ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 With the exception of the blacks and the priesthood in 1978 there hasn't been any new scripture for over a hundred years. What is the purpose for having a living prophet especially since you believe that their words can't be trusted as official teachings AND everything that you need to know is already written down for you in the LDS scriptures? I reject your declaration. Some in the Church also bind themselves by creeds but some do not.
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 It is only a recent development that we are somehow scripture only for our doctrine church. The founders of the LDS church never taught this. Most of the leading GAs in my life did not either.How we can now claim that only that which is in the LDS canon is our official doctrine is beyond me. But I used to argue such because it made it easier to defend things we would rather walk away from.The couplet "as many is God once was, as God is man may become" as well as many parts and even all of the KFD have been published by the church over and over and quoted over and over in conference addresses. The themes of the KFD Have been expanded upon over and over as well.So now here is s critic arguing idea of God being a man is not bibilical and the response is "that's not doctrine" just seems so disingenuous to me. Teancum I do not understand this but I find myself agreeing with you more and more.
thesometimesaint Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Teancum I do not understand this but I find myself agreeing with you more and more. As far as it has been translated correctly.
Ahab Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Doctrine is what is taught, and official doctrine is what is taught by officials. When you want to know what is official doctrine then find out what the officials are teaching. It won't necessarily be what is true but it will still be official doctrine. I am one of those who believes what our Church officials teach based on what God tells me is true. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Doctrine is what is taught, and official doctrine is what is taught by officials. When you want to know what is official doctrine then find out what the officials are teaching. It won't necessarily be what is true but it will still be official doctrine. I am one of those who believes what our Church officials teach based on what God tells me is true. I'm not under any obligation to accept anything that isn't true.
Ahab Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) I'm not under any obligation to accept anything that isn't true.I think it's best to base your belief on whether or not something is true than whether or not it is official. Like how all I really want is for God to tell me whether or not something is true, and good. I don't base my belief on whether or not someone says it is official. Edited January 11, 2015 by Ahab 2
thesometimesaint Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 I think it's best to base your belief on whether or not something is true than whether or not it is official. Like how all I really want is for God to tell me whether or not something is true, and good. I don't base my belief on whether or not someone says it is official. Philosophically I'll agree. However I do have problems with what some mortal claims God said.
Vance Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Because I have read them and they aren't in there.They are like the parables. They are right there in front of everybody, but only the spiritually minded can grasp their real meaning. That is why you miss them.
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 I'm not under any obligation to accept anything that isn't true. But sometimes you do.
Canadaigua Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Not at all. If you do not have a standard by with to judge something is true then nothing is true. You also need to distinguish between doctrine and truth. As I have stated before, not all doctrine is truth and not all truth is doctrine. king Follett is not doctrine. This does not mean it is not true, but it is not doctrine. We currently have no way of knowing whether it is true. The only way to know if it is true is if God says so, and God speaks through his prophets.Joseph Smith was an LDS prophet and he has told us that god has not always been a god. And if Joseph Smith was teaching false doctrine why would the LDS reprint his sermon in the Ensign?
Canadaigua Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Doctrine is what is taught, and official doctrine is what is taught by officials. When you want to know what is official doctrine then find out what the officials are teaching. It won't necessarily be what is true but it will still be official doctrine. I am one of those who believes what our Church officials teach based on what God tells me is true.So truth is relative to the observer rather than having absolute truth. This seems to be a more common trend among LDS today.
JLHPROF Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 So truth is relative to the observer rather than having absolute truth. This seems to be a more common trend among LDS today. No, truth is not relative to the observer. What the individual chooses to accept as true is relative to the observer.Truth is absolute. Our ability to recognize it isn't and the truths we follow aren't the same as absolute truth. 1
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Joseph Smith was an LDS prophet and he has told us that god has not always been a god. And if Joseph Smith was teaching false doctrine why would the LDS reprint his sermon in the Ensign? I dunno mayhaps someun on the editorial staff thought it would be nice, Duh.
Pahoran Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Most, if not all, Christians consider that LDS-revealed statement be a lie, and that the LDS-revealed Christ to be a liar. So, it's hardly anything for a Christian to be upset about since it does a great job of setting a foundational benchmark for the LDS belief system against the Christian world. Latter-day Saints are Christians. This is a fact beyond reasonable dispute. No Latter-day Saint Christians "consider that LDS-revealed statement be a lie." Ergo, the highlighted statement is a lie. Regards, Pahoran 2
Gervin Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Latter-day Saints are Christians. This is a fact beyond reasonable dispute. No Latter-day Saint Christians "consider that LDS-revealed statement be a lie."Ergo, the highlighted statement is a lie.Regards,PahoranOk, just leave it at "most of Christendom" if that suits your fancy.
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 But sometimes you do. We all do. But most of us try to limit it. 1
Freedom Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 There is a confusion between truth and doctrine. Mormons accept all truth, but our doctrine is limited to what is found in the scriptures and in the official proclamations. This has always been the practice. Anything else leads to anarchy. Gravity is a truth, for example, but it is not part of our doctrine. 1
Vance Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Ok, just leave it at "most of Christendom" if that suits your fancy.Yes, and "most of Christendom" considers your flavor of Christianity as false one as well. So? 1
Gervin Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Yes, and "most of Christendom" considers your flavor of Christianity as false one as well. So? If "most of Christendom" considers the Christ of the New Testament "false" then you have a point. Otherwise, you've missed the point.
ERayR Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 If "most of Christendom" considers the Christ of the New Testament "false" then you have a point. Otherwise, you've missed the point. There was no valid point.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 If "most of Christendom" considers the Christ of the New Testament "false" then you have a point. Otherwise, you've missed the point.I don't think you go it. Are most people your brand of Christianity? Your overall point is quite inane. For the same thing could be said of what you believe. You are appealing to populace. It cuts both ways.
Gervin Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I don't think you go it. Are most people your brand of Christianity? Your overall point is quite inane. For the same thing could be said of what you believe. You are appealing to populace. It cuts both ways. I have no idea what you are talking about. Go find my original post on this thread for context; I was making a distinction about Christ and his alleged denunciation of Christianity.
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I have no idea what you are talking about. Go find my original post on this thread for context; I was making a distinction about Christ and his alleged denunciation of Christianity. That doesn't help you any.
Popular Post Pahoran Posted January 12, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 12, 2015 I have no idea what you are talking about. Go find my original post on this thread for context; I was making a distinction about Christ and his alleged denunciation of Christianity. Joseph did not report that Christ denounced Christianity. Jesus denounced creeds. Are you asserting that creeds are the sine qua non of Christianity? If so, were the original Twelve Apostles Christians? Was Jesus? Regards, Pahoran 5
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Joseph did not report that Christ denounced Christianity.Jesus denounced creeds. Are you asserting that creeds are the sine qua non of Christianity?If so, were the original Twelve Apostles Christians? Was Jesus?Regards,Pahoran The Jews of the time considered them heretical Jews.
Recommended Posts