So your issue with me is I dared to question the great Catholicism? Who are Martin Luther? The other Protestant reformers?
I thought you said you were Catholic?
Hard to say he keeps changing his mind, or making stuff up, or lying.
Feb 14, 2009
June 27, 2009
You haven’t questioned Catholocism, you have made your unsubstantiated, unfounded, unresearched pronouncements of what you think the Catholic church is.
As far as a position of Prophet goes, Jesus Christ is our Prophet, Priest and King. We do believe and acknowledge the gift of prophecy that is given to individuals by the Holy Spirit. We don’t believe this gift is given to people based on their position. This gift has been given to men, women, laity and clergy.
the same as mine, I suppose…if you believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and call yourself one.
Actually, I think it is quite pertinent, since it goes to your definition of the word.
You don’t get to decide that I’m not a Christian, m’friend. It’s not your call.
Care to point a few out? Given that the classification of “Christian” is about putting Christ as the basis of one’s religion, and identifying oneself as a Christian, I think that might be a problem. After all, Muslims and Jews also believe that Christ lived…and I understand that Muslims may even accept the virgin birth and His status as the Jewish Messiah. However, they do not identify themselves as Christian, because THEY emphasize other teachings over those of Christ, and SAY they do.
Upon what basis do you claim that the warrent exists? I think that it is pretty obvious that you are begging the question.
Well, if we are talking about circularity, you could address that bit about the warrent…
WOW! so this is why we cannot get a straight answere out of this guy on the threads he has posted. we are trying to debate him on the josheph smith restoration thread and cannot get any concrete answeres from him. i also sent someone to talk to diana, since she knows what shes talking about, and is not afraid of controversy. thank you zaff. for this post. its an eye opener. God bless you and yours.
The doctrine (dogma?) of papal infallibility says precisely that, Rebecca. The difference between "God will NOT ALLOW a Pope to go astray when he speaks ex cathedra an on matters of faith and morals’ and ‘the word of God’ is no difference at all.I can’t make your eyes open. You seem to dig yourself further and further into blindness. Only God can help you now.
I have explained differences. You can’t see them.
My point is that you cannot claim that we MUST accept every quote and word uttered by our leaders as prophecy and the word of God, when we have equally strict requirements for judging the level of prophecy from OUR leaders as you do for infallibility from a Pope. You are telling me that we cannot use policies and quotes from Popes when they are not speaking infallibly—and by the same token, you cannot use policies and quotes from LDS leaders that are not canonized into scripture.
We HAVE had this conversation before. You come up with quotes out of context, I provide the context and prove you wrong…some time goes by and you come back with the same claim as if I had never responded to you.
So…as long as he isn’t telling you personally to invade South America and enslave all the natives there, or offering to remit all your sins if you go enslave Africans, then you have no problem with him telling other people this? That’s an interesting viewpoint.
Uhmn…what part of; his words have to be cannonized…seems to have escaped your attention? Anything less than that does not reach the level of doctrine.
No…I think it is projection on your part. You are projecting the worst of your own history upon us, in the hopes that you can deny yours.
Of course. Sorry for the ‘sweetie.’ The rest of the statement stands, however.
Yep, that’s the rest of the statement that stands, all right.dianaiad:
Did I miss something?WOW! so this is why we cannot get a straight answere out of this guy on the threads he has posted. we are trying to debate him on the josheph smith restoration thread and cannot get any concrete answeres from him. i also sent someone to talk to diana, since she knows what shes talking about, and is not afraid of controversy. thank you zaff. for this post. its an eye opener. God bless you and yours.
This validates further what I have said about what you folks supposedly know about what my church believes. The temple is the house of the Lord used to perform sacred ordinances for the living and the dead. It is not a “stake house” you call it. Stake centers, the correct term, as well all of our churches are open to visitors.
Wow, “you folks”, I would not have asked if I knew the answer. I still dont know the answer and its an honest question out of curiousity.
I am speaking about those who continue to open the recycled garbage dumpster and spread the garbage about what my church supposedly believes, according to them. That is the “you folks”.
Good question! We believe that Moroni is the angel who delivered the Book of Mormon into Joseph Smith’s hands. He was a soldier (a general) and a prophet, and his appearance heralded the coming of this new “dispensation;” thus the heraldic horn. I rather doubt that the real Moroni ever blew a horn…he was more familiar with the sword and the stylus. The symbolism is, then, a little obvious.
If you visit the visitor’s center on the Temple grounds, you are far more likely to see a life sized reproduction of the Christus statue by Bertel Thorvaldsen.uhmnn…I guess it does. Mormons haven’t been around long enough to contribute to the world of art to anywhere near the extent that Catholics have historically done, but we do enjoy it and use art.
Some do. Being Mormon doesn’t insulate people against misunderstanding others. Those who know better don’t. I understand the difference between worshiping a statue and the deep symbology Catholics use.
Actually…quite the opposite. We are far more likely to be criticized because we don’t have crosses in our churches or homes–though we DO have portraits of Jesus Christ all over the place.
Statues? Well, no, not so much. Paintings and prints, yes…but not statues or altars where we can place candles, etc. We are more likely to have such statues in our homes, but not in shrines or shrine-like displays.
I didn’t see that he was confusing the Temple with a stake house (or stake center…be nice.) .and I personally appreciate that he asked questions and didn’t do any assuming. It’s refreshing.
Good question! We believe that Moroni is the angel who delivered the Book of Mormon into Joseph Smith’s hands. He was a soldier (a general) and a prophet, and his appearance heralded the coming of this new “dispensation;” thus the heraldic horn. I rather doubt that the real Moroni ever blew a horn…he was more familiar with the sword and the stylus. The symbolism is, then, a little obvious.
uhmnn…I guess it does. Mormons haven’t been around long enough to contribute to the world of art to anywhere near the extent that Catholics have historically done, but we do enjoy it and use art.
Some do. Being Mormon doesn’t insulate people against misunderstanding others. Those who know better don’t. I understand the difference between worshiping a statue and the deep symbology Catholics use.
Actually…quite the opposite. We are far more likely to be criticized because we don’t have crosses in our churches or homes–though we DO have portraits of Jesus Christ all over the place.
Statues? Well, no, not so much. Paintings and prints, yes…but not statues or altars where we can place candles, etc. We are more likely to have such statues in our homes, but not in shrines or shrine-like displays.
Oh, we do have stake houses (OK, 'stake centers" I got corrected…) --those are larger versions of the regular meeting houses (churches.) Where a regular meeting house might serve one or two congregations, a ‘stake’ house can serve two or three, and that is where up to 9 or 10 congregations will gather for semi-annual 'stake conferences,"
Thanks I was really wondering. Perhaps I wandered into a minefield like a dumb cow ha ha.Why was Brigham Young allowed to proclaim that God revealed to him that Adam is God; and to maintain that claim throughout his years as LDS President and Prophet? Why didn’t God “take him in death” as you said would be done, before the “leading astray” could happen?
Could you clarify? Are you saying, lacking the gift of prophecy, it due to lack of faith?
I will address this in part 2–next post.
Previously, you described the Mormon Prophets as “seers and revelators.” Is there a reason for omitting this in your definition of the role of your prophets?
I would urge you to review Scripture again. Many did not understand the identity of Christ. Jesus did not malign Abraham or Moses, but cautioned the Jews about their presumptions regarding them, and their lack of knowledge of Scripture.
If an LDS Prophet claims a revelation from God, and the twelve apostles vote against his revelation, then that would make him a false prophet–unless the twelve apostles are wrong. Claiming a revelation from God, that is not a true revelation—is bearing false witness against God, Himself. So, why would such a “prophet” be allowed to continue in his role of Church President and Prophet?
Could you give me the source for “This generation shall have my word through you,” that you claim applies to Joseph Smith.
Again, why was Brigham Young allowed to proclaim that Adam is God; and to maintain that claim throughout his years as LDS President and Prophet? Why didn’t God “take him in death” as you said would be done, before the “leading astray” could happen?