not a good source for what Mormons are thinking these days?

First of all, let me say I am very impressed with your story and your comments. I look forward to more of your comments.

I was responding to some comments from Telstar who obviously didn’t know what he was talking about. Telstar was thanking Rebecca (a former LDS) for giving him the honest information and that current LDS white washed everyting and could not be beleived. I did not question Rebecca’s honesty, but I told Telstar that current LDS members were able to to give better information than former members about the thought of other current members of the LDS church. I was talking about people like Rebecca not people like you. For the exact story read posts 292, 296 and 301.

 

[Stephen168]

I gave the references for the books I read. In post 309. Check it out.

You lied about your reference in post #302, so I have do desire to “check it out”

It is not my point, it is history. It is true that Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian. He was the Bishop who presented the Arian Case in 325 AD since Arius was not a Bishop. I don’t know if Eusebius signed the creed or if he was bannished. However, what ever happend in 380 AD cannot disprove the history of 325 AD.

Who said anything about 380 AD. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian. He was Constantine’s Bishop and had influence over him and his family. Not only was Eusebius not banished he was put in a prominent position. He baptized Constantine.

This information certainly didn’t come from the LDS Church. And it is not my claim. I am simply passing on what I read about history from a source I beleive to be unbiased.

And you lied about your reference in post #302. What happened at the council is not recored in history, so anything you were told happened there was Mormon fantasy.

It is true that bishops didn’t hold political sway. In 325 AD the Arians were a small minority that presented their case in the council. They were shouted down by the majority of bishops who believed in the divinity of Christ. What happend in 380 AD has no bearing on what happened in 325 AD.

Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian. He was Constantine’s Bishop and had influence over him and his family. Constantine was the Emperor. He was the top political guy in charge of the Empire. If Nicea was the result of politics, the out come would have went with the Arians, not the Orthodox Christians. Because Constantine was effectively an Arian and He could have killed all the Orthodox in the room at the Council. Most of the Emperors that came after him were also Arians as were the Bishops that succeeded Eusebius.

 

[mtolympus]

You lied about your reference in post #302, so I have do desire to “check it out”

And you lied about your reference in post #302. What happened at the council is not recored in history, so anything you were told happened there was Mormon fantasy.

First of all I could not have lied in post #302 because you wrote post #302.
In post #304 I said: “My information comes from two books which use the ancient historian Esubius of Ceaserea as the primary source and were not written by LDS authors.” I gave the reference to these books in post #309. If it is fantasy, it is not Mormon fantasy, since these books were not written by LDS authors.

 

[soren1]

To Baptise means literally to immerse, and I believe that your own histories will reflect that baptism was originally done by immersion.

No it does not. Not at all. It means to wash, and the Greek word “baptisma” simply mean oblation; it is sometimes used with that broad sense even in the New Testament, most plainly at Heb 6:2, which is often misunderstood as referring to Christian baptisms but is in fact referring to Old Testament ceremonial cleansings. Further, it is clear from the Didache, the earliest Christian text that actually discusses the form of baptism in detail, that immersion was the normal, preferred way to baptize, but that sprinkling was also acceptable. A biblical warrant for baptism by sprinkling can be found not in the New Testament, but in the prophetic literature, when Ezekiel writes in reference to the New Covenant, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” (36:25) This text is followed immediately by a discussion of regeneration, of Yahweh changing the heart of flesh with a heart of stone, which is exactly what Catholics claim baptism accomplishes.

I should also mention, that in the early Church is was also normal to baptize in “living water,” that is, in water that is freely flowing rather than contained in a basin. This is because living water represents regeneration, a rising from the womb, and the quenching of thirst discussed in John 4. Since all the baptisms in the New Testament happen in living water - and this is more clear from the texts than the fact of immersion - there is significantly better historical and Biblical warrant to suppose that living water is essential to baptism than that immersion is.

While that fact does not in itself pose a problem for the Mormon teachings on baptism, it does create a problem for the Mormon criticism of Catholic baptism by pouring or sprinkling. For if you believe that following all the formal details of early Christian baptism is essential, then Mormon baptism would be invalidated by the same standard, thus reducing the Mormon position to inconsistency, since you must judge our baptisms by one standard and your own baptisms by another. Your only way to avoid this inconsistency is to grant that the form of baptism in the early Church need not be taken as an absolute standard, and that requires you to give us the benefit of the doubt, since you yourself require the benefit of the same doubt.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

First of all I could not have lied in post #302 because you wrote post #302.
In post #304 I said: “My information comes from two books which use the ancient historian Esubius of Ceaserea as the primary source and were not written by LDS authors.” I gave the reference to these books in post #309. If it is fantasy, it is not Mormon fantasy, since these books were not written by LDS authors.

Mt Olympus, You recount your sorrows to a stone.

Stephen168 baits all the mormons this way. Engages you in an argument and then starts calling you a liar.

Let me save you a lot of grief.

Click on the name Stephen168, directly above. That causes a drop-down menu to appear.

From the drop-down menu, choose “View Public Profile.”

On the User Lists page for Stephen168, click the User Lists menu. That causes a drop-down menu to appear.

From the drop-down menu, choose “Add Stephen168 to your Ignore List.”

It’s a tricky process, but much easier than trying to appeal to his sense of decency.

Therefore I tell my sorrows to the stones;
Who, though they cannot answer my distress,
Yet in some sort they are better than the tribunes,
For that they will not intercept my tale:
When I do weep, they humbly at my feet
Receive my tears and seem to weep with me;
And, were they but attired in grave weeds,
Rome could afford no tribune like to these.
A stone is soft as wax,–tribunes more hard than stones;
A stone is silent, and offendeth not,
And tribunes with their tongues doom men to death.

 

[Telstar]

I was responding to some comments from Telstar who obviously didn’t know what he was talking about. Telstar was thanking Rebecca (a former LDS) for giving him the honest information and that current LDS white washed everyting and could not be beleived. I did not question Rebecca’s honesty, but I told Telstar that current LDS members were able to to give better information than former members about the thought of other current members of the LDS church. I was talking about people like Rebecca not people like you. For the exact story read posts 292, 296 and 301.

First of all, my husband (and my sons) would probably be very disturbed if he found out I was really a guy. :bigyikes:

Like I’ve said elsewhere, I do have some ‘trust issues’ when it comes to LDS truthfulness about their beliefs, because I’ve had problems in the past in dealing with some Mormons who were less than honest about what they really believed. I was looking for honesty, but they just gave me BS answers. An LDS friend told me in a PM that it was a common practice for Mormons to avoid answering certain questions, or admitting to certain beliefs, because they knew those beliefs might be seen as ‘odd’ by outsiders, so sometimes they’d just lie about believing it. (Apparently, they don’t think very highly of some of their beliefs if they’re unwilling to admit believing in them.) If LDS were more up front about what they really believed, I wouldn’t have this trust problem and neither would other people. I was just looking for honesty, and all I got was BS, except for that one friend that was nice enough to tell me the truth. I can’t even recall what the specific discussion was about, but I was given a verbal flogging by several other LDS, just for asking a question, or daring to ‘imply’ that they ever believed any such thing (even though they did).

 

[soren1]

Polygamy wasn’t the teaching during what’s called mormonism’s “early” period but rather started in late Nauvoo, and carried on during Brigham Young’s time.

The Book of Mormon taught that Polygamy is generally a very bad thing, but specified that during certain times, that in order to multiply numbers, that the Lord might temporarily command it. See Jacob 2. So basically it’s like Ark Building. It applies only when God commands it. IIRC, God hasn’t commanded anyone to build an ark since Noah.

Polygamy cannot, by its very nature, multiply numbers, because a woman who shares a single man will become pregnant less often than women who has one man to herself. This never dawned on the Utah Mormons, or on Brigham Young, who only considered polygamy’s advantages from the aspect of male fertility. Yet it has recently been proven, by a study at Indiana University of over 70,000 Utah Mormons in the 19th century, that far from raising up seed to the Lord, Mormon polygamy crashed the population. The general trend impact of polygamy is that for every new wife added to a a family, the other wives would tend to have one less child each; this swiftly made polygamy counterproductive. Monogamous Mormons had far more children on average than polygamous ones. This eliminates the only theological justifications that Mormonism allows for God to command polygamy. I discuss this at length in several posts and document some of in the thread about Warren Jeffs.