Posted on 03/24/2013 7:29:58 PM PDT by Colofornian
(This was actually a reply to another thread but thought I'd re-post it as its own thread)
I think I was at least partially responsible for approximately 10 friends and my entire family (parents & siblings).
I may have lucked out but some things to note that I think helped me was:
1) I never came across as angry or bitter. I was always nice, friendly and self assured (but not arrogant or condescending)
2) They all knew I was a "good" Mormon so they were all very curious as to why I left when it wasn't because of being offended or sinning.
3) I did my research. I studied up on all the issues both pro & anti. I was able to intelligently convey to them the historical/doctrinal problems with Mormonisim that they weren't aware of.
4) I made it clear to them to them that it wasn't me trying to find an excuse to leave the church but my SINCERE desire for absolute truth which led me out. I started out reading anti books on my mission so that I would know how to DEFEND the church, but I gradually realized that most of the stuff was actually true and that the church couldn't really be defended. My eyes gradually were opened to the fact that the church may not be what it claimed to be.
5) I NEVER ARGUED with them about the issues with the church. I would share the information I learned, give my opinion, but never got in any kind of heated debate or let emotions get in the way. If they came up with some rebuttal, I would give mine and just say "I guess this is just how I see it." If they engage me long enough just the info I provide to them would begin to sink in even if they wouldn't admit it the time. Deep down they knew the things I was saying about the church couldn't be defended. I never "railed" against the church. I explained what things "bothered" me and made me "question" things, but I never came off as "attacking" the church. I would never use the word "cult." I would never call the leaders of the church names. I never used words like "evil." For example I would say something something like,
"I was very troubled by the fact that Joseph Smith would marry young girls and wives of other men. It just doesn't make sense TO ME why God would command this or tolerate it. I PERSONALLY don't believe this is something God would sanction."
instead of saying,
"Joseph Smith was a lying two timing adulterer and pedophile!"
In talking with Mormons, you have to start out slowly with them. You have to soften your words. Be careful not to put them on the defensive. Do NOT make it so they feel like they have to defend the church.
Once they start to grasp the magnitude of the problems, THEN you can start "telling it like it is." You just have to be careful to not come across as too "anti."
6) I never forced my beliefs or knowledge about the church on them. If they wanted to talk, I would share it with them, but I wouldn't "force my anti-Mormonism" on them. I was open and honest about what I believed, but only when they brought it up.
As many posters here have stated before, Mormons generally have to be "ready" for the truth. Many of my friends or family were active TBM's but they were struggling internally with some aspect of Mormonism, so they were more open to talking about the church and it ended up being easier for them to transition out (than say other more entrenched Mormons).
For the entrenched Mormons (I was actually one of them), they have to have the willingness to FULLY study the historical/doctrinal issues. Sharing with them, in just conversation, some "tidbits" of truth probably won't budge them, if they are hardcore. They would need to actually take the TIME and sit down and do some research and read about ALL the problems about the church. However most uber TBM's will get scared after a few pages and stop researching. Just a couple anti-Mormon arguments will merely put a dent in their armor, but if they are ACTUALLY willing to sit down and read a book like The Changing World of Mormonism by the Tanners, then I'd say they actually have very high probability of de-converting.
“Paul further described his understanding of the heavens in 1 Cor 15:40-43 By identifying the three heavens as the Celestian, Terrestial and Terrestial glories.
I don’t suppose that Mr. Rhodes made that correlation ... did he?”
Are you just going to repeat the same thing again in response to someone else? Paul speaks nothing of the Mormon heavens.
1Co 15:39-43 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. (40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (43) It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
Notice the context is on the difference between our bodies now and the resurrection bodies we shall have in the hereafter. It speaks nothing of three levels of Mormon heavens, nor does it even use the same terms as the LDS does.
When Paul speaks of going to the third heaven, it is according to the Jewish understanding, not the Mormon.
We know, first of all, that the word for “heaven” literally means heights in the Hebrew.
The first heaven is the Earth’s atmosphere:
Deut. 11:17 ... Then the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce.
Where the stars dwell is heaven:
Jeremiah 8:2 ... They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens which they have loved and served.
And then the highest heaven. Literally ‘The Highest heights’:
1 Kings 8:27 — “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you.
Deut. 10:14 — To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.
And it is worth noting that no unbeliever ever goes to heaven. All unbelievers go to hell, and only those in the book of the lamb dwell with God.
Mat 25:41-46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: (43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. (44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? (45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
According to your religion, there is no hell. Only three lesser glories of heaven, described by your prophets as being profoundly wonderful, yet the punishment is that these poor unbelievers will never get to become gods of their own planets.
The scripture declares that all those who are not with God, are against Him, and therefore these people are cast forever into the lake of fire where the smoke of their torment rises forever:
Rev_20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev_20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
“Did you get my response regarding John 17:22?
Christ wanted his Apostles to be one .... even as he and God were one?
So according your definition there must be one apostle in twelve and twelve apostles in one .... but never at any time only one, but never at any time only twelve .... neither dividing the substance ..... nor combining the substance ..... repeat ad nausem”
It’s utterly irrelevant. Certainly, we are all members of the body of Christ. But that doesn’t change the scriptures that declare that Jesus calls Himself God, and has Godly titles. John 1 does not say that the Word and God are just “one” in purpose. It says that the Word is with God and the Word is God. It’s a definitive statement of identity. The scripture from Isaiah declares that Christ is God with us. That is not “one with purpose.” It is, very literally, God dwelling with us, God in the flesh, as it is the “son” of the virgin who is Immanuel. Unless you are arguing that John 17:22 says that we are ALL God, and can use God’s titles, it’s a silly argument to make.
And these are really only just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the scriptures which teach that there is only one God, and that Jesus, in fact, is God, and the creator of the universe.
You claim that John 17:22 is irrelevant .... because it doesn’t support the Nicene Creed.
We believe that Christ had a pre-existence with God before he was Born.
Tertullian argues very well in “Against Praxeus” that God the Father pre-dated Christ and that God the Father is greater than Christ.
These were obviously the two items which Athenasias railed against Arius about during the Council of Nicea.
What if John 17:22 was a subtle truth that Christ intended to further develop the concept of his oneness with God?
Notice that I’m not going to Duet. or Isiah for my definition but just a few chapters later in the same book.
If John 17:22 is relevant .... than 1700 years of Christianity has been built on a fabrication.
It is my belief that this is what has happened.
The presence of the Holy Spirit did indeed inspire Holy Scripture. But we are commanded to: do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. [1 John 4:1]. The reasons are clearly stated in the passage; there are false prophets and false feelings of inspiration. Further, we are instructed to test the spirits against the Word of God (i.e. the Bible). A teaching is not true if it contradicts the Bible.
Turning to my original point that a person cannot know they are saved by praying to receive revelation ... something that Mormons refer to as a testimony ... I still maintain that this method is not valid. I base this on three reasons.
REASON #1: It can result in false answers.
As noted above, Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses believe they receive confirmation their faith is true through prayer and revelation. Are they not just as convinced they are right as you are? And as a Mormon, don't you reject their faiths? And doesn't this prove praying for revelation can result in false answers?REASON #2: Mormon Church Leaders instructed me to examine the evidence, and to do this before I pray for revelation.
I say to the whole world, receive the truth, no matter who presents it to you. Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test … I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him … let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 16:46, as cited by Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1950, pp. 129-130).We are not so much concerned whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts … while all members should respect, support, and heed the teaching of the Authorities of the Church, no one should accept a statement and base his testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he has, under mature examination found it to be true and worthwhile; then his logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his spirit because real conversion must come from within." (President Hugh B. Brown, a member of the LDS First Presidency, Dialog, Summer 1984, p. 15).
REASON #3: Praying for revelation is not valid is when we already have reliable information that answers a question.
For example, do you need to pray to find out how tall Mt. Everest is, or discover St. Louis is not the capital of the United States?In consideration of the above, I maintain Mormon leaders have indeed given wise advice. I therefore prefer to examine evidence in lieu of praying in the hope of receiving a warm fuzzy feeling.What can be accomplished in these cases through prayer? Is it possible for prayer to somehow invalidate the facts?
Take a valuum. I mistyped.
“You should read what Tertullian said about John 1:1-3 in “Against Praexeus”
In fact read the whole thing. Obviously Tertullian wouldn’t have survivied the execution purge the Theodosius established in the Eddict of Thessalonioca.”
Not that it matters, since the scripture plainly teaches the Trinity, but here is Tertullian affirming that there is only one God:
“As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
Obviously, the Trinity teaches that there is one God, “... but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.”
- B.B. Warfield
This is also much different than Modalism, which is what Praxeus’s heresy was. Basically, that there is no trinity, just different “modes” of one God, with no distinction of personalities.
It looks like Tertullian is upholding the scripture on this matter.
FYI, besides the scriptures themselves, Ignatius, probably one of the earliest writers we have on these matters (he died about 97-115AD, a Bishop eaten by lions), affirms that Jesus Christ is God, not to mention all the other essential doctrines of Christianity, not to mention quoting heavily from the New Testament canon.
Sorry Zakeet, I don’t have time to analyze/reply to every one of your items .... I’m alittle outnumbered here.
But .... I maintain that Christ didn’t promote the Holy Ghost for nothing .....
If you think the Holy Ghost is useless .... then how could Jesus Christ have been so wrong?
.... or could it be that maybe, Jesus Christ was right and that ..... your doing something wrong by missing it?
“You claim that John 17:22 is irrelevant ...”
Irrelevant to your argument, as it doesn’t address any of the scriptures, nor did you even explain how it is relevant to the scriptures that call Jesus God, and the creator. Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that “one with the Father” means “one in purpose,” rather than that Christ and the Father are one God. Yet the scriptures teach that Christ is God directly, and not just in purpose, though that is true also.
If I’m not mistaken, that particular quote of yours from “Against Preaxeus” is thought to be a latter addition by an over Zealous Priest.
That particular quote is eerily similar to Nicene Creed langauge and is absent from most of the ancient surviving copies.
That quote is also at odds with the remainder of the book.
And i believe that that is why some 7th Century Pope excommunicated Tertullian.
Who knows ... it was probably that Pope’s scribe that made the edits. Kind of makes you wonder how much of the Bible they edited to reflect the Nicene Creed as well, huh?
(Well, I'll back off & call it a night...& will respond in the a.m. ...It is good to see you dialogue more on this thread...)
Teppe, as always, I love you in Christ...and love you enough to love you with the truth!
“If I’m not mistaken, that particular quote of yours from “Against Preaxeus” is thought to be a latter addition by an over Zealous Priest.”
Evidence? Not that it matters, actually. The issue here is what scripture teaches, not Tertullian, who fell into Montanism later in life.
“Who knows ... it was probably that Pope’s scribe that made the edits. Kind of makes you wonder how much of the Bible they edited to reflect the Nicene Creed as well, huh?”
That would have to mean it was done sometime before the end of the first century, as Ignatius holds to none of your views, but to all of mine, as an example.
When your religion depends on a conspiracy theory to explain why none of it makes sense with the Bible, and why Indians don’t have Hebrew DNA, or why the Book of Abraham Papyri is translated as standard Egyptian burial works by Egyptologists, you should probably start rethinking it.
You view the scriptures through Nicene Creed glasses.
If you could take them off objectively look anew at the scriptures seeking guidance from God, you would discover that the scriptures testify that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God the Father.
Christ did not play ventrilloquist at his baptism!
Christ did not pray to himself on Gethsamene!
Christ did not abandon himself on the Cross at Calvary!
Sorry, your very good, but i have to go to bed. I like your knowlege, however, I believe that you have been conditioned to conforming the scriptures to the Nicene Creed rather than seeking Gods simple truths.
No problem.
Take all the time you need and then get back to me when you have had a chance to consider the information.
I'll be around ... and I check in from time to time.
/Zak
Sorry, I have to log out for the night.
I don’t get on these very often because when I do I can spend all day/night here. I generally try to have a life.
If I have offended anyone, I apologize. Sometimes I get a little provocative and rude.
In closing, as an member of the LDS Church, I would like to state publicly that I am greatful to my Saviour, Jesus Christ for his redeeming blood which will allow me to return to my Heavenly Father in his kingdom.
It is my sincere desire that all men follow Christ through his teachings. Amen.
“You view the scriptures through Nicene Creed glasses.”
I had never even read the Nicene Creed when I first began to study the Bible, and read what it plainly said.
Please don’t start insulting me, and deal with facts only.
“If you could take them off objectively look anew at the scriptures seeking guidance from God, you would discover that the scriptures testify that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God the Father.”
God is Spirit, and therefore there is no such thing as the deity having sex and giving birth:
Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
There’s also only one God, so there is no mother goddess for God to get it on with:
Isa_44:8 ... Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
God is, by definition, also eternal. He is the First cause, unchangeable, having existence in and of Himself:
Isa_41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Note especially the phrase “The First and the Last”. Here is Christ calling Himself the First and the Last:
Rev_1:17 ... Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev_1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Notice it is not the “second to first” and the “second to last”. It is the same title as God uses in the Old Testament.
If you’re going to insult me as having “Nicene” glasses, you’re going to have to do a lot better than claiming that the Catholics managed to edit the over 5,000 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament discovered over the past 2,000 years, not counting the ones in the Syriac and other languages, all supporting the scriptures that we have today.
Provide evidence for your claims, do not spam and then insult me as too deluded to see your conspiracies.
You refuse to ask God for the simple truths as taught plainly in the scripture. You should get started with that.
Christ’s best testimony is Scripture, not feelings.
The heart is deceitful above all else and desperately wicked. Man is inclined to evil as the sparks fly upward. Basing the genuineness of beliefs on feelings instead of Scripture is asking for trouble.
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth and that He would bring to our remembrance what Jesus said and that is found in Scripture, the objective standard of truth, not feelings, a subjective experience.
The Holy Spirit CANNOT contradict what He breathed out in Scripture. God cannot change and He cannot lie.
Jesus Christ said that he was the “Son of God”.
I’m sorry if I take the Bible literally and you take it figuritively.
Immanuel means *God with us.*
Exodus 20:1-3 And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.
If Jesus is truly a separate god, how do you address this verse? By saying that you have to go through Jesus to get to God the Father, you are putting another god before Him.
If Jesus is God come in the flesh, then that isn't an issue.
Jesus Christ said that he was the “Son of God”.
I’m sorry if I take the Bible literally and you take it figuritively.
Then take these verses literally.....
John 14:8-9 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
Jesus is fleshly manifestation of God. God is a spirit.
The Bible also says God “has eyes everywhere”. Do you also take that literally? Do you think God literally has many eyes? Do you think he looks like an Irish potato?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.