Where Have All The Apostates And Anti-Mormons Gone?

[Believe_85]

Your argument is:

“I don’t care about Mormon doctrine, because there was no apostasy, so Mormonism is false.”

We have discussed this ad nauseum on other threads which no longer exist. Maybe we can get back to it one day, but for now I am waiting for replies to #187.

I didn’t say I didn’t care. I simply stated the Catholic perspective on how we cannot trust Mormon revelations regarding theology and the nature of God because the existence of our Church negates the need for LDS. #187 talks about the nature of God according to Mormon revelation and how Catholics don’t “get” Mormon perspective. Is that not what I wrote about? Sorry if I misunderstood your message.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t know what you are talking about, and this really has nothing to do with the Mormon conception of God which has been misportrayed as “polytheistic”

It is at least henotheism, which is a form of polytheism. (not monotheism)

 

[mfbukowski]

Oh, please let me answer. When my daughter became Mormon, she separated herself from us in a most hurtful way. So you could say that that “family-first oriented organization” effectively caused great harm and divided our family while talking a good talk by saying that they are family-friendly.

Sorry. Feel a bit hurt for my husband. Today is his birthday, but you know my Mormon daughter can’t even pick up the phone to wish her own father “Happy Birthday”. (And yes, he was hoping that this morning…Well, morning is over.) What a two-faced religion–to tell everyone that they are family oriented and then turn around and treat family poorly!

I am very sorry you are having family problems.

That certainly has nothing to do with our doctrine. We teach the opposite. Most of the flack we get on this forum is about us being constant missionaries. Ignoring your family is certainly not being a good missionary. But she may have her reasons. Do you hassle her about being Mormon?

 

[hosemonkey]

I am very sorry you are having family problems.

That certainly has nothing to do with our doctrine. We teach the opposite. Most of the flack we get on this forum is about us being constant missionaries. Ignoring your family is certainly not being a good missionary. But she may have her reasons. Do you hassle her about being Mormon?

What an absolutely stupid question.

 

[hosemonkey]

If Joseph was such a good mason, why did they kill him?

Are you saying that masons killed him? They may have killed him because he highjacked their ritual. As in mormonism, there are penalties for that sort of thing. Too bad.

 

[mfbukowski]

I didn’t say I didn’t care. I simply stated the Catholic perspective on how we cannot trust Mormon revelations regarding theology and the nature of God because the existence of our Church negates the need for LDS. #187 talks about the nature of God according to Mormon revelation and how Catholics don’t “get” Mormon perspective. Is that not what I wrote about? Sorry if I misunderstood your message.

Yes that is what you said, and if you see that as a distortion, I apologize, but I still wish to discuss the points I wish to discuss

 

[Jerusha]

If Joseph was such a good mason, why did they kill him?

#187

Joseph was killed because he and other leaders within the Mormons were attempting to practice plural marriage with women who had no interest in them, because they were faithful to their husbands. They threatened those women, and carried out their threats, probably including murder of relatives. Such coercion amounted to attempted rape. When he had the Expositor equipment destroyed, he did so to cover up the whole plural marriage scandal.

There was also the factor that others of the inner circle of the Mormons decided that he was too mentally ill to continue in a leadership role. In his last three days, he appeared to admit that it was all a hoax that had gotten too big for him to handle.

Masonry had little to do with it, other than abusing secret Masonic rituals. But they appropriated other cultural practices, that was only a small part of the picture.

Nothing new. Mormons seek to offend others, then play victim when people respond.

 

[hosemonkey]

Joseph was killed because he and other leaders within the Mormons were attempting to practice plural marriage with women who had no interest in them, because they were faithful to their husbands. They threatened those women, and carried out their threats, probably including murder of relatives. Such coercion amounted to attempted rape. When he had the Expositor equipment destroyed, he did so to cover up the whole plural marriage scandal.

** There was also the factor that others of the inner circle of the Mormons decided that he was too mentally ill to continue in a leadership role. In his last three days, he appeared to admit that it was all a hoax that had gotten too big for him to handle.**

You know, Jerusha, I proposed long ago on this forum that mormonism was a hoax that got out of hand and I think that JS feared that it would all be revealed. He did not have to answer for it, because fortunately for him, they terminated him. Now it is all the rest of his dupes that must carry the load of perpetuating the fraud. They suffer from a form of mental illness also, it is called extreme denial.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t know what you are talking about, and this really has nothing to do with the Mormon conception of God which has been misportrayed as “polytheistic”

The issue you said you wanted to deal with was this:

Originally Posted by mfbukowski

When you get your information about what Mormons believe from anti-mormons, what you get is cartoonish caricatures of what we believe, and when we DO explain what we do believe, no one listens long enough here to GET it. And of course you don’t want to GET it because we might be right.

So I replied that we are NOT actually getting our information from anti-Mormon sources, but from the sources that Mormons themselves post here (LDS websites) and the posts that they make. So if we are basing our arguments on “cartoons” of Mormon beliefs, it is you Mormons who have drawn them for us in your apologetic videos, powerpoint presentations, websites, and posts on this board.

 

[tundramom]

My guess is that you are the ones who have “separated yourselves” from her. She would not have “separated herself” from you of her own accord; neither does her Church encourage her to do so. Sorry, I can’t believe what you say.

zerinus

How dare you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

in Christ
Steph

 

[mfbukowski]

OK, I am confused. I will admit it.

With the Catholic church, we have well defined chain of command so to speak. We know where our teachings and doctrines come from, and how they are passed on to the people of the church.

What I don’t understand, is the heirarchy of the lds, and how the lds doctrines are decided/formed/estatblished, and how it is passed down to John Q Public in the pew? I also don’t understand why it appears there are so many interpretations on individual issues.

I’m not trying to start a fight, I’m just trying to understand how your churches teachings work.

Or would I be better off starting a thread on this?

This is a legitimate question, so I will give it a shot.

As in any church, we believe in general many things which may or may not be doctrinal. Many catholics whip themselves to get time off purgatory. Many catholics belive in this aparition of Mary or that apparition of Mary. If I am not mistaken, the Immactulate Conception was not “doctrinal” for Catholics, though largely believed, until fairly recently (on the order of a hundred years or so I think? I don’t remember)

Our “canonized doctrine” consists of anything which is included in the scriptures or which has been officially sanctioned and published by the first presidency. From time to time we actually include new revelations into the book of Doctrine and Covenants, but this is very rare. (on the order of once in a hundred years or so)

More recently, the church as published official Proclamations or manifestos clarifying doctrine.

These are offical doctrinal pronouncements.

Then we have other statements and teachings which are not in the above category, but ARE found in official church publications and are often commonly believed. Strictly speaking, however these are not “doctrinal”. Evolution is one example of an issue like this. Many Mormons are on either side of the issue. We get to choose. For me personally, though, I regard anything published by the church offically to be “doctrinal”.

I think in my post #187 I used the term “quasi-doctrinal” to describe eternal progression. That was probably a mis- characterization. I fully believe in eternal progression and for me personally, this conception answered questions that I could not explain while I was a catholic. I am prepared to defend this postion.

I should also say that I have not researched this question in detail, because I have had no reason to do so, so I would defer to Mormons who had. Perhaps zerinus is in this category. He is more experienced on these forums than I am.

It’s kind of like having the imprimatur and nihil obstat for Catholics. Do you accept only what has the imprimatur? Probably not. But then you could be mistaken about doctrine.

 

[hosemonkey]

The issue you said you wanted to deal with was this:
That’s right.

 

[PaulDupre]

If Joseph was such a good mason, why did they kill him?

I never said he was a good mason. In fact, he violated the sacred oaths that he took as a mason when he expropriated the signs, tokens, symbols and paraphernalia from the masonic ritual and revealed them to non-masons in the LDS endowment. As part of the masonic ritual, he agreed to be killed for doing that. He should not have been surprised if the masons made good on that agreement.

I would not be surprised if some of those who killed Smith were masons (and the account of the killing indicates that Joseph believed there were at least a few masons in the mob), but then again folks who wanted Joseph dead for the many crimes he committed against them were queued up around the block. I rather suspect it was fellow Mormons who took him out.

 

[PaulDupre]

Our “canonized doctrine” consists of anything which is included in the scriptures or which has been officially sanctioned and published by the first presidency. From time to time we actually include new revelations into the book of Doctrine and Covenants, but this is very rare. (on the order of once in a hundred years or so)

More recently, the church as published official Proclamations or manifestos clarifying doctrine.

These are offical doctrinal pronouncements.

How would you characterize teachings from the prophet presented in General Conference? These days, these General Conference talks are subsequently published in the Ensign magazine’s General Conference edition for posterity.

Are they still considered doctrine these days? They definitely were when I was LDS.

Paul

 

[mfbukowski]

How would you characterize teachings from the prophet presented in General Conference? These days, these General Conference talks are subsequently published in the Ensign magazine’s General Conference edition for posterity.

Are they still considered doctrine these days? They definitely were when I was LDS.

Paul

Like anything in Ensign. They are definitely not canonized doctrine and never have been

 

[PaulDupre]

Like anything in Ensign.

Do you mean that anything published in the Ensign is doctrine?

That was the belief when I was LDS but I am surprised to read that from you.

 

[PaulDupre]

Like anything in Ensign. They are definitely not canonized doctrine and never have been

I wasn’t asking about things published in the Ensign. I was asking about the prophet speaking in General Conference. When the prophet speaks in General Conference, is he proclaiming doctrine?

 

[mfbukowski]

I wasn’t asking about things published in the Ensign. I was asking about the prophet speaking in General Conference. When the prophet speaks in General Conference, is he proclaiming doctrine?

No

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf

"Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church

This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine."

 

[AirLiner]

Tell that to St Francis of Assisi or Theresa of Avila. It’s not that I am “hurt” it’s just that if you guys are trying to convert anyone, it’s not going to work that way.

Get your motivation straight and then live with it. I am here to defend what you think Mormonism is.

Tell what to St. Francis of Assisi or Theresa of Avila? And okay so you are not hurt.

The only prosletizing that happens around here is negative. Hose?

If you weren’t hurt then what did you mean by negative prosletizing? The Catholics on here are defending Catholicism and pointing out flaws in Mormon reasoning.

 

[1holycatholic]

No

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf

"Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church

This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine."

Since that isn’t posted on the official lds.org website it is a worthless source.