Where Have All The Apostates And Anti-Mormons Gone?

[PaulDupre]

No

Then why do Mormons still try to convert people by saying that they are led by a living prophet, when these “prophets, seers and revelators” never prophesy, see or reveal anything (except maybe every hundred years or so and even then nothing really significant)? What good are prophets who never prophesy? They are of no more worth than any Protestant minister.

At least when I was LDS, we believed that when the living prophet spoke in General Conference, what he declared was scripture. Brigham Young said so, too but then Mormons are ashamed of Brother Brigham these days. When we sang “We thank thee oh God for a prophet”, we meant it.

Modern Mormonism is being watered down to the point that it is just another sect of Protestantism. Why do you bother?

 

[mfbukowski]

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

What is on the official church website is not necessarily doctrine unless it appears in the “scriptures” section.

Where did you get your information that if it is on the church website it is doctrinal? That’s crazy. There are instructions there on how to operate computers, the addresses of church meeting houses, lesson plans, stories and total fiction.

This illustrates exactly my point in post 187. You guys make up doctrine and then use it as a strawman to argue against it.

I could say that official catholic doctrine can be found on chick’s website, and that wouldnt make it true.

 

[nebula]

Then why do Mormons still try to convert people by saying that they are led by a living prophet, when these “prophets, seers and revelators” never prophesy, see or reveal anything (except maybe every hundred years or so and even then nothing really significant)? What good are prophets who never prophesy? They are of no more worth than any Protestant minister.

At least when I was LDS, we believed that when the living prophet spoke in General Conference, what he declared was scripture. Brigham Young said so, too but then Mormons are ashamed of Brother Brigham these days. When we sang “We thank thee oh God for a prophet”, we meant it.

Modern Mormonism is being watered down to the point that it is just another sect of Protestantism. Why do you bother?

Paul,

Great point. The reality is that many Mormons still believe this too. That’s the whole point of General Conference, to be guided by a living prophet. I think what happens is that MOrmons who get into apologetics keep getting into such tight corners they simply decided to get out of jail, so to speak, based on a corny technicality.

 

[mfbukowski]

Then why do Mormons still try to convert people by saying that they are led by a living prophet, when these “prophets, seers and revelators” never prophesy, see or reveal anything (except maybe every hundred years or so and even then nothing really significant)? What good are prophets who never prophesy? They are of no more worth than any Protestant minister.

At least when I was LDS, we believed that when the living prophet spoke in General Conference, what he declared was scripture. Brigham Young said so, too but then Mormons are ashamed of Brother Brigham these days. When we sang “We thank thee oh God for a prophet”, we meant it.

Modern Mormonism is being watered down to the point that it is just another sect of Protestantism. Why do you bother?

There you go again.

There are statements, there are inspired statements, and then there is canonized doctrine.

Ensign articles are sometimes referred to as “scripture” in the sense that they are often inspired statements. They give us inspired daily, monthly advice. You can get out of bed one morning and be inspired to do something. That doesn’t make what you are inspired to do doctrinal. What is in ensign is like the “scripture for this month”, it is inspired advice on what is needed NOW. We need to work on this point or that point.

This is not canonized doctrine. Can’t you see the difference?

Look here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Suppose back in the time of the council of trent there was the equivalent of an ensign article on the “immaculate conception”. Obviously this is impossible, but follow the analogy.

It was a generally accepted view but not “doctrinal” until 1850 or so when it was accepted as canonized doctrine for catholics.

No difference. I have been a member of the church for 30 years and it has been this way as long as I can remember. Ensign articles have NEVER been “canonized doctrine”. Not even the prophet speaking at conference.

I don’t know what you are complaining about. How often does a pope speak “ex cathedra”?

And why would you care? You’re not even a Mormon anymore. That is like me complaining about the “new catholic mass” that is not in Latin!

 

[mfbukowski]

I think I’ll throw this one out to the feeding frenzy and see what kind of bites I get.

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.

Then everybody has fun making fun of the caricatures, and you all get to think that you have “refuted” something, and you all dance around in war paint and whoop it up.

Let’s try to be reasonable one more time. I don’t know why I am such an optimist, but here goes.

Let’s just look at how Mormons view God.

We believe that there is one “God” who is infinite and eternal. “God” is like a family of three persons who are perfectly united in purpose. Talk to one, you talk to all. They are one.

Each person who is part of the three is in some sense “God” as well. Jesus is God, and he is a member of the “Godhead”

So you could easily caricature this belief as “polytheism”

“Mormons believe in 3 Gods ha ha”

But that statement would be neither true nor accurate.

Mormons also SPECULATE on things that never occurr to most people. What happened before the Big Bang? How could we know that? Science cannot prove anything about that. Time began at the big bang. So to discuss what happened “before” time makes no sense. It is an object of faith.

It is my personal belief, not doctrinal, that God in some sense caused the big bang.

That means that somehow, he existed before time.

But why did he cause the big bang? Why did he make the world?

These are all clearly faith based questions which no one can “prove” the answers to.

One of the theories put forward is the quasi-doctrinal belief of Mormons that God himself was once as we are now. Before time, before creation, before anything that we can ever in principle know or understand. Perhaps it was in another universe, dimension or whatever-- we cannot in principle KNOW this in any scientific sense. We can know it by revelation, however.

Catholicism doesn’t even ask the question “What was God doing floating around for eternity before he created us?”

We answer the questions Catholicism doesn’t even ask.

But people who don’t understand now take this and say “Mormons are polytheists, who believe in life on other planets”

If that is your level of understanding of what I have explained, then so be it. It is a total caricature.

This is true for all of Mormon doctrine.

And if you think for a second that you understand the symbolism of the temple, think again.

You have to go hundreds of times before you even begin to get a glimmer of the textures of the symbolism. The ordinace itself is like learning to draw the alphabet. And then you see that what that alphabet creates is far beyond shakespeare. That there could be so much information in such a brief presentation is a miracle in itself.

It is like looking at the code of an encrypted file and thinking you understand the full context of why the file was written.

One of our prophets at an advanced age turned to a member of the quorum of 12 and said “You know, I think I am just beginning to understand the endowment”.

So where’s the warpaint?

Well I guess everyone wants to concede that Mormons are not “polytheists”.

Let’s go on to the next point.

 

[AirLiner]

There you go again.

There are statements, there are inspired statements, and then there is canonized doctrine.

Ensign articles are sometimes referred to as “scripture” in the sense that they are often inspired statements. They give us inspired daily, monthly advice. You can get out of bed one morning and be inspired to do something. That doesn’t make what you are inspired to do doctrinal. What is in ensign is like the “scripture for this month”, it is inspired advice on what is needed NOW. We need to work on this point or that point.

This is not canonized doctrine. Can’t you see the difference?

Look here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Suppose back in the time of the council of trent there was the equivalent of an ensign article on the “immaculate conception”. Obviously this is impossible, but follow the analogy.

It was a generally accepted view but not “doctrinal” until 1850 or so when it was accepted as canonized doctrine for catholics.

No difference. I have been a member of the church for 30 years and it has been this way as long as I can remember. Ensign articles have NEVER been “canonized doctrine”. Not even the prophet speaking at conference.

I don’t know what you are complaining about. How often does a pope speak “ex cathedra”?

And why would you care? You’re not even a Mormon anymore. That is like me complaining about the “new catholic mass” that is not in Latin!

In Catholicism there are beliefs that are not dogma until the Church declares it to be. Immaculate conception is an example of this. A while back there was also widespread belief in “Limbo” until that belief was abandoned. However in Mormonism, there is alot of speculative ideas that are taught as truth. Brigham Young and Joseph Smith themselves were teaching things that are not in canonized doctrine. So the problem is that speculative ideas are taught as truth in Mormonism.

 

[majick275]

There you go again.

There are statements, there are inspired statements, and then there is canonized doctrine.

Ensign articles are sometimes referred to as “scripture” in the sense that they are often inspired statements. They give us inspired daily, monthly advice. You can get out of bed one morning and be inspired to do something. That doesn’t make what you are inspired to do doctrinal. What is in ensign is like the “scripture for this month”, it is inspired advice on what is needed NOW. We need to work on this point or that point.

This is not canonized doctrine. Can’t you see the difference?

Look here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Suppose back in the time of the council of trent there was the equivalent of an ensign article on the “immaculate conception”. Obviously this is impossible, but follow the analogy.

It was a generally accepted view but not “doctrinal” until 1850 or so when it was accepted as canonized doctrine for catholics.

No difference. I have been a member of the church for 30 years and it has been this way as long as I can remember. Ensign articles have NEVER been “canonized doctrine”. Not even the prophet speaking at conference.

I don’t know what you are complaining about. How often does a pope speak “ex cathedra”?

And why would you care? You’re not even a Mormon anymore. That is like me complaining about the “new catholic mass” that is not in Latin!

and yet there is that LDS scripture D&C 68:4…
I know when i was teaching gospel doctrine we also claimed scripture status for the GC talks in the ensign. of course we never used the term canonized doctrine for anything. if “the prophet” said it we considered it doctrine. if an apostle said it was doctrine unless the prophet corrected it. (and yes we considered Mconkie’s Doctrine except for what was “corrected” by “the prophet”)

 

[mfbukowski]

Paul,

Great point. The reality is that many Mormons still believe this too. That’s the whole point of General Conference, to be guided by a living prophet. I think what happens is that MOrmons who get into apologetics keep getting into such tight corners they simply decided to get out of jail, so to speak, based on a corny technicality.

Oh gosh, who could you be talking about here?

 

[RC_Matt]

I could say that official catholic doctrine can be found on chick’s website, and that wouldnt make it true.

Jack Chick’s website is not owned nor maintained by the Catholic Church.

If you are concerned that your ecclesial authorities are teaching incorrect dogma on their LDS website, perhaps you should inform them of their errors.

If you don’t believe that Mormonism is a polytheistic faith (henotheistic at best), you need to study your scriptures; specifically the D&C and PGP. I’d tell you where, but it’s not my job to teach Mormon catechism to Mormons.

 

[mfbukowski]

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

You said something along the lines of “you need to use logic when evaluating a faith” or something like that.

I used the example of two catholic mystics who found Christ strictly through spiritual experience, making the point that it is not necessary to use logic to be converted. Look at Peter. He denied Jesus 3 times after witnessing all the miracles. And yet after pentacost, he was on fire himself. He was a great missionary and raised the dead. What was the difference between the Peter who denied christ and the one who raised the dead? It wasn’t logic! It was the holy ghost. It was his personal experience. We call that “testimony”

As much as I disagree with evangelicals, they GET the “born again” experience. Catholics just don’t. They are born going to church once a week and putting $5. in the plate, and they die that way. For the most part there is no committment, no fire, no conversion. They believe it because it is old and they believe the tradition goes back for 2000 years so it must be true.

 

[mfbukowski]

Jack Chick’s website is not owned nor maintained by the Catholic Church.

If you are concerned that your ecclesial authorities are teaching incorrect dogma on their LDS website, perhaps you should inform them of their errors.

If you don’t believe that Mormonism is a polytheistic faith (henotheistic at best), you need to study your scriptures; specifically the D&C and PGP. I’d tell you where, but it’s not my job to teach Mormon catechism to Mormons.

You misunderstood the entire post. I never said that what was on the lds site was “incorrect dogma”.

 

[mfbukowski]

and yet there is that LDS scripture D&C 68:4…
I know when i was teaching gospel doctrine we also claimed scripture status for the GC talks in the ensign. of course we never used the term canonized doctrine for anything. if “the prophet” said it we considered it doctrine. if an apostle said it was doctrine unless the prophet corrected it. (and yes we considered Mconkie’s Doctrine except for what was “corrected” by “the prophet”)

Yeah, that is about the way it is. But strictly speaking, canonized doctrine is canonized doctrine. I have been aware of it since I was baptized, but I guess there are members who don’t know the difference.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul,

Great point. The reality is that many Mormons still believe this too. That’s the whole point of General Conference, to be guided by a living prophet. I think what happens is that MOrmons who get into apologetics keep getting into such tight corners they simply decided to get out of jail, so to speak, based on a corny technicality.

Agreed.

 

[1holycatholic]

You misunderstood the entire post. I never said that what was on the lds site was “incorrect dogma”.

That’s what was implied. :yup:

In any case, my point was any non-official LDS website can’t be trusted for what the LDS teach. Not every apologetics site accurately presents their faith. Baptist, Catholic etc. it doesn’t matter, Mormons are not exempt. I want the answer straight from the source, not from secondary or tertiary sources.

I assume this is LDS doctrine since it is from their Doctrine & Covenants.
scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=are+gods&help=&wo=checked&search=gods&do=Search&iw=dc&tx=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&bw=1
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
That’s LDS doctrine regarding multiple gods. Multiple gods == polytheism. There is no other explanation.

 

[tundramom]

You have answered nothing

No sweetie. You just don’t “get it”.

in Christ
Steph

 

[notsmart]

Zerinius- (sp?)

Please contact me via PM because I need advice on a family matter, and the only thing I like about mormons, is their understanding of family.

I need help, but I am sure they will ban me for asking but I am taking my chances.

They already deleted…

Please contact me, I need help.

 

[mfbukowski]

That’s what was implied. :yup:

In any case, my point was any non-official LDS website can’t be trusted for what the LDS teach. Not every apologetics site accurately presents their faith. Baptist, Catholic etc. it doesn’t matter, Mormons are not exempt. I want the answer straight from the source, not from secondary or tertiary sources.

I assume this is LDS doctrine since it is from their Doctrine & Covenants.
scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=are+gods&help=&wo=checked&search=gods&do=Search&iw=dc&tx=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&bw=1
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
That’s LDS doctrine regarding multiple gods. Multiple gods == polytheism. There is no other explanation.

Well it depends on your definitions I guess.

This was a common belief in the early church which has been lost in the Roman church today through apostasy.

The Greek Orthodox church still believes it:

“Having been formed ‘in His image’, man is called upon to be acquire the ‘in His likeness’, in other words, deification (gr. theosis). The Creator, God by nature, calls man to become a god by Grace.”

greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_purpose.html

You would not call Greek Orthodox “polytheists” so why do you call us that? It is a semantic problem.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinius- (sp?)

Please contact me via PM because I need advice on a family matter, and the only thing I like about mormons, is their understanding of family.

I need help, but I am sure they will ban me for asking but I am taking my chances.

They already deleted…

Please contact me, I need help.

Okay, I sent you a PM! But there is nothing to stop you from sending me a PM.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Well it depends on your definitions I guess.

This was a common belief in the early church which has been lost in the Roman church today through apostasy.

The Greek Orthodox church still believes it:

“Having been formed ‘in His image’, man is called upon to be acquire the ‘in His likeness’, in other words, deification (gr. theosis). The Creator, God by nature, calls man to become a god by Grace.”

greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_purpose.html

You would not call Greek Orthodox “polytheists” so why do you call us that? It is a semantic problem.

Catholics believe in theosis just as the Orthodox do. I have explained theosis to you Mormons already but you keep pretending that it is like exaltation. It is not the same as the LDS teaching that we can become gods, have spirit children and be worshiped by them.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Regarding my post on my Mormon daughter ignoring her non-Mormon father on his birthday, mfbukowski wrote:

That certainly has nothing to do with our doctrine. We teach the opposite.

I’m not so sure. The Mormon children’s article “A Different Kind of Pioneer” by Heather Christensen (lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3a1b6123a35bb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1) seems to be encouraging children to be these “different kind of pioneers”. It “glowingly” describes to children how converts to the Mormon church are this “different kind of pioneer” because the converts “showed the way” to be a good Mormon by putting the LDS church before their families and marrying in the temple when no one in their families could be there.

This article is from Friends magazine (and LDS magazine for children) and the lesson is taught in Primary (like an LDS CCD). Lessons are also taught in other places–perhaps in the Relief Society (is that part of the Sunday block along with what is called “Sacrament”?), the magazine the Ensign magazine and more. The fact is there is no central source of doctrine. You have all sorts of teachings from many sources, including some ward bishops