"Father of Peace" <srm2005@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:13r8p485stlji14@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Feb 11, 8:56 am, Curmugeon <gfuller1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> In general, the blessings of spiritual companion****p and communication
>> are only available to those who are clean.
>
> In general, everyone is unclean.
Yes, in the natural man. However, everyone who has truly repented and
received the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ is clean.
Comment about claiming a personal revelation in conflict with church
teachings and practices.
> It's self preservation. The members will tear you apart if
> you ever admit in sacrament meeting that you have received
> a revelation that disagrees with the current culture of the
> church.
Which is why it is common sense, of course.
>> Our teaching is that the Prophet is the only one
>> who is authorized to pronounce doctrine for the entire church.
>
> Somehow I have never been able to find a secure doctrinal
> source for that teaching. There are plenty of people who are
> willing to preach that ONLY The President is authorized to
> pronounce doctrine for the entire church but such teachings
> are unauthorized by the scriptures.
Do you suggest, brother, that God is bound by the scrptures?
Snip
> Some members of the church might claim that a prohibition
> of plural marriage is the Will of the Lord, but the scriptures
> do not teach that.
The Scriptures are a limited ****tion of what God knows, and reveals to His
people. Indeed the Scriptures are inert and teach nothing of themselves.
The
truth in them must be understood. It must be appied to specific cases. So
long as you and I hold such opposing beliefs, we will never agree on
things
of fundamental im****tance.
Snip
> The church is clearly wrong to ban plural marriage, and it is
> clearly wrong to excommunicate those that live it.
To you that seems true. To me it seems clearly false. What would either of
us gain by arguing with counter acting assertions?
>> both you and the Church may be wrong.
>
> Yes, we are both wrong.
That is a very strong possibility since I am sure that the Church has not
yet been perfected. It may or may not be nearert perfection than when it
was
first restored. That is for God to judge, not me, and not you.
Snip
> There are plenty of churches in the world in which
> the members walk in harmony with each other while
> holding radically different beliefs.\\I know of none such.
> I believe that is the
> path taught by the mormon scriptures, and I believe
> that we engage in strong hierarchy and mindless
> "follow the leader" rhetoric based not on our doctrine,
> but on the culture in which the church originated, and
> that we have allowed that culture to blind us to the
> true doctrines of mormonism: that every person is
> entitled to revelation.
The Old Testament of the Holy Bible is included in the Standard Works of
The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Inasmuch as we are called
"Mormons" that makes it part of "mormon scriptures". Here is the verse I
was
thinking of from Amos 3
3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
The implicit answer it "No". You say that you know of churches which walk
together without being agreed? I claim those "churches" are heterogeneous
groups who walk a myriad of scattered and private paths. You, my friend,
agree with us in part, disagree with us in part, and of your own will do
not
walk with us.
Snip
> How much error can the church be allowed before God has
> to turn his back on the church and not recognize the
> ordinances performed? I think we passed that point
> decades ago, maybe even a century ago.
However much He wants to allow. And where do you get that "we"? Are you
indeed with us?
Snip
> When I was an LdS missionary I was taught to do a bait and switch
> with my investigators. It went something like this:
>
> Pray and ask God if the BoM is true.
>
> If yes, then that means that Spencer Kimball is a Prophet of God,
> and the LdS church is God's church.
That is not exactly a bait and switch by my definition, but it is indeed
incorrect reasoning. If the Book of Mormon is true, the most it proves is
that the claim of Joseph Smith is the best explanation that we have for
its
existence. It does not in fact even prove that Joseph was a prophet. He
could have been lying about how he got the book.So a few more bits of
testimony are needed. If you were indeed instructed to use that procedure
in
gaining converts, then I would agree that was wrong.
> But in doing so we mislead the investigators.
long time since I have complained about a typo, possible common erroneous
spelling, or even use of the wrong word. So I shall and open myself to the
probablility of committing several such. But the past tense of lead as a
verb is led. So the past tense of "mislead" would be "misled". If I had a
penny for every time I have seen that error on the news groups, and now
even
in the more formal newspaper columns, I would be a wealthy man even in
today's frauduent money.
> Even if the Book of Mormons was divinely inspired, it was written a very
> long time ago, and there has been all sorts of op****tunities for
> error and waywardness since then.
Which, while true, I am not sure I follow you. If you mean to say that
since
the restoration in 1830 there has been time for error etc, then I agree
with
you on that point.
Snip
> Nevertheless, I still like to point out to people that as
> an LdS missionary I deceived my investigators by faulty
> logic.
Are you culpable for that or can you claim youthful ignorance of the facts
of logic and rational thought? If you can claim that, can your teachers
also
claim something similar, only without the excuse of youth?
>> > Perhaps Nephi is a holy Ghost.
>
>> Actually unless he has been resurrected already, I would say he
>> probably is, since a ghost is a spirit.
>
> Perhaps Nephi is THE holy Ghost, that visited the
> author of the original post.
Perhaps. I have no reason to believe that to be the case, but I have no
real
basis to deny it.
Snip
> I sure hope so. And sooner rather than later.
Sorry you feel that way.
Gene
|
