Why Apostates Who Leave Mormonism Fight So Hard Against It

[AMDGtoo]

“For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”

- D&C 132:4​

Please point out where it mentions that the number is important. Even during Mormon polygamy’s height, there were still more monogamous Mormons than polygamists. None of them were seen as forsaking any covenants.

Oh, I’m sorry D&C 132:4 does indeed note that this “Celestial Marriage” is everlasting.

I should have included the polygamy part witch is D&C Section 134:64 (thanks for noting that I left that off.)

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the [plural wife] law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

 

[ronald_g_w]

“first born” gives the implication there are other literal children of G*d.

Orthodox Christianians have no belief of “pre-mortal intelligences” that were fathered by G*d and some unnamed “heavenly mother(s)”.

Then are these scriptures( Job 1:6 38:7 & Col 1:15,18)discarded as they definately point to the sons of God being present in the pre-mortal state (lets leave Heavenly Mother out of this)

 

[majick275]

Apparently not clear enough to be binding.

Right. You need at least one.

Which teachings? It’s not taught in Sunday school or any other official classes.

…oh right, the secret ones. Forgot about those.

how long you been LDS??? nothing secret about it. of course it isn’t “emphasized” much these days but never refuted. read the D&C. it says right there what will happen. JS taught it, BY taught it, John Taylor, joseph F Smith and many others. just google mormon polygamy and only read the ones from LDS sources.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Think I should add that in the 1800s Celestial Marriage and plural marriage were synonymous. Now it seems that most investigators aren’t even told about it. (From the LDS Deserret Books Magazine my daughter would get, there were plenty of books romantizing JS relationship with Emma and failing to mention that there were many women and girls standing between her and her husband. BTW, she never accepted plural marriage.)

Brigham Young decared plural marriage a requirement for exhaltation in his speech on August 19, 1866 (Journal of Discourses 11:268)

Also on speaking about polygamy, the late LDS General Authority, Bruce McConkie, in his book, Mormon Doctrine, (page 578) is quoted:

Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millineum.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Jesus is not the only beggoten son of God for we are his sons as well YES HE IS THE ONLY BEGGOTEN SON IN THE FLESH big difference

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God as he was not created as man was created Jesus was with God in the beginning man was not.

Gospel of ST John: 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2He was in the beginning with God.

3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be

4through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;

Jesus by the way is the word that is referred to in the Gospel.

put away the LDS fictions and read the bible. I would even go as far as to say if you were to get a protestant study guide for the bible you would be at least moving in the right direction.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Is Jesus not the FIRST BORN then who is ? Because the scriptures tell me he is.

Jesus was not born or created he is a part of the Trinity he and the Father are one with the Holy Ghost.

 

[RC_Matt]

“First born” does not mean that there are others. It’s a title. Jesus is the only begotten–not created–not adopted (like we are).

That’s correct, the point is that you can’t just take a “Bible-byte” without understanding the context and lexicon employed in the text. The phrase “firstborn of every creature,” doesn’t mean that Christ was created (or that he is the firstborn OF a creature). The use of the term “firstborn” assigns a position of preeminence; the firstborn son inherited the title and position of his father and received the majority of the inheritance. Without getting too deep, the phrase essentially means that Christ (the visible image of the invisible God) is above all “creatures.” In my Catholic Bible it is phrased “the firstborn of all creation,” which is a little less ambiguous.

 

[RC_Matt]

Bruce McConkie was an idiot. Even so, even he doesn’t say that polygamy is necessary for exaltation.

The only reference to this of which I am aware was Brigham Young in the JoD:

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”

In any event, the JoD is not canonized, so it can’t be considered doctrinal. Mormons have told me that celestial polygamy is necessary so that women without worthy husbands will have somebody to bring them into the celestial kingdom (the assumption being that women tend to be more devout than men and there are therefore more eligible women than men) and I guess that makes sense in context.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Mormons have told me that celestial polygamy is necessary so that women without worthy husbands will have somebody to bring them into the celestial kingdom (the assumption being that women tend to be more devout than men and there are therefore more eligible women than men) and I guess that makes sense in context.

You mean to tell me that according to Mormons, God loves women less (they can’t even get into heaven without a man)? While I can see how this might “stroke” the egos of men, the Mormon women are “fine” with this insult?

 

[hosemonkey]

Speculation on both counts. Then again, I’m the type of Mormon who joins the Catholic Church, so my own view is skewed that direction.

Nevertheless, it’s still speculation, and I don’t believe that women are more righteous than men.

I think that you are very conflicted, schizophrenic or perhaps a troll. Witness your declaration of religion: **Mormon rite Catholic occultist .
**That, my friend, does not inspire confidence. I suspect your “Catholic” credentials and I would like to know what your priest (should you have one) thinks about your wanderings among mormons, occultists and New Agers. It stinks of Satan.

 

[RC_Matt]

You mean to tell me that according to Mormons, God loves women less (they can’t even get into heaven without a man)? While I can see how this might “stroke” the egos of men, the Mormon women are “fine” with this insult?

A woman needs a worthy husband, who knows her secret temple name, to bring her through the “veil.” I’ve forgotten all the details; it’s best if someone who has been through the temple explains this one. It’s in the same category as the “signs and tokens;” i.e., the passwords and handshakes you need to know in order to get into heaven. That’s all temple stuff and is not officially documented anywhere in the public domain.

 

[hosemonkey]

In the adult world, ad hominems don’t works very well. When are you going to actually address my points?

Until convinced otherwise, I regard you as suspect. Not ad hominem at all, I think that you are flying false colors and have some sort of agenda. I will not address anything until your status is clear. I have read your posts on other threads were you posit questions like “can I possess dual citizenship?” The short answer is no! Neither Catholicism nor mormonism will permit it. So by claiming to be a “mormon rite Catholic” you are being dishonest to both camps. You cannot serve two masters, one True and one false. You are either a very conflicted Catholic (occultism, witchcraft,New Age trash) or a mormon troll. “Tiber Swim Team” don’t feed the bulldog. You are attempting to commit ecclesiastical polygamy. You do not sound like a genuine convert at all.

 

[hosemonkey]

As a cradle Mormon, I couldn’t stop being Mormon if I wanted to. It’s in my DNA.

Bingo!

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve been LDS long enough to know that opinions of leaders are still just opinions. One of the prerequisites for being an official teaching is that it has to be consistently taught.

It was consistently taught until about 1980. This is a very good example of how Mormonism changes doctrine. Just stop teaching it. Would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

 

[hosemonkey]

It was consistently taught until about 1980. This is a very good example of how Mormonism changes doctrine. Just stop teaching it. Would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

In one place Tzusuki says that Brigham Young ( an anointed “prophet”) is WRONG. Thousands regarded his pronouncements as the very messages of God. Then Tzuzuki says that Bruce Mconkie was an “idiot”. Imagine, one of mormonisms most highly regarded “General Authorities” is an IDIOT! If these things are true, then how can rank and file mormons believe ANYTHING that comes out of Salt Lake City? How can anyone know just exactly what mormons believe? It’s a roll-your-own religion. Wierd.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In one place Tzusuki says that Brigham Young ( an anointed “prophet”) is WRONG. Thousands regarded his pronouncements as the very messages of God. Then Tzuzuki says that Bruce Mconkie was an “idiot”. Imagine, one of mormonisms most highly regarded “General Authorities” is an IDIOT! If these things are true, then how can rank and file mormons believe ANYTHING that comes out of Salt Lake City? How can anyone know just exactly what mormons believe? It’s a roll-your-own religion. Wierd.

Mormonism is like a train, with passengers who took the ride and saw all the things everyone on the train saw, together. They have a knowledge that is given to them by keeping on the tracks. Later, more people get on the train and they see a different scenery, and because they weren’t on the train earlier, they deny the people on the train ever experienced the things they did, or the saw the things they saw. AND, that the train was never even on that particular set of tracks.

What McConckie taught, that polygamy would be reinstated in the millenium… I was taught, in every class that the Mormon Church had. Tsuzuki wasn’t on the train then, so it didn’t happen.

But how to reconcile where the train was to where the train is now? The engineer at the front…was an idiot. And all the people on the train…being taken for a ride.

How does a Mormon know they aren’t being taken for a ride today? Because the engineer keeps assuring them that the track is the right track, and the scenery is beautiful, and everything is just fine.

And so the train goes on…to the next stop…and those who get on then won’t believe anything the people who have been riding the train for a while have seen or heard…and the engineer is an idiot.

 

[hosemonkey]

Mormonism is like a train, with passengers who took the ride and saw all the things everyone on the train saw, together. They have a knowledge that is given to them by keeping on the tracks. Later, more people get on the train and they see a different scenery, and because they weren’t on the train earlier, they deny the people on the train ever experienced the things they did, or the saw the things they saw. AND, that the train was never even on that particular set of tracks.

What McConckie taught, that polygamy would be reinstated in the millenium… I was taught, in every class that the Mormon Church had. Tsuzuki wasn’t on the train then, so it didn’t happen.

Very well put. Taken for a ride. Long black train to nowhere.

 

[hosemonkey]

*"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

Your point is? You are citing false “scripture.”

 

[AMDGtoo]

More “fruit”? Lying (and expecting others are lying because you know that you lie) which leads to ‘lack of trust’, disrespect of people in authority over you, prejudice, sexism, treating people as less than they are, judgmentalism, division between LDS and non-LDS (please note, the non-LDS are simply called “anti-Mormons”), calling evil ‘good’, and more. “You shall know them by their ‘fruit’.”

 

[scipio337]

Then are these scriptures( Job 1:6 38:7 & Col 1:15,18)discarded as they definately point to the sons of God being present in the pre-mortal state (lets leave Heavenly Mother out of this)

Job 1:6, traditional Jewish interpretation: Angels

Job 38:7 traditional Jewish interpretation: Angels

I don’t know what you see in Col 1 would support that view. Perhaps this will shed some light on the subject:

[15-20] As the poetic arrangement indicates, these lines are probably an early Christian hymn, known to the Colossians and taken up into the letter from liturgical use (cf Philippians 2:6-11; 1 Tim 3:16). They present Christ as the mediator of creation (Col 1:15-18a) and of redemption (Col 1:18b-20). There is a parallelism between firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15) and firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18). While many of the phrases were at home in Greek philosophical use and even in gnosticism, the basic ideas also reflect Old Testament themes about Wisdom found in Proverb 8:22-31; Wisdom 7:22-8:1; and Sirach 1:4. See also the notes on what is possibly a hymn in John 1:1-18.

[15] Image: cf Genesis 1:27. Whereas the man and the woman were originally created in the image and likeness of God (see also Genesis 1:26), Christ as image (2 Cor 4:4) of the invisible God (John 1:18) now shares this new nature in baptism with those redeemed (cf Col 3:10-11).

[16-17] Christ (though not mentioned by name) is preeminent and supreme as God’s agent in the creation of all things (cf John 1:3), as prior to all things (Col 1:17; cf Hebrews 1:3).

[18] Church: such a reference seemingly belongs under “redemption” in the following lines, not under the “creation” section of the hymn. Stoic thought sometimes referred to the world as “the body of Zeus.” Pauline usage is to speak of the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12-27; Romans 12:4-5). Some think that the author of Colossians has inserted the reference to the church here so as to define “head of the body” in Paul’s customary way. See Col 1:24. Preeminent: when Christ was raised by God as firstborn from the dead (cf Acts 26:23; Rev 1:5), he was placed over the community, the church, that he had brought into being, but he is also indicated as crown of the whole new creation, over all things. His further role is to reconcile all things (Col 1:20) for God or possibly “to himself.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians1.htm#foot6

Jews were writing and commentating on the OT for a millenia before JS was born, do you discount those thousands of years of commentary because you “have a testimony”? The amount of commentary from these Rabbis would make several hundred BoM, BoA, over. I suggest reading some of them. I hope reading some commentary on 1 Col will help.

And why leave out the “heavenly mother”? It requires huge leaps in logic to talk about “spirit children” in the literal sense, without the existence of a “mother” in a literal and conjugal sense.

I know it’s verboten for LDS to discuss (and often dismussed), but it is this kind of critical thought that needs to be applied to LDS doctrine.