How the Church Determines Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aaron32

Well-known member
Correlation wrote the introduction you linked? “Members are told to look at scriptures?” yes, and correlation interpreted how it is taught in manuals…as you just proved.
And?
I fail to see the point. We turn to scriptures and prayer before we turn to manual said by correlation and Church leadership. So what?
The church is different is some ways and exactly the same in others ways. The end goal of giving 10% plus of your income and the promise to become a God if faithful is the same…but they are certainly more liberal and silent on social issues.
Yes, and ordinances required by priesthood authority to have exaltation. Is the death of Ananias and Sapphira upsetting to you as well?

What social issues would you like the Church to be actively involved in exactly?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
No. He didn't make a mistake. The doctrine that these sealings were supposed establish was correct and is still the same doctrine. The implementation needed some work. You have to remember that we didn't get perfect knowledge from the beginning. We had the doctrine, but not all the information about how to implement the doctrine.

Are you sure that Joseph Smith implemented the "law of adoption"? I do not know who coined the phrase, "law of adoption" but when Joseph Smith first implemented the sealing ordinances, he included family members and friends, binding all relationships and making new relationships, family members that weren't biologically connected. It seems logical that if you could adopt a child legally then one should expect that the child would be sealed to you. It's not a far stretch for members who were eager to associate themselves with the prophet or apostles would seek to be adopted into their family. The same thing happened in the Philippines during the Spanish occupation. Filipinos didn't have last names and so, the Spanish government called for the people to choose a last name. He intended to have them associate with each other so family connections could be established, but that's not what they did. They all started choosing the name of a Catholic saint as their last name, even within the same household. It is not uncommon for people to want to associate with an authority figure who will get them closer to their goal.

You probably know that our practices are still going through changes. It wasn't uncommon just 15 years ago for members to do work for dead celebrities or holocaust victims even though there was no family relationship. This created a problem for the church and they've taken steps to prevent that from happening again. The doctrine has not changed. We are still forming one human family being sealed from Adam to the last man. And you know what? We still seal adopted children to the parents who adopted them.

Well, sadly, you're more wrong than ever.
Fluff. You support your conclusions with your own reasoning and conclusions. Nothing of substance here.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
And yet, here you are. Go ahead and put me on ignore. I'll still post the corrections to your bad interpretations of our religion. At least that way I won't have to put up with your whining about it when I do.
I'd rather have you put me on ignore. That way I can say what I want without you taking a dump on it and derailing the thread.
Generally agree isn't good enough. You claim the church is true and keep repeating that Joseph Smith wasn't a fallen prophet and yet, at the same time, you say that Joseph Smith was wrong about polygamy and that the church is finally catching up with the correct doctrine that apparently only you have. I'd say that you're a little confused.
And you don't understand the concept of grace. Apperantly, you believe everything need to be correct first try or else JS is a fallen prophet. That would make you the confused one. I mean, how many visits did it take to get the golden plates?
If Joseph Smith went off the rails and taught things that he preferred and not the word of God, then that's a fallen prophet and if we still don't teach exactly what you think we should, then the church must not be true.... yet.

If that's the case, then we generally disagree. You say the right words most of the time, but, IMO, you don't mean them.
BoJ 0= the new standard of truth. According to your gospel, contention is required, differences of opinion can't exist, and let peace prevail. Yeah, not exact what Jesus taught.
 

Richard7

Well-known member
Correlation wrote the introduction you linked? “Members are told to look at scriptures?” yes, and correlation interpreted how it is taught in manuals…as you just proved.

The church is different is some ways and exactly the same in others ways. The end goal of giving 10% plus of your income and the promise to become a God if faithful is the same…but they are certainly more liberal and silent on social issues.
Chuckle, I'm still waiting for that big doctrinal change to be made Markk, where eventually Gays can marry same sex in our Meetinghouses and Temples..
I remember your prediction... hmm
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Fluff. You support your conclusions with your own reasoning and conclusions. Nothing of substance here.
Well, you claim to know history. Do we still practice polygamy as was done in the early days of the church? No? Do we sill practice polygamy? Yes? Well then, I guess we learned some new stuff along the way. The doctrine remains the same.

It's my opinion that your arguments are worse than our critics. You should know better. Our church literally stands on a foundation laid by Joseph Smith. You apparently, feel that Joseph Smith's teachings didn't align with the chief cornerstone. If that's true, then the church isn't true. Figure it out.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I'd rather have you put me on ignore.
Nah. That ain't going to happen.
That way I can say what I want without you taking a dump on it and derailing the thread.
And that's exactly why that isn't going to happen.
And you don't understand the concept of grace
I believe I understand it perfectly. No one can be saved except by grace. But they can only be saved through faith which must include works or faith is dead or non-existent. Grace isn't difficult to understand. Faith appears to be more difficult for most people, especially our critics who you seem to have joined.
Apperantly, you believe everything need to be correct first try or else JS is a fallen prophet.
That doesn't make any sense. It's this simple. Joseph Smith didn't get any doctrine incorrect. I have no idea what your talking about "everything needing to be correct first try".
That would make you the confused one. I mean, how many visits did it take to get the golden plates?
Don't leave out the 116 pages. Joseph Smith was learning then. If you don't think Joseph Smith got it right after that, then apparently you think Joseph Smith was dumber than a rock in a hat. :rolleyes: How you can believe such things and still claim that Joseph Smith wasn't a fallen prophet astounds me. I am led to conclude that you are the better man and God made a mistake by calling him. He should have called you. You certainly think you're up to the task - equal footing and all.
BoJ 0= the new standard of truth.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
You must have missed the point of my argument.
According to your gospel, contention is required, differences of opinion can't exist
Oh. They can and do exist. But there can be only one truth. Unfortunately, as long as you think the church is false (but getting closer to the truth), then I'm afraid that you don't have it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top