the road to hana wrote:So one can have a confirmation of a negative. It's doubtful that if Joseph Smith indeed sought an answer to a question, he specified or limited the means by which that could be answered. I assume that's generally the case with most people seeking answers to questions. Those who believe in a Supreme Being should believe that that being would be unlimited in its ability to make known an answer should it desire to.
No, there is not positive confirmation of a negative. as I have been discussing with you. Did you read what I said about different operations of the Spirit? Joseh Smith had visions, revelations, visitations. Most of the rest of us do not. God is not limited, except by eternal laws and principles. When He speaks, He says anything He wants. When I pray for an answer to whether or not Joseph's revelation, vision, etc. was true, God does not come and personally tell me. The Holy Ghost gives confirmation that it was. There is a difference.
the road to hana wrote:
So are you suggesting that we can say that LDS leaders are corrupt or the hirelings of Satan, and as long as we don't name specific names we are simply just commenting on doctrine?
You can say anything you want. You should just be sure that what you say is correct and not false.
the road to hana wrote: Are you suggesting that there were no leaders in the past history of the LDS Church who were evil, corrupt or wicked?
No, obviously there were, and they became apostate.
the road to hana wrote:charity wrote:
We are commanded to teach that there was an apostacy.
By whom?
Do you not undestand that this is the dispensation of the Restoration? If there wasn't an apostady (thanks for the spelling correction) there would be no need for a Restoratin!
the road to hana wrote:
So other denominations who preach that the LDS Church is an apostate or false religion are okay in doing so as long as they don't specifically reference any individual, even if they send out missionaries to do so?
They aren't "okay" since that would be preaching falsehood and fighting against the true Church. That is generally a practice which is frowned on in the scriptures.
the road to hana wrote:charity wrote:
For anti-Mormons, I expect that. Those who fight against the Church will say those kinds of things.
You said that earlier. Are you suggesting that those who say that about Mormonism are bad, but if Mormons say it about others it's not bad? If someone says a religion is "hatched in hell" that's okay?
Truth is always a defense. If the Lord tells you to say that, then I suppose it would be okay, but not tactful. People always forget that it wasn't Joseph Smith who said all the religions were corurpt and their professors corrupt. It was Jesus Christ. He gets to say what He wants.
the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
What kinds of things? Those are exactly the "kinds of things" that leaders of the LDS Church have said regarding other churches, but according to you, it's really all right because no individual leaders are being disparaged in the process. Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"
God will decide who is right and who isn't. I am confident of His judgement.
One more time: Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"
Why would it? I believe in Christ. I'm a Christian.
the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
You missed the temple reference? You missed the "corrupt," "evil" and "wicked" references?
Who said anything about specific names? Ministers as hirelings of Satan? Buying up "popes and princes?" If a non-LDS religion had a ritual that mocked a member of LDS leadership or priesthood, would you consider that admirable?
Is it true? Did the Lord inspire it? Remember, Jesus can say what He wants to.,
the road to hana wrote:
What FACTS of the apostasy? I see none present. I see multiple citations of deception, corruption, evil and wickedness. Again, what I'm trying to point out to you is that if another religion said the same thing about Mormonism, even if they omitted specific names of LDS leaders, you would consider it unacceptable and likely even reprehensible.
Of course I would, becaue it would be fighting against the true church. That's a no no.Besides it is all falsehood. I am never for teaching falsehoods. Go ahead, jump on that one.