...the only logical and reasonable standard is that set by the Church. If someone else sets it, you have no basis blame the Church.
As much as LDSism likes to pass themselves off as being original--outside of Temple Oaths etc. Polygamy & Black Priesthood issues--they share more in common than not. Consequently as 'followers' they must share "blame" as well as credit, for their "standards."
You missed the point completely. If someone other than the Church sets up standards for LDS doctrine, then the Church cannot be held accountable for that doctrine.
On the other hand, here is your big opportunity to catch the Church in a lie (if you can).[/quote]
I would not consider that as an opportunity--for what? Rather I do consider it a responsibility to suggest that much of what is taught by Mormonisn is "not always believable" As I think you have alluded to as well??
As for "...catch(ing) the Church in a lie..." that truely is more difficult. To call anyone a liar requires burdens of proof that a skilled liar is most adapt at avoiding. I guess you have me at a disadvantage there, although the MMM investigation is long ongoing???
BCS, I'm not sure if YOU appreciate MY appreciation of Mormonism? It served me well for many decades (as I served it). Through times when its truthfullnes/believeabilty was trumped by its practicality and fellowship that i willingly contributed to and loyally supported.
It was only after I had time to really "study" & "think" were the "unbelievables" brought into serious consideration, and became sufficient in quantity, and quality to conclude, regretably, that Mormonism, carries enough unbelievables to be taken any more seriously than any other so-called Christian sect, IMSCO.
I don't know if that satisfies your "challege" but is my honest response to what I prefer to call an "invitation" to share... :-) Warm regards, Roger
BCS, from your post, wherein you quoted me, below. I messed up with "double quotes" so I hope the general context is still understanable??? (Hence the Edit:-)
Because, what the Church says is not always believeable/true.
[/quote]
...the only logical and reasonable standard is that set by the Church. If someone else sets it, you have no basis blame the Church.
As much as LDSism likes to pass themselves off as being original--outside of Temple Oaths etc. Polygamy & Black Priesthood issues--they share more in common than not. Consequently as 'followers' they must share "blame" as well as credit, for their "standards." On the other hand, here is your big opportunity to catch the Church in a lie (if you can).
I would not consider that as an opportunity--for what?
[/quote]
I wouldn't either since it's impossible to do. However, if it were possible, the only way to do it is to consider as LDS doctrine exactly what the Church considers doctrine.
Rather I do consider it a responsibility to suggest that much of what is taught by Mormonisn is "not always believable" As I think you have alluded to as well??
You can believe what you want to believe. One of my points is simply that if you hold LDS to a standard of doctrine their Church doesn't teach, then you will always fail in your attempts to communicate.
As for "...catch(ing) the Church in a lie..." that truely is more difficult. To call anyone a liar requires burdens of proof that a skilled liar is most adapt at avoiding. I guess you have me at a disadvantage there, although the MMM investigation is long ongoing???
[taps the sign] What is LDS doctrine?
BCS, I'm not sure if YOU appreciate MY appreciation of Mormonism?
Of course I don't. It is unrecognizable as a Church I don't belong to.
It served me well for many decades (as I served it). Through times when its truthfullnes/believeabilty was trumped by its practicality and fellowship that i willingly contributed to and loyally supported.
I highly doubt you ever were active in the Church.
It was only after I had time to really "study" & "think" were the "unbelievables" brought into serious consideration, and became sufficient in quantity, and quality to conclude, regretably, that Mormonism, carries enough unbelievables to be taken any more seriously than any other so-called Christian sect, IMSCO.
And that is why.
I don't know if that satisfies your "challege" but is my honest response to what I prefer to call an "invitation" to share...
You missed the point. I simply require that doctrine be defined as the Church defines it. It's the only reasonable and logical solution and basis for debate.