as do i.
The facts of history.
yes, that seems to be a fuzzy area. but it’s scary to think history is based on MAN’S accuracy. i just wonder how much time effects the facts.
To answer your PM, yes and no. My history is well stated on the forum. I was born catholic, converted to mormonism and now attend Mass again. But I can also attend the Mormon church too.
I would not call them lies but different understandings. And that makes a lot of difference. I do believe that there are better things to attack in this world through words than the lds church. The lds church is a force for good in this world. But I can think of much evil that should be attacked through words.
I never stated that it was not possible. I simply reject personal revelation as the basis for establishing the truth of doctrine. It does not hold as a sound basis precisely because of the nature of the personal revelation. If, as you concede, God can tell one person to be a Mormon and another to be a non-Mormon - how do we know God is not calling all to be non-Mormin? How can you be sure that you, from your own doctrinal position, are not misconstruing what God is revealing to you and your Mormon comrades. Not to mention the problems that come from discerning the source of the revelation… if it is divine as opposed to something other. It is not about denying the experience, but about how that experience should be utilized doctrinally.
What is that?
You clearly have no clue what the temple ceremonies are about. They are about no one but the savior from beginning to end. Their whole purpose is to help us be like him in every way.
Good for you! Follow your heart and those revelations – but you don’t need me to tell you that! Just want to say I agree with those who do what they know is right.
And yet you felt you needed to comment didn’t you?
no i was honestly just sad at the situation…
My “quick conversion” took place after 15 years of study during which I figured out all that I believed philosophically and religiously, and then found them all in Mormonism-- including a hundred other ways of taking those things I previously believed forward that I had no conception of at the time.
Dude, you’re getting a little paranoid there don’t you think? It really is not a big conspiracy you know… Oh wait, I just got an email in my red folder — new tactics for the coming month… uh huh…uhhuh…
I think as I have said before, if we could just sit down and talk, we would find that we are pretty much on the same wavelength.
I think that was addressed to Paul
"Groan… "That was bad.As far as Wittgenstein is concerned, there is early Witt and later Witt, just to complicate matters. Later witt pretty much condemned early witt, and the Tractatus, and of course I am a later witt guy. A Latter-day Wittgensteinian? Sorry couldn’t resist it.
Yeah. We’re not that far off. Just coming at the issue from different disciplines I suppose.
Well, “legal facts” are not the terminology I would use. I would say that a fact-finder (i.e. a jury) could consider the evidence being offered by a Buddhist and determine whether, based on that evidence, he or she had proven the case that Buddhism was True. But that fact-finder’s decision does not alter the more fundamental “truth” - i.e. that Buddhism is true or not. It only establishes a decision based on the evidence that was presented. The truth or falsity of Buddhism is not fundamentally effected by the fact-finder’s decision.
Then, they would break from the LDS Church rather than following the public revelation of their Prophet?
I think I have addressed it. My point is that Catholic doctrines and dogmas are not based on these sorts of revelations. That is not to say that the faith rejects them outright. Far from it. What I mean to say is that the teaching on (to use your example) the Incarnation does not rise or fall based on the fact that Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel who greeted her with the word “Hail, full of grace.” Rather, the teaching is premised upon the entirety of who Jesus was, what He preached and proclaimed about Himself, and what His Apostles preached and taught.You have still not addressed the fact that the annunciation by an angel to Mary declaring the incarnation (sorry mormons that is all catholic terminology) in my opinion was a far greater example of new doctrine being revealed to Judaism
1- by an angel
2- to a WOMAN (horrors!)
3- to a woman with a possible motive to falsify the occurance (ie she was pregnant without a husband)
The “restoration” story of Joseph Smith presumes a fact that has not been supported in any other way - i.e. the Great Apostacy. That is why the doctrine is rejected.
Not on her words alone, but on the teachings of Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and those who followed, etc. The doctrine of the Incarnation does not rise or fall based upon the fact of the Anunciation. The “restoration” to Joseph Smith finds it’s sole support in the claims of Joseph Smith that the Great Apostacy was revealed to him alone. Other than Joseph’s claim that the priesthood authority (that we see in Mormonism) was “lost” shortly after the death of the Apostles, what evidence is there?
Yep. You should question the doctrines that are supported solely by the revelations made to Joseph Smith, especially where they contradict later revelations to JS and the other saints.
Because the example you give proves my point. The truth or falsity of the Anunciation is not the sole basis for believing the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
"Groan… "That was bad.
Yeah. We’re not that far off. Just coming at the issue from different disciplines I suppose.
Well, “legal facts” are not the terminology I would use. I would say that a fact-finder (i.e. a jury) could consider the evidence being offered by a Buddhist and determine whether, based on that evidence, he or she had proven the case that Buddhism was True. But that fact-finder’s decision does not alter the more fundamental “truth” - i.e. that Buddhism is true or not. It only establishes a decision based on the evidence that was presented. The truth or falsity of Buddhism is not fundamentally effected by the fact-finder’s decision.
I would argue there is no other “truth” beyond the fact finder’s evidence. How would we know this “truth?”
Then, they would break from the LDS Church rather than following the public revelation of their Prophet?
Yep. We are not to follow blindly. That is why I believe that others can have valid revelations which tell them that other religions are true (and for other reasons as well)
I think I have addressed it. My point is that Catholic doctrines and dogmas are not based on these sorts of revelations. That is not to say that the faith rejects them outright. Far from it. What I mean to say is that the teaching on (to use your example) the Incarnation does not rise or fall based on the fact that Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel who greeted her with the word “Hail, full of grace.” Rather, the teaching is premised upon the entirety of who Jesus was, what He preached and proclaimed about Himself, and what His Apostles preached and taught.
Just as we “canonize” certain revelations and not others. Same thing. If that were not the case, anyone could get any wacky revelation and the whole church would run after the new doctrine. Doesn’t work that way.
The “restoration” story of Joseph Smith presumes a fact that has not been supported in any other way - i.e. the Great Apostacy. That is why the doctrine is rejected.
Not on her words alone, but on the teachings of Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and those who followed, etc. The doctrine of the Incarnation does not rise or fall based upon the fact of the Anunciation. The “restoration” to Joseph Smith finds it’s sole support in the claims of Joseph Smith that the Great Apostacy was revealed to him alone. Other than Joseph’s claim that the priesthood authority (that we see in Mormonism) was “lost” shortly after the death of the Apostles, what evidence is there?
Tons of evidence. I believed in the apostasy (not calling it that) for years before I joined the church. Certainly protestants do not believe in the apostasy because Joseph preached it! They must have found a reason or two on their own over the years!
Regarding the Incarnation, however, we have the Gospel stories of four separate persons, the epistles and other writings of the New Testament, the Tradition of the Church, etc.
As I said, some are canonized some are not.
Yep. You should question the doctrines that are supported solely by the revelations made to Joseph Smith, especially where they contradict later revelations to JS and the other saints.
Ditto the above
Because the example you give proves my point. The truth or falsity of the Anunciation is not the sole basis for believing the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Nor is the first vision the sole basis of Mormonism
Peace,
-Robert
This comment of yours raises some interesting questions that I would like to discuss with you and other LDS members if you have the inclination. Because this is a bit off topic from the OP of this thread, I’m starting a new discussion here. Would you (and any others who are interested) please join me for a charitable discussion?
Protestants do not believe in the LDS “Great apostacy”. If they did. it would negate their own religions as well, since they split off from Catholicism.