Regrets over resigning?

[_mentalgymnast]

MG,

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

I think that ideas have evolved since the time Talmage wrote, "The Great Apostasy" and McConkie's "MD".

For example:

https://play.google.com/store/books/det ... &gclsrc=ds

I think that things are a bit more nuanced and complex than we may have made them out to be 'back in the day'.

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

Yes. Those two anyway...

Although there might be some details in there that might run counter to each other as you look at LDS Doctrine vs. Catholic Doctrine/Catechism.

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

The book I linked to may help. Also:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... rt-part-i/

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

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

I think you are making my statement needlessly complicated because you have a need to nail down precisely how the LDS Church may be said to be true or false, and to what degree. Frankly, I find these kinds of questions completely uninteresting and I am not going to waste my time on them.

Of course things are mushy. They are also shades of gray.

When it comes to the truth or falseness of the LDS Church, there are a variety of ways of looking at it. If judged in terms of its Christianity, I would say its stock took a real beating when this unfortunate policy was rolled out. It departed pretty far from the best of Christian doctrine when it undertook to exclude some children from baptism, all so it could protect its tax exempt status and worship other similar false gods.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Of course things are mushy. They are also shades of gray.

At least 50.

[_mentalgymnast]

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

I think you are making my statement needlessly complicated because you have a need to nail down precisely how the LDS Church may be said to be true or false, and to what degree. Frankly, I find these kinds of questions completely uninteresting and I am not going to waste my time on them.

Of course things are mushy. They are also shades of gray.

When it comes to the truth or falseness of the LDS Church, there are a variety of ways of looking at it. If judged in terms of its Christianity, I would say its stock took a real beating when this unfortunate policy was rolled out. It departed pretty far from the best of Christian doctrine when it undertook to exclude some children from baptism, all so it could protect its tax exempt status and worship other similar false gods.

Kish:
"I find these kinds of questions uninteresting."

I don't. I think they are at the core of discerning whether or not the 'macro' truth claims of the LDS Church hold any chance of being true. All of the individual events and/or doctrines taken in isolation either happened and/or are true...or they are not. It's got to be one or the other. That's why I question the statement you made. It really doesn't seem to make sense. You can't have it both ways...that's mushy.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

All of the individual events and/or doctrines taken in isolation either happened and/or are true...or they are not. It's got to be one or the other.

How many individual events/doctrines can be 'untrue' or 'didn't happen' before the whole becomes 'untrue'?

[_mentalgymnast]

All of the individual events and/or doctrines taken in isolation either happened and/or are true...or they are not. It's got to be one or the other.

How many individual events/doctrines can be 'untrue' or 'didn't happen' before the whole becomes 'untrue'?

Well, if Big Foot is or isn't Cain...I'm not going to get too worked up about it.

How Kolob fits or doesn't fit in with our knowledge of the known Universe isn't a deal breaker.

The whole Book of Mormon copyright fiasco...New York's demise...Zelph prophecy...and other ambiguous/incomplete prophecies by Joseph, well, they're interesting...but again, their not deal breakers.

This list could go on.

Oh, we've got to throw in Brigham Young's "Adam-God". And yes, baseball baptisms and Mark Hoffman/discernment.

I'll stop there.

OTOH, when it comes to things like the First Vision or the truth claims outlined in the Articles of Faith or the historicity/truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or the restoration of Priesthood Keys and sealing powers/temple ordinances or prophetic leadership, or, drum roll please, the church's stance on SSM at this time...I don't see much room for the wiggle room that Kish seems to see.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

I don't. I think they are at the core of discerning whether or not the 'macro' truth claims of the LDS Church hold any chance of being true. All of the individual events and/or doctrines taken in isolation either happened and/or are true...or they are not. It's got to be one or the other. That's why I question the statement you made. It really doesn't seem to make sense. You can't have it both ways...that's mushy.

Regards,
MG

Yeah, well, I am not all that concerned that it doesn't make sense to you. Your viewpoint makes very little sense to me. If you depend upon every last event and doctrine of the LDS Church being "true" and factually sound, then you are doomed to disappointment or you must practice an amazing degree of self-deception.

[_mentalgymnast]

I don't. I think they are at the core of discerning whether or not the 'macro' truth claims of the LDS Church hold any chance of being true. All of the individual events and/or doctrines taken in isolation either happened and/or are true...or they are not. It's got to be one or the other. That's why I question the statement you made. It really doesn't seem to make sense. You can't have it both ways...that's mushy.

Regards,
MG

Yeah, well, I am not all that concerned that it doesn't make sense to you. Your viewpoint makes very little sense to me. If you depend upon every last event and doctrine of the LDS Church being "true" and factually sound, then you are doomed to disappointment or you must practice an amazing degree of self-deception.

But I don't. If you've read my posts over a period of time and those in this very thread, I think that this is rather obvious. I find your evasiveness interesting. I am truly interested in your answers to my questions. I think they are relevant to the topic at hand.

Those that left the church in response to the recent policy change made an error in judgment, in my opinion. Their view of things is myopic. They're isolationists in the respect that they are taking one view/perspective of Jesus' teachings and making IT the end all/over all cover for their displeasure. There's other stuff going besides trying to bring the 'gentle Jesus' into the picture at this particular time.

by the way, when I get responses such as yours...which happens now and then...where I am accused of being a practitioner of 'self deception' I am left to wonder in amazement how a person as bright as yourself can make a call like that after having read...or have you(?)...my posts over an extended period of time.

I could accuse you of the same thing, but would my accusation have a basis in fact?

Regards,
MG

[_sock puppet]

Those that left the church in response to the recent policy change made an error in judgment, in my opinion. Their view of things is myopic. They're isolationists in the respect that they are taking one view/perspective of Jesus' teachings and making IT the end all/over all cover for their displeasure. There's other stuff going besides trying to bring the 'gentle Jesus' into the picture at this particular time.

Regards,
MG

Wow. From one that has chosen just one of the thousands of different religious creeds to pin all his after-life hopes on, you think those leaving are the mypoic ones? Breathtaking hubris there.

It must be the Mormon season for stick-up-his-ass Jesus rather than benevolent, kind and charitable Jesus. Or, for the get-away-from-me instead of the "come unto me" Jesus.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

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.

Tobin doesn't pay attention or comprehend much of what anyone actually writes, Kish. That's why I have him on ignore. I suggest you do the same.