What if you want the church to be true,

[ave maria]

See articles of faith.

Specifically?

[1dc]

Well, since Ave Maria and myself have both seperated from the LDS church, by your definition, we are seperated from God (assuming that the LDS Church is true, just as you said)? I certainly hope God wouldn't see it as that way, especially since I for one joined the RCC based on what I felt was HIS will for me. . . .

I'm trying to understand what the issue is . . if you don't believe the LDS Church has the authority it claims, then its claims should be meaningless to you. And yet, the LDS Church proclaims you will be judged on the law you knew and that Christ will be your judge as to what you sincerely knew. LDS prophets have proclaimed that the righteous living under such other law without a sincere warning and knowledge of the fullness of Christ's Gospel will have a better reward than hope for.

When you face Christ, you can say those LDS were misled and please provide blessings for my brothers and sisters whose hearts were honestly turned toward thou. That's basically what I plan on in reverse.

[1dc]

See articles of faith.

Specifically?

You're a bright person. I'm sure you can figure it out.

[ave maria]

See articles of faith.

Specifically?

You're a bright person. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Yes, psychic, too.

I find nothing in the LDS Articles of Faith that supports sibling's assertion. If you are referring to Article #11, it stands contrary to his assertion.

[sibling]

Not only is that nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense.

Yet another great statement from ave maria with no backing. Ave, can you perhaps discuss things a bit more, rather than simply pronouncing your judgment on the matter? Not that your judgment is unwelcome, but your bare judgment with no explanation or justification just isn't very helpful or convincing.

Gosh, I was thinking the same thing about you.

Amazing how that works. Okay, I'll go first, then you go. Fair?

Twice now we've heard you proclaim boldly that those who separate themselves from the LDS Church by definition separate themselves from God, without any substantiation whatsoever, other than that it appeals to your sense of logic.

No, you have heard no such thing. You simply aren't reading well. Read carefully, ave:

IF the LDS Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, THEN those who separate themselves from the LDS Church necessarily separate themselves from God.

There. Did you see the IF part? That makes it a conditional statement. Here's another, equally true:

IF the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, THEN those who separate themselves from Catholicism necessarily separate themselves from God.

Do you understand yet? Do you need more examples? Try this example, which is equally true as the above two:

IF the Church of the Smelly Tennis Shoe is the true Church of Jesus Christ, THEN those who separate themselves from the Smelly Tennis Shoe Church necessarily separate themselves from God.

Have you managed to figure it out yet, ave? I was making an obvious logical statement. You falsely claimed that Charity was "making an incorrect assumption foundationally in assuming that it is only within the LDS Church that people can know, or be close to, God", which you have yet to back up.

Then you claimed that she had claimed "that anyone who separates themself from it is somehow separated from God, which is demonstrably incorrect." Yet you haven't demonstrated how it's incorrect. My logical device clearly demonstrated that, given her initial assumption*, that statement is very obviously correct.

*The initial assumption was not "that it is only within the LDS Church that people can know, or be close to, God", as you claimed. It was that the LDS Church was in fact the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

Okay, I've done my part. I've provided a very thorough justification for what I wrote. Now it's your turn, and I'm sure that as an honest Catholic, you will quickly follow through:

• Show where Charity ever made the assumption "that it is only within the LDS Church that people can know, or be close to, God", as you claimed.
  
• Demonstrate the inherent incorrectness of the idea that "anyone who separates themself [sic] from [the LDS Church] is somehow separated from God", as you claimed.
  
• Show how my logical statement explained above is "nonsense", as you claimed.
  
• Show how my expanded explanation to Boniface about my logical statement was "[n]ot only...nonsense, [but] dangerous nonsense", as you claimed
  

Eagerly awaiting your complete explanation...

[ave maria]

Here's another, equally true:

IF the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, THEN those who separate themselves from Catholicism necessarily separate themselves from God.

Actually, that statement is untrue.

Anyone who suggests that it is demonstrates a lack of familiarity with Catholic teaching and belief.

[ave maria]

[*]Demonstrate the inherent incorrectness of the idea that "anyone who separates themself [sic] from [the LDS Church] is somehow separated from God", as you claimed.

[*]Show how my logical statement explained above is "nonsense", as you claimed.

[*]Show how my expanded explanation to Boniface about my logical statement was "[n]ot only...nonsense, [but] dangerous nonsense", as you claimed

Eagerly awaiting your complete explanation...

Aside from any "beyond LDS" explanations, I can certainly demonstrate that your assertion is contrary to official LDS teaching.

The General Handbook of Instructions of the LDS Church is clear in indicating that attending or joining another church is not considered apostasy, and therefore not grounds for excommunication.

[sibling]

• Demonstrate the inherent incorrectness of the idea that "anyone who separates themself [sic] from [the LDS Church] is somehow separated from God", as you claimed.
  

Aside from any "beyond LDS" explanations, I can certainly demonstrate that your assertion is contrary to official LDS teaching.

The General Handbook of Instructions of the LDS Church is clear in indicating that attending or joining another church is not considered apostasy, and therefore not grounds for excommunication.

Assuming you are correct in your assertion about the GHI, that fact in no way demonstrates that separation from the LDS Church is not separation from God. How you draw that conclusion is beyond me.

Beating up your obnoxious neighbor also "is not considered apostasy, and therefore not grounds for excommunication", but it still separates you from God.

[ave maria]

• Demonstrate the inherent incorrectness of the idea that "anyone who separates themself [sic] from [the LDS Church] is somehow separated from God", as you claimed.
  

Aside from any "beyond LDS" explanations, I can certainly demonstrate that your assertion is contrary to official LDS teaching.

The General Handbook of Instructions of the LDS Church is clear in indicating that attending or joining another church is not considered apostasy, and therefore not grounds for excommunication.

Assuming you are correct in your assertion about the GHI, that fact in no way demonstrates that separation from the LDS Church is not separation from God. How you draw that conclusion is beyond me.

Beating up your obnoxious neighbor also "is not considered apostasy, and therefore not grounds for excommunication", but it still separates you from God.

I eagerly await your supportive official sources on the matter.

[sibling]

• Demonstrate the inherent incorrectness of the idea that "anyone who separates themself [sic] from [the LDS Church] is somehow separated from God", as you claimed.
  

Aside from any "beyond LDS" explanations, I can certainly demonstrate that your assertion is contrary to official LDS teaching.

The General Handbook of Instructions of the LDS Church is clear in indicating that attending or joining another church is not considered apostasy, and therefore not grounds for excommunication.

Assuming you are correct in your assertion about the GHI, that fact in no way demonstrates that separation from the LDS Church is not separation from God. How you draw that conclusion is beyond me.

Beating up your obnoxious neighbor also "is not considered apostasy, and therefore not grounds for excommunication", but it still separates you from God.

I eagerly await your supportive official sources on the matter.

You need official sources to verify that beating up your obnoxious neighbor separates you from God?

Okay, I'll do it, just as soon as you finish your exhaustive response as per our agreement.

Still waiting...

[ave maria]

• Demonstrate the inherent incorrectness of the idea that "anyone who separates themself [sic] from [the LDS Church] is somehow separated from God", as you claimed.
  

Aside from any "beyond LDS" explanations, I can certainly demonstrate that your assertion is contrary to official LDS teaching.

The General Handbook of Instructions of the LDS Church is clear in indicating that attending or joining another church is not considered apostasy, and therefore not grounds for excommunication.

Assuming you are correct in your assertion about the GHI, that fact in no way demonstrates that separation from the LDS Church is not separation from God. How you draw that conclusion is beyond me.

Beating up your obnoxious neighbor also "is not considered apostasy, and therefore not grounds for excommunication", but it still separates you from God.

I eagerly await your supportive official sources on the matter.

You need official sources to verify that beating up your obnoxious neighbor separates you from God?

No. Nor do I need any regarding whether or not such an action officially constitutes "apostasy" in the eyes of the LDS Church.

I await official sources supportive of your assertion that "separation from the LDS Church is by definition separation from God."

[sibling]

I await official sources supportive of your assertion that "separation from the LDS Church is by definition separation from God."

It's not an assertion, ave. It's a logical conclusion. I already carefully explained all of this to you. Go back and reread what I wrote before.

Still awaiting your responses...

[ave maria]

I await official sources supportive of your assertion that "separation from the LDS Church is by definition separation from God."

It's not an assertaion, ave. It's a logical conclusion. I already carefully explained all of this to you. Go back and reread what I wrote before.

Still awaiting your responses...

We've already established that it appeals to your sense of logic.

I'm still waiting for you to substantiate that this is official LDS teaching.

[sibling]

I await official sources supportive of your assertion that "separation from the LDS Church is by definition separation from God."

It's not an assertaion, ave. It's a logical conclusion. I already carefully explained all of this to you. Go back and reread what I wrote before.

Still awaiting your responses...

We've already established that it appeals to your sense of logic.

I'm still waiting for you to substantiate that this is official LDS teaching.

Ave, stop it. Quit playing around. No one is this thick.

It is not a matter of anything "appealing" to someone's "sense of logic". It is a matter of something following a logical structure. "If <premise> then <conclusion>". Sound familiar?

It has nothing to do with "official LDS teaching". It has to do with "logic that anyone with an IQ of over 50 can see". If God is at Place X, and if you walk away from Place X, you walk away from God.

That's as clear as I can explain it, and I refuse to believe you're incapable of understanding such a staggeringly obvious piece of logic.

Now let's hear your support for all of your assertions.

[ave maria]

It has nothing to do with "official LDS teaching". It has to do with "logic that anyone with an IQ of over 50 can see". If God is at Place X, and if you walk away from Place X, you walk away from God.

Your premise, then, is not that "God is at Place X," but that "God is exclusively at Place X."

That is to say, if the sun shines in Florida, and you walk away from Florida, you walk away from the sunshine.

[sibling]

It has nothing to do with "official LDS teaching". It has to do with "logic that anyone with an IQ of over 50 can see". If God is at Place X, and if you walk away from Place X, you walk away from God.

Your premise, then, is not that "God is at Place X," but that "God is exclusively at Place X."

That is to say, if the sun shines in Florida, and you walk away from Florida, you walk away from the sunshine.

No, ave. You are ignoring the premise: "The LDS Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ." Based on this premise, you cannot "walk away" from the Church and simultaneously "walk toward" God. Surely you remember the foundational teachings of Joseph Smith, of Nephi's teachings in the Book of Mormon, and so forth.

Your sunshiney idea of a God everywhere present dovetails nicely with your current theological preference. But in logic, we don't just cherry-pick what we wish to believe now. We establish a premise and follow it through. This isn't even a religious principle; it's a basic principle of thinking. And the premise we are considering is "The LDS Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ", not "The LDS Church has some good things about it, but God is everywhere present".

Still awaiting your response.

[ave maria]

We establish a premise and follow it through. This isn't even a religious principle; it's a basic principle of thinking. And the premise we are considering is "The LDS Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ", not "The LDS Church has some good things about it, but God is everywhere present".

Still awaiting your response.

I've responded, several times.

Whether or not one accepts your premise ("the LDS Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ"), you have been unable to support your conclusion ("separating one's self from the LDS Church by definition separates one from God"), or demonstrate that it has official support from the LDS Church.

You've also incorrectly asserted that one can substitute the term "Catholic Church" for "LDS Church," and that the same would logically follow, when it doesn't.

You can set forth "if X, then Y," as often as you'd like; it won't make your tautology any more correct, or logical.

[Tchild2]

Sibling set a record in his mission for the highest number of baptisms (by logic) and the most restraining orders ever issued against a Mormon missionary!

[Tarski]

It has nothing to do with "official LDS teaching". It has to do with "logic that anyone with an IQ of over 50 can see". If God is at Place X, and if you walk away from Place X, you walk away from God.

Your premise, then, is not that "God is at Place X," but that "God is exclusively at Place X."

That is to say, if the sun shines in Florida, and you walk away from Florida, you walk away from the sunshine.

No, ave. You are ignoring the premise: "The LDS Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ." Based on this premise, you cannot "walk away" from the Church and simultaneously "walk toward" God. Surely you remember the foundational teachings of Joseph Smith, of Nephi's teachings in the Book of Mormon, and so forth.

Your sunshiney idea of a God everywhere present dovetails nicely with your current theological preference. But in logic, we don't just cherry-pick what we wish to believe now. We establish a premise and follow it through. This isn't even a religious principle; it's a basic principle of thinking. And the premise we are considering is "The LDS Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ", not "The LDS Church has some good things about it, but God is everywhere present".

Still awaiting your response.

This argument displays silliness on all sorts of levels.

The statement

"If the LDS church is God's church then walking away from the church is walking away from God"

doesn't not appear to me to be a logically neccessary true statement. To much rides on what it means to be God's church (it doesn't just mean he is physically located there of course) and it also matters what "walking away" means.

It is probably true under some tacit assumtions of what these things must mean but maybe someone doesn't agree with those assumptions.

But in terms of formal logical I don't think you can get it as some sort of tautology.

Consider:

If 1204 Maple street is dad's house then leaving 1204 is walking away from Dad (oh how sad--no child should ever leave home-thats walking away from daddy ).

If UCLA is Tarski's school then walking away from UCLA is walking away from Tarski

(It is important for the logic to remember that God may not be "in" the church in the appropriate sense--he might be on Kolob. So should we walk toward Kolob? Oh right the walking was a metaphorical walking. Gee this isn't so clear is it.)

or

If flowery is Mothers true style then walking away from flowery is walking away from mother. (Doesn't mommy want me to have my own style?)

If Utah is Dad's state then walking away from Utah is walking away from Dad.

(We are equivocating on the sense of the "walking away" in the last one)

[charity]

Hi, guys, I was missing in action through a lot, even though my name was coming up from time time. It was my grandson's football game. They won 22-21 after being behind by a touchdown with 1 minute 25 seconds to go. They got a final play off with .7 seconds on the clock. A Hail Mary pass to the end zone. (Boniface and Ave, is it offensive to you to use that term? I will refrain if it is. This is not joke or sarcasm. I am serious.) And then they scored a 2 point conversion to win. My grandson, a defensive end, got 7 tackles, 1 of which was a sack, and he knocked a pass down!

Okay, back to the fray. I think maybe part of the discussion was at loggerheads because of the way in which "if" "then" was used. If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is God's Church, then walking away from the Church means walking away from God. That would be true in the sense of ordinances. If God authorizes only one Church to administer the saving ordinances, then walking away from that is walking away from God.

However, there is another sense. God loves all His children, and He wants to stay in their lives to the extent that they will allow Him. He does not force Himself on any one. So, yes, everyone who wants to can experience His love.

And Ave, since you very clearly described similar feelings of sadness, am I not allowed to experience that without it being defensiveness?

[koakaipo]

Aw, I'll look forward to football games with my grandkids....

As for the talk about seperating yourself from the church and God. I think I get what both sides are saying.

My take is that using the word "church" is a bit vague, anyone can go to church. Anyone can be a member. That doesn't mean much though so much as to one's knowledge and testimony of that church or whatever.

It's one's relationship with God, and one's knowledge and testimony to that relationshipt, and then turning your back on those things for various reasons, that makes one seperate themselves from God. I think Mormon theology is very consistent in that respect--knowledge is what makes you accountable, not ignorance or even deception.

The church is a means to an end-it is our medium for strengthening that relationship. But it isn't the relationship in the sense that the "church" or one's "membership" doesn't necessarily speak to where someone is in regards to that relationship.

I think if we are looking at this in a Mormon perspective, it would be more about knowledge and testimony than one's membership or activity really.

[ave maria]

A Hail Mary pass to the end zone.  (Boniface and Ave, is it offensive to you to use that term?  I will refrain if it is. This is not joke or sarcasm.  I am serious.)

On the contrary.

[ave maria]

And Ave, since you very clearly described similar feelings of sadness

You must have me confused with someone else, charity.

You'd have to point out where and when I did any such thing. I believe you are quite mistaken.

[ave maria]

If God authorizes only one Church to administer the saving ordinances, then walking away from that is walking away from God.

That is roughly the sense in which the statement, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," is used with respect to the Catholic Church, but more in the sense that the Church is the vehicle for salvation for all, not that all need to "belong" to it in order to be saved.

Asserting that God does not exist outside the Church (LDS or otherwise) is antithetical to most Christian belief, and, I'd respectfully suggest, likewise unsupported by official LDS belief.

[charity]

Ave you correctly quoted me (QUOTE (charity @ Sep 10 2005, 02:23 AM) "And Ave, since you very clearly described similar feelings of sadness. . . " and then you say, "You must have me confused with someone else, charity. You'd have to point out where and when I did any such thing. I believe you are quite mistaken. "

So Ave, here is the direct quote from you: "Do you think that didn't cause enormous sadness? Overwhelming grief? Do you imagine the Church likes to be divided, separated?"

What I think happened in this misunderstanding, is you thought I was saying that you were saddened to leave the Church. I thought you were saying that now that you are Catholic, you similarly, would be saddened if someone left the Catholic Church. My question was intended to ask you why you could see leaving the Catholic church can be met with sadness, but LDS people cannot feel sadness but can only feel threatened when someone leaves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Does that make it clearer?

And thanks for the football info. I wouldn't want to be using a term that would be taking something sacred to someone and using it inappropriately.