LDS Doctrine

[why me]

You, my friend, have let CAF get to you.

I think that he is doing a wonderful work over there. He is playing hardball with a small group of people who repeat the same mantra over and over again and with people who have an axe to grind against the lds church. And he is not playing at their level but at a much more higher level as a lds should do.

I was banned from that site after I posted the thread here: Why I Iike This Forum. But I was really banned because I did not allow the antimormons to degrade the lds church as they do. What is strange is that the antimormon catholics are really not catholics. Their behavior is uncatholic and a disgrace to the catholic church but they are allowed to get away with their uncatholic behavior. I have no idea why that is so. I tried to represent the catholic faith as a tolerant faith with people who are basically openminded but...the antimormon catholics seem to represent CAF better than I did.

And this thread has received some comment over there and yet, what is overlooked is the way in which critics and mormons can treat each other with respect and dignity here as a good discussion should be. Now I say that that says much about the lds church and its christian foundation that it represents.

[BCSpace]

Has the church officially released this list as containing official doctrine

It has released such a list, yes.

[AtticusFinch]

lol....yes, he has called many people names, been incredibly rude. Been chastized for his rudeness.

You are correct Whyme, he is a perfect example of you and LDS Church.

[why me]

lol....yes, he has called many people names, been incredibly rude. Been chastized for his rudeness.

You are correct Whyme, he is a perfect example of you and LDS Church.

He does play hard ball but you guys over there need a hard ball player. He is doing a wonderful job defending the lds church and its principles. But no where is he being anticatholic or declaring that catholics worship a false god as some antimormon catholics claim the lds worships a false god.

And as you can see, he also put the same thread on this forum to get comments from other mormons and critics. And that says much about the learning process from a lds perspective. But notice the tone on this thread and then notice the tone at CAF with the same thread. What a world of difference. And this has much to do with the foundation of the two forums: one mormon and the other uncatholic when discussing other religions. I only wish that you and other catholics who degrade other faiths can represent the catholic faith better than you now do.

[why me]

What did the spirit tell you with respect to blacks and the priesthood? Many faithful long time members, guided by the spirit, felt (and still feel) that it was official doctrine. Let's not debate the issue of blacks in the priesthood, but use it as an example that counters typical intuition regarding official doctrine.

H.

I remember the 1970's when I was a young adult. And I remember what was said about that topic. But what is interesting, I don't remember any manual mentioning the subject and the ideas that members had. But maybe I missed something somewhere.

[Terry Moe]

This is a very brief overview of a large and complex subject. Pacumeni9 from ZLMB wrote a long paper on this; I believe it came close to 30,000 words. Accordingly, this is less a digest or summary of his arguments, but rather a summary of my own views on the subject some years after having read his paper.

1. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consists of the entirety of the teachings that have been severally accepted by the Church as a body.

2. These teachings are found in their authoritative form only in the following sources:

- The Holy Bible;

Thank you for posting this to clarify. I have just one question. In an earlier thread on this board, a poster told me, concerning the Bible, that "we believe some parts and do not believe other parts". Could you please tell me, yes or no, do Latter-Day Saints believe that the entire Bible is correct?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thank you for posting this to clarify. I have just one question. In an earlier thread on this board, a poster told me, concerning the Bible, that "we believe some parts and do not believe other parts". Could you please tell me, yes or no, do Latter-Day Saints believe that the entire Bible is correct?

I don't believe the SoS (Songs of Soloman)are inspired. So no, this LDS does not believe that the entire bible is correct. I think there are a few other demonstratable errors too.

The nice is that I do not have to believe the bible is perfect to believe it.

[mfbukowski]

Just to be clear, is the following statement "Official Doctrine"? Would a belief that Adam's body was "created" through an evolutionary process beginning with lower forms of life contradict this doctrine?

In a word, "yes". I do not think that Adam's body was created that way. This thread is not about evolution, but I agree with the statement as quoted. I won't go into it now, but obviously the statement hinges on the definition of the word "man". Adam was the first man and our father, and was a special creation of God. I have never said otherwise.

Edit- my first statement was incorrect- I misread the post. I believe that the universe is constantly "evolving" according to a plan. I do not believe that Darwin was entirely correct- though clearly natural selection is a tautology.

[mfbukowski]

lol....yes, he has called many people names, been incredibly rude. Been chastized for his rudeness.

You are correct Whyme, he is a perfect example of you and LDS Church.

Would you clarify what you are saying? Surely you don't mean that we as a church "are incredibly rude"?

You are one of my favorite posters over there. Kind of like how pancakes are my favorite breakfast.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, but that's you . I'm not really interested in how you feel, but how the general membership can recognize whether something is doctrine or not given little clarification on some matters.

H.

Perhaps it is a bit like the way Catholics view the doctrine of limbo. I don't think you want to go there. Ever heard of Sensus Fidelium?

But the document goes beyond strictly theological opinions. It repeatedly refers to the "sensus fidelium" -- the sense of the faithful -- to illustrate how Christians increasingly reject the idea that the vision of God would be denied to innocent babies.

One reason the Second Vatican Council rejected attempts to strengthen teaching against the salvation of unbaptized infants was that bishops felt it was "not the faith of their people," the document said.

It referred to an important teaching of Vatican II, which said that the whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and "cannot err in matters of belief."

To support its conclusions on limbo, the theological commission's document also cited the need for the church to read the "signs of the times" in order to better understand the Gospel.

In other words, if the church as a whole believes it, it is automatically "doctrine"

[mfbukowski]

The disputation is not that they are or are not in charge. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve may issue statements based on doctrine, but that does not mean the statements themselves are doctrine.

H.

LOL

And who precisely would decide if they were or were not doctrine? Who defines what doctrine is?

[AtticusFinch]

He does play hard ball but you guys over there need a hard ball player. He is doing a wonderful job defending the lds church and its principles. But no where is he being anticatholic or declaring that catholics worship a false god as some antimormon catholics claim the lds worships a false god.

And as you can see, he also put the same thread on this forum to get comments from other mormons and critics. And that says much about the learning process from a lds perspective. But notice the tone on this thread and then notice the tone at CAF with the same thread. What a world of difference. And this has much to do with the foundation of the two forums: one mormon and the other uncatholic when discussing other religions. I only wish that you and other catholics who degrade other faiths can represent the catholic faith better than you now do.

hmmmm....when someone called YOU a name, you whined. When an ally does it, you call it playing hardball.

I actually enjoy him. he validates what many ex-LDS have claimed about Mormons.

[AtticusFinch]

Would you clarify what you are saying? Surely you don't mean that we as a church "are incredibly rude"?

You are one of my favorite posters over there. Kind of like how pancakes are my favorite breakfast.

as a church? no. I actually love the LDS people and have a lot of friends who are LDS. I enjoy General Conference, I love listening to Jeffrey Holland.

But I have had some really bad experiences with the LDS Church members. Really bad. And when people like this guyt and whyme come around, it validates the bad feelings people have.

As to your compliment....thank you...I think....unless you hate pancakes

[Pahoran]

Hello Atticus, aka SirThomasMore,

as a church? no. I actually love the LDS people and have a lot of friends who are LDS.

Is that something like "I'm not a racist because some of my best friends are black?"

And on the subject of weak, cruel and dishonest, why don't you front up and tell us how you really feel about Jesus Christ, whose church we are?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

An interesting thread on Sensus Fidelium

[BCSpace]

In other words, if the church as a whole believes it, it is automatically "doctrine"

That the general membership votes on or otherwise determines what doctrine is would be a sign of a false Church. The purpose of prophets and apostles is to determine and disseminate doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-14).

[AtticusFinch]

Hello Atticus, aka SirThomasMore,

Is that something like "I'm not a racist because some of my best friends are black?"

Nope. I was LDS....I have friends and relatives who are LDS. There is no need for your rudeness or sarcasm.

And on the subject of weak, cruel and dishonest, why don't you front up and tell us how you really feel about Jesus Christ, whose church we are?

Sorry.....I must have missed that subject, can you point out where on this thread that subject can be found?

[Pahoran]

I was going to say that I will play the devil's advocate, but then I realized that you would tell me that I am not playing.

Alas, I am weak. And when people give me such beautiful openings, it seems a shame to let them go by!

I have had this list (or a version of it) thrown at me many times to counter a quote by a church leader. Has the church officially released this list as containing official doctrine, or is this just something that is understood?

Perhaps the more significant question is: why are you putting out quotes "by a church leader" that are of a nature that needs to be "countered?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

That the general membership votes on or otherwise determines what doctrine is would be a sign of a false Church. The purpose of prophets and apostles is to determine and disseminate doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-14).

The very fact that this exists as doctrine imo proves the Apostasy.

What's that passage about "winds of doctrine"?

[Pahoran]

Nope. I was LDS....I have friends and relatives who are LDS.

Really? Do your LDS friends and relatives know about the spiteful, gratuitous Mormon-bashing you delight in?

There is no need for your rudeness or sarcasm.

You're right; the surfeit of rudeness and sarcasm that you bring to every discussion more than amply provides what is needed.

Sorry.....I must have missed that subject, can you point out where on this thread that subject can be found?

You brought it up on your home forum, in the thread mirroring this one.

Let me help you out here.

So where have the Mormons said God does not have Spirit??????

We do not conflict with the bible stating God's Spirit nature.

No it all doesn't make logical sense and fit neatly into a box (but THAT IS THE NATURE OF GOD)

Now please have the courage and intellectual honesty to respond to the above three sentences in your true colours.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BCSpace]

That the general membership votes on or otherwise determines what doctrine is would be a sign of a false Church. The purpose of prophets and apostles is to determine and disseminate doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-14).

The very fact that this exists as doctrine imo proves the Apostasy.

What's that passage about "winds of doctrine"?

Indeed. If a church does not have living apostles and prophets, it is automatically a false church.

[AtticusFinch]

Really? Do your LDS friends and relatives know about the spiteful, gratuitous Mormon-bashing you delight in?

My friends and family know I participate on debate boards. One LDS friend, who lives in Utah, saw your posts and apologized on behalf of Mormons. Love it.

You're right; the surfeit of rudeness and sarcasm that you bring to every discussion more than amply provides what is needed.

Really? So then yours is all gratuitous and not needed? I am glad you have admitted that. Maybe you will stop now.

You brought it up on your home forum, in the thread mirroring this one.

oh...so then you lied when you said we were on the subject. Oh well, certainly not the first lie you have told.

[Pahoran]

My friends and family know I participate on debate boards.

But you don't tell them how vicious you are. I see.

One LDS friend, who lives in Utah, saw your posts and apologized on behalf of Mormons. Love it.

So do I. Given that nobody has ever apologised to me on behalf of Catholics for your utterly vile hate-mongering, the fact that someone thought they should apologise for me giving back less than I was getting tells us something about our respective faiths, doesn't it?

Really? So then yours is all gratuitous and not needed? I am glad you have admitted that. Maybe you will stop now.

You stop dishing it out, and I'll stop dishing it back.

oh...so then you lied when you said we were on the subject. Oh well, certainly not the first lie you have told.

Not only is it not the first, it's not a lie at all.

Don't accuse people of lying in this forum, Atticus. Your boundless spite may have free rein on your home board, but it won't do so well here.

Since you clearly lack the courage to show the posters here what your real views are, but only parade them when you're "safe," I have taken care of it for you. See my sig.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

I hope that the moderators here understand that the antimormonism on the catholic forum is rather blantant and rude. And yet it is only a small minority of antimormon catholics that open mormon threads to bash mormonism and mormons. The mormons who do venture over there to defend their faith against such threads must have a tough skin to survive the bashing and mocking. One tactic by some is to suddenly lash into personal attacks which is not allowed on this forum. Please don't be surprised if the same tactic is used here by a certain antimormon catholic in order to get this thread closed. Much better to allow the exchange to continue and just delete any personal attacks.

If I were against the catholic church, I would have just allowed the more antimormon threads over there to continue without defending the mormons and mormonism since these mormon threads on CAF show catholicism in a bad light. But on the other hand since these threads on CAF are so blatant in their antimormonism, much more so than on rabid antimormon sites, they are difficult to ignore. My hope would be that the more sincere catholics who understand tolerance would bring the mockers and bashers to task...but...

[todd520]

I post on CAF and have had several Catholics send me PMs, to apologize for the blatant Mormon bashing.

There are just a few 'bad apples' there that will use any dirty trick or debate tactic to poison the thread.

Since they are the 'one true church' they feel the ends justifies the means.