What Mormons Believe--according to a Former BYU Professor

[Harvest 1874]

That's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario, if true, is that an angel, an evil angel, purposely found someone who would believe their information (moronic), caused said person to confound God's Word with those deceptive teachings, and then propogated that information with the eventual outcome of being able to claim that result is Christian, and to sow division within the whole of Christianity at later points in time. Perhaps the humans who contributed to the Book of Mormon were deliberately complicit, perhaps not and it was an evil angel which is responsible for the purposeful deception.

Either way, the "watering-down" of God's Word occurs, and is accepted by many.

You have pretty much here described the spirit of antichrist, the rise of Papacy and the apostate church which led to the great falling away.

Edited

I should have stated it thusly, You have pretty much here described the spirit of antichrist which led to the great falling away and the rise of Papacy and the apostate church.

The sequence of events was out of order.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

You have pretty much here described the spirit of antichrist, the rise of Papacy and the apostate church which led to the great falling away.

Edited

I should have stated it thusly, You have pretty much here described the spirit of antichrist which led to the great falling away and the rise of Papacy and the apostate church.

The sequence of events was out of order.

While I strongly disagree with your phrasing here, I do indeed find it ironic that so many of the folks that so adamantly anti-LDS Christians will in the same breath be adamantly anti-Catholic.

 

[4Jesus]

You have pretty much here described the spirit of antichrist, the rise of Papacy and the apostate church which led to the great falling away.

Edited

I should have stated it thusly, You have pretty much here described the spirit of antichrist which led to the great falling away and the rise of Papacy and the apostate church.

The sequence of events was out of order.

Yes, I've stated that a couple of times on this site (and possibly once in this thread, I'd have to go back and look), that I think the same tactic was used by the enemy with Emporer Constantine in blending of paganism and Christianity to give us the Holy Roman Catholic Church, which resulted in the now Catholic Church; possibly the same with Joseph Smith and Mormonism.

To be clear, are you agreeing or disagreeing?

 

[4Jesus]

While I strongly disagree with your phrasing here, I do indeed find it ironic that so many of the folks that so adamantly anti-LDS Christians will in the same breath be adamantly anti-Catholic.

How is that ironic? Woudn't it be ironic if one is anti-LDS Christians and not anti-Catholic, or if one is pro-LDS Christian and anti-Catholic?

Ironic means opposite. If they're anti-LDS and anti-Catholic, on the basis that they believe both to have non-scriptural/non-fundamental/non-Jesus teachings, isn't that the same?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

How is that ironic? Woudn't it be ironic if one is anti-LDS Christians and not anti-Catholic, or if one is pro-LDS Christian and anti-Catholic?

Ironic means opposite. If they're anti-LDS and anti-Catholic, on the basis that they believe both to have non-scriptural/non-fundamental/non-Jesus teachings, isn't that the same?

The irony is that these anti-LDS Christian folks that love to bash saying "LDS Christians are #&%* because they believe there was a falling away in mainstream Christianity, that can never happen!", and then turn around and bash Catholics that they are %*&* for falling away.


Clarification on actual LDS beliefs here: the falling away was subtle and happened before the institutionalizing of the Orthodox/Catholic church in the 300's. Catholic people and the Catholic church do indeed strive to follow Christ, even when their doctrine has flaws. Same with Orthodox. And it's never a good thing to bash other people, no matter what faith they hold. LDS Christians are big on acknowledging ALL people's right to believe and practice as they feel is best (even when there's disagreements).

 

[4Jesus]

The irony is that these anti-LDS Christian folks that love to bash saying "LDS Christians are #&%* because they believe there was a falling away in mainstream Christianity, that can never happen!", and then turn around and bash Catholics that they are %*&* for falling away.

Clarification on actual LDS beliefs here: the falling away was subtle and happened before the institutionalizing of the Orthodox/Catholic church in the 300's. Catholic people and the Catholic church do indeed strive to follow Christ, even when their doctrine has flaws. Same with Orthodox. And it's never a good thing to bash other people, no matter what faith they hold. LDS Christians are big on acknowledging ALL people's right to believe and practice as they feel is best (even when there's disagreements).

I don't think those who are anti-LDS Christians are saying that there was never a falling away, with LDS or Catholicism. I think they think they're saying it's the same falling away. I do too; now does that negate their salvation, I don't believe so, but that's a separate topic altogether.

Who has said that? Where is this view coming from?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I don't think those who are anti-LDS Christians are saying that there was never a falling away, with LDS or Catholicism. I think they think they're it's the same falling away. I do too; now does that negate their salvation, I don't believe so, but that's a separate topic altogether.

Who has said that? Where is this view coming from?

From a million conversations with "anti-cult" folks. It's not a universal trend by any means even within that anti-cult-camp, but it is a very common one.

 

[4Jesus]

Some of you have been critical that I would post the testimony of a former Mormon (even though she was a devout Mormon for 30 years...sigh). Of course, that's what this thread is all about--her testimony. :)

As I've tended this thread, I've spent more time (than I had previously spent) looking into official LDS documents, etc. I found the following quote from what appears to be the official LDS website:

The Book of Mormon, combined with the Spirit, is your most powerful resource in conversion. It provides powerful evidence for the divinity of Christ. It is also proof of the Restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith. An essential part of conversion is receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. As a missionary, you must first have a personal testimony that the Book of Mormon is true. This testimony can lead to a deep and abiding faith in the power of the Book of Mormon during the conversion process. Have confidence that the Holy Ghost will testify to anyone who reads and ponders the Book of Mormon and asks God if it is true with a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ. This witness of the Holy Ghost should be a central focus of your teaching.​

The Book of Mormon Is the Keystone of Our Religion​

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon is “the keystone of our religion” (introduction to the Book of Mormon). On another occasion he stated: “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none” (Minutes and Discourse, 21 April 1834, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City).​

An arch is a strong architectural structure made from wedge-shaped pieces that lean against each other. The middle piece, or keystone, is usually larger than the other wedges and locks the other stones in place. When Joseph Smith called the Book of Mormon “the keystone of our religion,” he taught that the Book of Mormon holds our religion together. President Ezra Taft Benson said that the Book of Mormon is the keystone in at least three ways:​

Witness of Christ. “The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of everything we do. It bears witness of His reality with power and clarity.”​

Fulness of doctrine. “The Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the ‘fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.’ (Doctrine and Covenants 20:9[; 27:5].) … In the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of [the doctrine] required for our salvation. And [it is] taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation.”​

Foundation of testimony. “Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it” (A Witness and a Warning [1988], 18–19).​

The Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on the earth (see introduction to the Book of Mormon). It teaches the doctrine of Christ plainly, especially in the lessons you teach people. Use it as your main source for teaching the restored gospel. The following are examples of truths taught plainly in the Book of Mormon that you will teach to people.

Source: 5: What Is the Role of the Book of Mormon?
​

If I had read this prior to reading Lynn Wilders's book, some of these terms (such as exaltation) would not have made any sense to me at all. But Lynn explained Mormon lingo so clearly. This is one of the main reasons I decided to post her testimony.

​

If the information that Wilder is presenting here is true, it does not reinforce the scriptures I read. I'm going to keep digging.

A question I have is, is Wilder and her husband the only ones who are as outspoken as they are against Mormonism after leaving it, or are there others? So far I've found one book (can't find it now to list it though), although I haven't read it just like this book.

 

[brakelite]

The irony is that these anti-LDS Christian folks that love to bash saying "LDS Christians are #&%* because they believe there was a falling away in mainstream Christianity, that can never happen!", and then turn around and bash Catholics that they are %*&* for falling away.

You have that wrong. It's only the Catholics that reject any suggestion the was no faling away. Despite Paul's project that after he was gone, the would indeed be a falling away which would reveal the Antichrist.
I don't know what subtle falling away before the papacy was established you are referring to, but the papacy didn't just suddenly appear overnight. It was the result of a long but steady decline in faithfulness to Christ, that was beginning to be experienced during the apostle John's lifetime... His letters were written to combat it.
At what stage of this decline was the true gospel lost, as Smith claims? And where in NT teachings do we find any version of a gospel that harmonises with the LDS version, and that no church was familiar with prior to the 19th century?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

If the information that Wilder is presenting here is true, it does not reinforce the scriptures I read. I'm going to keep digging.

A question I have is, is Wilder and her husband the only ones who are as outspoken as they are against Mormonism after leaving it, or are there others? So far I've found one book (can't find it now to list it though), although I haven't read it just like this book.

For any group, ex axe-grinders skewing things are a dime a dozen.

Again: do you want to ask an ex-Protestant now-Muslim to explain (what they call) real Protestant beliefs to you?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

You have that wrong. It's only the Catholics that reject any suggestion the was no faling away.

Hence why I find it ironic when a non-Catholic (or non-Orthodox) criticizes LDS Christians for believing that there was a falling away.

I don't know what subtle falling away before the papacy was established you are referring to, but the papacy didn't just suddenly appear overnight. It was the result of a long but steady decline in faithfulness to Christ, that was beginning to be experienced during the apostle John's lifetime... His letters were written to combat it.
At what stage of this decline was the true gospel lost, as Smith claims? And where in NT teachings do we find any version of a gospel that harmonises with the LDS version, and that no church was familiar with prior to the 19th century?

As with what you say: the falling away was gradual. And as I've stated many times, other non-LDS folks can indeed be Christians and did/do strive to follow Christ.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

If the information that Wilder is presenting here is true, it does not reinforce the scriptures I read. I'm going to keep digging.

A question I have is, is Wilder and her husband the only ones who are as outspoken as they are against Mormonism after leaving it, or are there others? So far I've found one book (can't find it now to list it though), although I haven't read it just like this book.

Are you saying the Mormon scriptures or the Bible?

Go back and look at the first few pages of this thread. Enoch111 mentioned a person who left LDS and explains their beliefs.

 

[4Jesus]

For any group, ex axe-grinders skewing things are a dime a dozen.

Not this again, I thought we covered this last saturday night?

If the "axe grinder" isn't skewing, then yes, the information can be truthful (if that person is not deceiving others).

Again: do you want to ask an ex-Protestant now-Muslim to explain (what they call) real Protestant beliefs to you?

Yes, and check if the information they are giving is truthful. Investigate it for oneself, check if it's truthful, then conclude. If one researches it and then concludes that the now-Muslim is skewing the information about their former religion, then cast off their opinion...

Just because they've changed stance/belief does not automatically mean they're being untruthful about their former religion's stance/belief.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Not this again, I thought we covered this last saturday night?

If the "axe grinder" isn't skewing, then yes, the information can be truthful (if that person is not deceiving others).



Yes, and check if the information they are giving is truthful. Investigate it for oneself, check if it's truthful, then conclude. If one researches it and then concludes that the now-Muslim is skewing the information about their former religion, then cast off their opinion...

Just because they've changed stance/belief does not automatically mean they're being untruthful about their former religion's stance/belief.

I agree. To automatically call a former Mormon exposing unbiblical doctrine an ax-grinder is assigning motive and judging the person. It's really not a fair way to deal with those who disagree with us. Also, as I explained early on in this thread, this is a fallacy in logic (called ad hominem).

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Not this again, I thought we covered this last saturday night?

If the "axe grinder" isn't skewing, then yes, the information can be truthful (if that person is not deceiving others).



Yes, and check if the information they are giving is truthful. Investigate it for oneself, check if it's truthful, then conclude. If one researches it and then concludes that the now-Muslim is skewing the information about their former religion, then cast off their opinion...

Just because they've changed stance/belief does not automatically mean they're being untruthful about their former religion's stance/belief.

Lynn Wilder is a person drastically skewing things in that book. Similar folks are a dime a dozen, coming from every conceivable group.

Sorry, O would really like to move beyond stating that about a person who isn't even here, and instead talk about Christ and what is actually believed. But people keep going back to Wilder's skew story, so I keep having to point out it's many flaws.

 

[Harvest 1874]

While I strongly disagree with your phrasing here, I do indeed find it ironic that so many of the folks that so adamantly anti-LDS Christians will in the same breath be adamantly anti-Catholic.

When I replied to the comment made by 4Jesus I was equating the following remarks in his statement viz.

“The worst case scenario, if true, is that an angel (a messenger), an evil angel, purposely found someone who would believe their information, caused said person to confound God's Word with those deceptive teachings, and then propagated that information with the eventual outcome of being able to claim that result is Christian, and to sow division within the whole of Christianity at later points in time.”

With what actually took place following the death of the last of the Apostles. While they were alive and were on the seen they were able to keep the Church pretty much clear of deceptive teachings, but “while men slept” (that is when the last of these died, Matt 13:25) the spirit of antichrist which had already begun in the early church grew expeditiously resulting in a falling away (an apostasy) from the simplicity of the gospel truth and as such led to the development of the Antichrist, the “Man of Sin”, the Papacy.

That’s where my comparison ended. I was not referring to either the Book of Mormon or to LDS Christians.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

When I replied to the comment made by 4Jesus I was equating the following remarks in his statement viz.

“The worst case scenario, if true, is that an angel (a messenger), an evil angel, purposely found someone who would believe their information, caused said person to confound God's Word with those deceptive teachings, and then propagated that information with the eventual outcome of being able to claim that result is Christian, and to sow division within the whole of Christianity at later points in time.”

With what actually took place following the death of the last of the Apostles. While they were alive and were on the seen they were able to keep the Church pretty much clear of deceptive teachings, but “while men slept” (that is when the last of these died, Matt 13:25) the spirit of antichrist which had already begun in the early church grew expeditiously resulting in a falling away (an apostasy) from the simplicity of the gospel truth and as such led to the development of the Antichrist, the “Man of Sin”, the Papacy.

That’s where my comparison ended. I was not referring to either the Book of Mormon or to LDS Christians.

I was more speaking about the methodology in which people do those things.
For what it's worth, I find the same irony with people attacking your denomination's beliefs.
Not saying that I remotely agree with some of your denomination's beliefs (we've chatted before), but I do equally despise people using these type of attack against you.

 

[brakelite]

Hence why I find it ironic when a non-Catholic (or non-Orthodox) criticizes LDS Christians for believing that there was a falling away.

I have never noticed such criticism. Certainly not on this thread, which makes me wonder why you brought it up.

As with what you say: the falling away was gradual. And as I've stated many times, other non-LDS folks can indeed be Christians and did/do strive to follow Christ.

That is magnanimous of you. Yet wasnt your church established on the premise that they were the only church to have the true gospel?

. But people keep going back to Wilder's skew story, so I keep having to point out it's many flaws.

I haven't noticed you pointing out the flaws, only repeating there are flaws. Saying she speaks out of context doesn't point out a flaw unless you offer the context and explain why that context alters the direction of her testimony.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

That is magnanimous of you. Yet wasnt your church established on the premise that they were the only church to have the true gospel?

Every church believes that they are they have they most Truth. LDS Christians are no exception. It is firmly believe that their interpretation is most correct, that they have the only valid Priesthood authority, etc.

Just like every other church makes the case about their church.

 

[amadeus]

I have not and will not read through all of the new posts on here. It becomes repetitious without edifying anyone really. It is supposed to be a discussion about what is written in a particular book written by one person, a former Mormon, but it keeps moving away what she has written to the individual beliefs or biases of the posters here with regard to Mormonism in general. You @Prayer Warrior cannot stop that from occurring even if that is what you really want. Can you not see the futility of it? Who is it helping? Who is it hurting?

A one on one conversation might work [but probably not], but you would have to pick your opponent or partner and go to PMs to avoid interruptions and comments by others.

Who is being edified here by repeating what has been posted on this forum many times before? Not about the writer of your book, but about Mormonism, pro and con.

Help us all dear Lord!