90 replies to this topic

[CASteinman]

Valentinus, on 16 July 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

Then you obviously don't know Calvinism very well.

No, I do know it well. The mere fact that you disagree with me does not change my state of knowledge or understanding.

Edited by CASteinman, 17 July 2012 - 03:39 AM.

[CASteinman]

Valentinus, on 16 July 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

It is viewing world religions through through the narrow scope that you do that shows how little you understand.

Again... the mere fact that you disagree with me does not change the state of my knowledge or understanding.   Presently this sort of non-dialogue appears to be the core of your statements.   Its a bit rude.

Valentinus, on 16 July 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

The Kingdom of God, with all due respect, is more than the LDS church.

Not currently.  Currently, the LDS Church is the only form (albeit an incomplete form) of the Kingdom of God.  No other organization is part of it at this time.   And when it is established in its more complete form, it will be lead by the Priesthood of the LDS Church.  It will be a theocracy.  

Valentinus, on 16 July 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

I've learned, for myself alone, not to be concerned with 'one true church' claims. That holds little relevance to how I experience God as a member of the LDS church. If that is a primary concern then there are bigger issues to be dealt with.

Your opinion of this is not the same thing as truth nor in full harmony with the official teachings of the Church.  In particular, it is the official doctrine of the Church that the "President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [is] the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and ... the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys".  It is also the official doctrine of the Church that members should not "affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".  That would include other Churches.  Indeed, joining another Church is, by itself, cause for excommunication.  Why would that be, do you suppose?

However, this seems to be a very important matter to you in a personal way and if that is the case, I think I will let it go.

Edited by CASteinman, 17 July 2012 - 04:35 AM.

[CASteinman]

Valentinus, on 16 July 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that the LDS church did not exist when you assume it did. Your coy attempt at a response such as this is telling.

Maybe you are pretty sure about this, but why not ask and find out instead of seeking to insult?

I have not been unkind to you, I think, but you seem determined to be insulting to me.  I ask you to please stop that.  That I do not agree with you does not make me evil or stupid.

If I have, in some way, done some evil toward you (aside from not agreeing with you), please let me know so that I might make amends.

Edited by CASteinman, 17 July 2012 - 04:19 AM.

[CASteinman]

HairBear, on 15 July 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

To my understanding, the "living" part points to the fact that we have living prophets, and we are ready to accept more revelation when God reveals it, rather than just relying on the words of "dead" prophets and going no further.

I think that is a good point.   Somehow, in the deep corner of my mind, I also suspect that it is the "True and Living" Church because the "True and Living God" owns it and has given it His Name.   But I am willing to be corrected on this matter.

[blackstrap]

1 Nephi 14:10 indicates that there are 2 churches only. Must we assume that one is the LDS church and that the other is.....everyone else?


I don't see it that way. Within all faiths there are those who reflect the Lord's countenance even if they are not Christian.That does not mean that  they will not need to gain the blessings of the ordinances at some point. Also,within all faiths there are those who are of the church of the devil in that their hearts are set upon the things of the world etc.

[Valentinus]

CASteinman, on 17 July 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

Well, that would not have been exactly honest.  In addition you have accused me falsely -- I did not say the words that you have quoted.

Nor have I explicitly or indirectly accused you of such. You assume too much.

[Valentinus]

CASteinman, on 17 July 2012 - 03:09 AM, said:

No, I do know it well.     The mere fact that you disagree with me does not change my state of knowledge or understanding.

Very well.

[Valentinus]

CASteinman, on 17 July 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Again... the mere fact that you disagree with me does not change the state of my knowledge or understanding.   Presently this sort of non-dialogue appears to be the core of your statements.   Its a bit rude.

It is not my intention to be rude. I apologize if that is how you perceive my comments.

CASteinman, on 17 July 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Not currently.  Currently, the LDS Church is the only form (albeit an incomplete form) of the Kingdom of God.  No other organization is part of it at this time.   And when it is established in its more complete form, it will be lead by the Priesthood of the LDS Church.  It will be a theocracy.

  

This is a truth CLAIM. Not a statement of FACT.

CASteinman, on 17 July 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Your opinion of this is not the same thing as truth nor in full harmony with the official teachings of the Church.  In particular, it is the official doctrine of the Church that the "President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [is] the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and ... the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys".  It is also the official doctrine of the Church that members should not "affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".  That would include other Churches.  Indeed, joining another Church is, by itself, cause for excommunication.  Why would that be, do you suppose?

However, this seems to be a very important matter to you in a personal way and if that is the case, I think I will let it go.

Yet again you cite truth CLAIMS and not FACTS. What you fail consistently to understand is that how YOU perceive salvation is but a singular avenue. The style of theology you seem to want to advance is similar to that of exclusivist Christianity...a Christianity that is not very Christ-like.

I recognize Pres. Monson as a prophet. I am not disputing such.

I agree, joining another church is cause for excommunication. But that excommunication is only from the LDS church and NOT from the sight of God as some may falsely claim.

I agree also that perhaps we should let this go.

[Valentinus]

CASteinman, on 17 July 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

Maybe you are pretty sure about this, but why not ask and find out instead of seeking to insult?

I have not been unkind to you, I think, but you seem determined to be insulting to me.  I ask you to please stop that.  That I do not agree with you does not make me evil or stupid.

If I have, in some way, done some evil toward you (aside from not agreeing with you), please let me know so that I might make amends.

You have done nothing wrong. I don't think you stupid because we are not in agreement. I do believe your logic is poor but that is simply an opinion and not an insult. I again apologize if you perceive my comments to be insulting. It is not my intent to be a bully.

If I am to ask...whom should I ask? God, perhaps? Should I explicitly ask Him if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (even as it exists now) was the church that was established in the 1830s? I doubt His response to the question would be the one you would prefer to hear.

[Valentinus]

blackstrap, on 17 July 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

1 Nephi 14:10 indicates that there are 2 churches only. Must we assume that one is the LDS church and that the other is.....everyone else?


I don't see it that way. Within all faiths there are those who reflect the Lord's countenance even if they are not Christian.That does not mean that  they will not need to gain the blessings of the ordinances at some point. Also,within all faiths there are those who are of the church of the devil in that their hearts are set upon the things of the world etc.

I agree. It would be inappropriate to place any faith that is NOT LDS into an 'evil' category. In fact, it would be un-Christ-like.

[Valentinus]

CASteinman, on 17 July 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

I think that is a good point.   Somehow, in the deep corner of my mind, I also suspect that it is the "True and Living" Church because the "True and Living God" owns it and has given it His Name.   But I am willing to be corrected on this matter.

But WHO is the True and Living God of which you speak? Is it the Father God or the Son God? Since you correctly state that the name of the LDS church has Jesus' name in it then we are to reason that it is Jesus' church and not the Father's church. Is this proper reasoning because the church name does not bear the name of the Father?

Also, the name Jesus Christ isn't exclusively part of the LDS name. I am willing to accept that The Church of Jesus Christ is also a Church of Jesus Christ just as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Church of Jesus Christ.