DerekD, I really don’t care what Bible you read.
As long as you are reading it. It seems rather legalistic to go down the path you’re traveling. True, Protestants removed it in the 16th century.
Which errors has the Catholic Church admitted to being in the apocrypha?
The Protestant canon came from men in the 16th century while the Catholic canon came from men in the 4th century. Mormons have adopted the protestant canon.
Are you suggesting only Bibles written in English are from God?
DerekD:
I think you would have to define/explain legalism so we can understand if it is truely unique to Catholicism and Mormonism, and not contained in protestantism.
Please provide a reference for this. Unsubstantiated claims carry no weight.
I noticed that too, and thought surely must be an error in DerekD’s wording. I do hope he knows better.
Comparison - that’s a good one.There is a difference DerekD between those who actually are heretical, and those who do not know full Catholic teaching through no fault of their own. The people at the time of the Council of Trent are the former. Protestants today are the latter.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I’ve been trying to keep up with the entire thread and it seemed a bit off from what you were discussing.
But Mormons are the Latter Day Saints.
Yes, actually, it is your problem, since I went over every post you wrote pertaining to this topic, and the only thing I saw was your claim that there was one. I have a suspicion about what you think that warrent is, but since that is based upon something that I don’t agree with, it’s begging the question. Please tell me I’m wrong. Tell me what you think that warrent is.
As I said…perhaps I need little words. I still don’t get it and don’t mind admitting it. If you believe that only the ‘judge’ needs to understand what’s going on, would you tell me who the judge of this issue is supposed to be? Oh, and if the judges of this debate are the readers of it, perhaps one of them could kindly explain to me what the ‘warrent’ is here?
They haven’t yet…at least not on core doctrine. They have on POLICY, but policy is, by the very nature of it, subject to change. One of the reasons we DO have prophets is to keep a line of specific communication open so that God can tell us what we need to hear according to where we are at the time. That’s why there were prophets after Christ died, after all.
We were kicked out, son. Remember, the governor of Missouri issued an ‘extermination order’ that made it legal to kill any Mormon in the state after a certain date…an order that wasn’t rescinded until 1976. That doesn’t make us ‘false,’ by the way, any more than Judaism became “false” because the Jews were cast out of Israel–many times before Christ came.
Probably not. There were more reasons, I think, than the political that this practice was stopped.
One can still be Catholic and polygamist in some nations…I THINK. I’m not certain, and will bow to the greater expertise of the Catholics on this forum to correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, as a matter of fact. If it is for your health’s sake, one can do just that. My cousin was actually told by her doctor to drink a cup of coffee every morning to prevent migraines, as it was less expensive, and easier on her constitution, to do that than take a pill. It worked very well until she got other health issues under control and she didn’t need it for that.
Yes…that IS what ‘free will’ is all about.
I doubt it very much. Homosexuality has been around for a very, very long time. WE do not condemn homosexuality as evil in and of itself; it is a sin only when practiced, because it must be practiced outside the bonds of marriage. And yes, I am aware of the can of worms that opens.
Then why doesn’t the bible (or rather, the men who wrote it) uncompromisingly take a stand against slavery?
First, knowledge of your beliefs does not make anyone a “hater.” Pointing out the many contradictions and fallacies of Mormonism does not make anyone a “hater” either.
Understandable, since this was a “re-post” from earlier in the Thread.
Nor would the LDS church, if this is what IS the ‘perfect beverage’ and treatment for you, insist that you not use it. Just as my grandmother, while she was nursing her children, was told to drink a cup of beer or a glass of wine every other day.
Prophetesses? As in…women who have recieved visions or revelation? Sure. The bible mentions a few. But are there women who hold the priesthood? Nope. They don’t NEED it in order to govern, lead or anything else. Men do. It is intrinsic in women, not so much in men. They need a…software upgrade…let’s put it that way. And yes there are women who are in the 'governing body of the LDS." The general Relief society president is female, as is the general MIA president and the Primary President, and those three positions pretty much dictate how our youth are educated, and how our welfare system (the best and most efficient in the world, according to most sources). I wouldn’t call those positions unimportant, myself.
oops, this is too far back in the queue for me to respond to…
Wait. I have a quibble or two…
We are taught that there IS a 'Heavenly Mother." I think what Court is saying is that we do not worship her in any way. Those who advocate for that are excommunicated very, very fast. The theory is that since God the Father’s Name is used negatively so often, and taken in vain so often, and is mocked, derided and debated about, that God doesn’t want her subjected to that. So she isn’t…and we don’t want to put her in a position where she CAN be.
I beg to differ. Universe? Perhaps, but ‘worlds’ connotes a position where you would be in charge of worlds in THIS universe–and this entire universe belongs to God. We don’t get any of it.
That may be what Court is thinking about. Jesus Christ IS the great Intercessor.
And so, by the way, does every trinitarian and modalist…after all, isn’t Jesus God? Was He not fully human, born to a mortal woman, living out his life as a man on an earth? Did He not die a very mortal death?
The part that I bolded is all I want to discuss