Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
Except in my case, I am not trying to prove my side is better than anyones. I believe it is best for me. But who am I to put someone elses faith down.
My whole purpose has only been to straighten out our official doctrine. And not old wives tales.
If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
Except in my case, I am not trying to prove my side is better than anyones. I believe it is best for me. But who am I to put someone elses faith down.
My whole purpose has only been to straighten out our official doctrine. And not old wives tales.
But that's the rub isn't it? "official doctrine"
I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong. Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong". In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official". It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
Except in my case, I am not trying to prove my side is better than anyones. I believe it is best for me. But who am I to put someone elses faith down.
My whole purpose has only been to straighten out our official doctrine. And not old wives tales.
But that's the rub isn't it? "official doctrine"
I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong. Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong". In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official". It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
I would agree with you generally, but the LDS organization is a little different. We believe there is one correct interpretation of the scriptures. The leader of the church is Christ, who speaks to His spokesman for the Church, which we claim to be the President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson. Or Joseph Smith Jr. before his time. When the prophet has spoken doctrine on an issue it is immediately accepted into the canon.
Individuals will always take issue with the Prophet's interpretation. But no matter how they spin it, their views are not doctrine or correct. It takes away all the guesswork. You are right that there will always be conflict when there is no authority to interpret, such as the case of the Nicean creed. The Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, who put the rabble together, had as much authority to interpret as any of the sectarian leaders present at the meeting. Yet they haggled and battled by the powers and philosophy of men over which books should be canonized into one official Bible. They also propogated the dogma that only these books should be accepted as doctrine and others dismissed as heretical.
That's rich. A group of blind men making the populous blind and deaf. WHO GAVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT?
Emperor Constantine: A Pagan who believed in Roman Gods and myths. HELLO!!!
From this creed launched all christian religions down until Joseph Smith's time. His claim was different from all others. He claimed, he got authority from God himself, from Peter, James and John, from John the Baptist, from Elijah the Prophet. No one else claimed to have gotten the laying on of hands from such people.
So either it's true or there are no true churches.IMO
Naw! I know that I can screw up and even misrepresent my own Christian faith too. I don't want to, but it happens. **** Wikipedia The Mountain Meadows massacre involved a mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows in the Utah Territory by the local Mormon militia in September 1857. It began as an attack, quickly turned into a siege, and eventually culminated on September 11, 1857, in the execution of the unarmed emigrants after their surrender. All of the party were killed, except for a few children under 8 years old. Some infants were killed while in their mothers arms.[1] After the massacre, the corpses of the victims were left decomposing for two years on the open plain[2] , their children were distributed to local Mormon families, and many of their possessions auctioned off at the LDS Cedar City tithing office.[3]
The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before the Utah War started. Mormons throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the United States Army, which they believed was intending to destroy them as a people.[citation needed]
The emigrants stopped to rest and regroup their approximately 800 head of cattle at Mountain Meadows, a valley within the Iron County Military District of the Nauvoo Legion (the popular designation for the Mormon militia of the Utah Territory). [4]
Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre,[5] Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack. The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. When the Mormons discovered that they had been identified as the attacking force by the emigrants, Col. William H. Dame, head of the Iron County Brigade of the Utah militia, ordered their annihilation.[6] Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and also intending to prevent reprisals that would complicate the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their hasty fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed approximately 120 men, women and children.[7] Seventeen younger children were spared.
Investigations, interrupted by the U.S. Civil War, resulted in nine indictments in 1874. Only John D. Lee was tried, and after two trials, he was convicted. On March 23, 1877 a firing squad executed Lee at the massacre site.
Except in my case, I am not trying to prove my side is better than anyones. I believe it is best for me. But who am I to put someone elses faith down.
My whole purpose has only been to straighten out our official doctrine. And not old wives tales.
But that's the rub isn't it? "official doctrine"
I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong. Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong". In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official". It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
I would agree with you generally, but the LDS organization is a little different. We believe there is one correct interpretation of the scriptures. The leader of the church is Christ, who speaks to His spokesman for the Church, which we claim to be the President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson. Or Joseph Smith Jr. before his time. When the prophet has spoken doctrine on an issue it is immediately accepted into the canon.
Individuals will always take issue with the Prophet's interpretation. But no matter how they spin it, their views are not doctrine or correct. It takes away all the guesswork. You are right that there will always be conflict when there is no authority to interpret, such as the case of the Nicean creed. The Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, who put the rabble together, had as much authority to interpret as any of the sectarian leaders present at the meeting. Yet they haggled and battled by the powers and philosophy of men over which books should be canonized into one official Bible. They also propogated the dogma that only these books should be accepted as doctrine and others dismissed as heretical.
That's rich. A group of blind men making the populous blind and deaf. WHO GAVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT?
Emperor Constantine: A Pagan who believed in Roman Gods and myths. HELLO!!!
From this creed launched all christian religions down until Joseph Smith's time. His claim was different from all others. He claimed, he got authority from God himself, from Peter, James and John, from John the Baptist, from Elijah the Prophet. No one else claimed to have gotten the laying on of hands from such people.
So either it's true or there are no true churches.IMO
If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
But that's the rub isn't it? "official doctrine"
I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong. Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong". In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official". It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
Well that's sort of what I was referring to. While you may have a clear doctrine for your church there will not be any resolution which provides clarity that will be universally accepted between denominations. In other words, your doctrine is official but only in the context of your beliefs being correct. At least you are aware of the pitfalls in traditional dogma which arise with acknowledgment of the Nicene Creed's role in shaping modern christianity. I just, and I say this without intending to offend, happen to not believe Joseph Smith either. I don't believe Muhammed. I don't believe Buddha. To me there are no true churches, just as you said. Because ultimately I can see no reason to accept the veracity of one of these over any other.
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)
But that's the rub isn't it? "official doctrine"
I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong. Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong". In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official". It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
I would agree with you generally, but the LDS organization is a little different. We believe there is one correct interpretation of the scriptures. The leader of the church is Christ, who speaks to His spokesman for the Church, which we claim to be the President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson. Or Joseph Smith Jr. before his time. When the prophet has spoken doctrine on an issue it is immediately accepted into the canon.
Individuals will always take issue with the Prophet's interpretation. But no matter how they spin it, their views are not doctrine or correct. It takes away all the guesswork. You are right that there will always be conflict when there is no authority to interpret, such as the case of the Nicean creed. The Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, who put the rabble together, had as much authority to interpret as any of the sectarian leaders present at the meeting. Yet they haggled and battled by the powers and philosophy of men over which books should be canonized into one official Bible. They also propogated the dogma that only these books should be accepted as doctrine and others dismissed as heretical.
That's rich. A group of blind men making the populous blind and deaf. WHO GAVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT?
Emperor Constantine: A Pagan who believed in Roman Gods and myths. HELLO!!!
From this creed launched all christian religions down until Joseph Smith's time. His claim was different from all others. He claimed, he got authority from God himself, from Peter, James and John, from John the Baptist, from Elijah the Prophet. No one else claimed to have gotten the laying on of hands from such people.
So either it's true or there are no true churches.IMO
Well that's sort of what I was referring to. While you may have a clear doctrine for your church there will not be any resolution which provides clarity that will be universally accepted between denominations. In other words, your doctrine is official but only in the context of your beliefs being correct. At least you are aware of the pitfalls in traditional dogma which arise with acknowledgment of the Nicene Creed's role in shaping modern christianity. I just, and I say this without intending to offend, happen to not believe Joseph Smith either. I don't believe Muhammed. I don't believe Buddha. To me there are no true churches, just as you said. Because ultimately I can see no reason to accept the veracity of one of these over any other.
How can you prove that your divine revelation is just that, "divine"?But that's the rub isn't it? "official doctrine"
I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong. Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong". In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official". It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
Not true at all. Official doctrine is based on Divine Revelation. If there is any question it can be clarified by an appeal to the source. At least it can in a living faith.
If all you have is a book and no revelation, then there will always be countless interpretations. When you go to the source, IE God, all contention ceases.
If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
How can you prove that your divine revelation is just that, "divine"?
Paul said beware of people teaching false gospels.
How do you know that your doctrine doesn't fall into that category, of "false gospel".
Paul said that you can't depend on visions, burning bosom experiences, alleged angelic visitations, but only the scriptures to stay on the right path.
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" Romans
(Pretty clear instructions from one of Christ's Apostles) author Paul.
Bereans followed suit too, and even when Paul taught/preached to them, they would go to the scriptures to make sure he wasn't teaching "another gospel".
Your church asks folks at the door to "pray" and ask God if Mormonism is the truth. That is very dangerous ground. No where in the bible did Jesus nor His disciples ever teach that. There are two spiritual worlds unseen to the eye. One is headed by Satan, and the other by our Creator. Satan is well qualified to present himself as an angel of light, as Christ and the disciples taught us in the bible scriptures.
Your church hinges it's whole foundations of validity on non-scriptural, post crucifixion/ressurrection/ascension visions, visitations, dreams, and alleged prophecies to dead and living latter day LDS presidents/prophets.
When one prays and asks God to prove His existence, Lucifer does a great job of hood-winking humanity at that point. God almost 2,000 years ago laid down a safe and reliable method of knowing when your visitation, vision is of His authorship, or from the "Darkside", namely Satan's principalities.
Sadly, most folks don't realize that a simple prayer, like, "God is Mormonism the truth?", is no guarantee that one's answer will be from God. That's why God gave us His written Word, and it is still the number one best seller in the world.
1 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way. But, behold, why do ye ponder these things in your hearts?
2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?
3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.
4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.
5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.
7 And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.
8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.
9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul. (2 Nephi 32)
If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.
It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.
If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.
If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.
It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.
If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.
Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.
In case you didn't know.
that sounds like a lot of churches and religions ive encounter. u ask any one and thay have a diffrent view of what is and what was
