LDS Revelations

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No worries, that thread has been pulled. 😦

Too bad, I would have loved reading it.
 
dianaiad said:
I am not attempting to dodge when I respond with this question: How do YOU know that what you believe, religiously, is true?

WE are told to read, study, and pray about things. We are free to have our own opinions regarding things; if we disagree with the basic doctrine, our decision is to figure out what the problem is or leave and find a belief system with whose doctrine we can agree. I think that’s fair. I refer you to Elder Uchdorf’s conference talk, which has already been referenced here, somewhere, about that.

So how do we know? We ask God. he would be the final authority on this stuff, after all.
Click to expand...
We know that the Catholic Church is true because Christ founded it and He doesn’t lie or fail. Mormonism relies on Christ being a failure (As many other religions). Our God was not a sinful man who gained his godliness. You call yourself Christians but believe there are many gods. Christ never taught such a thing nor did His Apostles. Speaking of Apostles, how did an Apostacy occur if John never died? (Your church claims that after the death of the last Apostle the Catholic Church fell into an apostacy.) Why would God/Christ lie?
 
40.png
dianaiad:
In fact, McConkie was told not to call it that Mormon Doctrine], but he did anyway; free will and all that, and at the time was certainly not an official representative of the church; he was simply a student and a teacher who wrote a book as a private person.
Click to expand...
40.png
Stephen168:
He was a member of the Seventy.
Click to expand...
And the LDS leadership was so upset and angry with McConkie that they went on to make him an apostle! :rotfl:

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
Yes, LDS have a lot of beliefs that can’t be backed by the Bible. I did like an earlier suggestion of saying “in my faith we believe…” rather than trying to poke holes in his faith directly, which may just put him on the defensive.
TexanKnight said:
So, I was talking to a good friend of mind who is LDS. We were talking about the different things LDS prophets have said and how they contradict with earlier prophets.

He claimed that not everything a prophet says is from God. I said, “how handy…the things you like are from God, but the things they say you do NOT like, you can claim are NOT from God.”

He said “They are always acting as men unless it is something that is approved unanimously by the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve.”

This bothers me. Since when id God a democracy? So, if God says something, and the 12 do not agree, then they overrule God? I asked him to show me anywhere in the Bible where God gave a commandment or teaching that was voted on. I asked him to show me anywhere in the Bible OR THE BOOK OF MORMON where Jesus gave a command and the 12 apostles voted on it.

I remember as a Mormon sorta voting to to approve callings by “bringing our arms to the square”, but voting to approve God’s revelations seems truly odd.
Click to expand...
 
I’m wondering what your (collective) idea of a prophet might be. Rev 19:10 says “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Are you thinking of a prophet like Ezekiel and all those flying scrolls or are you thinking of Jeremiah who mostly cried repentance? A man of miracles or a teacher and a student of Christ?
 
rmcmullan said:
I’m wondering what your (collective) idea of a prophet might be. Rev 19:10 says “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Are you thinking of a prophet like Ezekiel and all those flying scrolls or are you thinking of Jeremiah who mostly cried repentance? A man of miracles or a teacher and a student of Christ?
Click to expand...
A prophet speaks on behalf of God, simple as that. If he speaks falsely he is not a prophet.

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:20-22)
 
PaulDupre1 said:
And the LDS leadership was so upset and angry with McConkie that they went on to make him an apostle! :rotfl:

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Click to expand...
Indeed…but not before he changed the problematic areas in the book.
 
dianaiad said:
Steven, “Mormon Doctrine” was NEVER 'Mormon Doctrine." In fact, McConkie was told not to call it that, but he did anyway; free will and all that, and at the time was certainly not an official representative of the church; he was simply a student and a teacher who wrote a book as a private person.

When he was called to be an apostle, he was told that there were some pretty egregious errors in it, and that he had to fix them now that he COULD be seen as a representative of the church. He didn’t fix all of 'em, but he fixed most.

Please do not get the idea that simply because the book is titled "Mormon Doctrine,’ that the church has ever accepted it as such. It hasn’t. It’s an extremely useful and informative read, certainly, but it is not, and, I repeat, never has been the official compendium of Mormon Doctrine. Shoot, I’ve known that from the beginning.

But who am I to tell you anything? I’m just the Mormon.
Click to expand...
So did McConkie pull all of his material that he clearly believed was doctrine out of the air, and how did such a TBM of some standing make all those errors? Why would he write a book, in whatever capacity, that would lead people into error?
 
lynnettejane said:
So did McConkie pull all of his material that he clearly believed was doctrine out of the air, and how did such a TBM of some standing make all those errors? Why would he write a book, in whatever capacity, that would lead people into error?
Click to expand...
How about…because he is human, and because he is human, he can make mistakes?

Even errors of belief?

Good grief; (and at the risk of being accused, yet again, of being ‘out to get’ Catholics) you do not expect your Popes and Cardinals to be perfect all the time; in fact, your doctrine of papal infallibility is extremely clear on this; there are times when a Pope is infallible…and there are times when he is not.

If you allow your own leaders to be imperfect, why can’t people who believe something other than what you do accept imperfection in* their* leaders?

I think it is unreasonable for you to expect other belief systems to adhere to standards you don’t expect from your own leadership.
 
dianaiad said:
Indeed…but not before he [Bruce R. McConkie] changed the problematic areas in the book Mormon Doctrine].
Click to expand...
And not before his father-in-law (Joseph Fielding Smith) became the prophet.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
dianaiad said:
Good grief; (and at the risk of being accused, yet again, of being ‘out to get’ Catholics) you do not expect your Popes and Cardinals to be perfect all the time; in fact, your doctrine of papal infallibility is extremely clear on this; there are times when a Pope is infallible…and there are times when he is not.
Click to expand...
The reason I ask you to stop bring up Catholic teaching is because you don’t understand it.

Papal Infallibility says the Pope is infallible when teaching about faith and morals; Catholic Doctrine. Now you are trying to tell us that a member of the 70 who was chosen to be a mormon apostle is not able to teach Mormon Doctrine.

Mormon Doctrine was mormon doctrine starting in 1966 with the second edition, which removed the reference to the Catholic Church as the abominable church, but it still ridiculed Catholic teaching. Mormonism requires the bashing of Catholicism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has never contained Mormon teachings for ridicule.

The third edition was published in 1979 when the doctrine of banning blacks from priesthood were changed.

Mormon Doctrine was a clearly written explanation of mormon doctrine, which started to become a problem for the Mormon Church because it wanted to appear ‘nice’ and normal. By normal I mean backing away from doctrines like God was once a man, or Jesus being the literal son of God. So in 2010 the Mormon Church stopped publication. This unties the hands of the current President to make up new stuff. Mormon Doctrine was mormon doctrine for only 32 years, so mormon doctrine is changing.
dianaiad said:
If you allow your own leaders to be imperfect, why can’t people who believe something other than what you do accept imperfection in* their* leaders?

I think it is unreasonable for you to expect other belief systems to adhere to standards you don’t expect from your own leadership.
Click to expand...
As you can see your questions are based on your misunderstanding of Catholic Doctrine and what we expect from our leaders in regard to teaching Catholic Doctrine.

It does seem you cannot trust your leaders to teach you anything because in a generation it will be called a mistake.
 
Stephen168 said:
The reason I ask you to stop bring up Catholic teaching is because you don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
And you do not understand Mormon Doctrine.

For instance, you are trying to equate the book “Mormon Doctrine” with the Catholic Catechism. Don’t do that. WE certainly do not; "Mormon Doctrine,’ the book, isn’t a catechism for the Mormon church. We don’t HAVE an official catechism; the closest we come might be found in “Preach my Gospel,” which you can read on LDS.org.

But “Mormon Doctrine” was not liked by the church leadership from its first publication. It was not stopped, because, frankly, we don’t do that. What the leadership DID do was, when McConkie was called to be an apostle, tell him to fix the inaccuracies in his book.

To ‘repent,’ in other words. Are you honestly telling me that no priest or bishop in the Catholic church has ever been guilty of opinions that might embarrass, or disagree with, the Church as a whole? That none of them have ever had to recant/ repent/ fix their errors before they could advance in the church hierarchy?

Please don’t make that claim. Please.

Some of your Popes had opinions that have later been disavowed…and they are still accepted, even revered, as good prelates…the thing is, it is acceptable to make mistakes, even for leaders, as long as those mistakes are learned from, and repented of. Peter denied the Savior three times. Thomas had faith problems. Abraham was a liar, Moses was a murderer (sort of) and definitely had pride problems. Noah got drunk. Job was a whiner. Joshua was on the violent side. Indeed, can you think of a single prophet or leader of the early church that did NOT have a character flaw he had to overcome, or fix?

None were perfect except Christ, and none are perfect now. If McConkie made errors, he fixed them. If he held wrong opinions, he changed them. He was humble enough to do what was required.

If that’s a problem for those who view us from outside?

That’s too bad.
 
dianaiad said:
And you do not understand Mormon Doctrine.
Click to expand...
I don’t have to know Mormon doctrine to know that Mormon Doctrine was Mormon doctrine for 32 years, until it became an embarrassment.

You cannot trust your leaders to teach you anything because in a generation it will be called a mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top