georged Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I appeciate the comments that have been made, but i still contend that the facts I presented were true, and that this principle has been restored again for the purpose of giving everyone the opportunity to be "born of the water and Spirit" and have the opportunity for salvation even if the never heard of the name of Jesus Christ during their mortal existance (see 1 Peter 4:6)!
selek1 Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Georged,This was intended as a PM, but since you can't receive those (and because no e-mail info is available), I decided to take a chance and post it here.While I appreciate your clarity of thought on a number of matters, you're enthusiasm appears to be overriding the message.I'd like to take your last missive point-by-point, if I may.There are- I'm sure- a great many who will find an abundance of irony in this post, but take it for what it's worth.Well, to be very frank and honest with you, the Catholic church has been wrong so much that I scarcely would know where to begin on that topic. Ironically, as per the board rules and common courtesy, you shouldn't be taking up that cross at all.It is more effective to- as Brigham Young taught- to teach about the goodness we have; to let our light shine forth rather than to try and tear down what little another has.Don't worry, this is actually a common mistake (I can't name three posters who haven't commited it)- but its one we should all try to avoid. However, it is obvious to me, that a church that would support the inquisition, the sale of indulgences, and state that it was a heresy to say that the earth was not the center of the universe, could hardly be considered as inspired! As a matter of fact and history, Brigham Young and our other prophets (though unquestionably inspired) were wrong about a great many things in their day-to-day lives.We do not ask for infallibility from either our Church or leaders- it would be hypocritical to demand it of others, would it not?As others have already pointed out- including Brother Brigham- the Catholic Church (and others) do teach some truth and light, though admittedly mingled with error. We invite them to bring what light they have an add it to our own.How does the Article of Faith go?Whatever is true, praiseworthy, and honorable, we seek after these things? (I know, I know- horrible paraphrase).However, like so many other ordinances, the Catholic church fulfilled the prophet Daniels prophecy of apostasy by "changing laws, times, and seasons" making it necessary for Peter's prophecy as recorded in Acts 3:19-21 concerning the "restitution of ALL THINGS" a further necessity since they did away with baptism by immersion, did away with the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, did away with baptism for the dead, and a host of other things too numerous to mention here, inculuding the true priesthood authority and the divinely ordered and established chuch that Christ set up!Actually- many of these changes were begun and well underway BEFORE the Catholic Church was formally codified/founded.Most of the corruption and error that crept in through the centuries has been well-intended and well-meaning rather than malicious.Let's put it another way: Do you know the difference between a "lie" and a "non-truth"?A "lie" is a knowing and deliberate attempt to mislead. A "non-truth" can be promoted by error, ignorance, and innocence. Malice is not required.While I will be (at least) second or third in line to admit that the Catholic Church contains a lot of error- I am far less sanguine about proclaiming that it is full of "lies".While it is our Christian duty and commission to preach the truth, it is NOT our place to judge or condemn those who were taught error or falsehood, yet believe it in innocent sincerity.It is a bulwark of the Gospel that we will be judged for our actions, thoughts, and deeds- and be judged based upon what light and truth we received.While I understand what you are trying to argue and agree with you (for the most part) you are causing more harm to your argument than you are countering.I suggest that if you were to rein back on the accusation and condemnation- and let the truth of what you have received shine forth, it will render most people more willing to listen to your points.It will also cut down the blowback you receive from the moderators, Saints, and gentiles.Yours,Selek Edited March 20, 2012 by selek1 1
georged Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I appreciate the comments that have been made, but I still contend that the facts I presented are true., and that this priciplw has been resored again for the purpose of giving everyone the opportunity to be "born of the water and Spirit" and have the opportunity of salvation even if they never heard of the name of Jesus Christ during their mortal existence (see 1 Peter 4:6)!
3DOP Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I appreciate the comments that have been made, but I still contend that the facts I presented are true., and that this priciplw has been resored again for the purpose of giving everyone the opportunity to be "born of the water and Spirit" and have the opportunity of salvation even if they never heard of the name of Jesus Christ during their mortal existence (see 1 Peter 4:6)!I don't think anyone is arguing against the plausibility of your proposition. I certainly didn't. I am only asking you to recognize past and present Catholic practice and teaching. Because of this, you must concede that Mormons can not claim an exclusive belief in a praiseworthy and right application of I Cor. 15:29. If it would be helpful, we could go over my original outline to you point by point. It seems impossible that you could disagree, and why would you want to anyway? It doesn't threaten the integrity of LDS applications of I Cor. 15:29. I don't even suggest that this is grandly significant, but it is at least noteworthy that against most interpreters, Catholics and Mormons can agree that St. Paul used a valid practice in support of a true doctrine. This means you would in the future be more cautious in discussions about baptism for the dead, taking care not to include the Catholic Church among those who have no idea what to do with I Cor. 15:29. I would be satisfied with such a modest result.Regards,3DOP
georged Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I respect you, and I respect your comments, but I am not on this site to please or satisfy anyones expectations, wants, or desires, I have merely stated factual truths that can be verified by scripture and\or history. If these facts condemn anyone or any orgaization, it is not my fault. I am merely pointing out these things!!!
volgadon Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) I respect you, and I respect your comments, but I am not on this site to please or satisfy anyones expectations, wants, or desires, I have merely stated factual truths that can be verified by scripture and\or history. If these facts condemn anyone or any orgaization, it is not my fault. I am merely pointing out these things!!!Your "factual truths" (a bizarre formulation if ever there was one) don't appear to be more than over-simplified sound bites unable to withstand scrutiny. When people ask you to back up your assertions you bellow louder. Edited March 20, 2012 by volgadon
georged Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Copernicius was labeled a heretic by the Catholic church for making that claim!!! Study your history!!!
altersteve Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Copernicius was labeled a heretic by the Catholic church for making that claim!!! Study your history!!!"You need to back up what you write on these blogs!"You told me so yourself, remember? 1
volgadon Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Copernicius was labeled a heretic by the Catholic church for making that claim!!! Study your history!!!Many years after his death, and in conjunction with Galileo, whose personal conduct was as much to blame as anything.For your second sentence, please see my signature line.
georged Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Yes, you are right, I remember that! I'm sorry, my mistake! I couldn't remember the name so that is why I wrote in my prior post that a man was persecuted by the Catholic church for that.
3DOP Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) I think we already have a decent thread on the subject of GalileoI respect you, and I respect your comments, but I am not on this site to please or satisfy anyones expectations, wants, or desires, I have merely stated factual truths that can be verified by scripture and\or history. If these facts condemn anyone or any orgaization, it is not my fault. I am merely pointing out these things!!!georged,Can't you see that some of your brethren are trying to help you? Learn from this experience. Focus on a topic. Read what is written. Don't be disagreeable with those who agree with you. You have not said one thing about baptism of desire to disagree with. Why do you insist on acting like we are at odds about this subject and then not speaking to the points that are made? Your exclamation points at first inspired admiration because it indicates a lively faith and a warm attachment to your beliefs. But the exclamations wear thin when they show that if you read what people are saying, you have disregard. I'll continue to monitor your activity. I don't use the ignore button on anyone. But if you continue in this manner I'll be satisfactorily assured that you are so discredited by your own wrecklessness that I won't need to reply (for your sake anyway) to any of your debatable "facts" about my faith. You've read how many books about my faith? One? Two? Old? LDS? Protestant? How many Catholic books have you read that talk about the things you are so fired up about? Doesn't the prosecution need to reply to what the defense will say? Don't you need to listen if you are going to win the jury? One is quickly frustrated with persons who are so passionately attached to their own one idea that they can't listen to alternative explanations. I had hope at first, and I don't speak for anybody but me, but this is my third pitch to you and if you strike out, so be it. I for one will know not to try to reason with you anymore. Edited March 20, 2012 by 3DOP
georged Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 What was wrong with my last post? Ok, I will try to remember not to use exclaimation marks.
3DOP Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 What was wrong with my last post? Ok, I will try to remember not to use exclaimation marks.I am not against exclamation points. I use them generously. That is why I was initally drawn to you. How could you think I want you to stop using exclamation marks?And how did we get from I Cor. 15:29 to this? I am sure I don't have anything further to add to the conversation at this time. Goodnight.3DOP
Calm Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I have merely stated factual truths that can be verified by scripture and\or history. If this is your concern, then surely you will want to correct any errors in your claims even if they come from Catholics or are about the Catholic faith.
Recommended Posts