MiserereNobis Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 We do have people who ask questions, though.It's just that we don't hang people or burn them with faggots.There is a lot of misinformation about the Inquisition. It is important to distinguish between official acts of the Church, the official acts of the State, and the unofficial acts of local clergy, governors, and lay people. 1
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 It has been renamed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which definitely isn't as cool. I think the best name was the pre-1900s name: Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.Now that's an entity that means business Uh oh. Do they still torture people they call heretics, sometimes resorting to the death penalty?What do you guys do to people you call heretics now?... assuming you know and aren't forbidden to tell me.Clearly and unfortunately, which is why you and Ahab and zerinus have nowhere to go to determine what is LDS doctrine and what is not...Yeah we do. We can go to God, who is the best person we can possibly go to, and we can also go to a bishop or a stake president or even all the way up the Church hierarchy to the First Presidency, or the President himself. It's just that they won't torture us if we don't agree with them.
zerinus Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Why? What good reason is there for thinking it should?Because the alternative leads to a logical paradox: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
MiserereNobis Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Uh oh. Do they still torture people they call heretics, sometimes resorting to the death penalty?The Church never officially executed anyone. Heresy was against civil law, so you'd have to take that up with the civil governments at the time. Like I said, there is alot of misinformation out there. Yes, people were executed, but that was a function of civil law.What do you guys do to people you call heretics now?... assuming you know and aren't forbidden to tell me.Hey, you're the one with the secret ceremonies Heretics are condemned and then punished. The punishment depends on the situation, like any punishment, and can go from censure to suspension to excommunication.Yeah we do. We can go to God, who is the best person we can possibly go to, and we can also go to a bishop or a stake president or even all the way up the Church hierarchy to the First Presidency, or the President himself. It's just that they won't torture us if we don't agree with them.I've deleted my comments here for bad taste. My apologies. Edited September 21, 2012 by MiserereNobis 1
ERayR Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Teilhard de Chardin is a very controversial theologian and should not be used as indicative of Catholic Church. From that wikipedia article you linked:We have some of those in the COJCOLDS too. Mostly on this board. 1
thesometimesaint Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 MiserereNobis:False dichotomy. Church and State were one and the same.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Not according to the book of Anraham:Abraham 3:19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.He is a certain kind of being which we refer to as God, and all who are God are the most intelligent kind of being in all of existence. Intelligence, in this case, refers to a particular kind of being. Cats and dogs are a type of intelligence, too, even though they're not as intelligent as we are. The glory of God, or the kind of being God is, is that God is more intelligent than them and all other kinds of beings. Even now we're at the top of the heap as far as intelligences go, even though not all of us are as intelligent as our kind of being can become. That is a goal we can attain, though. We can become as intelligent as he is.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Because the alternative leads to a logical paradox: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?Both chickens and eggs have always existed. That's logical and there is no paradox.
MiserereNobis Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) MiserereNobis:False dichotomy. Church and State were one and the same.Bad history. No, they were not. A quick perusal of the conflicts between Church and State would clearly indicate that. The clergy and the princes were almost constantly bickering over one thing or another. While the Church was declared the official religion, the Church and State had their own separate laws (hence Canon law). In fact, one major controversy was over whether or not the State could try clergy, or if clergy were only answerable to Canon law (the whole Thomas Beckett affair in England).I suppose one exception would be the Papal States, where the Pope was both the supreme religious leader and the supreme civil leader.ETA: there are a lot of assumptions about the inquisition, the crusades, and the middle ages which do not hold up under scrutiny. Certainly there are things to be criticized, as there are today, but many assumptions are plain falsehoods. Edited September 21, 2012 by MiserereNobis 1
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) You make me giggle, mfb. Thanks! It has been renamed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which definitely isn't as cool. I think the best name was the pre-1900s name: Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.Now that's an entity that means business Clearly and unfortunately, which is why you and Ahab and zerinus have nowhere to go to determine what is LDS doctrine and what is not...No problem.We just go to God like Joseph did. Being an old man myself, I know that old men don't always get it right Edited September 21, 2012 by mfbukowski 1
zerinus Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) p.s. I see that you didn't say "only" when you said they reside in the standard works of the Church, but I think you were implying it anyway. If I was wrong about that, I apologize about that. I'm simply saying that our Lord's doctrine which is the same doctrine of his Church reside in many other scriptures other than those in the "standard" works.The doctrine of the Church does reside in the standard works:Alma 12:9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.If you truly had the mysteries of God revealed to you, you would have been instructed not to reveal them. The fact that you reveal them means that you know no mysteries; and the fact that they contradict, or cannot be found in the standard works means that they are not true. Edited September 21, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) I still believe in those scriptures. What makes you believe I might not? What points did I raise which you seem to think are conflicting?To me your post reads contrary to those verses. If you cannot already see that, I am not sure I can help. Edited September 21, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Both chickens and eggs have always existed. That's logical and there is no paradox.No, that is a paradox, because chickens come from eggs and eggs come from chickens. You can't have chickens and eggs running parallel side by side, as if they came from nowhere. Edited September 21, 2012 by zerinus
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 The doctrine of the Church does reside in the standard works:Yes, but not only the standard works.If you truly had the mysteries of God revealed to you, you would have been instructed not to reveal them.I'm repeating what has been taught by the "key" people in public, which is still commonly available to the public at large.Do you really believe these are mysteries of God? This is very basic stuff, at the very foundation of both who and what God is.You should try to learn this stuff if you want to know what and who you worship as God, and it's all just basic doctrine.The fact that you reveal them means that you know no mysteries; and the fact that they contradict, or cannot be found in scripture means that they are not true.They can be found in scripture, unless your idea of scripture is limited to the canon. Even the canon teaches all of this doctrine, though, so you could still learn this stuff even if you stuck only to the canon. If you don't think so, tell me what part of what I'm saying you don't think is in the standard works, and I will explain to you how I believe it is. At that piont you can then look to see what has been taught by the "key" people in the Church and you will see that they have taught the same things.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 To me your post reads contrary to those verses. If you cannot already see that, I am not sure I can help.You can help to show me what you think is contradictory by spelling out exactly which part you think contradicts.I'm sure you've seen some scripture which some other people think is contradictory which you are able to harmonize.I can do the same thing, if you explain what you think contradicts. I can't do that because I don't see any contradiction.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 No, that is a paradox, because chickens come from eggs and eggs come from chickens. You can't have chickens and eggs running parallel side by side, as if they came from nowhere.Sheesh, zerinus. Just look around you. There are both chickens and eggs on this Earth, at the same time.This is the way it has always been, generally. Chickens produce eggs, and chicken eggs develop as chickens.What is so hard for you to understand about that? There is no paradox.
Bart Burk Posted September 21, 2012 Author Posted September 21, 2012 Sheesh, zerinus. Just look around you. There are both chickens and eggs on this Earth, at the same time.This is the way it has always been, generally. Chickens produce eggs, and chicken eggs develop as chickens.What is so hard for you to understand about that? There is no paradox.But there had to be a first chicken somewhere.
thesometimesaint Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 MiserereNobis:No, just the history that the Catholic church and many Protestant churches would like to gloss over or forget entirely. Just remember the fun that Torquemada had in Spain?
thesometimesaint Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Ahab:Eggs preceded chickens by millions of years.
Tacenda Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 But there had to be a first chicken somewhere.Mind blowing isn't it? I use to, as a child, try to imagine the atmosphere with nothing. And then try to imagine what nothing looked like or imagine what it looked like without anything. It was a stretch for my brain to comprehend.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 But there had to be a first chicken somewhere.No, not generally speaking. A first one to the one who comes after, as one had to be there first to produce another, but generally there wasn't one who was the very first one among all, generally speaking.Life doesn't begin. Life is perpetuated, with each kind of being (intelligence) producing another after its own kind from the seed within itself, or from an egg in a case where an egg is involved.Just think of our species, and what is required to produce another of our kind. We don't start from nothing. We start with a female providing an egg and a male providing the sperm. Birds and bees, people. Go ask God where babies come from.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Ahab:Eggs preceded chickens by millions of years.No, chicken eggs came from some chickens, and those chickens came from some other eggs.Good grief. This stuff really isn't hard to understand. Just think about it some more.
Bernard Gui Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 There are two observations to be made with regard to the two quotes: Firstly, I don’t see that they contradict each other. Secondly (and more importantly), your second quote is contradicted by LDS scripture:Mosiah 26:22 For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I [Jesus] that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.Ether 3:15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I [Jesus] have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine [Jesus’] own image.16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I [Jesus] created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.D&C 93:9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.According to these verses, Jesus is the creator of our spirits (and bodies) before He was resurrected, which casts doubt on the validity of your second quote. I realise that it comes from a statement by the First Presidency; but still, if it contradicts scripture (without an explanation), it’s validity becomes questionable and is in doubt. In fact, the explanation that it gives is, “So far as . . . have been made known through divine revelation,” which means that it is not declaring a new revelation, but relying on old revelation. But if it has got the old revelation wrong, which it appears to have, then the teaching is wrong.This quote:Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916is an official declaration of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12.
thesometimesaint Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Ahab:And when there were no chickens. Where did eggs come from?
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Ahab:And when there were no chickens. Where did eggs come from?There has never been a time when there were no chickens. Even eggs are chickens if they are chicken eggs, even though they're still in their embryo stage... and even if a rooster hasn't come along to fertilize the eggs.Come on, now. You can come up with the same answers I'm giving you if you'll just think about this a little more.
Recommended Posts