why me wrote: The LDS teach the discourses of Joseph Smith at King's grave? Where? Is it a part of the pearl of great price or the D&C? I need to get a new edition if so.
Your post has nothing to do with what you quoted, and by the way something does not need to be in the D&C or PoGP to be doctrine. Your confusion is getting worse
Obiwan, you may be even more confused about what is doctrine, and this idea that the Father was never a man, but it was Jesus who was God. LOL You may be more apostate then most here. You really need to learn what Doctrine is.
Scriptures, Prophets, Holy Ghost, & Common Consent.
For doctrine to be doctrine, the first three must agree, and the final is a final seal of approval on the Lords Church when it's on the earth.
Obiwan wrote:Scriptures, Prophets, Holy Ghost, & Common Consent.
For doctrine to be doctrine, the first three must agree, and the final is a final seal of approval on the Lords Church when it's on the earth. Scriptures can have errors because they are made by men, Prophets can error because they are men, and the Holy Ghost can be a false spirit or our own spirits, and as well common consent can be mob rule. One or a couple is not enough for something to be actually doctrine. ALL MUST AGREE to be Doctrine.
In other words, just because you can find something from our history, or from the Ensign, or from General Conference, or some teaching manual that doesn't make such "Doctrine". Are those sources "generally" reliable. Certainly.... But they are not "infallible".
It's the same with the Priesthood ban. Simply because you can find some quotes for this or that that might seem or are racist, doesn't mean "the Church" was racist. The ban itself doesn't mean the Church was racist. "Context" and reality is everything. I was in multiple religions NOT in the South prior to coming into the LDS Church, and it was save the Catholic Church the "least" racist Church of any I was in either doctrinally or it's people. The ban wasn't about racism, but was about doctrine and policy per the Lord.
Obi, you and your brother bcspacey, need to start a thread about this. Neither of you are are on the same page. The battle would be interesting to watch. It would be like two one-legged men in an ass kicking contest.
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
This is one of the amusing aspects of Mormonism that makes it so fascinating to watch when its adherents attempt to explain it. It's a mish mash of misdirection, obfuscation, confusion, and ignorance. The reason why Mormon doctrine is akin to nailing pudding to a wall is because it's nonsense. All of it. Especially the apologetics.
I think this is why Mopologists are so interesting to me. They're agents of confusion and lies. They undermine the very thing they purport to defend. They're not proud of their peculiarity, but rather attempt to downplay it or hide it away. Ultimately the ad hominem and victim routine are the only recourses for them. There's nothing they can do to change the past, or hide what their church believes.
V/R Dr. Cam
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
"Don't lie to a person that trusts you, don't trust a person that lies to you."
AND
Dexter Morgan: What do you call it, being present in the moment? Jordan Chase: So you were listening. Dexter Morgan: Yeah, I heard the words. But, to be honest, you have to consider the source.
With these gems, who is to say that killing-instinct is the only thing ya can learn from watching Dexter! Season 5 y'all!
It must be a nice life for you all to believe people are either suffering from "mental illness" or are simply lying, instead of actually making any REAL effort to understand what they are trying to say.
Oh, I think many Mos that are short of 'mental illness' are making a real effort to establish and maintain their self-delusion, and are not lying. That's why you have to keep working on your testimony. If you don't tend to it, your beliefs will dissolve into reasonable thinking.
xolotl wrote: Regardless of that testimony, which I feel was pretty much the same thing you hear from almost all Mormons bearing said testimonies, the man lied to the world about what the church teaches and believes. I suppose he is also lying indirectly by allowing the perception to circulate by believing members that he has seen God in the flesh. He should have just been honest and said " I have never seen God in the flesh, never felt the wounds in his hands, feet and side, never ate fish with him and, to my knowledge, I don't believe any other of these apostles who serve with me have either. Still, I know he lives because I felt the spirit testify to me as I read the scriptures and pray."
How do you know what he has seen and not seen? And how do you know what he felt and not felt? I don't think you do. He was the leader of the LDS church and a declared prophet by that church. I would assume that he experienced things that you may not begin to imagine to sustain him in that calling. Do you really believe that just having a simple testimony like any other member would have kept him in that calling? I don't think so. But, hey, who knows.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith