Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, pogi said: To distinguish it from arrogance. Yes...that's why I used the word "humble". Of course. I rest my case. Someone who is boldly confident can be mistaken for someone who is arrogant. Sometimes some people just can't correctly tell the difference.
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: I rest my case. Someone who is boldly confident can be mistaken for someone who is arrogant. Sometimes some people just can't correctly tell the difference. What case? Are you talking about how we (some) perceive you? It is also true that someone who is arrogant can mistakenly think he is humble. More than anything, I wanted you to understand how you are perceived, hoping that it might influence how you communicate with others. You can be boldly confident without being so...condescending about it. Edited March 4, 2020 by pogi 3
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, pogi said: What case? Are you talking about how we (some) perceive you? Yes. 2 minutes ago, pogi said: It is also true that someone who is arrogant can mistakenly think he is humble. And who would know best, do you think. Me or you? And of course I realize you could be mistaken.
Navidad Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: Ok, so it sounds like the "arrogance" you speak of is in relation to your perception of exclusion from the kingdom of Heaven. I never claimed the Kingdom was not exclusive. Of course it is. Don't you agree? My point is that it is not us who makes the rules, we simply interpret them. If God tells you that you have to be a Christian to enter his Kingdom, and you relay that message to non-Christians, are you being arrogant? Is that not exclusive? We simply interpret the borders of exclusivity in different ways. Not arrogant, just different. In some ways our interpretation is more inclusive, in other ways (exaltation) it is more exclusive. But you don't even believe in exaltation/deification in the same way we do, so we are comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps you are being more exclusive in that you exclude everyone from our views of exaltation. You exclude us from our own doctrine - arrogant? I wouldn't call that arrogant, you simply interpret the word of the Lord different. Hi Pogi: This time it is you who is presupposing what I believe or would do. I believe Christ as the judge of all will determine who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He makes the rules and has not fully disclosed to any of us what they are, except that they involve faith. I do not believe that a person has to be a Christian in a traditional sense to enter His kingdom. I am not interpreting the borders of exclusivity in any way. I have said it before on this forum that I believe in a wideness in God's mercy. I consciously avoid making any decisions on who will or will not be in heaven or what the requirements for that are. It is by our faith that we are accounted righteous. Eternal life with God may be what is referred to in Eph 2:8,9 as the gift of God. It is hard even with a knowledge of Greek to know what the "it" in this verse refers to . . . is it faith, eternal life, or ??? I don't know what that means exactly and would never apply it to any Christian or non-Christian for that matter. I am what is called in Evangelical terminology an inclusivist, not an exclusivist and certainly not a universalist. There are probably five positions in mainstream Evangelicalism about who will be in heaven. I take the inclusivist view which maintains that Christ will decide at the judgement seat based on his knowledge of the faith of the individual being judged. Have you all never heard of the varying views within Evangelical Christianity as to the eternal destiny of folks who have never heard, who lived before Christ, who for whatever reason did not not accept Christ in this life? This is why I like to study others' views. Several of you have now told me over the past few days that is not something you enjoy doing or find useful. I find it wonderful. That is just my personal testimony. I also am very interested in trying to learn more about the similarities and differences between the LDS idea of exaltation and the Evangelical idea of sanctification. I think we are much closer than either of us realize. I hesitate to even broach a subject like that because I have been scolded (parent to child) by some of you for either asking too many questions. sharing what I believe instead of just listening, or stubbornly refusing to learn (the kicking against the pricks) thing. Having said that, The discussion of this thread is quite relevant to my interest. I hesitate to say this, but for me salvation is a point in time experience and sanctification may or may not happen in an individual's life over time into eternity. I believe many are saved but then don't have much interest in sanctification. I don't see it as connected to any ordinance, but that is only because I don't have an ordinance that I think relates to it. LDS Christians do have ordinances that are related to exaltation. So I would love to learn more. Part of the problem with that is ordinances related to exaltation involve the temple, so we can't talk about it very much except to quote what former apostles and presidents have said about temple ordinances. I believe in sanctification I become like Christ in holiness; not as Christ in nature or substance. I suppose that once again that is a difference. Perhaps not such a very big one as we might think. So, no, I don't dare presume to know who will be blessed with eternity with the Father and Son. That is way above my pay grade. I have enough to worry about in my own life of faith. I don't need to judge others, including all my LDS or Muslim friends. Edited March 4, 2020 by Navidad
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: And who would know best, do you think. Me or you? And of course I realize you could be mistaken. Like I said, I am just telling you how you are perceived. You can say the same things in ways that come off as less condescending, or you can continue on as you do...up to you. One way will be more influential, the other way will not be.
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Navidad said: An LDS Christian and a non-LDS Christian actually wrote a book entitled "How Wide the Divide?" I read the book several times; I am not sure they answered the question! Maybe some of us on here should tackle the same subject! Wouldn't that be fun? We could even make it kind of philosophical, just for you Second answer I wrote this in July 1980, about eight months after I joined the church: "Can it be that truth is relative, but relative to God? That is all these relationships between man and reality are true but are they even more true for God? We function as mini- gods in creating our own cultural worlds in the same way God functions in organizing reality in the same way God functions in organizing reality! Creation is actually a process of organization of phenomena both for God and us, it's a process of Consciousness acting on... Well it's Consciousness acting! Reality is a social construct but God is at the Helm of the society that constructs it." DC 93: 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. All we know is created by human intelligence or we couldn't "know" it In the beginning was the word and nothing was created without the word. (Intelligence) or light and truth. 1
Navidad Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: We have totally left Catholicism out of the discussion. They also believe that salvation comes only through the Catholic Church. What we now call "Christianity" was once called The Universal Church which is Catholicism In a very real sense protestantism invented "Christianity" as a group of churches which were not Catholic. Before that there was no group calling themselves "Christians" separate from the Catholic Church. I would say that in a sense, Protestantism created "Christianity"as we think about it today. Add there was no salvation outside of Christianity/Catholicism. And on that basis we claim a Restoration of the original order of things. Sorry, no time to reply right now. You are leaving out the world of non-Protestants and non-Catholics in church history. Maybe later we can discuss this more. Perhaps I should simply say that I believe your portrayal of two thousand years of church history is less than complete. As an Anabaptist believer I reject the idea that the Catholic Church was ever the universal church. More at a later time perhaps, but I am very hesitant to opine where I simply irritate. Edited March 4, 2020 by Navidad Edited to take out what sounds argumentative. That was not my intent.
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 minute ago, pogi said: Like I said, I am just telling you how you are perceived. You can say the same things in ways that come off as less condescending, or you can continue on as you do...up to you. One way will be more influential, the other way will not be. No matter what I say or how I say it, there will always be people who could mistake my bold confidence for arrogance while I am declaring the gospel. Of course I could hem and haw and try to avoid boldly declaring the truth, just saying what I am saying is what "I think", but I think that's being wishy washy and I would rather just say what I think while knowing that what I am saying is true. Anyway, I don't even remember what it was that got me to thinking about this. Oh, now I remember, Navidad saying he thinks we are being arrogant by boldly declaring the truth, but it would probably be best to avoid talking about that in this thread.
Navidad Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 29 minutes ago, pogi said: We are speaking of truth in different ways - different spheres of truth. What is the scientific method going to tell you about morality? How do you test for morality? What does the scientific method teach us about preparing for the after-life? The scientific method taught us how to make bombs, it doesn't teach us if it is moral or not to use them. The fact that people can come to different conclusions, each claiming to be directed by the spirit/faith, is not evidence of a dysfunctional system. If anything, it is evidence of a loving God directing us each in a personalized way that will eventually lead to the same end. It is evidence that we have to work through our cultural bias/perspectives. It is evidence that we see through a glass darkly, with our filters being removed line-upon-line... Pogi, are you sure you aren't an Anabaptist Mormon? Can I say amen to what you just wrote? 1
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, Navidad said: I also am very interested in trying to learn more about the similarities and differences between the LDS idea of exaltation and the Evangelical idea of sanctification. The difference is we believe that we can become even as God is now. Period. No metaphor, no symbols. Literally as God is now. I could be mistaken but I don't think that's what you call "sanctification"
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Second answer I wrote this in July 1980, about eight months after I joined the church: "Can it be that truth is relative, but relative to God? That is all these relationships between man and reality are true but are they even more true for God? We function as mini- gods in creating our own cultural worlds in the same way God functions in organizing reality in the same way God functions in organizing reality! Creation is actually a process of organization of phenomena both for God and us, it's a process of Consciousness acting on... Well it's Consciousness acting! Reality is a social construct but God is at the Helm of the society that constructs it." DC 93: 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. All we know is created by human intelligence or we couldn't "know" it In the beginning was the word and nothing was created without the word. (Intelligence) or light and truth. We have these 2 ideas/statements, one from you and the other from God. Truth is relative, but relative to God. Truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Now I will add another idea/statement to that. Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: No matter what I say or how I say it, there will always be people who could mistake my bold confidence for arrogance while I am declaring the gospel. Of course I could hem and haw and try to avoid boldly declaring the truth, just saying what I am saying is what "I think", but I think that's being wishy washy and I would rather just say what I think while knowing that what I am saying is true. Anyway, I don't even remember what it was that got me to thinking about this. Oh, now I remember, Navidad saying he thinks we are being arrogant by boldly declaring the truth, but it would probably be best to avoid talking about that in this thread. But you see, you already have. Some people call that being "passive-aggressive" not bold. You're not a very good salesman or diplomat. I truly admire your sweetheart.
Navidad Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Ahab said: This is from an account of Orson F. Whitney, who was an Apostle for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquanted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, your are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days." Orson Whitney was a great writer and one of my favorite apostles. I have his entire four volume history of Utah in my library. What a cherished resource! Are you aware of the two times that Dwight L Moody the great Evangelical evangelist also spoke in the tabernacle? It is also a great story too. Richard E Turley Jr once told me all about it and sent me the citations. Edited March 4, 2020 by Navidad
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Just now, Ahab said: We have these 2 ideas/statements, one from you and the other from God. Truth is relative, but relative to God. Truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Now I will add another idea/statement to that. Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. "..... through a glass Darkly." We don't know things as they are. We all know them as we can perceive them, or as God reveals them to us personally. And what he reveals to us personally is what we need to know not what everybody needs to know. He teaches us personally and individually on our own curriculum custom designed for us.
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Navidad said: Hi Pogi: This time it is you who is presupposing what I believe or would do. I believe Christ as the judge of all will determine who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He makes the rules and has not fully disclosed to any of us what they are, except that they involve faith. Your entire last paragraph presupposes something that is not accurate (at least in applying it to me). I do not believe that a person has to be a Christian in a traditional sense to enter His kingdom. I am not interpreting the borders of exclusivity in any way. I have said it before on this forum that I believe in a wideness in God's mercy. I consciously avoid making any decisions on who will or will not be in heaven or what the requirements for that are. It is by our faith that we are accounted righteous. Eternal life with God may be what is referred to in Eph 2:8,9 as the gift of God. It is hard even with a knowledge of Greek to know what the "it" in this verse refers to . . . is it faith, eternal life, or ??? I don't know what that means exactly and would never apply it to any Christian or non-Christian for that matter. I am what is called in Evangelical terminology an inclusivist, not an exclusivist and certainly not a universalist. There are probably five positions in mainstream Evangelicalism about who will be in heaven. I take the inclusivist view which maintains that Christ will decide at the judgement seat based on his knowledge of the faith of the individual being judged. Have you all never heard of the varying views within Evangelical Christianity as to the eternal destiny of folks who have never heard, who lived before Christ, who for whatever reason did not not accept Christ in this life? This is why I like to study others' views. Several of you have now told me over the past few days that is not something you enjoy doing or find useful. I find it wonderful. That is just my personal testimony. I also am very interested in trying to learn more about the similarities and differences between the LDS idea of exaltation and the Evangelical idea of sanctification. I think we are much closer than either of us realize. I hesitate to even broach a subject like that because I have been scolded (parent to child) by some of you for either asking too many questions. sharing what I believe instead of just listening, or stubbornly refusing to learn (the kicking against the pricks) thing. Having said that, The discussion of this thread is quite relevant to my interest. I hesitate to say this, but for me salvation is a point in time experience and sanctification may or may not happen in an individual's life over time into eternity. I believe many are saved but then don't have much interest in sanctification. I don't see it as connected to any ordinance, but that is only because I don't have an ordinance that I think relates to it. LDS Christians do have ordinances that are related to exaltation. So I would love to learn more. Part of the problem with that is ordinances related to exaltation involve the temple, so we can't talk about it very much except to quote what former apostles and presidents have said about temple ordinances. I believe in sanctification I become like Christ in holiness; not as Christ in nature or substance. I suppose that once again that is a difference. Perhaps not such a very big one as we might think. So, no, I don't dare presume to know who will be blessed with eternity with the Father and Son. That is way above my pay grade. I have enough to worry about in my own life of faith. I don't need to judge others, including all my LDS or Muslim friends. Thanks for sharing your views. Neither do we dare to presume to know who will be blessed with eternity with the Father and Son. In fact, we have been strictly commanded not to judge in that way. For what it is worth, unless you are a universalist, I don't understand how you could be anything other than an exclusionist to some degree or another. You list faith as the only requirement that you dare name. Well, that excludes those who don't have faith. I know what you are thinking - you are thinking "ya, but I can't judge a man's faith". If I understand you correctly, you view God as the exclusionist, not you. Well, that is exactly what we believe too. The only difference is that we believe that he HAS disclosed the rules through prophets. That doesn't give us the right to judge others in terms of salvation/exaltation. Because we believe in a post-mortal ministry and proxy ordinances, we CAN'T judge anyone. So, really, we are no different from you in that regard. Quote He makes the rules and has not fully disclosed to any of us what they are... That is your interpretation - which you place above mine, naturally. I don't think that makes you arrogant, and I don't think it makes me arrogant for interpreting God's word different from you. I believe I am humbly following the will and word of the Lord, how is that arrogant? I will say that it is hard for me to understand why a parent would make rules and not disclose them to their children. Edited March 4, 2020 by pogi
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 20 minutes ago, Ahab said: it would probably be best to avoid talking about that in this thread. agreed
Navidad Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The difference is we believe that we can become even as God is now. Period. No metaphor, no symbols. Literally as God is now. I could be mistaken but I don't think that's what you call "sanctification" Nope, you are not mistaken. That isn't what I call sanctification. That is why I said "like God" not "as God." I think the LDS Church teaches "as" in terms of "essence." That is a whole different ball game! Edited March 5, 2020 by Navidad
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 23 minutes ago, Navidad said: I believe many are saved but then don't have much interest in sanctification. I believe that too, and an understanding of that leads to an explanation of why people receive different levels of reward based on their works instead of everybody getting the same exact thing as everyone else. The atonement is perfect, but not everyone wants perfection. 23 minutes ago, Navidad said: I don't see it as connected to any ordinance, but that is only because I don't have an ordinance that I think relates to it. There is an ordinance that helps us to become sanctified. We receive the ordinance in 2 separate steps. First, baptism in water to fulfill God's command to be baptized, at which point we are forgiven for our past sins as long as we have repented from them and continue to repent whenever we understand that we should. The second step is to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost to give us access to God who helps us to know what we need to do to become perfect and remain free from sin. It takes a while to become as perfect as God is now but as we try the Holy Ghost helps us know what we need to work on so we just need to keep working on it until we are as perfect as God is.
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: But you see, you already have.' Yeah well you don't need to keep encouraging me to do it. Probably best if we just stop it now, don't you think? 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Some people call that being "passive-aggressive" not bold. Yeah well I think we have already settled the fact that people are wrong when they think something that is not right. 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You're not a very good salesman or diplomat. Practice makes perfect. Would you like me to keep working on it or not. Eh, nevermind, forget I asked you that question. 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I truly admire your sweetheart. Ahh, shucks. Are we friends now, you think?
Navidad Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 11 minutes ago, pogi said: That is your interpretation - which you place above mine, naturally. I don't think that makes you arrogant, and I don't think it makes me arrogant for interpreting God's word different from you. I believe I am humble following the will and word of the Lord, how is that arrogant? Hi again: I think I prefer placing my interpretation beside yours. That way it is an alternative, not better than. Clearly, interpreting the word of God differently does not make anyone arrogant. I can only speak for me, but I love hearing differences of interpretations of the same scriptures. That challenges me to think. Anyone who is humbly trying to follow the will and word of the Lord is not arrogant. I must clarify that, humbly trying is different than absolute assurance (I just made up that term). Assurance isn't arrogant. Absolutism is. Bottom line, I am very open to learning new things. I really mean that. That is why I am on a Mormon Discussion Forum and not on a Mennonite or Baptist discussion forum. I want to learn from you all and I have. I also am bold enough (ha!) to hope that simply because of the idiosyncrasy on this board of my background and beliefs, not because of my vast knowledge of anything, that I might say something that would make someone here reflect and say, "I didn't know that! I didn't know Evangelicals believed or thought that!" Methinks that is what dialogue and discussion are all about. Nothing parent to child. All adult to adult. To any of you, please feel free to scold me if I come off otherwise. That is part of learning after all. I might pout for a few minutes, but I will get over it and be better for it.
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Navidad said: I must clarify that, humbly trying is different than absolute assurance (I just made up that term). Assurance isn't arrogant. Absolutism is. Apparently you don't believe a person can be absolutely sure about something God has assured them is true, while I do. And I am absolutely sure about many things God has assured me are true. Did I get that right? Do you really think that means I am arrogant? For being absolutely sure about what God has assured me is true? You can think that if you want but that doesn't mean you are right to think that. Quote Bottom line, I am very open to learning new things. I really mean that. That is why I am on a Mormon Discussion Forum and not on a Mennonite or Baptist discussion forum. I want to learn from you all and I have. I also am bold enough (ha!) to hope that simply because of the idiosyncrasy on this board of my background and beliefs, not because of my vast knowledge of anything, that I might say something that would make someone here reflect and say, "I didn't know that! I didn't know Evangelicals believed or thought that!" Methinks that is what dialogue and discussion are all about. Nothing parent to child. All adult to adult. To any of you, please feel free to scold me if I come off otherwise. That is part of learning after all. I might pout for a few minutes, but I will get over it and be better for it. From what I have seen from you I'm not sure if you are here to learn. I think it's possible that you are here to simply gather some information about us and our beliefs, without learning and applying what we tell you to your own life. Those are 2 different mindsets. Not that I expect you to just take our word for whatever we tell you. But I hope you do take what we say to heart, as we take what we say to heart, while asking God to assure you whether or not what we tell you is true. Edited March 4, 2020 by Ahab
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: "..... through a glass Darkly." We don't know things as they are. We all know them as we can perceive them, or as God reveals them to us personally. And what he reveals to us personally is what we need to know not what everybody needs to know. He teaches us personally and individually on our own curriculum custom designed for us. that is true. that is how things really are. do you see that now? we don't know everything about everything when we know something that is true but we do know something about what is true when we know something about something. When God helps us to see how something is true, he is helping us to know something he sees about that, whatever it is. Not so that we will know everything about it, but we will at least know that much is true about it. Edited March 4, 2020 by Ahab
Tacenda Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: CFR Excerpt from an address by Dallin H. Oaks at a Multi Stake Youth Fireside in Bellevue, WA – January 23, 2016: 1 Question (Female youth: 30:17): “My question is what should we pray for to receive this same testimony, if not, conversion that Alma the Younger experienced, for our friends who aren’t of this [church]?” Answer (Dallin H. Oaks): “[We] missed the words Alma the Younger, without which I couldn’t understand that very fine question. What should you pray for to have the kind of experience that Alma the younger had? I don’t think your likely to have that kind of experience that Alma the younger had. Remember he had a miraculous experience of an angel, [and] really got hit over the head spiritually. Most of us don’t have that kind of experience. But I interpret your question Heather as being how can we get get the kind of testimony he received. I don’t think we’ll get it like Paul did on the road to, where an angel appeared to him, where Alma the Younger had a startling experience. The Lord used a few of those kinds of experiences, and they’re recorded in the scriptures to catch our attention and teach us the answer. But I’ve never had an experience like that and I don’t know anyone among the 1st Presidency or Quorum of the 12 who’ve had that kind of experience. Yet everyone of us knows of a certainty the things that Alma knew. But it’s just that unless the Lord chooses to do it another way, as he sometimes does; for millions and millions of His children the testimony settles upon us gradually. Like so much dust on the windowsill or so much dew on the grass. One day you didn’t have it and another day you did and you don’t know which day it happened. That’s the way I got my testimony. And then I knew it was true when it continued to grow.” References 1. Dallin H. Oaks at a Multi Stake Youth Fireside in Bellevue, WA – January 23, 2016 (audio) – https://soundcloud.com/mormontalk/elder-oaks-youth-fireside-01-23-2016
mfbukowski Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Navidad said: Sorry, no time to reply right now. You are leaving out the world of non-Protestants and non-Catholics in church history. Maybe later we can discuss this more. Perhaps I should simply say that I believe your portrayal of two thousand years of church history is less than complete. As an Anabaptist believer I reject the idea that the Catholic Church was ever the universal church. More at a later time perhaps, but I am very hesitant to opine where I simply irritate. If that made you irate, perhaps we should not go there
mfbukowski Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Navidad said: Nope, you are not mistaken. That isn't what I call sanctification. That is why I said like God not as God. I think the LDS Church teaches "as" in terms of essence. That is a whole different ball game! I have no idea of what "essence" means, any more than "substance" as created by Plato and Aristotle. Transubstantiation and consubstantiality are all in the same boat as far as I see it. Undefinable.
Recommended Posts