Well, since it is not doctrine and not taught, either it is wrong, or your leaders are nkt teaching true doctrine. Take your pick.
But if we have no way of knowing what the truth of the matter is unless God speaks up about it, what’s wrong with deciding to shut up about what we don’t know?
Reminds me about the Catholic controversy about “Limbo” for unbaptized infants. It was extensively taught, so that it actually made it into the Baltimore Catechism, among other things. And yet, it’s downplayed in the contemporary Catholic church because it supposedly never quite made it to the “infallible doctrine” level, and let’s face it, the Limbo doctrine sounds pretty harsh, so it’s not good PR.
I am saying that God is not a God of confusion and will not allow a true prophet to teach false doctrine. BY never said what he was teaching was opinion. In fact, he claimed it was doctrine. So, you can dodge it all you want, but ither BY was lying, or he was a fase prophet. I am ok with either.
I don’t see any quotations from Young. I can provide one where he said he was NOT infallible, if that helps.
Ah…yes…LDS tactic 14 again. The red herring. But let me make it wasy for you…Popes do not claim to be prophets…your guys do. Big difference. Nice try. You failed again.
Yes, but Popes do claim to be infallible when speaking in their office about issues of faith and morals. Mormon prophets do not. So yes, there is a big difference.
So please tell me. How can a Pope write an official statement ordering leaders of cities to capture heretics, torture confessions out of them, and torture them into giving up others as heretics?
Let me help you out, here. I’ve seen knowledgeable Catholics say that the “infallibility” rule is only applicable to GENERAL statements about faith and morals, whereas he is not infallible about SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. In other words, an infallible Pope would never say, “Torturing people is morally good” in an official statement, but he could say, “Hey you–I order you to go torture a bunch of people.”
My point, in case you are missing it again, is that if Catholics want to throw stones about LDS prophets having expressed some weird opinions in the past, well… you’re sort of in a glass house. Your infallible popes have said some pretty execrable things themselves. And yet, you are able to brush that aside by saying they were just humans, after all. In other words, you set an impossibly high standard for us (that we never adopted for ourselves,) but a much, much lower standard for yourselves.
For a lawyer, you seem to have an odd interpretation of what a “red herring” is.
