LDS Doctrine

[todd520]

Yep- that's exactly it. It's a little hard to fit canned responses into an actual on going discussion. The responses never quite fit the question raised. Nobody seems capable, or maybe it is just willing, to participate in independent thought.

The Magisterium may not like it.

You know, for all the flack we get about defining our doctrine, I am so glad we don't have a "Magesterium". Man, even the very word raises images of "thought police".

I'd much rather have a loveable grandpa/prophet and Quorum of the Twelve Grandpas than a regal golden-robed pope and a "Magesterium".

But then I am prejudiced.

Well, I was a bad boy and was booted from CAF

The time spent though was very educational. Nothing like a debate on a topic to make the research interesting.

After 1,500 yrs of probing questions, I can appreciate why they have a Catechism and a magisterium.

As an organization of men, I can even understand why they left key areas intentionally blank, to avoid conflict, like the post mortal experience. Because the LDS provides more revelation or speculation in this area, we have something to be criticized or ridiculed.

[Storm Rider]

Well, I was a bad boy and was booted from CAF

The time spent though was very educational. Nothing like a debate on a topic to make the research interesting.

After 1,500 yrs of probing questions, I can appreciate why they have a Catechism and a magisterium.

As an organization of men, I can even understand why they left key areas intentionally blank, to avoid conflict, like the post mortal experience. Because the LDS provides more revelation or speculation in this area, we have something to be criticized or ridiculed.

You are now a member of a large group of LDS that have been banned from CAF. I was banned permanently; when doing so they remove every edit you ever made and thus no one can review your edits and see their rather obvious double standards they emply. You can say anything you want about another religion and their readers, but if you bring up sexual improprieties of a priest, archbishop, or pope, God forbid and out you go. Even when the only reason you bring this up is that constant yammering about polygamy, Joseph's perverted lifestyle, etc.

[why me]

Well, I was a bad boy and was booted from CAF

The time spent though was very educational. Nothing like a debate on a topic to make the research interesting.

After 1,500 yrs of probing questions, I can appreciate why they have a Catechism and a magisterium.

As an organization of men, I can even understand why they left key areas intentionally blank, to avoid conflict, like the post mortal experience. Because the LDS provides more revelation or speculation in this area, we have something to be criticized or ridiculed.

I don't think that you have been booted. You account seems to be still active. Maybe your computer was experiencing a glitch. Try again.

Reading your above post, I was surprised that they would boot you. So, I checked and there is no banned under your name.

However, maybe they did not want people to know that you were banned and you just went away and so, no mentioning of your banning under your screen name.

[why me]

You can say anything you want about another religion and their readers, but if you bring up sexual improprieties of a priest, archbishop, or pope, God forbid and out you go. Even when the only reason you bring this up is that constant yammering about polygamy, Joseph's perverted lifestyle, etc.

This is true. This is why pahoran is at a disadvantage. He will need to be careful and say nothing negative in comparison about the catholic church. I have seen only two mormons survive the forum: parker and dianaid. Parker survives because he write long posts as an explanation for lds doctrine. And dianiaid because although she is being a little snarky lately, has not ruffled the moderators feathers.

But now it seems there is a new moderator for that section of the forum. Lets see how he handles the hateful former mormon now catholic posters when they comment about mormonism.

[todd520]

Well, I was a bad boy and was booted from CAF

The time spent though was very educational. Nothing like a debate on a topic to make the research interesting.

No, I wasn't booted <sheepish grin>.

A thread I was posting to was deleted in the middle of my post, and the error message said I no longer had permission to see the page etc.

[mfbukowski]

Well, I was a bad boy and was booted from CAF

The time spent though was very educational. Nothing like a debate on a topic to make the research interesting.

After 1,500 yrs of probing questions, I can appreciate why they have a Catechism and a magisterium.

As an organization of men, I can even understand why they left key areas intentionally blank, to avoid conflict, like the post mortal experience. Because the LDS provides more revelation or speculation in this area, we have something to be criticized or ridiculed.

We answer questions they can't even think to ask.

And when you have knowledge which exceeds language's ability to express it, you get into paradoxes, like multiple eternities or universes.

I have been reprimanded there but can still post, but really don't want to.

[Pahoran]

I don't usually argue to people who are unable to respond, but I wish to post this in defense of my good name.

I previously wrote:

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?

Note that I explicitly did not say anything like "While we are on the subject," but simply "On the subject."

When Atticus demanded that I explain where this subject came up, I replied:

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

Instead of explaining himself, he avoided the issue and went on the attack, thus:

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

Except that I didn't say we were already on the subject. And Atticus, who never tires of reminding us all what a sharp lawyer he is, is of course quite capable of parsing English sentences, and therefore understands this quite well.

Thus, his accusation of "lying" is laid to rest.

With that out of the way, does anyone have anything else to say on the actual topic at hand?

Or can we take it as settled and accepted that not all GA statements are authoritative doctrinal sources, and therefore the nasty little polemical game of "quote mining" is illegitimate?

Regards,

Pahoran