Why I Left / Breaking the News

[_Sam Harris]

For what reason did you think your post would bring ridicule your way, KA?

Maybe something like bcspace's smug accusations of KA's "sin" and biblical illiteracy?

From experience, I tend to take these exit stories with a huge grain of salt. There are more excuses than truth.

Let me tell you, it was smug behavior like this that also contributed to my exit. I realized that every sunday I was sitting next to folks who would all but spit on me if they knew my doubts, and I knew that was not in line with true Christian values.

[_Sam Harris]

For what reason did you think your post would bring ridicule your way, KA?

There are a couple of reasons, Jersey Girl, but this is the main one: Whenever I post a personal story, I tend to get more flak from Mormons. And oddly, it's not usually Mormons who post on the board (with the exception of BCSpace and sometimes Coggs)--it's often Mormons I don't know at all who send insulting emails, like the emails I got over my "Waiting for William" post which was about a baby I was carrying who died. I don't know why that happens, but it does. It's odd.

KA

I was trying to imagine where you thought the flack would come from and I thought something entirely different than what you've stated above.

Were you thinking about the "God led me out of the church " line? I figured some folks would comment on the God part.

[_Sam Harris]

You really are an ass, BC. Even Nehor was sympathetic to KA's point of view.

I'm not so much sympathetic to her (I think she made the wrong choice) so much as I'm annoyed by him. He handled it badly. Of course I'm assuming her that what she said is the whole truth. I'm sure he has a rationale for acting in a way contrary to everything God teaches Priesthood holders should be. The question is left then as to whether his reasons were valid. They're probably somewhere in the middle.

I believe that he probably is not quite as evil as she makes him out to be only because I've been through and seen breakups all the time. Both sides are almost always (according to them) completely innocent. They're not.

Her husband temporarily lost his mind because she challenged his "priesthood" and shattered his worldview. That's all.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

[/quote]

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

.


Hardly checkmate. I know your inflated ego needs to think this. But no they do not build they conflict.

LECTURE FIFTH
Of Faith.
SECTION V

[Lec 5:1a] In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections, and attributes of God.

[Lec 5:1b] What we mean by perfections is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature.

[Lec 5:1c] We shall in this lecture speak of the Godhead; we mean the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Lec 5:Second Amendment] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;

[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.

[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.

[Lec 5:2d] The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man - or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image.

Note above that the Father is a personage of spirit-period and that contrasted against the son who is tabernacle, and made or fashioned after man.

It is clear that the 1835 theology does not allow for the Father to have a physical body. there is no body and spirit together doctrine here so this idea fails.

It is a direct conflict with this:

D&C 130:22

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Note once again the idea of physical body is contrasted against that of a spirit. A personage of spirit, the same language that Lecture 5 uses about the Father is able to dwell in us and the two are contrasted.

There is no harmonizing this at all. In 1835 the Father is a spirit personage, not a body with a spirit, and in 1843 he is now with a tangible body, and note in 1835 it was only Jesus with the body like a man's body.

Checkmate BC.

[_Brackite]

Hello KimberlyAnn,

Thanks for sharing your story here! I really like Isaiah Chapter 44, Verses six through eight. Here is Isaiah Chapter 44, Verses six through eight, in the New American Standard Translation of the Bible:

Isaiah 44:6-8: (New American Standard Bible):

6 "Thus says the LORD, the (A)King of Israel and his (B)Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the (C)first and I am the last,
And there is no God (D)besides Me.
7 'Who is like Me? (E)Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
(F)Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And (G)you are My witnesses
Is there any God (H)besides Me,
Or is there any other (I)Rock?
I know of none.'"

[_Droopy]

This may bring a bit of ridicule my way, but I believed, at one time, that God brought me out of Mormonism. I'm not sure I still believe that, but the conviction was once quite strong. I began questioning Mormonism while studying the New Testament in Gospel Doctrine class. I began to feel more and more ill at ease with certain doctrines, and decided to do more research. I was stunned by what I found, and my shelf of doubts became heavier and heavier, straining to remain intact. I prayed night and day, more than I'd ever before prayed in my life, for God to restore my full testimony.

Finally, the standard, formatted, cookie cutter EV coming out story from Kimberly.

Actually, I thought she might actually be able to come up with something just a tad more original.

Oh well.

[_Droopy]

I was immediately struck with the fact that I had been, for my whole life, a polytheist.

Earth to Kimberly: LDS are not polytheists.

You have a long, long, long way to go...

[_bcspace]

After some days, I still stand by my statements here.

[_Scottie]

I was immediately struck with the fact that I had been, for my whole life, a polytheist.

Earth to Kimberly: LDS are not polytheists.

You have a long, long, long way to go...

What are you talking about?? They worship God the Father, Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. Sounds like polytheism to me.

[_bcspace]

What are you talking about?? They worship God the Father, Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. Sounds like polytheism to me.

What is the doctrine on who we pray to?