B
- Status
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi nebula,
I agree with this. I am just pointing out that the particular teaching is not “canonized,” and so individual Mormons can reject it without being out of harmony with the Church. Just so, I imagine it was acceptable for Catholics to question the “Limbo” doctrine while it was still asserted in the Catechism. So even though I agree with you that it is a legitimate and current LDS teaching, I do not think there is any point to arguing about it with Zerinus. He has a legitimate point of view, within LDS boundaries, and you shouldn’t expect him to defend a doctrine that isn’t canonized, and that he doesn’t believe.
On the other hand, I do believe the doctrine, even though I recognize that it isn’t canonized, and you are entirely welcome to argue the point with me. It’s just beating a dead horse to argue about it with Zerinus, though.
J
Jash
Guest
Lol. Of course, the confusion is more of an issue of different perspectives on the meanings of a variety of words shared between those of the LDS faith and the rest of christianity.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Yeah, I know that tender little mormon missionaries have fantasies about sailors, but I like girls. SorryThank heaven! I’ve heard about you Navy guys.
N
nebula
Guest
bdawg,
To a certain extent I agree, but I think before zerinus is off the hook he needs to explain what the place of these official publications is. If they arent’ worth anything, then well, ignore the Church Handbook and do things the way you want to as bishop, why not? I’m open to hearing about a system which priveleges the Mormon canon, but it cannot completely exclude other publications either.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi nebula,
When did Z ever say they aren’t worth anything? He has only argued against a single point in the several-hundred-page Gospel Principles manual, as far as I can see.
J
Jash
Guest
Personally I think of these books as overviews to help us connect and understand the doctrine in a methodical way.
po18guy
Well-known member
OK, but a 100% difference in the very nature of God, for starters, amounts to slightly more than a difference in “perspective”. The claimed trinitarian formula LDS baptism, for instance, has been studied in depth by the Catholic and many, if not all, mainstream Protestant churches. Christian communities whose histories date back 500-1,975 years. It has been rejected, due to the difference in the very nature of the LDS “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.
And, so it is with nearly every other shared term between Christianity and Mormonism. We have two different religions. The more earnestly and honestly we face this fact, the more civil our discussions become, and the less deception will occur. In fact, it would be far more honest for the LDS to cease use of the KJV, and rely strictly on the BOM, for instance. Again, this is due to the evolved LDS beliefs which are inconsistent with Christianity. If Joseph Smith’s original trinitarian God is no longer taught, believed or stressed, then shouldn’t the source of that teaching also be discontinued?
Ah, but that would tip the hand for the entire world to see.
J
Jash
Guest
I am very aware of this definition of God but it is important to remember when that exact definition was decided on. Historically there was significant debate over this exact topic. Hence the Nicean Council. While the definition is different I would not go as far as to say 100%. We are much closer than say the Shinto definition of god.
I would claim otherwise. Are our concepts of Baptism really all that different? Yes we can debate about how and when. But do we not both believe the ordinance is essential for salvation? We have common roots and therefore our teachings are similar. We may use different names for things there are a variety of things that are quite different but we do have a lot in common.
I think different “perspective” is the perfect word to describe the origin of our debates. From one perspective a pyramid may be considered a triangle, from another a square. Two individuals may see the same thing from different perspectives and describe it quite differently. In hearing these seemingly conflicting descriptions we are naturally confused. Even through personal experience we may not gain a true understanding of the matter. But if for a moment we can see it from Gods perspective our understanding is perfect. And so it is with the gospel of Christ.
P
pismopal
Guest
J
jbrdu08
Guest
I don’t know about anyone else, but hosemonkey is being a bit of a bother. He never has anything worthwhile to say, he always comes across as bitter and prideful. Hosemonkey, my advice to you is to try and be somwhat contsructive rather than destructive, you’ll get farther.
B
BDawg
Guest
H
hosemonkey
Guest
It is my job to be “a bit of a bother.” I am not bitter and I am not prideful. I am a member of the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ Himself. I do not have to take static from johnny-come-lately posers like mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. " You may worship God the way that you want to. I will worship God the way that He wants me to." And that way, my newly-arrived friend, is in the Holy Catholic Church.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
J
Jash
Guest
You know, this post was actually interesting until people started to rip on each other.
P
peary1
Guest
FYI…
***Ad extirpanda *(named for its Latin incipit) was a papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.
It was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on November 3, 1265. At the time of the bull, the cleric performing the questioning was forbidden to be present at the time of the actual torture, on pain of irregularity; however, this requirement was waived on April 27, 1260 when Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularity, and further on August 2, 1262 when Pope Urban IV renewed this permission in a manner that was widely interpreted as authorizing examination within the torture chamber itself.
The bull argued that as heretics are “murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith…”, they are “to be coerced—as are thieves and bandits—into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb.” The following parameters were placed on the use of torture:
that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)
that it was used only once
that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain
The requirement that torture only be used once was effectively meaningless in practice as it was interpreted as authorizing torture with each new piece of evidence that was produced and by considering most practices to be a continuation (rather than repetition) of the torture session (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis).
The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics.The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty. The relevant portion of the bull read: “When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.”**
***Ad extirpanda *(named for its Latin incipit) was a papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.
It was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on November 3, 1265. At the time of the bull, the cleric performing the questioning was forbidden to be present at the time of the actual torture, on pain of irregularity; however, this requirement was waived on April 27, 1260 when Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularity, and further on August 2, 1262 when Pope Urban IV renewed this permission in a manner that was widely interpreted as authorizing examination within the torture chamber itself.
The bull argued that as heretics are “murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith…”, they are “to be coerced—as are thieves and bandits—into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb.” The following parameters were placed on the use of torture:
that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)
that it was used only once
that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain
The requirement that torture only be used once was effectively meaningless in practice as it was interpreted as authorizing torture with each new piece of evidence that was produced and by considering most practices to be a continuation (rather than repetition) of the torture session (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis).
The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics.The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty. The relevant portion of the bull read: “When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.”**
N
nebula
Guest
bdawg,
It wasn’t a single point, I pulled a couple of citations but besides that I think we can both agree that this is a very big issue. It is central to how we conceptualize deity at all, which is why I understand zerinus’ response and why this is such an important area to him too. Those citations in the manual are extremely weighty and totally alter what God is.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Seems pretty fair to me, when can we get started?
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Well on another thread Z argued against another teaching in the book. I quoted the GPM but he still disagreed. I tried to find the thread but there are so many, in it the OP listed 10 beliefs wanting to know if the LDS held them.
I want to know why the church teaches stuff to investigators that isn’t doctrine with qualifying it as speculation or common understanding.
B
BDawg
Guest
I agree that it’s an important issue. But I don’t see how the issue of “what God is” encompasses more than a single issue among the dozens and dozens covered in Gospel Principles, even if the issue is “big.” I’m just saying that I think you exaggerate the extent to which Z disagrees with the teachings in the manual, and he certainly never said it was “worthless.”
- Status