mfbukowski Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 I don't have much time this afternoon. But I will try to come back this evening and at least explain why I don't think trying to understand One God in three persons as utterly nonsensical.I didn't mean to imply that such a belief was "utterly nonsensical", in fact I believe it myself and that kind of language occurs in the BOM. What I meant was that the "trinity" to me is nonsensical.To me, there is one God (head) consisting of three persons, so the term "God" is a collective noun, like "commitee".If you will, one Committee, three persons. That makes it quite a bit simpler. Or if you prefer, One Family, three persons.Just to clarify.Take your time, Bro. I am striving to actually have a life too!
Anakin7 Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 God The Father, God The Son Jesus Christ, God The Holy Ghost All KNOW WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT A CHRISTAN !. In His DEBT/GRACE ANAKIN7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Vance Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 You go down the line of what is Orthodox or not, and the LDS faith is not. You disagree? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChristianityFrom this very article Other groups originating in this time period include the Christadelphians and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement with over 13 million members.[247][248][249][250]There it is Hughes.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christian according to your wiki article.
mfbukowski Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 You go down the line of what is Orthodox or not, and the LDS faith is not. You disagree? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChristianityCreedsJesus ChristDeath and resurrection of JesusSalvationTrinityScripturesWhatever floats your boat. You refuse to discuss real issues and want to play with definitions. I'm done.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 We continue to hold our belief in the premortal existence of all spirit beings, including those currently living on earth as mortal humans.But don't worry, Hughes. Even though you are wrong about all these beliefs, we won't object when you call yourself a Christian.But if you think we are giving up these beliefs, you are living in Fantasyland.Regards,PahoranHughes just got pooned, and does not even know it.BTW Hughes beign a Christian does not equal who is orthodox or not. The sad part about your tale is that under your definition is that you exclude yourself from the title of being a Christian as you are certainly not orthodox in your teachings. If you are not Catholic then you are not orthodox.
Bikeemikey Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 The question of who is a Christian must wait until the question of what is a Christian is settled.And the first point about this is that it is not a question of theology, but of linguistics.Regards,PahoranThat is an agreed upon position. Is is also a position that I feel makes it totally unanswerable in any clear concise way.I still like the question why do LDS want to be Christian? Or, "What do LDS feel it benefits them by being included in the Christian group?".At least such questions can have some from of coherent response.As it is this thread seems to have run it's course.Later
Vance Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 I still like the question why do LDS want to be Christian? Or, "What do LDS feel it benefits them by being included in the Christian group?".Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.Mosiah 26:18 Yea, blessed is this people who are willing to bear my name; for in my name shall they be called; and they are mine.
Hughes Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Hughes just got pooned, and does not even know it.BTW Hughes beign a Christian does not equal who is orthodox or not. The sad part about your tale is that under your definition is that you exclude yourself from the title of being a Christian as you are certainly not orthodox in your teachings. If you are not Catholic then you are not orthodox.Since it matters not what I define what, I'm simply referring to the standard definition as used down through history. Further I am not the topic. What Mormons believe is.
Pahoran Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 That is an agreed upon position. Is is also a position that I feel makes it totally unanswerable in any clear concise way.On the contrary, it can be answered very simply: a Christian is anyone who regards Jesus of Nazareth as the uniquely definitive figure in their faith.This simple definition works perfectly well. It captures Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and Latter-day Saints, while excluding Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Jews. It requires no theologically based special pleading, and has the added bonus of excluding only those people who would not normally think of themselves as Christians.I still like the question why do LDS want to be Christian? Or, "What do LDS feel it benefits them by being included in the Christian group?".At least such questions can have some from of coherent response.When we are baptised, we enter into a covenant whereby we take upon ourselves the name of Christ. And having promised the Lord that we are doing that, we don't see that we need the permission of any tinpot wannabe grand inquisitor before keeping that promise, thankyouverymuch.As it is this thread seems to have run it's course.You may be right.Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Since it matters not what I define what, I'm simply referring to the standard definition as used down through history.As Dan Peterson demonstrates in his book to which I linked, "the standard definition as used down through history" cannot be used to exclude us, because it has historically included people and groups whose beliefs were not only similar to ours in the very same ways that trigger your grand inquisitor reflex, but in some cases were even less "orthodox" than ours.And as long as you refuse to inform yourself by reading that book, you have simply lost the battle without knowing it.Regards,Pahoran
Hughes Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 As Dan Peterson demonstrates in his book to which I linked, "the standard definition as used down through history" cannot be used to exclude us, because it has historically included people and groups whose beliefs were not only similar to ours in the very same ways that trigger your grand inquisitor reflex, but in some cases were even less "orthodox" than ours.And as long as you refuse to inform yourself by reading that book, you have simply lost the battle without knowing it.Regards,PahoranAnd yet on each point of orthodoxy the LDS faith is opposed to mainstream Christianity. What do the LDS hope to gain by changing the definition of Christian, in the historic sense?
TAO Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Haha, well I have always found the complex things the most insightful!Hehe, same here... it's just sometimes I get so lost in the complex things I forget to look at the brilliance of the simple ones, so to say. The difference between us and our Heavenly Father, as I can see it right now, would be that we are resurrected into eternal glory, whereas since I believe He has always been, He IS eternal glory. Eternal glory is made such by His presence. I think. I just woke up Forgive me for my disjointedness!Hmm... ok... *devious smile on* What makes his 'eternal glory' having always been, whereas our 'eternal glory' having began? After all, they both are 'endless and eternal glory'. Where does the Bible say that our God's glory had no beginning?Sorry, hehe, I just enjoy asking questions like these .I'm not saying you are incorrect, just makin' you think.
Pahoran Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 And yet on each point of orthodoxy the LDS faith is opposed to mainstream Christianity.On each point of orthodoxy?Really?Is it your position that "orthodox" Christianity denies (inter alia) the divinity of the Father, the sonship of Christ and the efficacy of the Atonement?Wow. Orthodox Christianity must be even more apostate than I thought.What do the LDS hope to gain by changing the definition of Christian, in the historic sense?Hence the expression, "Invincible ignorance."Earth to Hughes! Earth to Hughes! Come in Hughes! The lights are on; is anyone home?Listen carefully, Hughes: The Saints are not "changing the definition of Christian, in the historic sense."What we are doing is relying upon "the definition of Christian, in the historic sense."And if you weren't so triumphantly ignorant, you'd know that; and knowing it, you'd be able to avoid embarrassing yourself so comprehensively.If you knew anything at all about what you so ignorantly pontificate about, you'd know that the ad hoc theological tests you've cobbled together in a dishonest attempt to define us out of Christianity were never considered to be definitive of the "historic" meaning of the word "Christian."They may or may not be legitimate methods for determining something called "orthodoxy;" but Hughes, if you understand anything at all about how language works, then you understand that modifiers like "orthodox" necessarily denote subsets of the whole.It doesn't matter if you want to deny that we are (by your lights) "orthodox"; the fact is that "orthodox Christianity" must of necessity be something less than all of Christianity. Just like "male Americans" are something less than all Americans.Now I seriously suggest you read the book I linked to -- it's online, and it's free -- before you embarrass yourself further. The lame arguments you're appealing to are comprehensively dealt with therein.Regards,Pahoran
Lareliw Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Well even looking at the beginning of John you can kind of get a glimpse of it "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." At the beginning, God was already there, already God! And since we are created beings, created by Him for His glory, it would seem that while we gain our glory from Him when we are resurrected and it is everlasting from that point forward, God has always had and always will have, glory, since He is the place that it emanates from to begin with!And I am so sorry if that makes no sense at all, been following the rallies in WI all day today (I am from WI) and I am plum wore out Hehe, same here... it's just sometimes I get so lost in the complex things I forget to look at the brilliance of the simple ones, so to say. Hmm... ok... *devious smile on* What makes his 'eternal glory' having always been, whereas our 'eternal glory' having began? After all, they both are 'endless and eternal glory'. Where does the Bible say that our God's glory had no beginning?Sorry, hehe, I just enjoy asking questions like these .I'm not saying you are incorrect, just makin' you think.
citizen28 Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Fromthe beginnings of the church up through the turn of the century and beyond,Mormons went to great lengths to distinguish themselves from Protestantism andother forms of mainstream Christianity (for obvious reasons), and it
Pahoran Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Fromthe beginnings of the church up through the turn of the century and beyond,Mormons went to great lengths to distinguish themselves from Protestantism andother forms of mainstream Christianity (for obvious reasons), and it
TAO Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Well even looking at the beginning of John you can kind of get a glimpse of it "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." At the beginning, God was already there, already God!Yes, but it doesn't say what it is the beginning of. So it is essentially saying, before X event, God existed. Considering it doesn't mention what X is, how do we know God didn't have a beginning before that beginning?When we talk about things that are starting to happen, we use the word beginning... the beginning of the American Revolution... the beginning of the Modern Era... the beginning of adulthood. In other words, beginning has a reference point.So what was the reference point? I would suggest it was the beginning of the time when God started planning the creation of the Earth. However, just as there were things happening before the American Revolution, wouldn't there also be the possibility of things happening before the beginning of the creation?And since we are created beings, created by Him for His glory, it would seem that while we gain our glory from Him when we are resurrected and it is everlasting from that point forward, God has always had and always will have, glory, since He is the place that it emanates from to begin with!But on what time frame? For time, from an infinite perspective, is also infinite. In other words, God couldn't have spent the infinite time beforehand doing nothing. In other words, he must be doing something? And since we have no idea what he was doing, how do you know that he didn't become who he is today much like we did, being an exemplar of what we should strive to be like? How do you know, in other words, that we won't be like him, simply because we will be going through the same process he has?Again, what would be the purpose of the Earth if it wasn't to lead his children to happiness, but how do we know there are not other intelligences out there, in need of a spiritual and physical body, so that they can be happy like us? If God has always existed, I ask, then what is the purpose of him creating us, as happy as we are? Why does he have compassion, was it just random chance? Furthermore, why does he have a need to help us if he is happy as he is anyways?Sorry about the swarm of rhetorics there... it's just, as I said... one of the things I enjoy about being Mormon is that things rarely 'just are'. They have a reason behind them, every little facet, if you just keep looking =). The 'always existed' God doesn't make sense to me simply because it is a 'just is', we take for granted his compassion, but if he truly 'just existed', he has no reason to have compassion in the first place.And I am so sorry if that makes no sense at all, been following the rallies in WI all day today (I am from WI) and I am plum wore out Hehe, don't worry... and don't feel obligated to respond if I was a bit intense up there... I have wierd outbursts at times .
Mudcat Posted March 1, 2011 Author Posted March 1, 2011 I didn't mean to imply that such a belief was "utterly nonsensical", in fact I believe it myself and that kind of language occurs in the BOM. What I meant was that the "trinity" to me is nonsensical.Yes, I would think that if the LDS Godhead was what you percieved as the most sensical, then the Trinity would likely not make a great deal of sense. I view it from the other way round, of course. But honestly, to embrace a concept like a triune God, you do sort have to accept that there are some things about His nature that you just wont comprehend this side or mortality.But Scripture seems to affirm this mysterious and incomprehensible being.Here is the rub I have, as it set with LDS theology. That being, the whole thing... God, life, the universe and everything seems really explicable. Too explicable.... That may sound a bit off to you, but seriously that is one of the things I consider a major detractor in LDS theology. I mean you have all these Biblical statements that God is a rather hard fellow to understand...we just see him dimly in the hear and now, His ways are beyond our ways and so forth. To me, it seems that there are some things about God we just won't get and I am cool with that.In contrast, the LDS view seems to clear it up quite a bit. Nothing really mysterious about it all. As far as I can see, it makes perfect sense. Line upon line, precept upon precept, there seems to be a very succinct understanding of God. The only thing that seems "mysterious" about it all is how the mechanics of an infinite regress actually work. It may sound silly to you, but at the core, this is the bogey for me. It's too easy and I don't think it's supposed to be. To me, there is one God (head) consisting of three persons, so the term "God" is a collective noun, like "commitee".If you will, one Committee, three persons. That makes it quite a bit simpler. Or if you prefer, One Family, three persons.I understand what you are saying and I certainly agree that it simplifies things.But there is more to it, IMO. Given the Scripture set forth in the Bible, either you are extending the concept of "Godhead" to all those verses that indicate one "God" or you defer that those verses meant The Father, Son or HG individually instead.. or some combination thereof.I certainly won't say that understanding Scriptural references to one "God" as well as a multitude of individual references to the divinity of the The Father, Son or Holy Spirit actually makes understanding God easier. In fact, it complicates things quite a bit. But I think it's supposed to be a bit complicated. So it doesn't really bother me. In fact it seems to fit.... At least to me it does.Respectfully,Mudcat
TAO Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Here is the rub I have, as it set with LDS theology. That being, the whole thing... God, life, the universe and everything seems really explicable. Too explicable.... That may sound a bit off to you, but seriously that is one of the things I consider a major detractor in LDS theology. Hehe... you know what's wierd Mudcat... that's actually one of the thing I love about LDS theology For me, I guess living without being able to read social cues for a long time in my life has sort of gotten me to want to be able to understand people, and so I can't really be around other people if I don't understand them.With God being such a straightforward sort of guy, he's like an Autistic's perfect dream in terms of that he always does the things he says, and doesn't put little meanings behind things. I love the fact that he's understandable .Actually, with him being more understandable and all, it gives me more time so I can know his personality, and what type of person he is, which is really really cool. I mean you have all these Biblical statements that God is a rather hard fellow to understand...we just see him dimly in the hear and now, His ways are beyond our ways and so forth. To me, it seems that there are some things about God we just won't get and I am cool with that.Oh, I think we could get all the stuff... but we'd have to be very open and willing to listen. We'd have to not get frustrated when we are confused, and we'd have to not give up. Of course, all these things are really hard which is why God gives us commandments so we can learn to think like him, so it'll be easier to learn to be like him =).In contrast, the LDS view seems to clear it up quite a bit. Nothing really mysterious about it all. As far as I can see, it makes perfect sense. Line upon line, precept upon precept, there seems to a very clear understanding of God. The only thing that seems "mysterious" about it all is how the mechanics of an infinite regress actually work. It may sound silly to you, but at the core, this is the bogey for me. It's to easy and I don't think it's supposed to be. Hehe, I am the exact opposite!I understand what you are saying and I certainly agree that it simplifies things.But there is more to it, IMO. Given the Scripture set forth in the Bible, either you are extending the concept of "Godhead" to all those verses that indicate one "God" or you defer that those verses meant The Father, Son or HG individually instead.. or some combination thereof.I certainly won't say that understanding Scriptural inferences to one "God" actually makes understanding God easier. In fact, it complicates things quite a bit. But I think it's supposed to be a bit complicated so it doesn't really bother me. In fact it seems to fit.... At least to me it does.Respectfully,MudcatTo be quite honest, I would have to say the Trinitarian perspective and the LDS perspective don't differ all that much in terms of it being committee like... about the only difference I can really see (in the type spelled out by the creed, not the type sometimes practiced today which is more like Jesus Christ solely) is that we believe they have three separate souls working for one purpose, whereas they don't say anything about souls, and use one essence. Which aren't truly all that different... but as said, the way some people today look at it is quite different than what the creed states.Hope things are going well on your end =D.Best Wishes,TAO
Cold Steel Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Rather than have LDS defend their position, in that they believe they are Christians. I would ask of LDS and anyone else who want's to participate in this rather difficult question: Who isn't a Christian?Many of the same folks who don't believe we LDS are Christians also don't believe that Catholics are Christian.I've been reading a near death experience brought to my attention by a member of this board. It's entitled, I Stand All Amazed, by Elane Durham, who in 1976 died (as in flatlined to the extent she was prepped for the morgue). She wasn't LDS, but took the occasion to ask her guide which church was God's church on Earth. The angel refused to answer except to say that it wasn't a matter of which was the "right" church, but which was the "perfect" church. I suppose he meant that all churches have a degree of truth; however only God's church was perfect "in organizational structure." This didn't mean the members were perfect, even though I've been reading the scriptures more. Rather, which church had an organizational structure built on the Spirit of God and authority. Ms. Durham saw and heard many things she didn't understand at the time, but she was later told that when she saw God's church based on what she had learned, that she would recognize it. In 1991, after doing considerable church hopping, she entered into discussions with Mormon missionaries. When speaking of "heaven," she told the missionaries that there were three heavens, not one. To her surprise, one of the missionaries pulled out a diagram of the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial Kingdoms and she was floored. Later that year, she was baptized. Over the years, even her husband treated her as though she was a little unhinged because of her experience. She had found him, before her "death" to be fully supportive and understanding; however, he wanted no part of her talk about seeing Jesus and being escorted by an angel. During her experience, she saw a strange people she didn't know or understand, but that they traveled in a strange ship, or barge that could be submerged and resurface. Then she saw that there were other barges and a "new land" upon which they disembarked. The short story is that now she's LDS, and she has found nothing that contradicts her experience. The foreword is by George C. Ritchie Jr., a recognized authority in NDEs. In other NDEs I've researched, I have found the overwhelming majority are entirely consistent with what we LDS know about heaven. And premortality figures in many of these, and as far as I know, only WE believe that people have a premortal existence. So maybe we should think in the same terms. Mormons don't condemn any religion, or we shouldn't. We're all God's children. We can still claim our church is the PERFECT church, in that it is the only church established and blessed with God's priesthood authority, and having the Keys of the Kingdom. But we can recognize the truth in other religions, and acknowledge that yes, someone might actually be called to serve in various capacities of those churches for the Lord's purpose. At some point, they will find the perfection they seek, and the priesthood power, but they aren't under condemnation unless they promote abortion, hate and other evils.Many of our early brethren recognized the imperfection in other churches (see the Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt's Works and Wilford Woodruff's account of Old Prophet Mason), but they went with the most perfect churches they could find. Then, when the priesthood authority was restored, they recognized it. If you ask many of these people who say Mormons aren't Christian if Jews who don't accept Jesus in this life can be saved, many if not most of them will say no, they are lost. Only "Mormonism" declares differently. I'd love to ask that whacko on YouTube -- the one with his own online show -- if he thought Catholics are Christian. If he can say we're not Christian, but that people that pray to saints and worship images of Popes, relics and so forth are, well, I can see an inconsistency in that. Yet we believe that Catholics and yes, even evangelicals, are Christians. The latter sometime think of us (and Catholics) as being damned to hell for an eternity, just for picking the wrong church and believing the wrong things. We, on the other hand, think of them as being...confused.Only time will tell..
mfbukowski Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Yes, I would think that if the LDS Godhead was what you percieved as the most sensical, then the Trinity would likely not make a great deal of sense. I view it from the other way round, of course. But honestly, to embrace a concept like a triune God, you do sort have to accept that there are some things about His nature that you just wont comprehend this side or mortality.But Scripture seems to affirm this mysterious and incomprehensible being.Here is the rub I have, as it set with LDS theology. That being, the whole thing... God, life, the universe and everything seems really explicable. Too explicable.... That may sound a bit off to you, but seriously that is one of the things I consider a major detractor in LDS theology. I mean you have all these Biblical statements that God is a rather hard fellow to understand...we just see him dimly in the hear and now, His ways are beyond our ways and so forth. To me, it seems that there are some things about God we just won't get and I am cool with that.In contrast, the LDS view seems to clear it up quite a bit. Nothing really mysterious about it all. As far as I can see, it makes perfect sense. Line upon line, precept upon precept, there seems to be a very succinct understanding of God. The only thing that seems "mysterious" about it all is how the mechanics of an infinite regress actually work. It may sound silly to you, but at the core, this is the bogey for me. It's too easy and I don't think it's supposed to be. I understand what you are saying and I certainly agree that it simplifies things.But there is more to it, IMO. Given the Scripture set forth in the Bible, either you are extending the concept of "Godhead" to all those verses that indicate one "God" or you defer that those verses meant The Father, Son or HG individually instead.. or some combination thereof.I certainly won't say that understanding Scriptural references to one "God" as well as a multitude of individual references to the divinity of the The Father, Son or Holy Spirit actually makes understanding God easier. In fact, it complicates things quite a bit. But I think it's supposed to be a bit complicated. So it doesn't really bother me. In fact it seems to fit.... At least to me it does.Respectfully,MudcatI think I understand what you mean about wanting it all to be more mysterious- I felt that way for a long time in my life too, especially as a Catholic, but then my attitude changed.I know we have puny brains far below His, but I think most of what we believe about most things are not quite the way they "really are" anyway. I mean what would it be like to be able to "see" radio waves, or even infrared? How would our "reality" change? We have a very limited conception of everything around us.The point is that I realized that God should be able to be smart enough to explain it all to us in our own stupid language- so that we could make sense of it all. There are elements we will never understand, but we don't have to know too much about those anyway- like how to organize a universe- but they are not important for our salvation. But in my opinion, what we DO need for our salvation, should be crystal clear. Surely he would want us to understand that stuff.I mean what he wants is "One Faith, One Baptism". With all the disunity in Christianity about that point, it seems to me that the true branch of Christianity would have that so clear that no one would disagree, and it would be very explainable. Certainly I would think that "mystery" would be inappropriate to helping one find the truth if it is something we are all supposed to find.As far as the three persons being Biblical doctrine- I fully believe it is- and the work of guys like David Bokovoy "prove" it to me as well as it can be textually. I see it as a continuing theme - with Yahweh as the head God- all through the bible.
Nathair/|\ Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 You go down the line of what is Orthodox or not, and the LDS faith is not. You disagree? http://en.wikipedia....ki/ChristianityCreedsJesus ChristDeath and resurrection of JesusSalvationTrinityScripturesDoes anybody else find it interesting that he puts the Creeds first, above everything else?
mfbukowski Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Does anybody else find it interesting that he puts the Creeds first, above everything else?Lol!Good point- didn't notice that!
Libs Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 I've been reading a near death experience brought to my attention by a member of this board. It's entitled, I Stand All Amazed, by Elane Durham, who in 1976 died (as in flatlined to the extent she was prepped for the morgue). She wasn't LDS, but took the occasion to ask her guide which church was God's church on Earth. The angel refused to answer except to say that it wasn't a matter of which was the "right" church, but which was the "perfect" church. I suppose he meant that all churches have a degree of truth; however only God's church was perfect "in organizational structure." Hi Cold Steel. I was very intrigued by what you said about this book, so I looked it up on Amazon and I'm going to purchase it for my Kindle. I was able to read the first chapter, however, and it intrigued me even more, because it very much fits in with where I have been going, myself, in regards to religion.She says that God treats us as individuals and no one should think that they have to follow her particular path. She made clear that she was not proselytizing or acting as a missionary for her church, in writing this book. She says, that she has read hundreds of ND experiences and not one of them are the same, which she explained was because God treats us as individuals and speaks to us on our own level of understanding.I really do want to read this book. I am hooked, already. Thanks for the reference.
Calm Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 (compare the current edition of Gospel Principles to thelast for specific examples) Am curious about these examples. When the new edition came out we has several threads on the subject, including one that did a line by line comparison for changes. I remember nothing of significance.So CFR---what are the specific examples you are thinking of?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.