Why I Left / Breaking the News

Post by **_Gazelam** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:34 am

Kim,

Thanks for posting your story. I have to wonder for myself how I would take it if my wife told me the same thing. I'm honestly supprised you didn't get divorced. I'd be interested to read his take on how he dealt with things and came to his own decision to leave the church. Maybe he could post his story on your blog.

As for your polytheism vs monotheism: What is your take on Christs intercessory prayer?

Gaz

Post by **_huckelberry** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:36 am

rcrocket wrote:
huckelberry wrote:Yes I am sure Isaiah 43:10 says, "before me no god was formed. nor will there be one after me. " because it is speaking of Jesus who became divine by receiving divinity from his father who received divinity from his father. I can see that is what it really means.

Orwell.

One needs to read the marginal notes along with the main text to understand what the manuscripts were saying on this particular point. Unfortunately, the church's new KJV version does not reproduce the marginal notes.

Just because I never killed my curiosity I cannot help but wonder what clarification we are missing. After all mariginal notes might mean something, they might be the random musings of sunday school students they might be scholarly comments. They could be traditions from the 2nd century about the words of Isaiah written seven hundred years ealier. They might refer to the musing of Joseph Smith.

Who knows what they add up to . Especially puzzling when they are gone.
I am glad I have learned to live with some unresolved mysteries.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:32 am

Last I checked, you had no answer to my response on the LoF.

That is simply because it is a waste of time. Your one liners are worthless really. The interchange got boring. But you mind is made up on this issue and I guess so is mine. I find your argument weak. One reason is I use to make a similar argument as you do but I saw the weakness of it so I abandon it. It is clear that the Lectures mean. If you want to spin it to mean something that came later more power to you.

It's quite clear as I pointed out that the doctrines don't conflict, the one builds upon the other. You can remove the latest one and what remains is still true. The reason you don;t respond anymore to it is because you know you've been checkmated.

No contortions necessary. The doctrine simply must conform not only with the Isaiah chapters but also with verses like John 20:17 and Deut 32:7-9 etc. The Bible clearly teaches the plurality of Gods.

I thought Mormons denied to be polytheists. Are you disputing this?

I would dispute that such is official doctrine though I do not doubt that some apologists erroneously agree that we are polytheists. On one level, it doesn't matter what people label us. On another level, it matters in terms of the correctness of the description. Dictionary-wise, we certainly could be labeled polytheists. However, the dictionary is only trying to simplify the larger definitions anthropoogists use and those include aspects of worship that aren't extant in LDS doctrine.

Yes, bcspace has us all nailed. We are all liars engaging in willful self-deception to excuse away our lust for sin.

One more data point that what we're dealing with here is an ignorant nincompoop!

The fact remains that KA's justification based on a selective Bible quoation runs counter to actual Biblical doctrine. How sad.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:36 am

KA got the spirit, BC are you denying the spirit?

I deny that the Spirit would testify against John 20:17 etc.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:46 am

As far as I know, they are two different personage/god/whatever.
This means, the Old Testament in HEBREW doesn't compatible with the (nonexisting) Mormon Doctrine.

You don't have to go through all those erroneous machinations.

Genesis 1:26 is a God speaking to His peers? Genesis 3:22. Clearly yes.

Exodus 20:3-4 The first two of the Ten Commandments. The first commandment says not to have any other real and divine Gods (check your Hebrew Lexicon on "gods" in verse 3) The second commandment says not to have any idol gods (check your Hebrew Lexicon on "graven image" in verse 4). If the Plurality of Gods doctrine were false, then there is no need for the first commandment making only nine commandments in all.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NEB The Hebrews distinguished between the Gods EL (The Most High God) and Jehovah (The Lord, who is Jesus Christ)

etc.

Post by **_huckelberry** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:51 am

bcspace wrote:
As far as I know, they are two different personage/god/whatever.
This means, the Old Testament in HEBREW doesn't compatible with the (nonexisting) Mormon Doctrine.

You don't have to go through all those erroneous machinations.

Genesis 1:26 is a God speaking to His peers? Genesis 3:22. Clearly yes.

Exodus 20:3-4 The first two of the Ten Commandments. The first commandment says not to have any other real and divine Gods (check your Hebrew Lexicon on "gods" in verse 3) The second commandment says not to have any idol gods (check your Hebrew Lexicon on "graven image" in verse 4). If the Plurality of Gods doctrine were false, then there is no need for the first commandment making only nine commandments in all.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NEB The Hebrews distinguished between the Gods EL (The Most High God) and Jehovah (The Lord, who is Jesus Christ)

Israel is the Lords. Ok, so who is the real God who was assigned to my ancestors in Scandinavia? Thor? Who was the real God of the Greeks? American Indians?

The reason I ask is that frankly I do not believe that you actually believe that verse as literally as you are pretending to. And if you do not believe Thor to be literally real and a God of the same kind then you cannot genuinely say the Bible is teaching such polytheism even if it uses images taken from that sort of polytheism.

I am unsure if second temple Jews understood those words any more literally than you or I They serve to illustrate Isreals election without dimanding Thors literal divinity. We cannot get inside the minds of second temple Jews clearly enough to be sure just how literally they tooks such images.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:57 am

Israel is the Lords. Ok, so who is the real God who was assigned to my ancestors in Scandinavia? Thor? Who was the real God of the Greeks? American Indians?

The reason I ask is that frankly I do not believe that you actually believe that verse as literally as you are pretending to. And if you do not believe Thor to be literally real and a God of the same kind then you cannot genuinely say the Bible is teaching such polytheism even if it uses images taken from that sort of polytheism.

The only thing I'm pointing out here is the mention of two separate Gods, the one obviously subordinate to the other.

I am unsure if second temple Jews understood those words any more literally than you or I They serve to illustrate Isreals election without dimanding Thors literal divinity. We cannot get inside the minds of second temple Jews clearly enough to be sure just how literally they tooks such images.

I certainly do believe the Old Testament Jews were, by and large, strict monotheists and that because the Father was not introduced to them and therefore they didn't know any better. However, I'm fairly certain many of their prophets knew the full doctrine which is why you see the plurality of Gods.

In addition, you must also bring in the New Testament verses here because relative to Christianity, it's all the word of God and therefore must harmonize doctrinally. Is it right to call Jesus God? Yes. (Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, etc.). Does this God(Jesus) have a God? Yes (John 20:17 etc.)

Post by **_truth dancer** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:03 pm

Hi KA,

Thanks for sharing your story... WOW, what a time you had. Like you after I went through that initial pain of disbelief, life got much better. :-)

I felt God was leading me out of Mormonism as well. I believed so strongly in God at the time and after fasting and pleading with God, for days (weeks and months actually), I went to the temple in hopes of receiving some sort of answer confirming the church was true. I was open to anything. Just some sort of confirmation. In the celestial room, deep in prayer an image came into my mind that positively, clearly told me the church was NOT what it claimed to be.

In a matter of seconds I knew it was not the one and only true church upon the earth, or directed by Jesus Christ himself, or with God's authority given to some men.

It was a defining moment for me.

Now, today, I no longer believe it was a personal God giving me a vision, but I do believe it was a powerful truth that came to me clearly helping me know how to continue on my personal spiritual journey.

I don't think the road of transformation is necessarily easy, particularly when we have been deeply conditioned to believe in a particular religion.

:-)

~dancer~

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:12 pm

truth dancer wrote:In the celestial room, deep in prayer an image came into my mind that positively, clearly told me the church was NOT what it claimed to be.

In a matter of seconds I knew it was not the one and only true church upon the earth, or directed by Jesus Christ himself, or with God's authority given to some men.

Wow. The Celestial Room--what a place to receive revelation that the church isn't true!

Post by **_Sam Harris** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:17 pm

KA, though you shocked your husband, you held true to your heart and convictions. It would have been far more difficult for you, and far more costly emotionally to stay in a place where you felt that God did not want you to be. I felt some of the same things when I was making my exit. For me it wasn't the "truth" of the LDS church, just that my soul didn't fit there. I guess that's why I don't spend a lot of time criticizing it. It just wasn't a fit for me.

I'm glad you're in a happier place. Even if that place still designates you a theist.