Anakin7 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 From my LDS Kryptonian Jedi Archive - http://www.lightplanet.com/response/offenders/NT-define.html In His Debt/Grace Anakin7
Ahab Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The source for Christian beliefs is the Bible. Can you give me some examples?The Bible and various Christians, more like. All it takes is a Nay or Yea and there isn't any Christian sect that totally agrees with the Bible even though all of them believe they do.And no we LOS are not one of those Christian sects. We are the only true Church of Jesus Christ on this Earth now among mortals.
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 The source for Christian beliefs is the Bible. Oh it so isn't...it is what some medieval clerics decided the Bible meant. And they got it as wrong as the crusades.In the end NO religion believes the Bible. They ALL believe their interpretation of the Bible for right or for wrong.
Flyonthewall Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 ... Mormons follow a different God and a different gospel that is why Mormonism is not considered a Christian denomination but Protestants and Catholics would be. ...So far, you have not shown we follow a different God. The only thing established, and we fully agree with, is that we have beliefs that differ with mainstream Christianity. SAME GOD, SOME DIFFERENT BELIEFS.
bluebell Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 The source for Christian beliefs is the Bible. Can you give me some examples? Interestingly enough, i just read a blog by a pastor from North Carolina-John Pavlovitz-who has this to say, among other things, about the bible- http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/5-things-i-wish-christians-would-admit-about-bible "The Bible Isn't as Clear as We'd Like It To Be.Often, (especially when arguing), Christians like to begin with the phrase, “The Bible clearly says…” followed by their Scripture soundbite of choice. Those people aren't always taking the entire Bible into account.If we’re honest, the Bible contains a great deal of tension and a whole lot of gray on all types of subjects. For example, we can read the clear Old Testament commandment from God not to murder, and later see Jesus telling His disciples that violence isn’t the path His people are to take. But we also see God telling the Israelites to destroy every living thing in enemy villages, (women and children included), and we read of Moses murdering an Egyptian soldier without recourse from God.That’s why some Christians believe all violence is sinful, while others think shooting someone in self-defense is OK. Some find war justifiable in some cases, while some believe all war is inherently immoral.Same Bible. One subject. Several perspectives.That's not to say that truth is relative, that God doesn't have an opinion on violence or that He hasn't given us His opinion in the Bible. It's just that the answer may not be as clear and straightforward as we like to pretend it is. Many times, when Christians say the phrase “The Bible clearly says…”, what they really mean is, “The way I interpret this one verse allows me to feel justified in having this perspective.”This issue is what Ahab was referring to when he said that one of the major problems with Christianity was all the conflicting doctrine. One example i can give from my own experience is the topic of baptism and whether or not it is necessary for salvation. Some Christians absolutely believe it's not while others (like Lutherans) absolutely believe it is. Both sets of Christians claim the bible as their sole source for doctrine.
3DOP Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Oh it so isn't...it is what some medieval clerics decided the Bible meant. And they got it as wrong as the crusades.In the end NO religion believes the Bible. They ALL believe their interpretation of the Bible for right or for wrong. Just for the record JLHPROF...Not everybody thinks every crusade was evil or even imprudent. That anyone can just homogenize all the Crusades into one lump and call them good or bad, right or wrong, is not good history. You might even have noted that many schools still call their sports teams, "the Crusaders". This is because they find something admirable about crusaders. This alone should give one pause before using "the Crusades" with any confidence that you will find unanimous agreement that all of them were "wrong". I haven't read the whole thread. If you and Canadaigua have perchance reached an agreement between yourselves that the Crusades were always wrong, I would understand the rhetorical value of your appeal to them for purpose of this argument. Thanks for your consideration JLH. Rory
3DOP Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Interestingly enough, i just read a blog by a pastor from North Carolina-John Pavlovitz-who has this to say, among other things, about the bible- http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/5-things-i-wish-christians-would-admit-about-bible "The Bible Isn't as Clear as We'd Like It To Be.Often, (especially when arguing), Christians like to begin with the phrase, “The Bible clearly says…” followed by their Scripture soundbite of choice. Those people aren't always taking the entire Bible into account.If we’re honest, the Bible contains a great deal of tension and a whole lot of gray on all types of subjects. For example, we can read the clear Old Testament commandment from God not to murder, and later see Jesus telling His disciples that violence isn’t the path His people are to take. But we also see God telling the Israelites to destroy every living thing in enemy villages, (women and children included), and we read of Moses murdering an Egyptian soldier without recourse from God.That’s why some Christians believe all violence is sinful, while others think shooting someone in self-defense is OK. Some find war justifiable in some cases, while some believe all war is inherently immoral.Same Bible. One subject. Several perspectives.That's not to say that truth is relative, that God doesn't have an opinion on violence or that He hasn't given us His opinion in the Bible. It's just that the answer may not be as clear and straightforward as we like to pretend it is. Many times, when Christians say the phrase “The Bible clearly says…”, what they really mean is, “The way I interpret this one verse allows me to feel justified in having this perspective.”This issue is what Ahab was referring to when he said that one of the major problems with Christianity was all the conflicting doctrine. One example i can give from my own experience is the topic of baptism and whether or not it is necessary for salvation. Some Christians absolutely believe it's not while others (like Lutherans) absolutely believe it is. Both sets of Christians claim the bible as their sole source for doctrine. Thanks for that bluebell. Great find. I wouldn't expect many staunch Bible believers to be much impressed. And frankly, if this pastor follows his thinking to a logical conclusion he well part ways with a very important Reformation teaching on the sole authority of Scripture, and closely connected to it, what is commonly called "the perspicuity (clear and unambiguous teaching) of Scripture." Rory
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Jesus had also had fishermen. Was he running a cannery? They didn't have canning in the time of Jesus. That came some 1900 years later. They did however have accountants and already had them for thousands of years.
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 And I agree with you. There is certainly LDS literature to support "finite deities". Joseph Smith taught in the King Follette sermon that God has not always been god--and this sermon was printed in the official LDS magazine Ensign. There are references also for the other points but I am sure most LDS are aware of these. A major problem with Mormonism is that there is a lot of conflicting teachings depending on the source. The King Follette Discourse is not nor has it ever been LDS doctrine.
Tacenda Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 The King Follette Discourse is not nor has it ever been LDS doctrine.Can't believe that you believe this, it's what our church believes and is what Mormonism is all about. That God is flesh not spirit only and we are the literal children of that God. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Can't believe that you believe this, it's what our church believes and is what Mormonism is all about. That God is flesh not spirit only and we are the literal children of that God. Open your "Quad". The KFD is nowhere in it.SEE https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=engSEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine I never said that the KFD didn't have doctrine in it, but itself is not doctrine. The KFD is more like a Sacrament Meeting talk that touches upon points of doctrine. 1
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Can't believe that you believe this, it's what our church believes and is what Mormonism is all about. That God is flesh not spirit only and we are the literal children of that God. Although I agree with you TSS is technically correct it has not been canonized and therefore is not official. I have my problems with this legalistic approach but it is sometimes useful.
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Although I agree with you TSS is technically correct it has not been canonized and therefore is not official. I have my problems with this legalistic approach but it is sometimes useful. I'm not fond of a legalistic approach either. OTOH I don't feel bound to anything that isn't doctrine, whether I agree with it or not.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 The King Follette Discourse is not nor has it ever been LDS doctrine.This is correct as a whole the discourse is not doctrine. Parts of it are and those are the parts found in official LDS publications. 1
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 They didn't have canning in the time of Jesus. That came some 1900 years later. They did however have accountants and already had them for thousands of years. But as I posted above they did have a very good booth at the market. 1
Canadaigua Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Oh it so isn't...it is what some medieval clerics decided the Bible meant. And they got it as wrong as the crusades.In the end NO religion believes the Bible. They ALL believe their interpretation of the Bible for right or for wrong."Oh it so isn't...it is what some medieval clerics decided the Bible meant. And they got it as wrong as the crusades."Have you even considered that people can read the Bible today?But I am interested in your theory--perhaps you could explain why a person is incapable of reading it for himself.
Canadaigua Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 The King Follette Discourse is not nor has it ever been LDS doctrine.Joseph Smith's King Follette sermon is printed in full in 2 consecutive ensign articles. The Ensign is an official LDS publication.
Canadaigua Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 This is correct as a whole the discourse is not doctrine. Parts of it are and those are the parts found in official LDS publications.Since it is printed in full in the Ensign--which is an official LDS publication--then I quests you accept the entire sermon as doctrine.
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 "Oh it so isn't...it is what some medieval clerics decided the Bible meant. And they got it as wrong as the crusades."Have you even considered that people can read the Bible today?But I am interested in your theory--perhaps you could explain why a person is incapable of reading it for himself. The Bible that we know today didn't exist until some time after the 4th Century CE. Nowhere in the NT is there a command to go on Crusades. That was an invention of Pope Urban II in 1095 CE. With some 400,000 variations in the Bible, and 50,000 different Bibles. Which Bible? The Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, ancient Aramaic and ancient Greek. I don't speak, write, or read them. Even the KJV adds lots of words, and their meanings, that are not found in the copies of copies of copies that we do have.
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Joseph Smith's King Follette sermon is printed in full in 2 consecutive ensign articles. The Ensign is an official LDS publication. Not everything published in Ensign articles is LDS doctrine.SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine 1
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Have you even considered that people can read the Bible today? Yes, but understanding and consistency seems to be a problem.
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 The King Follette Discourse is not nor has it ever been LDS doctrine. I think you mean "official" doctrine. It is distinctly LDS. And I for one believe it 100% regardless of canonical adoption. 1
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Joseph Smith's King Follette sermon is printed in full in 2 consecutive ensign articles. The Ensign is an official LDS publication. I for one have no problem with it. Am I supposed to? 1
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) "Oh it so isn't...it is what some medieval clerics decided the Bible meant. And they got it as wrong as the crusades."Have you even considered that people can read the Bible today?But I am interested in your theory--perhaps you could explain why a person is incapable of reading it for himself. Because people are often unable to read without putting their own interpretation on an item.For instance, I had a childrens lit professor who said that the Berenstein Bears were anti-feminist because Mother Bear stayed home with the kids while Papa Bear went to work. And she rejected any interpretation to the contrary. It didn't matter that the author had no such meaning or inclination. That was what she saw.Our reading of scripture is always based on our perspective, the perspective of the interpreter, and the perspective of the religious viewpoint we bring to it. I reject the Nicene interpretation of the Bible as just plain wrong. But that's colored by my perspective.You reject the Mormon interpretation of the Bible as just plain wrong. But that's colored by your perspective. I say again "In the end NO religion believes the Bible. They ALL believe their interpretation of the Bible for right or for wrong." Edited January 9, 2015 by JLHPROF 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Since it is printed in full in the Ensign--which is an official LDS publication--then I quests you accept the entire sermon as doctrine.Context please. Just because it is actually printed in full does not make it doctrine. There are qualifiers that I should have added such as "when it is printed in full and states thing such as there are some imperfections in the report and some thoughts expressed by the Prophet which were not fully rounded out and made complete, you should take that into account." Stop being so dubious. 1
Recommended Posts