I make this claim because I know that the HS helps me to understand what I read!
Tweety-
Maybe; but that is the subject of another thread. I responded to this thread in relation to the subject of this thread—which is how Catholics and non-Catholics understand the meaning of the gospel. The Apostasy has nothing to do with that. Why are you so strenuously avoiding the discussion of that subject, and instead trying to change it to something else?
I am glad you did. I hope you will study it carefully, and if you have serious objections you will bring it along (in the proper thread), and we will discuss it.
The main objection I suppose was not the detailed comment, but the change of subject. I didn’t join this thread to discuss the Apostasy. I have already discussed that subject on different occasions so many times that I have got bored with it. That is why I wrote that Blog post, to avoid having to repeat the same answers all over again. I am not afraid of discussing the Apostasy if that is what you are really interested in; but that is not what I joined this thread for to do.You introduced your blog with the following:
“This Blog is dedicated to addressing frequent questions that have arisen during my discussions about LDS doctrine with non-LDS on Christian discussion boards on the Internet. The intent is to save me the trouble of having to answer repeat questions…”
Now, if you feel the need to provide thorough answers to questions that you run across, why can’t I? Like me, you obviously feel that it is important to address these matters in detail.
Why the double-standard?
What about all those heretics who asked for the Holy Spirit and even thought that they had it, and then went on to establish heretical churches and heretical organizations, while firmly convinced that the Holy Spirit was with them?
As I said before, I have no real interest in “another gospel”.
I have read it, and I was amazed by the internal inconsistencies and obvious errors. Have you not been corrected on these matters previously?
And yet, you took me to task for doing what you yourself have grown weary of…providing thorough answers to complex questions. Can you say, “double-standard?”
As I said, I read your blog, and I was unimpressed. I’ll give you credit for identifying the issues…you were fair about that. The problem is that your answers were insufficient to prove your case.
As Patrick Madrid said, “Heresy always comes wrapped in Bible verses.”
I have read it, and I was amazed by the internal inconsistencies and obvious errors. Have you not been corrected on these matters previously?
There are no copyright issues involved. I quote from anywhere I like on the Internet, and so can you. That is the beauty of the Internet. Just don’t try to make commercial use of it.
I am sure.
I was able to identify the issues because I have debated them with Catholics (and Protestants) for years, and I know all the arguments.
Just wondering, because Joe Smith doesn’t say much about her, you know.
If that were the case, why wouldn’t I become Mormon? Obviously, the opposite is true.
I’m just telling you what the mod told me. I have to play by the rules.
That is understandable. The objections to Mormonism are easily discernable for those who are not Mormon. I don’t doubt that they come up again and again.
Well, we don’t worship Mary or pray to Mary. We don’t attribute any kind of Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix role to Mary. We don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But we don’t have to do any of that in order to revere Mary as a saintly woman occupying a special place by virtue of her being the mother of the Son of God. The Book of Mormon makes special mention of Mary in these words:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, right?
Perhaps it would be more helpful if you told us what you think we should be doing.
I don’t really understand that, you have to explain. But one thing I do admit—Mormonism does not have a “Mariology”. To us Mary is no different from any other woman, apart from a special place she occupies by virtue of her bing the mother of Jesus.
We don’t. We see Mary was the mother of the Son of God—who was indeed God—therefore she has a special place by virtue of that appointment.
Sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me.
For example, people celebrate the 4th of July with fireworks and various games, picnics, etc. For Presidents’ Day, speeches are made, people get the day off from work, and so on. What do you do for Mary’s birthday, on September 8th? Or else do you celebrate the Annunciation, on March 25th, in any way?
We don’t do that for Peter or John either, but we revere them as much. But on the other hand, when we celebrate the birth of Jesus at Christmas, put on a nativity play, or sing Christmas carols, we also celebrate the life of Mary in conjunction with birth of her Son Jesus.