Gray Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 16 minutes ago, CV75 said: Yes, I do understand that non-LDS churches, groups and individuals consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture. But the Book of Mormon only speaks of one church being correct (as in established by Christ)*, so any others are not. If this is incorrect, then so is the Book of Mormon. * 2 Nephi 3 (in light of 2 Nephi 9:2), the church Joseph Smith established in connection with the publication of the Book of Mormon; 3 Nephi 16:6-7, “the fullness of these things” includes the church set up under Christ’s authority in 3 Nephi 11, which is brought forth again through Joseph Smith in the latter-days. I'm pretty sure it doesn't list the LDS church by name. And the LDS church doesn't interpret that scripture the same way you do, so it's kind of self-defeating.
Avatar4321 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: I'm pretty sure it doesn't list the LDS church by name. And the LDS church doesn't interpret that scripture the same way you do, so it's kind of self-defeating. the D&C does name the Church. Seems odd that there are some who think we should accept the Book of Mormon but ignore the revelation where the Lord states the name of His Church in the last days 1
Gray Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 14 hours ago, CV75 said: You are just re-framing something you used to call the Spirit (whether it was the Spirit or not) as some other entity or phenomenon that no longer carries spiritual significance. You’ve already accomplished the task for me: If the LDS Church, which is mentioned in the Book of Mormon as true (as opposed to all the other denominations which are mentioned as not being true), is not true, the Book of Mormon would not be true. The role of fallible leaders of the Lord’s true Church in handling policy for the true Church, along with the role of the faithful to heed them, is described in 3 Nephi 11. I interpret the experience differently, but it's the same experience I've always had. The BOM makes no mention of any specific church. It only speaks in generalities.
Gray Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: the D&C does name the Church. Seems odd that there are some who think we should accept the Book of Mormon but ignore the revelation where the Lord states the name of His Church in the last days I was specifically talking about the argument that the BOM refers to any particular church. Of course the D&C doesn't really name any extant church. As to which church might be the "successor" the the church of the 1830s, that's subjective.
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 15 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: If in fact the brethren are teaching or enacting something that has been revealed to them by the Holy Ghost; and Since the Holy Ghost is not going to actually inspire someone to oppose a teaching or action which He directed the brethren to teach or enact; THEREFORE it follows quite logically that one or the other of those sources of inspiration must be wrong. After that, it simply becomes a judgement call. I don't even need to seek confirmation when I see that the united voice of the brethren is opposed only by anonymous critics of the Church. If.
CV75 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: But there is just one true Church. That's part of my definition!
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: So, we should listen to -- you, instead? Would you prefer we listen to you?
Avatar4321 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 so we should ignore D&C 115 because the Lord doesn't know what He is talking about
CV75 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 30 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm pretty sure it doesn't list the LDS church by name. And the LDS church doesn't interpret that scripture the same way you do, so it's kind of self-defeating. It doesn't have to list the church by name (hasn't it had 5 or 6 names?); her head has always been Jesus Christ and she meets the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. Can you provide the LDS Church teaching that doesn't interpret "that scripture" the same way I do (and I interpret it a number of other equally valid ways as well). 28 minutes ago, Gray said: I interpret the experience differently, but it's the same experience I've always had. How would you describe your experience in your own authentic terminology since you no longer subscribe to the LDS use of the word "Spirit" (that's with a capital C) as pertinent to your experience (as you once thought it did)? 34 minutes ago, Gray said: The BOM makes no mention of any specific church. It only speaks in generalities. See above.
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: I was specifically talking about the argument that the BOM refers to any particular church. Of course the D&C doesn't really name any extant church. As to which church might be the "successor" the the church of the 1830s, that's subjective. No, it is really God's call.
Tacenda Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) deleted to put in another thread Edited January 14, 2016 by Tacenda
Gray Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 53 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No, it is really God's call. What God might have to say on it is also subjective. At least until God shows up in person to speak for himself. Edited January 14, 2016 by Gray
Gray Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, CV75 said: It doesn't have to list the church by name (hasn't it had 5 or 6 names?); her head has always been Jesus Christ and she meets the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. Can you provide the LDS Church teaching that doesn't interpret "that scripture" the same way I do (and I interpret it a number of other equally valid ways as well). How would you describe your experience in your own authentic terminology since you no longer subscribe to the LDS use of the word "Spirit" (that's with a capital C) as pertinent to your experience (as you once thought it did)? See above. Any church can claim to be lead by Jesus Christ. Many can meet the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. The BOM talks about two churches only - the church of Christ and the church of the devil. There was a time when the latter was thought to refer to the Catholic church. But the LDS church has since clarified that these descriptions do not refer to individual churches at all, but are rather applied very broadly. Regarding the spirit, I think it's something we're all born with that helps guide us in our moral development. It's something internal to all of us, but it's not a communication from a being outside of ourselves. So I still view the spirit as important, but I don't use it like a ouija board or a dousing rod for getting answers from God to all my questions. So I still seek the spirit, but interpret it differently. Edited January 14, 2016 by Gray 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I play second fiddle to no mortal. Wow. Just wow. I genuflect before your greatness. 14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I've only had one major disagreement with the Church in my nearly 45 years as a member and that was the Ban on blacks holding the Priesthood. I have never pulled my punches when I feel something is wrong. I not about to start now. And did it ever occur to you, at any time, that maybe, just maybe, you were the one who was in the wrong? 14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I am glad that the Lord finally directed the Church to lift the Ban. So you're glad the Lord finally became as wise and enlightened as you, huh? 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: If. Yes, that is the one crucial point over which you and your ilk differ from believing Latter-day Saints. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: Would you prefer we listen to you? If you had an attention span, you'd know the answer to that. But since you don't, I'll tell you: I'd prefer we listen to the Still Small Voice. 2
CV75 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Gray said: Any church can claim to be lead by Jesus Christ. Many can meet the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. Not from the scriptures I’m using. 42 minutes ago, Gray said: The BOM talks about two churches only - the church of Christ and the church of the devil. There was a time when the latter was thought to refer to the Catholic church. But the LDS church has since clarified that these descriptions do not refer to individual churches at all, but are rather applied very broadly. That isn’t the scripture I’m using; that one applies to something else. 42 minutes ago, Gray said: Regarding the spirit, I think it's something we're all born with that helps guide us in our moral development. It's something internal to all of us, but it's not a communication from a being outside of ourselves. So I still view the spirit as important, but I don't use it like a ouija board or a dousing rod for getting answers from God to all my questions. So I still seek the spirit, but interpret it differently. We all have DNA, a form of communication from beings outside of ourselves.That’s not what LDS call the Spirit. Your idea of seeking and finding the spirit is like seeking the subconscious, which is informed by our DNA and is how ouija boards and dousing rods actually work. Edited January 14, 2016 by CV75 1
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 27 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Yes, that is the one crucial point over which you and your ilk differ from believing Latter-day Saints. I have an ilk? 1
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 20 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: If you had an attention span, you'd know the answer to that. But since you don't, I'll tell you: I'd prefer we listen to the Still Small Voice. Would that your voice were more still and small, Russell.
Zakuska Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: I have an ilk? I see Russell is being his regular cheerfull self.
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 48 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Wow. Just wow. I genuflect before your greatness. And did it ever occur to you, at any time, that maybe, just maybe, you were the one who was in the wrong? So you're glad the Lord finally became as wise and enlightened as you, huh? My greatness is only exceeded by my good looks. That in God's eye's blacks are somehow inferior to his chosen people the whites? Heaven forbid. I have no problem with God. I do have problems with what some mortals claim he said.
canard78 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 15 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: So, we should listen to -- you, instead? I wouldn't advise it. Listen to yourself, trusted friends or even an inner voice that you attribute to the spirit (which it may well be). My issue is not that people listen to an influence they call the spirit. My issue is their belief that when someone else has an experience that contradicts their own they make the assumption that the other person must be listening to something other than the spirit. What makes you so sure that of two similar, yet contradictory, experiences that you're having the reliable one? 2
Ahab Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 8 minutes ago, canard78 said: I wouldn't advise it. Listen to yourself, trusted friends or even an inner voice that you attribute to the spirit (which it may well be). My issue is not that people listen to an influence they call the spirit. My issue is their belief that when someone else has an experience that contradicts their own they make the assumption that the other person must be listening to something other than the spirit. What makes you so sure that of two similar, yet contradictory, experiences that you're having the reliable one? It's not about that, usually (responding to your question). It's about trusting what the spirit (should actually be capital S Spirit) tells us, personally, vs trusting someone else telling us what the Spirit has said. Our own testimony from the Spirit vs hearsay, basically.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: 1 hour ago, Zakuska said: I see Russell is being his regular cheerfull self. At least he's not engaging in substance-void, drive-by jabs. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, canard78 said: I wouldn't advise it. Listen to yourself, trusted friends or even an inner voice that you attribute to the spirit (which it may well be). My issue is not that people listen to an influence they call the spirit. My issue is their belief that when someone else has an experience that contradicts their own they make the assumption that the other person must be listening to something other than the spirit. What makes you so sure that of two similar, yet contradictory, experiences that you're having the reliable one? It goes back to my response to you in an earlier post. It's all about trustworthiness. Anointed servants of God endowed with authority and keys are more trustworthy than anonymous faultfinders on a message board. 1
Recommended Posts