False enough for me

[_The Nehor]

Just to clarify it stops with the Spirit...period.

Then its false. Why? Because the spirit is a useless standard unless one can know with certainty that it is the spirit and can never be fooled to think something is the spirit that really isn't. But I have numerous example of people being told things by what they knew to be the spirit but that turned out to be verifiably false. QED

They were wrong. Not my problem. One can know with certainty that something is the Spirit. They said it was when it wasn't.

And they would say that you got it wrong and it isn't their problem. What a hilarious piciture; a whole population self proclaimed spiritual adepts each incorrigibly following their own self produced sensations. Each chasing a chimera.
I would like to see Nehor and BY fight it our about who can or can't tell if it's really the spirit.

Absolutely hilarious.

When will these people realize that there is no way out of the fact that all there is are flesh and blood brains in flesh and blood bodies making fallible and often self deceptive judgements about what is or isn't true.
Thank goodness there are people who are willing to submit their ideas to objective tests and rational argument without falling back on some notion of special infallible insight or mysical experience from God that Trump's everything else.

Yet somehow we've survived. I'd love to chat with Brigham Young about it. I think it would be interesting. Again, other people being wrong is not my problem. I have been wrong in judging it myself. I hope I've moved beyond it. Sure is seeming that way.

[_Tarski]

Yet somehow we've survived. I'd love to chat with Brigham Young about it. I think it would be interesting. Again, other people being wrong is not my problem. I have been wrong in judging it myself. I hope I've moved beyond it. Sure is seeming that way.

Your still wrong but you think you are right just like you did the last time you thought you had it. This will keep repeating until you realize it can't be settled by feelings or spirits or inner voices or dreams etc.

[_beastie]

Stepping back for a minute and playing God.

Hmmm, I have more than one option here...how do I want my church to appear... I think I'll put my fingerprints ALL over it so there's no mistake about it. I'll guide every thought and move so that things move along exactly the way I want it with no errors of judgment...no mistakes. That way it will be so obvious that it's my church that people really won't have any reason/choice NOT to become part of it. I mean, gosh, it will be an absolute no-brainer. OTOH, if I generally speaking take a hands off position much of the time, give them a guidebook to begin with, and then let people kind of run the show on their own and hope that they remember to phone in frequently, or at least once in a while to get some directions, maybe...just maybe...these kids might learn some things that will help them along the way in their eternal journey. Just maybe they might develop characteristics that are a spin off of having to exercise faith and determination in exercising their OWN agency...hmmm...I think I'll go with the second choice. In the long run I think it stands a better chance.

Regards,

In other words, the fact that the church looks and acts just like any other man-made church is actually evidence the church is TRUE!

Wow!

[_mentalgymnast]

So are you saying it is official LDS doctrine that Noah's flood was literal, worldwide and catastrophic, and that there was no physical death anywhere in the world for plants or animals until the Fall of Adam?

(Adam and Eve)
(Noah

I'm not seeing a problem here. Define "world" and "earth"...according to the ancients. Is the lesson material referring to the world/earth of the ancients...or not? Can you tell one way or the other?

In the Adam and Eve link you posted Dallin Oaks makes an interesting comment:

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same.

I wonder what he thinks world/earth mean...

Just exactly WHERE were Adam and Eve before "the fall"? Were they in and of the world created through evolutionary processes? Or not?

Using the resource material you linked to, I don't see where this lesson manual doctrinally specifies what you seem to want it to.

Regards,
MG

[_truth dancer]

Hey BC...

My new comments are in bold.

So are the Primary and Sunday School manuals doctrine? Yes.
Are the Priesthood and Relief Society manuals doctrine? Yes.
Are the institute and other seminary manuals doctrine? Yes.

So now here is a comprehensive list of works from which critics of the Church can point to and say 'It's doctrine." unless the item is presented otherwise (quite rare).

Will our critics use these items? No. Why? Because (usually having an ax to grind) they are not intellectually honest.

Hold the phone a sec... :-)

This is the first time in my life I have heard such a thing.

ah...Ah...AH...Dukakis!

Then I would say you have never attented a teacher preparation class or read the CHI book 2, or even attended Church in over 30 years. I don't believe you anyway as you and I have been posting on the same boards for years.

I truly do not ever recall hearing such a thing. Not as a believer or since discovering the apologetic community.

I feel quite certain that there were many discussions where apologists clearly stated manuals were NOT doctrine, I didn't even think this was up for debate. I have never read the CHI book 2, you are correct on this point.

Hmmm... I guess no one seems to know. Or rather, everyone seems to think they know what is or is not doctrine is right but the opinions differ quite significantly.

Then refer to the Church's own official statements. An apologist is only as good as he knows and understands the Church's clearly stated positions.

What is the official statement on where official church doctrine can be found? Is there one? If so I would be most appreciate if you could share it with us.

Even if the leaders of the church define doctrine, their statements are merely opinion so the bottom line is... no official doctrine, nowhere to find official doctrine, what believers think is doctrine can be changed, eliminated, altered, dismissed, reinterpreted, altered, at any moment.

This concept does not exist in the Church. What does exist is continuing revelation which can override previous doctrine (rare and I can't think of a single case at the moment) meaning that if there is a conflict, the newer publication Trump's.

In other words... who knows? ;-)

~dancer~

[_The Nehor]

Yet somehow we've survived. I'd love to chat with Brigham Young about it. I think it would be interesting. Again, other people being wrong is not my problem. I have been wrong in judging it myself. I hope I've moved beyond it. Sure is seeming that way.

Your still wrong but you think you are right just like you did the last time you thought you had it. This will keep repeating until you realize it can't be settled by feelings or spirits or inner voices or dreams etc.

Either that or rigorous testing will show that I've gotten it right this time....or I'll die.

[_mentalgymnast]

Stepping back for a minute and playing God.

Hmmm, I have more than one option here...how do I want my church to appear... I think I'll put my fingerprints ALL over it so there's no mistake about it. I'll guide every thought and move so that things move along exactly the way I want it with no errors of judgment...no mistakes. That way it will be so obvious that it's my church that people really won't have any reason/choice NOT to become part of it. I mean, gosh, it will be an absolute no-brainer. OTOH, if I generally speaking take a hands off position much of the time, give them a guidebook to begin with, and then let people kind of run the show on their own and hope that they remember to phone in frequently, or at least once in a while to get some directions, maybe...just maybe...these kids might learn some things that will help them along the way in their eternal journey. Just maybe they might develop characteristics that are a spin off of having to exercise faith and determination in exercising their OWN agency...hmmm...I think I'll go with the second choice. In the long run I think it stands a better chance.

Regards,

In other words, the fact that the church looks and acts just like any other man-made church is actually evidence the church is TRUE!

Wow!

Where did I say the church was man made?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...the modern church doesn't look anything like the early church in terms of visions, supposed miracles and manifestations. The Mormon church is just as ossified and institutional as the catholic church. It is also boring, dry, repetitive, droning, and aesthetically business-like in dress and architecture. It is filled with stereotypical rightwing pro-establishment dogma ...

Well done, Tarski. Seriously.

Well done...if you're into sweeping generalizations.

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

MG,

I didn't say you said the church was man-made. I said the fact that it LOOKS man-made, for you, has become evidence of its TRUTH - because, you know, that's the way God would do it to help his children grow and have faith.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG,

I didn't say you said the church was man-made. I said the fact that it LOOKS man-made, for you, has become evidence of its TRUTH - because, you know, that's the way God would do it to help his children grow and have faith.

Where did I say that the church "looks man-made"? You seem to be extrapolating this assertion of yours from reading the first option and adding in your own interpretation to the second one. And where did I say that this would (if I had said it in the first place) act as actual evidence of it truth?

I am in agreement with the point you made in regards to God choosing the second option because it may lead to helping his children grow and have faith. You got that right!

What do you think though about the general thesis of the paragraph as a whole? Reasonable? Not?

Regards,
MG