Question for LDS

  • Thread starter Thread starter cothrige
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Caprica said:
What is actually too funny is that you put chance in quotations as if Brigham Young used the word, when he did not. Whether or not it is interchangeable in this instance (sure, it is) does not change the fact that you were attributing (or implying an attribution) of a word to Brigham Young that he did not use.
Click to expand...
Twist all you want. It is a sign that you cannot contribute on an honest level
Caprica said:
I’ve already said that I don’t need to prove a negative. You stated that he corrected the sermons and approved them as scripture, and I have asked you to demonstrate that he did. Since you could not, you have relied on assumptions, which is understandable.
Click to expand...
Show me where I stated he corrected the sermons.
Caprica said:
What are you talking about? I have readily accepted all of Brigham Young’s statements on this issue. In fact, I was the one that introduced the entire quotes to this discussion. So which part of his statement am I dismissing.

Please provide the part of the statement that I don’t want to use.
Click to expand...
Are you serious?
Caprica said:
I asked you before, what does “thus saith the Lord” have to do with what I have said? Since I have not disputed anything within the paragraph quote that includes “thus saith the Lord” (where Brigham Young clearly states not only that his sermons are scripture but that he had to correct it for it to be considered scripture), what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Are you serious with this? In order for something a “prophet” says have to contain Thus saith the Lord or not? Quit dancing around it. You’re not that good of a dancer, and to be quite honest you are just making yourself look foolish and proving my point.

Has anyone ever told you that you sure sound like Diania when you post? Hmmmm. I wonder.
 
twopekinguys said:
Twist all you want. It is a sign that you cannot contribute on an honest level
Click to expand...
I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate something with proof, and instead you have relied on assumptions. It is a sign that you cannot contribute on an honest level (especially after implying an attribution of a word to Brigham Young that he did not use).
Show me where I stated he corrected the sermons.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6679416&postcount=151
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6679593&postcount=153
Are you serious?
Click to expand...
Again, can you answer or not? “are you serious” does not answer my simple request.
Are you serious with this? In order for something a “prophet” says have to contain Thus saith the Lord or not? Quit dancing around it. You’re not that good of a dancer, and to be quite honest you are just making yourself look foolish and proving my point.
Click to expand...
I have repeatedly asked you what “thus saith the Lord” has to do with my points? Can you answer that or not? Where have I ever disputed that “thus saith the Lord” makes something binding, and where have I disputed what Brigham Young said in that very paragraph that you are referring to? You keep ignoring this question, and instead dance around it. You’re not that good of a dancer, and to be quite honest you are just making yourself look foolish and proving my point.

As I’ve said before you entered this conversation, Brigham Young said that his sermons were scripture when he corrected them and approved them as scripture. What does “thus saith the Lord” have to do with this?
 
Are the teachings of mormon Pres. Monson, as published in the Ensign magazine, prophetic? ie, do mormons believe he is teaching the divine will of God?
 
Caprica said:
I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate something with proof, and instead you have relied on assumptions. It is a sign that you cannot contribute on an honest level (especially after implying an attribution of a word to Brigham Young that he did not use).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6679416&postcount=151
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6679593&postcount=153

Again, can you answer or not? “are you serious” does not answer my simple request.

I have repeatedly asked you what “thus saith the Lord” has to do with my points? Can you answer that or not? Where have I ever disputed that “thus saith the Lord” makes something binding, and where have I disputed what Brigham Young said in that very paragraph that you are referring to? You keep ignoring this question, and instead dance around it. You’re not that good of a dancer, and to be quite honest you are just making yourself look foolish and proving my point.

As I’ve said before you entered this conversation, Brigham Young said that his sermons were scripture when he corrected them and approved them as scripture. What does “thus saith the Lord” have to do with this?
Click to expand...
You really are becoming a joke with all of this. So much so that I am truly embarrassed for you.

I know this is probably a stretch for you in some sense,but you really do need to use some logic.After 23 years of his speeches being out there, logic would dictate that someone corrected them, or at least looked at them for possible corrections. This would include members of the first presidency who endorsed them. Remember that endorse means they affirmed them.

I notice you continually sidestep what I have said about the “Thus saith the Lord” portion of the quote. Personally, I am tired of typing it, so I will leave it to you to go back and see what you are avoiding.

By the way, your comment," Brigham Young said that his sermons were scripture when he corrected them and approved them as scripture" is not what he said. I suggest you go back and look at it.
 
Caprica, well…YOU claimed the weird sermons/doctrines were never approved. Now you say you can;t support your contention.

Got it.

Then it is safe to assume they were approved. Thank you
 
SirThomasMore said:
Caprica, well…YOU claimed the weird sermons/doctrines were never approved. Now you say you can;t support your contention.

Got it.

Then it is safe to assume they were approved. Thank you
Click to expand...
Exactly, I have asked her to prove me wrong, and she can’t.
 
twopekinguys said:
You really are becoming a joke with all of this. So much so that I am truly embarrassed for you.

I know this is probably a stretch for you in some sense,but you really do need to use some logic.After 23 years of his speeches being out there, logic would dictate that someone corrected them, or at least looked at them for possible corrections. This would include members of the first presidency who endorsed them. Remember that endorse means they affirmed them.

I notice you continually sidestep what I have said about the “Thus saith the Lord” portion of the quote. Personally, I am tired of typing it, so I will leave it to you to go back and see what you are avoiding.

By the way, your comment," Brigham Young said that his sermons were scripture when he corrected them and approved them as scripture" is not what he said. I suggest you go back and look at it.
Click to expand...
I used to post on a Mormon forum, and I’ve found that these guys are utterly confused on this. When are their prophets speaking as prophets? Who knows. Brigham Young proclaimed the Adam-God Doctrine in General Conference, an official church function. That means the Mormons then must have thought that it was scripture. Now, Brigham Young was just giving his opinion.

:rolleyes:
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
I used to post on a Mormon forum, and I’ve found that these guys are utterly confused on this. When are their prophets speaking as prophets? Who knows. Brigham Young proclaimed the Adam-God Doctrine in General Conference, an official church function. That means the Mormons then must have thought that it was scripture. Now, Brigham Young was just giving his opinion.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
they pick and choose
 
Yesterday was fun. All participants were, if not well behaved, at least on their tiptoes intellectually.

I apologize to Jerusha, if she is still lurking, :o I reviewed her posts, and came to the conclusion that she knows more than me. 😉

IMHO, instead of accepting BY as a “Prophet of God,” or accepting TM as a “Prophet of God,” whose words will soon be contradicted by another “Prophet of God,” perhaps LDS might benefit by accepting Solomon Spalding as a prophet. Seems like CoC is well on their way to doing that. That way, they can back out with dignity by calling themselves more traditional than all the others. 😉
 
Caprica said:
Whoever said that you believe that the Pope is more vital than the Bible?

As I said, Catholics believe that the words of the Pope are always important, yet they are not always infallible. LDS believe that the words of the Prophet are always important, yet they are not always inspired. As that same manual clearly states: “Not every word they speak should be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement.”

Also, I understand that you don’t believe that any message given by the Pope is scripture. However, infallible statements by the Pope cannot be rejected and are therefore on par with scripture. Or can someone reject Ineffabilis Deus?
Click to expand...
Please note that this is an overstatement at the very least.

As a Catholic I could care less of things like what the pope says about who will win the world cup.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
I used to post on a Mormon forum, and I’ve found that these guys are utterly confused on this. When are their prophets speaking as prophets? Who knows. Brigham Young proclaimed the Adam-God Doctrine in General Conference, an official church function. That means the Mormons then must have thought that it was scripture. Now, Brigham Young was just giving his opinion.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, WE don’t think that a sermon preached at an ‘official church function’ is the same as scripture. Even if it is spoken at General Conference. In order for it to be scripture, it has to, y’know, BE SCRIPTURE. Accepted as such. Canonized.

Unlike Catholics, who have Holy Tradition, we don’t have something that is ‘as good as’ scripture. It’s one of the advantages of having an open canon–if we think that something is scripture, then it becomes—scripture. Everything else, no matter how valuable, insightful and perhaps even inspired it is, is not scripture.

So please don’t tell us what “Mormons must then have thought…” because there is no ‘must’ about it, especially during a time when scripture was very actively being added to our canon.
 
dianaiad said:
Oddly enough, WE don’t think that a sermon preached at an ‘official church function’ is the same as scripture. Even if it is spoken at General Conference. In order for it to be scripture, it has to, y’know, BE SCRIPTURE. Accepted as such. Canonized.

Unlike Catholics, who have Holy Tradition, we don’t have something that is ‘as good as’ scripture. It’s one of the advantages of having an open canon–if we think that something is scripture, then it becomes—scripture. Everything else, no matter how valuable, insightful and perhaps even inspired it is, is not scripture.

So please don’t tell us what “Mormons must then have thought…” because there is no ‘must’ about it, especially during a time when scripture was very actively being added to our canon.
Click to expand...
I agree. When Brigham Young said something was Scripture, he was lying
 
stormy99 said:
It’s time to have a paid clergy…way past time…

stormy
Click to expand...
You might want to take that up with Jesus Christ. He seems to have rejected that way of doing business in His Church. The vast majority of leaders in the LDS Church are not paid. Among the highest escholons of Church leadership, they are paid based upon need, which many of them fall into that category.

The concept is not to think of purse or script, but seek to serve God. This is a similar concept amoung the many religious organizations within the Catholic Church who take a vow of poverty.
 
barnesms said:
You might want to take that up with Jesus Christ. He seems to have rejected that way of doing business in His Church. The vast majority of leaders in the LDS Church are not paid. Among the highest escholons of Church leadership, they are paid based upon need, which many of them fall into that category.

The concept is not to think of purse or script, but seek to serve God. This is a similar concept amoung the many religious organizations within the Catholic Church who take a vow of poverty.
Click to expand...
It is amusing how you pick and choose which teachings you wish to follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top