The Great LDS Apostasy?

[PaulDupre]

Wrong! Polygamy has never been a requirement for heaven and exaltation.

Never? Are you sure?

Mormon prophet Brigham Young declared:

“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.” -Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266

Also,

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” -Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269

Mormon apostle, Orson Pratt stated:

“The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle [polygamy] reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord . . . they will finally go down to hell and be damned if they do not repent.” - Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, pp. 224-225

Mormon apostle, George Teasdale stated:

“I bear my solemn testimony that plural marriage is as true as any principle that has been revealed from the heavens. I bear my testimony that it is a necessity, and that the Church of Christ in its fullness never existed without it.” -Journal of Discourses, vol. 25, p. 21

It seems that it was a requirement for exaltation, and even for salvation, if you believe that Brigham Young was a true prophet.

You see Zerinus, your argument is not with us, but with your own prophets. And if, as apostle Teasdale said, the Church of Christ never existed in its fullness without polygamy, then your church is not the Church of Christ, but an apostate church of men.

Tough break,
Paul

 

[zerinus]

So now that Zerinius has called me out I would hope he can prove that:

1. The endowment ceremony wasn’t changed significantly like I said.

It is your word against mine. You say the Endowment has changed, I say that the presentation of the endowment has changed, which is not sacramental. The core of the Endowment has not changed. The presentation of the Endowment, which is not sacramental, may change without affecting the Endowment.

I would also inform you that discussing the details of what goes inside the temple is off topic for LDS. I have said as much as I am willing to say about it here. It is your word against mine. I think that I know my religion better than you do, and my judgement is that it has not changed. You can believe what you like about it. I don’t feel I have an obligation to explain to you any more about it than I have already done.

1. Joseph Smith didn’t teach polygamy as the “new and everlasting covenant” and as a requirement to gain entry into the highest level of Heaven.

He did not! Joseph Smith taught that celestial marriage (i.e. marriage for eternity solemnized in the temple) is a requirement for salvation, not polygamy. The “new and everlasting covenant” refers to marriage for eternity, not to polygamy. Polygamy is permissible under celestial law, but not a *** requirement*** for exaltation. If you read D&C 132, that is made quite clear. Those quotes from past Church leaders that seem to say otherwise are not correctly understood. What they are saying is that rejecting the validity of the practice, now that God has revealed it, jeopardises one’s salvation. To give an analogy, if God revealed to us that eating pork is OK, and I insisted that if you eat it you will be damned, that would jeopardises my salvation, because I am going against what God has revealed. But that does not mean that I have to eat pork in order to be saved. In the early days of Christianity, some Jewish converts did just that. Although they had become Christians, they still stuck to their old Jewish customs and traditions, and insisted that the Gentile converts should do so too. The Apostles told them that they were wrong, and if they did not repent of that, they risked losing their salvation. In the early days of Mormonism, some converts to the Church still held to their former beliefs and traditions, and felt that polygamy was wrong, even though God had revealed in this dispensation that it was OK. They risked losing their salvation because they were going against what God had revealed; but that did not mean that they had to practice polygamy in order to be saved. The number of people that actually practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church were actually very small, somewhere in the region of 10% I believe.

1. Fundementalist mormons don’t in fact practice Joe Smith mormonism mroe closely than SLC mormons.

I say no. But since you are the one who alleging that, the burden of proof is no you to prove that statement is true, not on me to disprove it.

Your church is an apostate mormon Church, Joseph Smith wouldn’t even recognize it, especially with polygamists being ex-communicated and black priesthood holders.

You are only saying that as a desperate, last ditch attempt to counter the LDS claim of the Apostasy of the Christian Church. It does not work.

zerinus

 

[Philothea53]

It is your word against mine. You say the Endowment has changed, I say that the presentation of the endowment has changed, which is not sacramental. The core of the Endowment has not changed. The presentation of the Endowment, which is not sacramental, may change without affecting the Endowment.

I would also inform you that discussing the details of what goes inside the temple is off topic for LDS. I have said as much as I am willing to say about it here. It is your word against mine. I think that I know my religion better than you do, and my judgement is that it has not changed. You can believe what you like about it. I don’t feel I have an obligation to explain to you any more about it than I have already done.

He did not! Joseph Smith taught that celestial marriage (i.e. marriage for eternity solemnized in the temple) is a requirement for salvation, not polygamy. The “new and everlasting covenant” refers to marriage for eternity, not to polygamy. Polygamy is permissible under celestial law, but not a *** requirement*** for exaltation. If you read D&C 132, that is made quite clear. Those quotes from past Church leaders that seem to say otherwise are not correctly understood. What they are saying is that rejecting the validity of the practice, now that God has revealed it, jeopardises one’s salvation. To give an analogy, if God revealed to us that eating pork is OK, and I insisted that if you eat it you will be damned, that would jeopardises my salvation, because I am going against what God has revealed. But that does not mean that I have to eat pork in order to be saved. In the early days of Christianity, some Jewish converts did just that. Although they had become Christians, they still stuck to their old Jewish customs and traditions, and insisted that the Gentile converts should do so too. The Apostles told them that they were wrong, and if they did not repent of that, they risked losing their salvation. In the early days of Mormonism, some converts to the Church still held to their former beliefs and traditions, and felt that polygamy was wrong, even though God had revealed in this dispensation that it was OK. They risked losing their salvation because they were going against what God had revealed; but that did not mean that they had to practice polygamy in order to be saved. The number of people that actually practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church were actually very small, somewhere in the region of 10% I believe.

I say no. But since you are the one who alleging that, the burden of proof is no you to prove that statement is true, not on me to disprove it.

You are only saying that as a desperate, last ditch attempt to counter the LDS claim of the Apostasy of the Christian Church. It does not work.

zerinus

Hardly a last ditch. We are still praying for you.

 

[dosdog]

It is your word against mine. You say the Endowment has changed, I say that the presentation of the endowment has changed, which is not sacramental. The core of the Endowment has not changed. The presentation of the Endowment, which is not sacramental, may change without affecting the Endowment.

I would also inform you that discussing the details of what goes inside the temple is off topic for LDS. I have said as much as I am willing to say about it here. It is your word against mine. I think that I know my religion better than you do, and my judgement is that it has not changed. You can believe what you like about it. I don’t feel I have an obligation to explain to you any more about it than I have already done.

zerinus

Well, I’ve been wanting to write this post for a long time and the time has come. I guess it’s time to mock God openly and officially break my temple secrecy vows that I made to never ever reveal these “secret and sacred” things. Of course, it helps to know that it’s all bogus!! And no, I’m not going to and I wouldn’t rather, slit my throat from ear to ear as the Mormon Church made me promise to do before 1990. Gee, and people wonder if this is a cult!! REALLY?!! Is there really any question?!! For those out there that are reading this and wondering if the Mormon Church is a cult, you won’t have to wonder anymore after this post.

Even you “TBM’s” out there have to admit that what I’m about to share is very disturbing, offensive and evil but is really what the Mormon Church actually did in the temple. I will now give you all a link where you can actually listen to the entire ceremony as it was recorded right in the temple so that you can hear them for yourself. I know without a doubt what was in the ceremony up until 1990 because I went through at least 15 times. So, no one, I repeat no one, can tell me what I experienced and what I’m about to say, is a lie or not true.

Those of you that don’t believe it, are simply either in deep denial, brain-washed, confused or just lost in the mind-numbing cult called Mormonism!! The facts are there, there have been great books written and I just gave you a link where you can go read it and even listen to it. For those of you that are still hedging or “TBM’s”, don’t worry, God will not punish you for reading or listening to the temple ceremony. Why you ask? Because it never came from God in the first place and the oaths and Promises that you make in the temple, are just to men or nobody, not to God.

Anyway, I will continue on now. I will be as thorough as I can and share what I consider to be the most important changes and of course the penalties. For those that have already seen this, it will confirm it for you and for those that haven’t seen this, that went through the temple after the changes in 1990, you’ll be stunned and shocked. Every time that I read these evil penalties that I once agreed to, I’m still sickened and stunned that I ever went along with it, along side my Mom and Dad, friends and other Family members. We all agreed together, in the temple, that we would rather slit our throat, cut out our hearts and cut open our stomach than to reveal “the secrets” of the temple. It’s just sick!! What a demented fraud the Mormon Church is and what a cult!!

I’m not sure how the Church has been able to overcome this but I want to help get this information out there. Also, everyone that reads this, feel free to copy this and share it with the world. Post it on your blogs, email it to your “TBM” friends. Let’s get the truth out there more and more everyday!! The sites that I reference, especially the Tanner’s have done so much but we have to keep doing it and spreading it like wildfire so that everyone can know it.

Okay, here we go…

I’m going to begin with the 1931 ceremony. For those that want to study more about 1845/46 Nauvoo Endowment or the 1879 version, it is included on the page that I will give you as a link at the end of this post.

Here is where people are given their last Chance to back out if they want to from the 1931 ceremony:
mormontruth.blogspot.com/

 

[lukewarm]

Never? Are you sure?

Mormon prophet Brigham Young declared:

Mormon apostle, Orson Pratt stated:

Mormon apostle, George Teasdale stated:

It seems that it was a requirement for exaltation, and even for salvation, if you believe that Brigham Young was a true prophet.

You see Zerinus, your argument is not with us, but with your own prophets. And if, as apostle Teasdale said, the Church of Christ never existed in its fullness without polygamy, then your church is not the Church of Christ, but an apostate church of men.

Tough break,
Paul

The quotes you listed are the exact ones I’m talking about. You can use literally hundreds of quotes from “early LDS church fathers” to show definitively that the church that exists in SLC today is completely apostate from Joe Smith’s mormonism. From Brigham Young’s claim that black men will never recieve the priesthood until the second coming, or his teachings on blood attonement, then to his quotes on the teaching of polygamy.

I mean the “early LDS church fathers” taught polygamy as the principle, a necessity for the highest level of Heaven. And now it is an excommunicable offense? That makes no sense.

 

[PaulDupre]

It especially makes no sense when the early Christians would rather die a martyr’s death than to disobey God’s commands. If God commanded polygamy as “essential” and labeled it “the new and everlasting covenant”, then how can they just abandon the practice because of government pressure? I agree with the fundies - the LDS Church is an apostate shell of the church Joseph Smith founded.
Paul

 

[zerinus]

The quotes you listed are the exact ones I’m talking about. You can use literally hundreds of quotes from “early LDS church fathers” to show definitively that the church that exists in SLC today is completely apostate from Joe Smith’s mormonism. From Brigham Young’s claim that black men will never recieve the priesthood until the second coming, or his teachings on blood attonement, then to his quotes on the teaching of polygamy.

I mean the “early LDS church fathers” taught polygamy as the principle, a necessity for the highest level of Heaven. And now it is an excommunicable offense? That makes no sense.

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you just don’t want to know the truth. I have given clear explanations and answers to all of your questions; but you completely ignore them, and continue to repeat the same baseless alegations without anything to back it up. Impartial readers can judge for themselves who has preswented the stronger argument.

zerinus

 

[lukewarm]

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you just don’t want to know the truth. I have given clear explanations and answers to all of your questions; but you completely ignore them, and continue to repeat the same baseless alegations without anything to back it up. Impartial readers can judge for themselves who has preswented the stronger argument.

zerinus

I suppose I could say the same thing about you and calling Catholics idol worshippers even though you admit to having little to no knowledge of the communion of the Saints.

I didn’t find any apologetics that you offered (at least the ones that I read) convincing at all, frankly I stopped reading what you were writing to me when you started calling a me a gringo and that I had a “delusional mind”.

It’s real simple flip the bit on LDS and use the same criteria on them to justify an LDS apostasy, that they do to the Catholics and it works really really well, in fact much better since LDS doctrine has not only changed, but in some cases done complete 180’s. Your very own prophets and “early LDS church fathers” condemn the SLC Church as an apostate church.

The only mormon’s who could have a valid claim to practicing old timey Joe Smith mormonism are the fundemental mormons who hold to the principle and won’t ordain men of color just like your prophets insisted upon.

 

[zerinus]

I suppose I could say the same thing about you and calling Catholics idol worshippers even though you admit to having little to no knowledge of the communion of the Saints.

I didn’t find any apologetics that you offered (at least the ones that I read) convincing at all, frankly I stopped reading what you were writing to me when you started calling a me a gringo and that I had a “delusional mind”.

It’s real simple flip the bit on LDS and use the same criteria on them to justify an LDS apostasy, that they do to the Catholics and it works really really well, in fact much better since LDS doctrine has not only changed, but in some cases done complete 180’s. Your very own prophets and “early LDS church fathers” condemn the SLC Church as an apostate church.

The only mormon’s who could have a valid claim to practicing old timey Joe Smith mormonism are the fundemental mormons who hold to the principle and won’t ordain men of color just like your prophets insisted upon.

That is up to you. I guess we haven’t anything further to talk about. You can start calling LDS apostates, and we will see how far you will get with that. Don’t get me wrong though. If you make any more baseless allegations against LDS, you will soon have them corrected by me. I won’t let you get away with that.

zerinus

 

[lukewarm]

That is up to you. I guess we haven’t anything further to talk about. You can start calling LDS apostates, and we will see how far you will get with that. Don’t get me wrong though. If you make any more baseless allegations against LDS, you will soon have them corrected by me. I won’t let you get away with that.

zerinus

O.K. but nothing I said was without a base, (unless of coruse you consider your prophets, apostles, and your scriptures “baseless”).

You belong to a religion that calls every other religion apostate, why is it O.K. for you to do that and call Catholics idol worshippers here, but when I call the current SLC church apostate mormons it is “an attack”? Your very own prophets would demand I call the current SLC apostate, Joe Smith called polygamy the “new and everlasting” covenant, now it gets one excommunicated if practiced? Joe Smith would be rolling over in his grave if he knew polygamy would become grounds for excommunication. If that doesn’t prove apostasy from your founding prophets teachings I don’t know what does.

 

[zerinus]

O.K. but nothing I said was without a base, (unless of coruse you consider your prophets, apostles, and your scriptures “baseless”).

You belong to a religion that calls every other religion apostate, why is it O.K. for you to do that and call Catholics idol worshippers here, but when I call the current SLC church apostate mormons it is “an attack”? Your very own prophets would demand I call the current SLC apostate, Joe Smith called polygamy the “new and everlasting” covenant, now it gets one excommunicated if practiced? Joe Smith would be rolling over in his grave if he knew polygamy would become grounds for excommunication. If that doesn’t prove apostasy from your founding prophets teachings I don’t know what does.

Apart from calling LDS Church apostate, do you have anything else to say about LDS?

zerinus

 

[dosdog]

Polygamist’s Rape Case Set to Begin
ST. GEORGE, Utah (AP) — Jury selection began Friday in the rape case against a polygamous sect leader, with attorneys asking more than 200 people to fill out a questionnaire to help determine their suitability.

Prospective jurors in the trial of Warren Jeffs, 51, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, reported to a convention center to answer questions about religion, plural marriage and any ties to potential witnesses.
Jeffs is charged with two counts of first-degree felony rape as an accomplice for his alleged role in coercing the 2001 marriage and rape of a 14-year-old follower by her cousin.

The FLDS continue to believe plural marriage promises glorification in heaven. The fundamentalist church’s members number an estimated 10,000, living mostly in the border towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz. The arranged marriages often involve underage girls and older men.

Jeffs has led the FLDS church since 2002. Followers see him as a prophet who communicates with God and holds dominion over their salvation. Former church members say the one-time school principal reigns with an iron fist, demanding perfect obedience from followers.

The FLDS church practices polygamy and represents itself as an offshoot of the mainstream Mormon church, based in Salt Lake City. The Mormons, however, disavow any connection and renounced polygamy in 1890 as a condition of statehood.
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDCqCmFPcSUkTXxaPC6InKcvgYBw

 

[hosemonkey]

Apart from calling LDS Church apostate, do you have anything else to say about LDS?

zerinus

zerinus, I’m probably gonna get suspended or even banned for saying this, but it needs to be said:
You are a liar and the truth is not in you. You are also a coward. You attack and denigrate and then hide behind “my word against yours”.
If mormons have any shame, they should be ashamed of you. I say this in all charity, of course. You may ignore this if you like, but everyone on these forums has your number.

 

[hosemonkey]

“I would also inform you that discussing the details of what goes inside the temple is off topic for LDS. I have said as much as I am willing to say about it here. It is your word against mine. I think that I know my religion better than you do, and my judgement is that it has not changed. You can believe what you like about it. I don’t feel I have an obligation to explain to you any more about it than I have already done.”

Nothing that has been said to you regarding the falsity and changes in mormonism has been subjective, but is easily proven using references easily found on the internet. All your sputtering about “knowing my religion better than you do” does not hold water. “Your word against mine.” Nobody will cash that check. Too many former mormons have exposed the big holes in your knowledge.
As for the so-called “sacred secrets” of the temple ceremony… the whole thing is a direct rip-off from blue-lodge Freemasonry and easily available on the internet. I do not know if the mormons have turned the Masonic ritual into a cheap joke or vice-versa, but a “secret” it ain’t.

 

[Philothea53]

“I would also inform you that discussing the details of what goes inside the temple is off topic for LDS. I have said as much as I am willing to say about it here. It is your word against mine. I think that I know my religion better than you do, and my judgement is that it has not changed. You can believe what you like about it. I don’t feel I have an obligation to explain to you any more about it than I have already done.”

Nothing that has been said to you regarding the falsity and changes in mormonism has been subjective, but is easily proven using references easily found on the internet. All your sputtering about “knowing my religion better than you do” does not hold water. “Your word against mine.” Nobody will cash that check. Too many former mormons have exposed the big holes in your knowledge.
As for the so-called “sacred secrets” of the temple ceremony… the whole thing is a direct rip-off from blue-lodge Freemasonry and easily available on the internet. I do not know if the mormons have turned the Masonic ritual into a cheap joke or vice-versa, but a “secret” it ain’t.

Even while I was a member of the cult I never understood what was so special about it that it had to be secret? That we went and watched a movie? That we wore some costumes that seemed suspiciously like items worn by FreeMasons? That we play-acted being pulled through the veil? I didn’t understand then and don’t understand now.

 

[hosemonkey]

Even while I was a member of the cult I never understood what was so special about it that it had to be secret? That we went and watched a movie? That we wore some costumes that seemed suspiciously like items worn by FreeMasons? That we play-acted being pulled through the veil? I didn’t understand then and don’t understand now.

Agreed. When I was a Freemason, I think that I was a little disappointed to find out that what I had sworn to protect, under penalty of a rather gruesome death, was nothing very special at all. And this whole deal about “secret names” and husbands “calling forth their wives” out of the grave. Weird. Ladies, what if hubby is a little ticked with you that day? You may be in the hole for eternity. Never could figure out how any smart woman would buy into that scam.

 

[dosdog]

Even while I was a member of the cult I never understood what was so special about it that it had to be secret? That we went and watched a movie? That we wore some costumes that seemed suspiciously like items worn by FreeMasons? That we play-acted being pulled through the veil? I didn’t understand then and don’t understand now.

google - five points of fellowship

 

[Philothea53]

google - five points of fellowship

This is amazing. This is what I went through in November 1990.
mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/masendow.htm

I didn’t know I was being endowed as a Mason!!!

Praise God that my eyes were opened.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Hey, Everybody!

How about getting some mormon poster to answer the OP’s question directly?

If the mormon church (the one called LDS) believes that the Church went ‘apostate,’ then wouldn’t they be excluded from that claim by the sects which have split from them?

Or, to make it real easy for Zerinus: what does the mormon church say about the RLDS (now Community of Christ) church:
is it the *truer *one since it split from the LDS group or is it the apostate one since it is smaller in number (although it claims Smith’s ancestors as its leaders) than the one housed in SLC?

Any former mormons with any ideas about this would be appreciated.

Thanks

Robert

 

[dosdog]

Hey, Everybody!

How about getting some mormon poster to answer the OP’s question directly?

If the mormon church (the one called LDS) believes that the Church went ‘apostate,’ then wouldn’t they be excluded from that claim by the sects which have split from them?

Or, to make it real easy for Zerinus: what does the mormon church say about the RLDS (now Community of Christ) church:
is it the *truer *one since it split from the LDS group or is it the apostate one since it is smaller in number (although it claims Smith’s ancestors as its leaders) than the one housed in SLC?

Any former mormons with any ideas about this would be appreciated.

Thanks

Robert

The church under the leadership of…

Joseph Smith III (1860-1914)son of Joseph Smith JR
Frederick M. Smith (1915-1946)son of Joseph Smith III,
Israel A. Smith (1946-1958)Frederick M. Smith’s brother
W. Wallace Smith (1958-1978)third of Joseph Smith III’s sons
Wallace B. Smith (1978-1996)son of W. Wallace Smith

in 1995, Wallace B. indicated that W. Grant McMurray was to be his successor

W. Grant McMurray (1996-2004) He became the first non-Smith
family member to preside over the church in its 170-year history.

cofchrist.org/history/intro.asp