Regrets over resigning?

[_mentalgymnast]

Yes, there are some that are hurting because of this policy. No one is disputing that. The question is, at least for me, whether or not THIS is reason to dispense with the truth claims of the church.

Regards,
MG

What, exactly, would be the reason(s) to dispense with the truth claims of the Church?

- Doc

If one came to believe that the truth claims didn't hold any water.

Let me repeat that. Lack of belief.

Thing is, however, that lack of belief can come as a result of influences that come in all shapes and sizes. It's not a one size fits all.

Regards,
MG

[_Dr. Shades]

You know, Shades, you're a great guy and all. And, I'm grateful for all you do around here. But, sometimes you can be the biggest knucklehead of them all.

Why on earth does it matter what I personally believe? If a strong case can be made for the LDS Church having violated its most fundamental Christian doctrines, then anyone would be justified in jumping ship on that account.

I guess this means that you were offering a sample conclusion that believers could draw from all this, and not that you yourself believed in that conclusion, then . . . right?

Despite the obvious inanities of Tobin, I should think you would be smart enough to figure that out.

What can I say, I just sort of assume that when someone advocates a position, they're doing so because they themselves believe in it. But what do I know, eh?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What, exactly, would be the reason(s) to dispense with the truth claims of the Church?

- Doc

Let me repeat that. Lack of belief.

That's some earth shattering stuff right there.

A reason to stop believing in the truth claims of the Church is because you don't believe them any more.

Wow. That will take some time for me to wrap my mind around, brother.

- Doc

[_sock puppet]

Even if it appears that theologically it is creating some conundrums that don't seem to fit in with those core truths?

Regards,
MG

So you don't think that the Catholic Church is in apostasy because it yet holds to core truths, like god exists, Jesus atoned for your sins, etc.?

[_Kishkumen]

The LDS Church isn't governed by the Bible.

It's not that simple. The LDS Church was founded as a restoration of Biblical Christianity, or of the Christianity that existed in the time of Christ and his apostles. It was also supposed to be restored in the dispensation of the fullness of times and the restoration of all things. The Bible was obviously a guide to what "all things" to be restored might be. This included polygamy and even blood sacrifice. So, while the Bible was not the definitive last word in a Church receiving revelation; it was an important starting point for understanding the kinds of practices and doctrines restored Christianity in the era of the fullness of times should have.

I just think it is silly to hang your hat on something so flimsy as this as the start of the Great Apostasy of the LDS Church. It certainly doesn't help clarify why LDS claims were true before this policy was announced and suddenly became false afterwards. After all, I think modern prophets and apostles, the D&C and Book of Mormon should have put to bed any idea the LDS Church was purely governed or interested in doing what others (including you) interpret the Bible to say.

Yeah, well, you aren't really paying attention to what I am writing. I have noted that apostasy is a process, and I would add that the LDS Church was neither all true or all false either before or after the new policy was enacted. I have offered my judgment that a line was crossed in the institution of this new policy, and that line, for me, was the blatant contradiction of the clear teachings of Christ. By the Church's own standards, the scriptures are to be the ultimate arbiter of true doctrine. Judged by that standard, we see in this damaging policy a violation of the doctrine of Christ.

As for this idea that the LDS Church is uninterested in what I interpret the Bible as saying, I have no illusions in that regard. For Pete's sake, man, this is a discussion board. It is ludicrous of you to suggest I have any pretensions of this sort. Get a life.

[_Kishkumen]

What can I say, I just sort of assume that when someone advocates a position, they're doing so because they themselves believe in it. But what do I know, eh?

I have long said that the views I express on this board are thought experiments. I am not sore that you don't recall me saying this, but it is true that I have. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. It's also dreary.

[_fetchface]

What can I say, I just sort of assume that when someone advocates a position, they're doing so because they themselves believe in it. But what do I know, eh?

So you don't know any hardcore Trekkies, I take it?

[_mentalgymnast]

Let me repeat that. Lack of belief.

That's some earth shattering stuff right there.

A reason to stop believing in the truth claims of the Church is because you don't believe them any more.

Wow. That will take some time for me to wrap my mind around, brother.

Well, you asked. I answered.

Did you want the long laundry list?

Regards,
MG

[_sock puppet]

MG,

Do you think the Catholic Church which stems from the church led by Peter after Jesus' ascension has apostatized?

Do you think it yet holds core truths such as god exists, Jesus' atonement, etc.?

What date and over what event to you ascribe to when that Great Apostasy occurred?

[_mentalgymnast]

...the LDS Church [is] neither all true or all false...

That's an interesting statement.

Are you referring to actual events and/or doctrines?

Some events did happen? Some didn't? First vision for example. How can it be neither all true and/or all false at the same time? It's got to be one or the other, doesn't it?

Some doctrines are partially true but not all the way true at the same time? Priesthood authority/keys for example. Either Priesthood keys are necessary or they aren't. Is there wiggle room in there somewhere?

Granted, I suppose you could bring up some counter examples where things might appear a bit mushy. But there seem to be some core events and/or doctrines that can't be true and false at the same time.

It's either or...isn't it?

If there are some core events and/or doctrines that ARE true then what does that do to your original statement?

Regards,
MG