Interesting....

[Toms777]

We have also stated where our official doctrine lies. If Joseph did indeed state this, but it has not been "incorporated" as official doctrine then its outside of that realm and is not included, whether Joseph stated it or not.

TW

Then Jospeh Smith's statement as to what is doctrine does not completely align with the LDS church - is that correct?

There are many truths outside of LDS doctrine, but they are not binding upon the church as a whole and accepted as such.
You'll have to ask Jullian, since I don't know what she said.

TW

I asked her a couple of times, but she did not respond. I was hoping that if she was giving Mormon doctrine that you might know what she was talking about.

 

[twhite982]

Then Jospeh Smith's statement as to what is doctrine does not completely align with the LDS church - is that correct?

I only said it isn't official doctrine. We can however discuss with that understanding that it isn't established as official doctrine for the church.

Fair enough?

I asked her a couple of times, but she did not respond. I was hoping that if she was giving Mormon doctrine that you might know what she was talking about.

I don't recall the question she was asked.

Also I'm cutting back my time here since, I don't see much of my original intention being met here in the reason I joined CF.

I joined CF because I would like to understand others belief, but it seems the majority of my time is spent going in circles correcting mis-representations of what my church believes.

I will try to get to your question when I can. I apologize.

TW

 

[Toms777]

I only said it isn't official doctrine. We can however discuss with that understanding that it isn't established as official doctrine for the church.

Fair enough?

TW

Does the LDS church stand behind the statement of Jospeh Smith or not? Do you accept Jospeh Smith's word as sufficient to establish doctrine?

 

[twhite982]

Does the LDS church stand behind the statement of Jospeh Smith or not?

The LDS church stands behind Joseph as prophet and the one who was given the keys to restore Christ church on this earth.

Does this mean that EVERYTHING said by Joseph is official LDS doctrine? NO

We can talk about the other things Joseph said, but we need to distinguish between what is accepted as official church doctrine and what is not.

You seem to be trying to pit me and the church up against the early LDS leaders and this will not work. I nor the church hold these men as infallible.

Why are you trying to press the issue?

Do you accept Jospeh Smith's word as sufficient to establish doctrine?

His word alone, outside of the established order of God is not sufficient to be considered official LDS doctrine as much as I respect and admire Joseph Smith.

Again this just seems as if you want to pit me against Joseph Smith, which I clearly am not. I do however know what is LDS doctrine, but your understanding seems to be a little fuzzy.

What is so hard about accepting the word of those who told you what is official LDS doctrine?

We can still discuss those other statements outside of that realm, but we need to be aware that they are indeed outside of what is considered official LDS doctrine.

This doesn't mean either that just because they are outside of this realm they are automatically false.

I'm really getting sick of repeating myself.

This is one of the reasons I'm cutting back my time here because it only seems like a waste of time.

TW

 

[drstevej]

His word alone, outside of the established order of God is not sufficient to be considered official LDS doctrine as much as I respect and admire Joseph Smith.

I think we non-LDS are strruggling with the concept of a prophet, revelator and seer whose statements, not conditioned with an IMHO disclaimer, may or may not prove to be doctrine.

A prophet who begins a "translation" of the Bible which reveals original intent and then he sets aside the project and the verses he "translated" by this method are not considered canonical.

Kinda like an Etch-a-Sketch tablet. Just shake it and move on.
​

 

[Miles Peterson]

Juliann:

Please get help. The anger burning inside you will eat you alive.

I think they refer to that in their religion as a "burning bosom".

 

[Toms777]

I think we non-LDS are strruggling with the concept of a prophet, revelator and seer whose statements, not conditioned with an IMHO disclaimer, may or may not prove to be doctrine.

A prophet who begins a "translation" of the Bible which reveals original intent and then he sets aside the project and the verses he "translated" by this method are not considered canonical.

Kinda like an Etch-a-Sketch tablet. Just shake it and move on.

​

Yes, that is the issue.

If Joseph Smith is wrong on whether or not the Lorenzo Snow doublet is doctrine, then how does the LDS church know that he was not wrong in establishiong other writiongs and statem,enst as doctrine, including D&C and other of his writings.

That is critical when we examine the LDS church because everything hangs on the words of Joseph Smith.

If he identified the doublet as "gospel doctrine" and as a revelation from God and was wrong, then he is not a prophet because scripture requires 100%% accuracy of prophets.

 

[Miles Peterson]

Here is an example of the latest little fly-by plagiarizer:

Selections from "These Things Are Sacred", found in the booklet "Preparing To Enter The Holy Temple", page 2. Booklet adapted from The Holy Temple by Boyd K. Packer.

No year. No publisher. He then teases us about a book that could easily be referenced so that we could all fill in the ellipses. What he is implying by not giving us the place he got this information from is that he has both this pamphlet and this book sitting on his desk.

Well, as a matter of fact the original pamphlet IS sitting on my desk - and once again, I hand-typed the citation myself, rather than be accused of cutting-and-pasting from an unreferenced, third party website. The material omitted by the ellipses does little to change the meaning of the portions I cited, although it does provide a change of the tone used by the writer. You are certainly entitled, and I would wecome your efforts in doing so, to fill in the blanks. Please provide the remaining text if it will make you feel better.

I have gone to unusual effort on this board, to avoid controversy, by only citing original copies of LDS-published works directly from the original text, and only of those that I personally own (including, as you pointed out, a 150-year-old LDS-published newspaper). I don't cut-and-paste from "anti-Mormon" sources, out of respect for the LDS who believe they are being misquoted or misrepresented.

You, yourself, have posted Os Guiness quotes at the bottom of your posts. None (that I'm aware of) have challenged your citations. None have taken you to task to discover if you own the books for yourself. None have accused YOU of cutting-and-pasting the quotes from some third-party website. The deference we give to you is not returned. You persist in labelling us, and me in particular, as "fly-by plagiarizers".

If you really are interested in rectifying this problem instead of lecturing me, how about you go to the Mormon quote thread and ask him to supply the missing information in his reference? . If he doesn't have access to the booklet itself, he is plagiarizing from the person who does and preventing the rest of us from going to the source he took this from and checking it's accuracy for ourselves.

How about you do that with all of these partially referenced quotes they are putting up so that we can find them? I mean...they all have these books, pamphlets and hundred year old newspaper articles sitting on their computer table so it should be no problem at all, right?

Is your insistence on lambasting us over a failure to follow proper, MLA-style reference conventions? Or are you suggesting that, if the quote is found on a third-party website, that website must be cited as the reference, even if we're quoting from LDS-published, original documents we personally own?

Or do you believe there are gaps in the citations, which (when placed back into the context of the quote) make the material less controversial to read? If you really believe the quotes are out of context, and you have such a huge problem with gaps in the material, please feel free to provide the quote, with all missing text restored, for the sake of all readers here.

And be prepared to be taken to task, about whether you own the documents for yourself.

 

[Toms777]

The LDS church stands behind Joseph as prophet and the one who was given the keys to restore Christ church on this earth.

Does this mean that EVERYTHING said by Joseph is official LDS doctrine? NO

We can talk about the other things Joseph said, but we need to distinguish between what is accepted as official church doctrine and what is not.

You seem to be trying to pit me and the church up against the early LDS leaders and this will not work. I nor the church hold these men as infallible.

Why are you trying to press the issue?
His word alone, outside of the established order of God is not sufficient to be considered official LDS doctrine as much as I respect and admire Joseph Smith.

Again this just seems as if you want to pit me against Joseph Smith, which I clearly am not. I do however know what is LDS doctrine, but your understanding seems to be a little fuzzy.

What is so hard about accepting the word of those who told you what is official LDS doctrine?

TW

I am not trying to pit you against anyone. Indeed I am not focusing on you or anyone. I am trying to discuss doctrine and issues.

If what Joseph Smith said is a revelation from God and is gospel doctrine is not indeed always accepted as such, then that suggests that Joseph Smith could be wrong in what he says is gospel doctrine and a revelation from God.

According to scripture, a prophet must be 100% right, therefore if Smith cannot be relied upon when he makes such an outright and direct statement, then why should we believe that his writings in D&C are any more accurate? Indeed, why should we believe his translation which he claimed to be inspired of the Pearl of Great Price and BoM are indeed accurate?

The question also comes up with respect to Hill Cumorah, which I showed before is a major issue because the evidence contradicts the BoM and conmtradicts Joseph Smith's testimony. Why then should we believe his testimony about a revelation from God and a revelation from Moroni if indeed he can be wrong about this?

I am not saying this to pit you against Smith opr embarass you or anything else. But we are comamnded to test all doctrine and this is absolutely basic and critical to the Mormon religion.

 

[MizDoulos]

Reminder to all: While everyone has his own viewpoints on religion, let's learn to discuss this subject with respect for each other. If anyone finds it difficult to respond kindly, please refrain from participating and move on to another thread or forum. If the disharmony continues, warnings will be issued and/or the thread closed. The bickering has continued long enough and it is time the discussion return to a civil level.



Thank you!

[noflame]

 

[True Believer]

Hi there!



This forum is an open discussion forum, and almost every statement made by anyone is confronted by someone else.

Are you here to grow?


When I was in Israel, I sat on the steps leading to the temple mount where the "rabbi's" would teach, and where Jesus would have been teaching when He was in Jerusalem. I sat in the synagogue in Capernaum and told myself... Jesus taught here. Jesus was rejected in both Capernaum and in Jerusalem.... as well as Nazareth, Korizim, Bethsaida, and other cities in the Galilee.




Did he grow because of the rejection? Yes.

Growth is not always from positive sources, and growing from negative experiences is not necessarily "bad."

~malaka~

I find this statement to be saying Jesus was less than perfect . If that is the case than our faith would be for naught. Jesus had no need to grow spiritually. He amased those who listened to him as a boy. The rejection did not make him grow. It just showed to us how wrong those rejecting him were. TB

 

[True Believer]

Just a quick note but I don't see debate here and I have no side to take but this looks like a free for all grudge match just like so many threads here end up.

 

[MizDoulos]

Just a quick note but I don't see debate here and I have no side to take but this looks like a free for all grudge match just like so many threads here end up.

Once again . . . http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1305545&postcount=50


Now let's get back to the topic at hand and not get sidetracked.

 

[calgal]

I think they refer to that in their religion as a "burning bosom".

OW! That has got to hurt. I had a friend with an ulcer and a love for Tacos with hot salsa (I know this is a bad thing but hey, these were NOT Taco bell's nasty creations) I guess the burning of which you speak would be like this gal's stomach saying "OW! You WILL Pay for this Human!" Or was that the cat? Anyway, a not so pleaant sensation anyway you look at it.

 

[Miles Peterson]

OW! That has got to hurt. I had a friend with an ulcer and a love for Tacos with hot salsa (I know this is a bad thing but hey, these were NOT Taco bell's nasty creations)

I love Flaming Hot Cheetoes, which (free plug) now come in a second flavor - Flaming Hot with Lime. If I ever get an ulcer, I don't know what I'll do!

 

[calgal]

I love Flaming Hot Cheetoes, which (free plug) now come in a second flavor - Flaming Hot with Lime. If I ever get an ulcer, I don't know what I'll do!

Lime? Do they still taste as yummy with Lime?

 

[Serapha]

I find this statement to be saying Jesus was less than perfect . If that is the case than our faith would be for naught. Jesus had no need to grow spiritually. He amased those who listened to him as a boy. The rejection did not make him grow. It just showed to us how wrong those rejecting him were. TB

Hi there!



Lu 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

I recommend that you look closely at the change in the teachings of Jesus Christ from Hasedic to House of Hillel to a partial Shammai teaching in the Bible.

Need a further explanation?



~malaka~

 

[Miles Peterson]

Lime? Do they still taste as yummy with Lime?

I like 'em but I think they went a little too heavy on the powdered flavoring. They didn't cut back any on the sweetened cayenne powder (which is a good thing), but they added an additional lime powder on top of that (same one as on "Hint of Lime" Tostitos). They only come in a $1 bag size (3.25 oz), entirely too little for my liking . I've been eating Flaming Hot Cheetos since they were test-marketed in a $1 bag that held 5.5 oz.

 

[Miles Peterson]

I find 13 topics currently up on this board in the "Unorthodox Theological Doctrines," that concern Mormons. In a way I am happy to see that so many people are learning a lot about Mormons. In another way I am very saddened because I see how many things are being said about the Mormons that are not true. I am not really convinced that anyone here is really interested in what Mormons believe, they are just trying to prove to Mormons that their religion is false. I really do not see any growth on anyone's part.

Getting back to the topic of this thread - well, wait a minute. What exactly is the topic?

Per the original post, it's this comment, directed against every non-LDS Christian member who's reading the UTD threads, followed with a pro-LDS, "we're-all-family-why-can't-we-just-get-along" admonishment.

 

[pmarquette]

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

As such anything God wants to be revealed to us He will do it through the established order He has ordained.
............... then to fellowship , dialogue , we need some common ground : KJV / NKJV apart from the book of Mormon . If we cite scripture , out of the mouth of 2-3 witnesses [ principles , dogma , doctrine , within the confines of Bible , we can find commonality of works , prayers , and efforts ]

If you cite from the book of Mormon and others cite from the bible , we are on a nonstop merry-go-round ; the same is true with protestants quoting the book to Catholics and catholics quoting the writings of magestierium -- neither agrees on their authority , no common ground , common doctrine ...

we cannot accept celiestial marriage or baptism of the dead , for they contradict our understanding of our Faith .

We cannot accept that Jesus is a created being , v's the only begotton son of God ... contradiction

If we both seek to dialogue , have to use a common source , be a bit open minded , and reajust some of our denominational sacred cows on both sides of the fence ...

or agree that we disagree and go to neutral corners ... a friend offended , is harder to win than a walled city ....