False enough for me

[_mentalgymnast]

Yes, and I'm also acutely aware of where the church is at today. Our ward just sent out an missionary to Zimbabwe. The church is heavily invested in reaching out to the world in all its diversity. Elder Wirthlin spoke of this in a very clear manner.

Sorry I'm frustrating you, but it's to be expected. We're not on the same page!

You're living in the past. I'm in the present.

ARGH!!

If the LDS church is the "one true church" then its PAST is crucial. You can't just pretend it didn't happen.

Believe me, I'm not pretending it didn't happen. Again, I am acutely aware of the "warts" you are referring to.

I enjoy playing also. I know we haven't ended up in the same place, but I do respect you for your tenacity in speaking up for you POV on things Mormon.

Well, on with the day. I've spent too much time playing here.
Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

That we can through righteous living become more like the Savior (become perfected in Him) and our Father in Heaven is taught by the missionaries. Thus, the call to repentance and baptism into the church. Thus, the emphasis placed on families by the missionaries and in church sponsered television commercials/ads.

But that's not what makes the church so very different, according to you.

Means to an end. Can't have one without the other.

Have a nice rest of the day!

Regards,
MG

[_bcspace]

If the LDS church is the "one true church" then its PAST is crucial.

Only certain events such as the First Vision and the comming forth of the Book of Mormon. Most everything else is meaningless. It is the doctrine taught that is either true or not.

You can't just pretend it didn't happen. You can't just close your eyes, click your heels, and pretend that the fact that "prophets and apostles" supposedly speaking FOR GOD couldn't get this straight, nor could they get many other things straight, is irrelevant. It took the larger, host culture to set the LDS church straight, for cripe's sake.

But you can can look at the fruits and while I'm sure you'll perceive a few bad ones, I;ve never seen anything to show that the fruits are, on the whole, extremely good, better than any other religion/philosophy.

So past teachings of the prophets - IF GOD SPEAKS CLEARLY TO MANKIND - is relevant. It is just "the past". It's part of the evidence - or lack thereof - of God's divine, CLEAR guidance.

Always been tempered by D&C 107. The FP and Qo12 have equal authority. It is they who determine if there is inspiration or merely strong opinion.

Given the model I offered, the LDS church fails miserably. You asked me to provide what it would look like - I did. The LDS church fails. Thanks for playing.

Your model must be strawman. You've obviously not taken LDS doctrine and it's definition into account.

[_bcspace]

If human beings being able to become GODS one day is THE most important part of the LDS church, that is what Mormon missionaries and commercials ought to be putting out there. Is it?

One of the fundamental and first teachings by the missionaries is that we can become like Heavenly Father. It was in the first discussion, it is in Preach My Gospel. It's in the GP manual for new members. It has been and will continue to be "put out there".

[_beastie]

The entire premise, the foundation, of the LDS church is that God can, and does, speak clearly to mankind . God speaks so clearly to mankind that his spokesman are justified in making extreme statements, such as that the LDS church is the only church on the face of the earth with the “true” authority of JC to perform saving ordinances.

All these others things, including the First Vision, are just examples of that foundational theology.

Yet the one thing that the history of not only the LDS church, but the history of all religions throughout history, demonstrates beyond dispute is that God does not speak clearly to human beings.


Add on to bc:

One of the fundamental and first teachings by the missionaries is that we can become like Heavenly Father. It was in the first discussion, it is in Preach My Gospel. It's in the GP manual for new members. It has been and will continue to be "put out there".

that don't fly here, homey. All Christian religions teach that people are supposed to "become more like HF" or Jesus. That is a very different statement than saying that human beings can actually BECOME GODS.

Unless you've lived under a Utahn rock all your life, you know good and well that this assertion is viewed as heresy by mainstream religions, and the LDS isn't trumpeting it in the missionary lessons, except in very vague terms that can easily be misconstrued. Milk before meat and all that.

[_Tarski]

Yet the one thing that the history of not only the LDS church, but the history of all religions throughout history, demonstrates beyond dispute is that God does not speak clearly to human beings.

I agree. I noticed that the more I learned about my religion and the more I was able to think like an adult about what the various texts say, and about what the leaders say, the less clear it all was. God, if he existed and was behind the church, was definitely not being clear.
BCSpace will say it is clear but then watch Gazelem and other TMBs jump in and say he is wrong in his interpretations. So we have confusion. The Mormon church is full of various winds of doctrine and they are all reading the same stuff and listening to the same leaders.

[_truth dancer]

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.

You can think me a liar but I speak the truth of my experience. Your sig line says doctrine is contained in the church publications, it does not (like you assert) say church manuals are doctrine and I have never heard anyone suggest it is.

A PR statement is not official doctrine, and as I have stated, it does not state the Sunday School and other church manuals are doctrine.

Yes, as I agreed with Tal(?) in another thread(?), there are apologists who have stated that. However, I think most of them are comming around. Unfortunately there are some who won't accept what the Church says because of the way they've explained away doctrine previously or they have an agenda that can't stand in the light of a systematic theology (which is what the Church has). But it is not the apologist who has the ultimate word on this, it's the Church itself.

You have not provided any official church document stating church manuals are doctrine.

Any apologist who says the manuals are not doctrine doesn't know what they are talking about.

Well, according to you. Every other apologist I have heard discuss this issue disagrees with you.

If you can't accept the Church's own statements about this, just ask yourself "Would the Church publish manuals that are not doctrinal?" and "Where does the Church say anything about optional doctrine?"

I would think not, but then the church is quite unclear and seemingly confused about doctrine.

Let me give you an example or two... a few years ago there was a very detailed article in the Ensign suggesting evolution is false. Are you thinking this is doctrinal? How about the teachings in the Lectures on Faith that was part of canonized scripture for years and years? How about BY's teachings on Adam/God taught in the temple? How about Homosexuality being of Satan taught in a pamphlet published by the church?

And to be clear, if there was an official statement from the prophet stating that all church manuals are doctrinal I would totally accept this as the position of the church.

Those are concepts promulagated by those who do not believe or those who are embarrassed by doctrine or by those who don't know how to defend it.

Then take it up with your fellow apologists because they, in my experience seem quite clear that YOU are the one who is incorrect. (sorry). If I recall correctly, there was a conversation on FAIR with various well-known apologists claiming the "when the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done" statement even though found in a church manual was not doctrine.

by the way, I still don't believe you've been ignorant of this issue. Sorry.

You can think me a liar. No worries.

Interestingly, I just this moment asked a chapel Mormon member if she/he considers church manuals doctrinal and this person agreed with you. So, now that makes two people in my experience who believe church publications/manuals are doctrinal.

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.

I link to it in my siggy.

The statement does not support your assertion and it is not an official statement by the church... it is a press release that in no way supports you.

I understand you believe church manuals are doctrinal, and I know others who do not, so again, who knows? Others seem to believe they are as right as do you.

~dancer~

[_bcspace]

I link to it in my siggy.

The statement does not support your assertion and it is not an official statement by the church... it is a press release that in no way supports you.

How is it not an official statement of the Church? Where is your alternative definition supported by official statements? You don't seem any different from Tal or Tarski who's antiMormon careers depend on there not being a definition of doctrine to advance their claims.

[_Jason Bourne]

I link to it in my siggy.

The statement does not support your assertion and it is not an official statement by the church... it is a press release that in no way supports you.

How is it not an official statement of the Church? Where is your alternative definition supported by official statements? You don't seem any different from Tal or Tarski who's antiMormon careers depend on there not being a definition of doctrine to advance their claims.

It is a news release. Where is your definition, one the comes from those in authority. Lay it out for all to see.