L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Can you please point to an official LDS source on where this standard is defined? Thanks.
- Status
Stephen168
New member
You spelled my name wrong.
Yes, it 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. So Mormon Doctrine is changing
He was a member of the Seventy.
The errors were fixed for the second edition published in 1966.
In Mormonism the truth changes with the times
D
dianaiad
Guest
I have a humble suggestion. Just a thought…
How about, rather than insulting the intelligence, character and faith of the Mormons, you simply address the issues that you disagree with? There is nothing in the above post to which I can possibly reply to or defend against, being entirely an attack on us as people, not a discussion of the beliefs.
Stephen168
New member
An attempt at the tu quoque fallacy is very common in her defense of Mormonism. This was explained to her four years ago.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Hi Dianaid…
I am just coming on after being out and must catch up with the posts.
Latin and meatless Friday’s are still in effect, the abstaining from meat not mandatory, but penance still is.
About Latin not being used. This is one of the abuses or errors if you will of false interpretation of Vatican II by a number of powerful clerics, who by now, I assume, considering the rate Pope Benedict was removing a bishop a month under his pontificate, are gone. Many of these likewise disregarded their sacred duty as ecclesiastics to oversee and properly discipline their priests.
Latin was never intended to be removed.
Before the Protestant Reformation, there were uses of the vernacular or variations of the Mass. But as we believe, we pray.
The Protestants after the break from the apostolic church—which they, through Luther, no longer believed the Church apostolic but based on men’s interpretation. Sola Scriptura put Scripture into the use of personal interpretation, and thus many forms of Scripture were printed, and subsequently, the fragmentation of Christianity.
With the Council of Trent, any change of the Mass was the duty of the pope alone.
However, as the time Catholics come together, – the Mass, where the Word of God is heard along with the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the pope had the Roman Missal formed, its language and use universal among all Catholics, and for this printed in large numbers for the faithful, and even though most people in those times could not read, as they could not up to the 20th century. Likewise, the majority of people of those days lived in slave like conditions outside of Christian civilization, you can thank that to the Catholic Church. (Today, many people throughout the world still cannot read or have a minimal education.)
The Latin Mass was to be celebrated in all Catholic parishes for those who could not adjust to the vernacular. Altar rails for Holy Communion were never intended to be removed.
What we experienced in the Catholic Church was a crack in its discipline and practice where the spirit of the world entered, affecting even catechesis, as well as the sense of the sacred in liturgy, art, sacred space.
We are now experiencing a purging of all false forms of liturgy, and the sense of the sacred is returning to our church environments, as well as belief and practice. we are undergoing a renewal of faith and noting a strong number of conversions as well as vocations to the priesthood and religious life.
The need for penance is a requirement of the Gospel and Christ said in Luke 13;3, ‘do penance for the remission of sins, lest ye likewise perish!’ We are to pick up our cross daily, die to self and follow Christ.
The Church has never disregarded the need for penance.
About meatless Friday’s, this discipline was a shared discipline by all members of the universal church. Vatican II excesses somehow interpreted to the laity that what was sin yesterday was not a sin today. So we have seen so many Catholics not go to confession when it was always encouraged to be a monthly practice.
With the easy materialistic life, I personally believe bishops need to go back to requiring some form of penance on Friday’s. But when you leave it up to the individual…people give up as we live in a fast changing world. We get ideas, then let them go. In Great Britain, the bishops are calling all to once again abstain from meat on Friday’s. The American bishops are calling us to resume but we are still free to choose another form. I have gone back to meatless Friday’s in particular for my sins and for the sins of our country.
I am just coming on after being out and must catch up with the posts.
Latin and meatless Friday’s are still in effect, the abstaining from meat not mandatory, but penance still is.
About Latin not being used. This is one of the abuses or errors if you will of false interpretation of Vatican II by a number of powerful clerics, who by now, I assume, considering the rate Pope Benedict was removing a bishop a month under his pontificate, are gone. Many of these likewise disregarded their sacred duty as ecclesiastics to oversee and properly discipline their priests.
Latin was never intended to be removed.
Before the Protestant Reformation, there were uses of the vernacular or variations of the Mass. But as we believe, we pray.
The Protestants after the break from the apostolic church—which they, through Luther, no longer believed the Church apostolic but based on men’s interpretation. Sola Scriptura put Scripture into the use of personal interpretation, and thus many forms of Scripture were printed, and subsequently, the fragmentation of Christianity.
With the Council of Trent, any change of the Mass was the duty of the pope alone.
However, as the time Catholics come together, – the Mass, where the Word of God is heard along with the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the pope had the Roman Missal formed, its language and use universal among all Catholics, and for this printed in large numbers for the faithful, and even though most people in those times could not read, as they could not up to the 20th century. Likewise, the majority of people of those days lived in slave like conditions outside of Christian civilization, you can thank that to the Catholic Church. (Today, many people throughout the world still cannot read or have a minimal education.)
The Latin Mass was to be celebrated in all Catholic parishes for those who could not adjust to the vernacular. Altar rails for Holy Communion were never intended to be removed.
What we experienced in the Catholic Church was a crack in its discipline and practice where the spirit of the world entered, affecting even catechesis, as well as the sense of the sacred in liturgy, art, sacred space.
We are now experiencing a purging of all false forms of liturgy, and the sense of the sacred is returning to our church environments, as well as belief and practice. we are undergoing a renewal of faith and noting a strong number of conversions as well as vocations to the priesthood and religious life.
The need for penance is a requirement of the Gospel and Christ said in Luke 13;3, ‘do penance for the remission of sins, lest ye likewise perish!’ We are to pick up our cross daily, die to self and follow Christ.
The Church has never disregarded the need for penance.
About meatless Friday’s, this discipline was a shared discipline by all members of the universal church. Vatican II excesses somehow interpreted to the laity that what was sin yesterday was not a sin today. So we have seen so many Catholics not go to confession when it was always encouraged to be a monthly practice.
With the easy materialistic life, I personally believe bishops need to go back to requiring some form of penance on Friday’s. But when you leave it up to the individual…people give up as we live in a fast changing world. We get ideas, then let them go. In Great Britain, the bishops are calling all to once again abstain from meat on Friday’s. The American bishops are calling us to resume but we are still free to choose another form. I have gone back to meatless Friday’s in particular for my sins and for the sins of our country.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
About prophecy, again Christ is the fulfillment of all prophecy.
The second thing about the pope, he cannot give us anything new. The Holy Father, when teaching faith and morals, must only illuminate the deposit of faith in Christ contained in the Catholic Church.
When the Holy Father draws on the deposit of faith for today, in communion with all bishops who represent us, he is speaking in the Living Revelation for today.
If you can get past his off the cuff remarks, which are some times literally re interpreted by the secular press, you hear him speak and teach publicly, he is speaking in living revelation, and it is very down to earth and consistent with the faith we all share, because our faith is based on Jesus Christ, given us through the apostles in the Holy Spirit through the transmission of faith.
No changes.
The second thing about the pope, he cannot give us anything new. The Holy Father, when teaching faith and morals, must only illuminate the deposit of faith in Christ contained in the Catholic Church.
When the Holy Father draws on the deposit of faith for today, in communion with all bishops who represent us, he is speaking in the Living Revelation for today.
If you can get past his off the cuff remarks, which are some times literally re interpreted by the secular press, you hear him speak and teach publicly, he is speaking in living revelation, and it is very down to earth and consistent with the faith we all share, because our faith is based on Jesus Christ, given us through the apostles in the Holy Spirit through the transmission of faith.
No changes.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I’ve not eaten meat on Friday as long as I’ve been Catholic, as it was taught to me that it was still required
Just the “grave sin” removed as the Church removing a heavy yoke. That is, we should follow Church teaching in freedom and love.
Just the “grave sin” removed as the Church removing a heavy yoke. That is, we should follow Church teaching in freedom and love.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I did.
And Brigham said it was not needed to say, "thus saith the Lord.
Face it, you are in an indefensible position. We keep showing you horrible stuff your prophets have said and you have essentially proven they are not prophets.
Add to that your need to compare to popes who are NOT prophets and it is clear that your leaders are not prophets.
You have done more to prove this than I have.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yes, Christ is the center, and if helps Diana to understand the Catholic POV, think of Him as the pivotal point, of the Old and New Covenant. All prophecy leading up to Him, in human history. Then God entered human history as Man, fulfilling the prophets and the law. Then establishing a New Covenant, for all, forever. The law was not abrogated, it was fulfilled, by Christ. St. Paul, the advocate for us gentiles in the Church, taught very clearly the fact of Jesus Christ, the effect on all humanity, and logically laid out a sound theology.
We participate in the prophetic nature of Jesus, who prophesied that all nations and people would be taught the Truth, who is Jesus Christ, and be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Our very baptisms, and that of every Christian, is a fulfillment of prophecy, and our participation in prophecy. No people or nation are denied Jesus Christ, and all He shares.
D
dianaiad
Guest
My apologies. It was not intentional, but I should have been paying attention. The 'Steven/Stephens" of the world have a right to demand that their names be spelled correctly, and I, as a “Diana/Diane/Deanna/Dianna” should be more careful.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
The problem is, you cannot trust LDS prophets. you never know if what they say today will be accepted tomorrow.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” D&C 138
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray”. Wilford Woodruff
Now how you look at the teachings like Adam/God and other bad teachings in light of these quotes and still defend them?
On thing Mormons here always say is "they did not say “thus saith the Lord”, so they are just opinion.
Two points…first, the fact they would give opinions like that are frightening, especially in light of the quotes above.
second point is, it is a fallacious argument to say that without “thus saith the Lords” is not valid when their own leaders have said differently…
“SIXTH: The Prophet Does Not Have to Say “Thus Saith the Lord” to Give Us Scripture. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.) And speaking of taking counsel from the Prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed.” Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (JD 13:95.)” (Following the Brethren, Speeches By Mormon Apostles Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce R. McConkie, March 1980.
So they are truly in a corner. If they disobey or ignore a teaching because it was not preceded with “thus saith the Lord”, then they disobey the prophet who said it AND the prophets in this quote…
But without that defense, they are stuck defending the horrible teachings of their past prophets.
Makes being LDS very difficult
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray”. Wilford Woodruff
Now how you look at the teachings like Adam/God and other bad teachings in light of these quotes and still defend them?
On thing Mormons here always say is "they did not say “thus saith the Lord”, so they are just opinion.
Two points…first, the fact they would give opinions like that are frightening, especially in light of the quotes above.
second point is, it is a fallacious argument to say that without “thus saith the Lords” is not valid when their own leaders have said differently…
“SIXTH: The Prophet Does Not Have to Say “Thus Saith the Lord” to Give Us Scripture. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.) And speaking of taking counsel from the Prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed.” Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (JD 13:95.)” (Following the Brethren, Speeches By Mormon Apostles Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce R. McConkie, March 1980.
So they are truly in a corner. If they disobey or ignore a teaching because it was not preceded with “thus saith the Lord”, then they disobey the prophet who said it AND the prophets in this quote…
But without that defense, they are stuck defending the horrible teachings of their past prophets.
Makes being LDS very difficult
L
lax16
Guest
bumpDianaiad - Hey, the gang’s (almost) all here! Welcome back. Has it really been four years?
Isn’t the reason blacks were banned from the priesthood is because of the doctrine of pre-existence?
Joseph Smith himself taught that “Negroes” are the “sons of Cain.” (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 501) Mormon leaders also taught that “As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, page 102)
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
All just opinion.
L
lax16
Guest
Hi LivingWaters7 - Please explain.
P
PRmerger
Guest
True, dat.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” D&C 138
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray”. Wilford Woodruff
Now how you look at the teachings like Adam/God and other bad teachings in light of these quotes and still defend them?
On thing Mormons here always say is "they did not say “thus saith the Lord”, so they are just opinion.
Two points…first, the fact they would give opinions like that are frightening, especially in light of the quotes above.
second point is, it is a fallacious argument to say that without “thus saith the Lords” is not valid when their own leaders have said differently…
“SIXTH: The Prophet Does Not Have to Say “Thus Saith the Lord” to Give Us Scripture. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.) And speaking of taking counsel from the Prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed.” Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (JD 13:95.)” (Following the Brethren, Speeches By Mormon Apostles Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce R. McConkie, March 1980.
So they are truly in a corner. If they disobey or ignore a teaching because it was not preceded with “thus saith the Lord”, then they disobey the prophet who said it AND the prophets in this quote…
But without that defense, they are stuck defending the horrible teachings of their past prophets.
No LDS responses?
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray”. Wilford Woodruff
Now how you look at the teachings like Adam/God and other bad teachings in light of these quotes and still defend them?
On thing Mormons here always say is "they did not say “thus saith the Lord”, so they are just opinion.
Two points…first, the fact they would give opinions like that are frightening, especially in light of the quotes above.
second point is, it is a fallacious argument to say that without “thus saith the Lords” is not valid when their own leaders have said differently…
“SIXTH: The Prophet Does Not Have to Say “Thus Saith the Lord” to Give Us Scripture. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.) And speaking of taking counsel from the Prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed.” Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (JD 13:95.)” (Following the Brethren, Speeches By Mormon Apostles Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce R. McConkie, March 1980.
So they are truly in a corner. If they disobey or ignore a teaching because it was not preceded with “thus saith the Lord”, then they disobey the prophet who said it AND the prophets in this quote…
But without that defense, they are stuck defending the horrible teachings of their past prophets.
No LDS responses?
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Diana, do you really truly believe that the heads of the LDS church are seers, prophets and revelators and that they hear from and talk to God? Do they see Jesus face to face?
This is just one of the things that makes Mormonism so unrealistic to me.
From everything I read about COLDS it seems to me it is just a giant business making lots of money on real estate, shopping centers, quite a bit of Florida land as well as hunting estates.
And let us not forget tithing where people are actually counseled to pay tithing before their responsibilities to their families, i.e. rent, food, medical care, clothing, etc… That recommendation was actually in an issue of Ensign IIRC.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Diana, where does one find the doctrine of the LDS church? It seems to be nowhere. Can you show us where to find doctrine? The befores and afters, so to speak.
I’ll be happy to show you where to find Catholic doctrine if you wish to know it.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I was taught the prophets spoke to God face to face
- Status