S
SteveVH
Guest
That was quite a mouth full. Translation: “You guys just don’t get it. If you did you would agree with me.”
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
SteveVH,
No–my point was mainly that no one addressed the scriptures with their translated but very precise words from the Bible that I brought up that point quite simply to what Elder McConkie described, but using the words “increased in wisdom” and in the words “glorify thou me” and in the words “I must work the works” and in the words “learned he obedience” and so forth with other verses from Paul’s writings.
But even if someone were to tackle doing that and addressing each instance, it becomes increasingly clear that there is too much at stake to dialogue about the meaning of all those passages in their simplicity of meaning. It becomes a defensive discussion.
Peace to you and all.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Cradle2Grave,
You still entirely missed my point. Elder McConkie would have answered “no” to the question that heads this thread. Christ does the “saving”, and was the only One qualified to do that and His is the only name under heaven whereby “man can be saved”.
T
truthsave
Guest
ParkerD,
I don’t know why you want to spread confusion in mormon teachings.
My whife and I perfectly knows that you cannot give meat before milk but you shouldn’t give the mormon judgment to give meat when you are ready to give meat. Since in mormon teaching you start to give meat (meat it means the most profound heresy to be found in Christian history, of course from non mormon point of view)
You are playing with words. I don’t think here people want to know some very easy facts of mormon doctrine even though they are not mormon yet and maybe never will be.
The concept of giving meat before milk is just a concept that can be contested immediately by an average intelligence like mine: you could also say that if you start giving poison to small doses at the end you can give a full dose without consequence. Technique called exposition. I see the concept mormon milk before meat concept more this way.
Being God is in analogie with being saved, since if not why you have to progress in becoming a god?
You stay the way you are. OK maybe you have to be saved by an inferior state, but I found a little cheap saying you don’t save a person from being rich, you can save him from being poor. The concept of saving if not is peverted. you save somebody from a certain danger.
**In this prospective since God the Father was a man He too had to be saved from the limit of his humanity to become the mormon god.
My wife is tellig me in this moment that God the Father was saved from ANOTHER CHRIST THAT CAME IN HIS WORLD WHEN HE WAS A HUMAN!!!
So there are differents Jesus Christ that don’t have the same name.
And following the same concept Jesus didn’t born as a God, but as a saviour, Him that was not a God yet, but that he had to achieve His godness to save the other from their humanity.**
I respect mormon to have their own credo, I don’t like when they say it is the same God as I have or the same Christ.
Same name completely different “devine entity”.
It i like saying if somebody name is Cesare he must be the Roman Giulio Cesar emperor.
There was also a brasilian soccer player called Socrates. But was not the Greek Philosopher. Maybe he had his own philosophical idea but was not the Greek Philosopher nevertheless.
In Mormon doctrine EVERY GOD (since there are many,many gods) had to work his own salvation and achieve his own godness. For mormon there is not BEING GOD but only BECOMING GOD. Is a progression it is not : I am. It is :I became.
May we loose the peace of men to find the peace of Christ
I don’t know why you want to spread confusion in mormon teachings.
My whife and I perfectly knows that you cannot give meat before milk but you shouldn’t give the mormon judgment to give meat when you are ready to give meat. Since in mormon teaching you start to give meat (meat it means the most profound heresy to be found in Christian history, of course from non mormon point of view)
You are playing with words. I don’t think here people want to know some very easy facts of mormon doctrine even though they are not mormon yet and maybe never will be.
The concept of giving meat before milk is just a concept that can be contested immediately by an average intelligence like mine: you could also say that if you start giving poison to small doses at the end you can give a full dose without consequence. Technique called exposition. I see the concept mormon milk before meat concept more this way.
Being God is in analogie with being saved, since if not why you have to progress in becoming a god?
You stay the way you are. OK maybe you have to be saved by an inferior state, but I found a little cheap saying you don’t save a person from being rich, you can save him from being poor. The concept of saving if not is peverted. you save somebody from a certain danger.
**In this prospective since God the Father was a man He too had to be saved from the limit of his humanity to become the mormon god.
My wife is tellig me in this moment that God the Father was saved from ANOTHER CHRIST THAT CAME IN HIS WORLD WHEN HE WAS A HUMAN!!!
So there are differents Jesus Christ that don’t have the same name.
And following the same concept Jesus didn’t born as a God, but as a saviour, Him that was not a God yet, but that he had to achieve His godness to save the other from their humanity.**
I respect mormon to have their own credo, I don’t like when they say it is the same God as I have or the same Christ.
Same name completely different “devine entity”.
It i like saying if somebody name is Cesare he must be the Roman Giulio Cesar emperor.
There was also a brasilian soccer player called Socrates. But was not the Greek Philosopher. Maybe he had his own philosophical idea but was not the Greek Philosopher nevertheless.
In Mormon doctrine EVERY GOD (since there are many,many gods) had to work his own salvation and achieve his own godness. For mormon there is not BEING GOD but only BECOMING GOD. Is a progression it is not : I am. It is :I became.
May we loose the peace of men to find the peace of Christ
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
Parker. Relax. I’m just teasing you.
L
Lefty0908
Guest
Then I guess the Council of Chalcedon (among others) was a monumental waste of everbody’s time. And I guess for you, that little episode in Acts where Peter withstood Paul and refused the gospel to the gentiles until he was explicitly corrected by God’s revelation shouldn’t really be seen as an example of “espous[ing] aberrant doctrine.”
Sorry, Z, but just as I don’t get to define for Catholics what you must consider nihil obstat and imprimatur, you don’t get to impose upon the Latter-day Saints what is and is not our official doctrine. We do have procedures for distinguishing official doctrines of the church from the individual beliefs of any member. When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles unanimously agree upon a matter of doctrine, faith, or morals, and it is presented to the membership of the Church in the setting of a general conference and voted unanimously by them to accept the doctrine as binding upon the Church’s membership, then it can be considered official. Those are the conditions.
Unless I’m totally mistaken, you believe in Papal infallibility only in clearly defined circumstances - when the Pope speaks ex cathedra. Can’t the Latter-day Saints be allowed a similar distinction? I think I’m smelling a double standard here.
Attempting to impose on me as official doctrine a bullet point from a 1982 talk that Bruce McConkie gave to students at BYU is more than a bit of a stretch. Many Mormons from the Quorum of the Twelve on down have written books and articles and given talks expressing their own opinions on doctrinal matters. But until those opinions are presented by a united First Presidency and Q12 to the Church membership in general conference and sustained by a vote of the conference, they aren’t binding on me nor are they official doctrine of my Church.
B.H. Roberts expressed it this way in 1921: “It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, ‘But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so,’ or ‘Brother Brigham preached it: I heard him.’ But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially? … As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is – what God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.”
That’s why Adam-God and this seeming obsession with sex on the part of some people here (i.e. that God had nothing more than a roll in the hay with Mary to produce the Savior) are so absurdly boring to me. The Journal of Discourses isn’t the Mormon Talmud.
So even if McConkie argued his bullet point (which he didn’t), I wouldn’t be bound by it, and what I said previously regarding his talk still stands.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
What are you ignoring from this past weekend general conference because it doesn’t pass this doctrinal test you’ve got going? That’s what I’d really, honestly, like to know. I especially find Pres. Packer teaching that the “end is not near” to be intriguing, considering, every Mormon prophet to this point has been teaching the end is very, near for the entire existence of the Mormon religion. Now all of the sudden, no, never mind. Is this doctrinal? Did Pres. Packer just take latter-day out of LDS, or what?
In the meantime, Mormons on the internet keep making claims about a process to determine doctrine (and it varies person by person), yet, every time I check at LDS.org, the teaching remains that a Mormon prophet does not need the agreement from anyone to speak for the Lord. But, if a Mormon wanted assurance, they would just have to look to their first presidency, and if they are in agreement, then you’ve got a prophetic teaching that you best pay attention to.
Do you disagree with this? Practically speaking, living your life day to day…are you ignoring something your prophet taught because you think it isn’t doctrinal?
P
pablope
Guest
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
If you are comfortable with the men who lead your church being unclear on the churches doctrine that’s great. Personally the idea, that the top leadership of the church is unable to know and reliably teach the correct doctrine of the church they are “called” to lead just floors me.
The Pope speaks and teaches knowledgeably in matters of faith (doctrine, dogma) and morals regardless of whether or not he is speaking ex cathedra. No aberrant doctrine.
T
Telstar
Guest
The main problem that I see with LDS doctrine, as opposed to CC doctrine, is their whole process of declaring what is ‘true doctrine’. If I understand it correctly, nothing can be declared ‘official doctrine’ unless it’s voted on, and unanimously approved by the entire hierarchy, as well as the rest of the people at ‘general conference’. So, apparently, the official LDS beliefs are not really handed down directly by God to the ‘prophet’, as they claim, but they’re really just ‘voted in’ by the whole congregation, after they’re proposed by one of the elders for consideration as doctrine. Isn’t that completely contrary to their whole position of them needing a ‘prophet’ as their leader, so they’ll know for sure what they should believe, because it’s really supposed to come directly from the mouth of God in the form of ‘revelation’ whenever the prophet speaks? Why is it that now, it’s only when a prophet speaks in an ‘official manner’? Isn’t it solely because JS & BY were believed to be true ‘prophets’, that whatever they said was usually believed by the entire congregation whenever they ‘declared’ anything about God to be true?
So, what really constitutes when the prophet speaks in an ‘official capacity’ as a prophet, now? Even when Joseph Smith or Brigham Young declared things to be true in the past, they now seem to be completely ignored by those who tell us, “that’s not (and never was) official doctrine”. At least, that’s what Mormons always seem to tell us when we post such seemingly direct ‘declarations’ by either of them, or any other former prophet of the church. Once again we seem to have ‘doctrine by popular vote’, just like at the ‘council of the gods’ in the ‘preexistence’ where everyone had to vote on the ‘plan of salvation’. Mormonism seems to be based much more on democratic principles as their rule of law, rather than on pure religious belief and the principles of faith. Nothing is officially considered to be worthy of belief by anyone unless everyone in the general conference puts their own stamp of approval on it, like it’s an act of congress. Is this really what determines God’s ‘truth’? Do they really think that they are all incapable of making any error of judgement in determining what really is God’s truth and what isn’t?
This all begs a few questions:
So, what really constitutes when the prophet speaks in an ‘official capacity’ as a prophet, now? Even when Joseph Smith or Brigham Young declared things to be true in the past, they now seem to be completely ignored by those who tell us, “that’s not (and never was) official doctrine”. At least, that’s what Mormons always seem to tell us when we post such seemingly direct ‘declarations’ by either of them, or any other former prophet of the church. Once again we seem to have ‘doctrine by popular vote’, just like at the ‘council of the gods’ in the ‘preexistence’ where everyone had to vote on the ‘plan of salvation’. Mormonism seems to be based much more on democratic principles as their rule of law, rather than on pure religious belief and the principles of faith. Nothing is officially considered to be worthy of belief by anyone unless everyone in the general conference puts their own stamp of approval on it, like it’s an act of congress. Is this really what determines God’s ‘truth’? Do they really think that they are all incapable of making any error of judgement in determining what really is God’s truth and what isn’t?
This all begs a few questions:
- Did Moses ever once ask anyone else **their **opinion (Aaron? Joshua?) on whether or not what he said God had told him was good enough for them to believe as the truth about what God had instructed him to do?
- Did the Israelites take a vote on whether or not they should follow the Ten Commandments?
- What would God have done to those that wanted to take a vote on accepting His Law, then?
- When Jesus told the Apostles what He wanted them to preach to the people in other cities, did they all have to stop and take a vote on whether or not they all agreed that what He said was really true?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, Telstar,…
This all begs a few questions:
- Did Moses ever once ask anyone else **their **opinion (Aaron? Joshua?) on whether or not what he said God had told him was good enough for them to believe as the truth about what God had instructed him to do?
- Did the Israelites take a vote on whether or not they should follow the Ten Commandments?
- What would God have done to those that wanted to take a vote on accepting His Law, then?
- When Jesus told the Apostles what He wanted them to preach to the people in other cities, did they all have to stop and take a vote on whether or not they all agreed that what He said was really true?
'Hope you and your family are well, and enjoying the school year.
- You will remember that Moses presented the commandments and the law to the people, and they said “all the words which the Lord hath said we will do”. (Exodus 24:3 is one example) In this way, they entered into what could be called a “communal covenant” where they were agreeing together about following the Lord with all their heart. Yet they soon showed that they weren’t ready for having made such a covenant, with what happened as they made a golden calf to worship it. Moses then asked the Lord to pardon them, whereas the Lord had said “I will make of thee a great nation” (Exodus 32:10) meaning the Lord was ready to “start over”. So here is an example of the Lord being patient while the people started to learn to make and keep covenants together as a group. It is also an example of “sustaining” what they had been taught.
A very important example of when the Israelites weren’t ready to sustain with a united vote, the proposed action where the Lord had promised to lead them into the promised land, occurred as recorded in Numbers 14. The entire 40 years of wandering happened because the people doubted and did not accept the faith example of Joshua and Caleb. (14:30) Thus, only those two were allowed to outlive the time when the Israelites as a united group would go into the promised land.
So it was not so much the people not “accepting truth”, as about the people being ready to live by the truths and the promises God was willing to give them if they kept their covenants. It shows the Lord was being patient with their learning process, and also desired their unity.
- Yes, they did. (Exodus 24:3)
- The account shows that He wanted them to take a vote, and Moses had this done.
- The better example is the change to taking the gospel to the Gentiles and making it so that circumcision was not longer part of “the law” and “the covenant”. There was indeed voting for those decisions after counsel and agreement.
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
Common consent is a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, Telstard. Common Consent is how we KNOW that the doctrine is from God, as opposed to the prophet’s own opinion. Without a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, there’s no way that the entire quorum of the twelve, let alone the entire body of the church, would agree on anything.
Not trying to persuade you; just to correct your misperception of how we see things.
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
Rebecca confused the attributions; it was me, not Pablope, who said:
Common consent means that an apostle’s opinions don’t become Doctrine until approved by the body of the church. D&C Section 50 is clear that revelation must be studied and subjected to a very vigorous process before it’s accepted as church doctrine.
T
Telstar
Guest
It’s so nice to have you back. No, really.
If the Catholic Church had to take a vote on everything the Church did, it could take a hundred years, just to count all the votes. Thank God they can never change any of our Doctrine.
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
Telstar, that’s got to be the most embarrassing typo I’ve ever made.
Sad thing is that after all the “lying for the lord” stuff that’s been thrown at you, you’re never going to believe that was a complete accident.
Great. Now I’m going to get suspended again, or banned.
I actually think you’re a good guy, even though I get annoyed with you from time to time.
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
Oh, we don’t count votes. Just look if there’s anyone in the meeting room who stood up to oppose.It’s so nice to have you back. No, really.
If the Catholic Church had to take a vote on everything the Church did, it could take a hundred years, just to count all the votes. Thank God they can never change any of our Doctrine.
And to my knowledge, no doctrine approved by common consent (i.e. no canonical doctrine) has ever been changed.
T
Telstar
Guest
I wasn’t quite sure if it was on purpose or not, but it was pretty funny. I might seem like the o-so-serious type when I’m talking about God, but sometimes, I really have to hold back my natural tendency toward being a sarcastic clown. If it was just a typo, it was definitely bad timing on your first day back. LMAO!
Telstar, that’s got to be the most embarrassing typo I’ve ever made.
Sad thing is that after all the “lying for the lord” stuff that’s been thrown at you, you’re never going to believe that was a complete accident.
Great. Now I’m going to get suspended again, or banned.
I actually think you’re a good guy, even though I get annoyed with you from time to time.
BTW… I’m*** still*** not a guy!
T
Telstar
Guest
OK, that’s even more confusing to me. I doubt that anyone would want to be the one to stand up and object, so I doubt it could ever be an honest outcome, if everyone would know who didn’t want to agree with it. That’s not even a real vote if you ask me. Can you imagine ever voting for the President of the US using that method? I don’t think you could really call it a vote, or even an ‘approval’, anyway.
But, it does bring up the mental image of trying to squeeze all of us Catholics into one enormous room to see if anyone stands up to object to something the Church wanted us to approve.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status