I'm In Tears -- Help!

[candyprpl]

Hope all of you have a enjoyable Labor day weekend. I'm out the door!

[Islander]

I strongly disagree with your portrayal of those who study Joseph's life, including his peccadillios. I cannot quote you scripture only because I haven't memorized it. That doesn't mean I haven't read it, especially when it's relevant to what I am researching at the time.

Dismissing people who enjoy reading about Joseph's life is a thought-stopping cliche'. Just because they make the efforts to discover the "difficult truths," doesn't make them an anti-Mormon. Richard Bushman addresses this in the essay I posted.

Plus, I can at least spell it right: Doctrine and CovenantS.

Elphaba

:) You must be a fiction aficionado. I have noticed that inference is your past time.

BTW Typing with an infant in my arms can be a challenge. So my apologies for hurting your syntax and orthographic sensibilities.

[Snow]

Again, it is just my view on the issue; that digging into the personal history of the prophet is a modern invention since no detail account exist of any of the other ancient prophets other than the biblical record. It is an exercise that was devised by the prophet's critics then and continued tobe used today. Discredit him as a man and destroy his legacy, the theory goes.

We should concentrate on the doctrine. Many who can regurgitate anecdotes of the life of Joseph, even if of dubious authorship and validity, can not even quote one verse of the Doctrine and Covenant.

Just my thoughts.

Does that go for Richard Bushman and Truman Madsen too?

[rameumptom]

I personally like it all laid out bare before me, so I can learn from the good and the bad. I strive to remember that I'm not any better than anyone else, and so judging others for their weaknesses is a bit like throwing stones in a glass house.....

[Misshalfway]

I think that I can understand Islanders sentiment.....if I am reading your right.....let me know if I am off.

I think it is normal to feel defensive of someone we follow and revere and someone who has been the subject of such outrageous slander and defamation.

I was thinking as I read the last few posts, of some of the other Christian religions. Does the platform of their faith fall when one of their leaders is called into question? Let's say the Pope...or one of the many Pope's in history or maybe a leader somewhere else in Christendom. Are there histories of other such historical religious persons that call into question the validity of the doctrine taught? And how do other churches feel about such analysis and how do they deal with it?

[abqfriend]

Hi, I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church has had it's share of attacks-and some very well deserved. The Church is 2000 years old-so it has more history-and some pretty bad history. Despite it's shortcomings-the Church has survuved and grows. Some Popes of the past were not very good popes-and the church suffered greatly during those times. Much of the Protestant reformation and Catholic counter-reformation was about past scandles and abuses of the Church. The Catholic Church has no additional sacred scripture written by anyone-so it's leaders-including the pope are not considered as prophets. The are considered as successive heirs of the Church with Peter being the first leader. So the attacks on any leader of the Church-even the Pope are not against an attack on the central teachings or doctrines of the Church-thus the difference. The Catholic Church relies on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in the formulation of it's doctrines and teachings. It has no prophet or writer of sacred doctrines or covenants.

-Carol

I think that I can understand Islanders sentiment.....if I am reading your right.....let me know if I am off.

I think it is normal to feel defensive of someone we follow and revere and someone who has been the subject of such outrageous slander and defamation.

I was thinking as I read the last few posts, of some of the other Christian religions. Does the platform of their faith fall when one of their leaders is called into question? Let's say the Pope...or one of the many Pope's in history or maybe a leader somewhere else in Christendom. Are there histories of other such historical religious persons that call into question the validity of the doctrine taught? And how do other churches feel about such analysis and how do they deal with it?

[rameumptom]

While I agree with much of what was written by Abqfriend, I disagree on one thought. While the Catholic church bases most of its views on their reading of the Bible, in many instances they rely upon the decisions made in ecumenical councils. For instance, the infallibility of the Pope (1890) is not anything one will find in the Bible, yet it is considered as if it were extra-Biblical scripture. The same goes with the creedal teachings (Trinity, infant baptism, etc).

Recently the college of cardinals and the Pope came out with a statement regarding just what is the true Church. The included themselves and the Eastern Orthodox, but excluded Protestants as not making up an actual religion/church (whatever that means, I haven't quite figured it out myself). And their stance would place Mormonism totally out of the arena.

[Misshalfway]

While I agree with much of what was written by Abqfriend, I disagree on one thought. While the Catholic church bases most of its views on their reading of the Bible, in many instances they rely upon the decisions made in ecumenical councils. For instance, the infallibility of the Pope (1890) is not anything one will find in the Bible, yet it is considered as if it were extra-Biblical scripture. The same goes with the creedal teachings (Trinity, infant baptism, etc).

Recently the college of cardinals and the Pope came out with a statement regarding just what is the true Church. The included themselves and the Eastern Orthodox, but excluded Protestants as not making up an actual religion/church (whatever that means, I haven't quite figured it out myself). And their stance would place Mormonism totally out of the arena.

So....if I am understanding correctly, the Pope is considered infallible. Is that correct? And what happened in 1890 to make that so?

And I was wondering if I could take a look at more information about this "statement" you refer to.

Thanks Ram. As always.

[Misshalfway]

PS. Ram....my avatar had a great time the other night with your avatar and didn't mind paying. no no...not one bit! :)

[Guest ceeboo]

While the Catholic church bases most of its views on their reading of the Bible, in many instances they rely upon the decisions made in ecumenical councils. For instance, the infallibility of the Pope (1890) is not anything one will find in the Bible, yet it is considered as if it were extra-Biblical scripture. The same goes with the creedal teachings (Trinity, infant baptism, etc).

Hello rameumpton,

Infallibility of the Pope ( almost NEVER used ) is in regards to doctrine and or morals.

It is not ( nor ever has been ) in regards to his personal views or opinions as such. It is the Holy Spirit left to us by Jesus who protect the teachings to be error free.

" nothing you will find in the bible ":confused: Matt 28:19-20, John 16:13, Matt 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15 to name a few

I realize you do not believe so but to be fair many others believe ( certainly me) it is fully supported in scripture with the apostolic succession that has taken place over the last 2 thousand years. It was Jesus who left this authority with his Church and continues today.

God bless,

Carl

[candyprpl]

And I was wondering if I could take a look at more information about this "statement" you refer to.

Me too -- I would be most interested -- I always want to know where information came from.

Thanks:)

[rameumptom]

I made a mistake, it was in 1870, not 1890. Here's the info from wikipedia:

Papal infallibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. For all such infallible teachings, the Holy Spirit also works through the body of the Church to ensure that the teaching will be received by all Catholics.

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin.

In practice, popes seldom use their power of infallibility, but rely on the notion that the Church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the church."[2] Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.

Conditions for papal infallibility

Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings, see Infallibility of the Church.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"

2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")

3. "he defines"

4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"

5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following: (1) a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or (2) an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church. For example, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

[Misshalfway]

Hello rameumpton,

Infallibility of the Pope ( almost NEVER used ) is in regards to doctrine and or morals.

It is not ( nor ever has been ) in regards to his personal views or opinions as such. It is the Holy Spirit left to us by Jesus who protect the teachings to be error free.

Sounds fairly close to how we view our modern prophets as well. They pass the authority to the next successor. They are blessed with the Holy Spirit to keep doctrine and counsel in accordance with the will of God and are moral men. But they don't always speak as prophets and have weakness and personal opinion too.

Interesting that the two processes feel similar to me.

I think I am still confused though. Does or doesn't the Pope receive revelation? Even if to clarify existing doctrine....is that not revelation?

Edited September 2, 2008 by Misshalfway

[rameumptom]

Hello rameumpton,

Infallibility of the Pope ( almost NEVER used ) is in regards to doctrine and or morals.

It is not ( nor ever has been ) in regards to his personal views or opinions as such. It is the Holy Spirit left to us by Jesus who protect the teachings to be error free.

" nothing you will find in the bible ":confused: Matt 28:19-20, John 16:13, Matt 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15 to name a few

I realize you do not believe so but to be fair many others believe ( certainly me) it is fully supported in scripture with the apostolic succession that has taken place over the last 2 thousand years. It was Jesus who left this authority with his Church and continues today.

God bless,

Carl

I agree. The point I was making is that Abqfriend suggested that the Catholic Church did not see anything the Pope did as equaling the authority of the Bible. Not all statements from the Pope are infallible, unless stated ex cathedra. So, it is not an issue that comes up very often. However, the Ascension of Mary is now doctrine to the Catholic Church and cannot be rescinded by any future Pope, as it is established as infallible. And it is extra-Biblical.

[Guest ceeboo]

Sounds fairly close to how we view our modern prophets as well. They pass the authority to the next successor. They are blessed with the Holy Spirit to keep doctrine and counsel in accordance with the will of God and are moral men. But they don't always speak as prophets and have weakness and personal opinion too.

Interesting that the two processes feel similar to me.

I think I am still confused though. Does or doesn't the Pope receive revelation? Even if to clarify existing doctrine....is that not revelation?

Hello again Misshalfway,

We obviously disagree to a large extent on this ( that's ok by me):)

The Popes keep and protect the same doctrine ( 2000 years and running )

The Prophets offer a completly new and ever changing doctrine ?? additionaly this new doctrine the prophets offer is not found in the bible or BofM to support it.

They ( popes ) absolutly have weakness and personal opinion. That is precisly why we must follow Jesus' words and Church and NO OTHER HUMAN BEING.

The two processes, respectfully, do not feel similar at all to me.

At ant rate, that is my perspective ( for what it is or is not worth ):)

God bless,

Carl

[Guest ceeboo]

I agree. The point I was making is that Abqfriend suggested that the Catholic Church did not see anything the Pope did as equaling the authority of the Bible. Not all statements from the Pope are infallible, unless stated ex cathedra. So, it is not an issue that comes up very often. However, the Ascension of Mary is now doctrine to the Catholic Church and cannot be rescinded by any future Pope, as it is established as infallible. And it is extra-Biblical.

Hi again ram,

Thanks for clarifying for me, I understand your point:):)

[Misshalfway]

The Prophets offer a completly new and ever changing doctrine ?? additionaly this new doctrine the prophets offer is not found in the bible or BofM to support it.

This is an interesting perspective. I can see how one could see it that way. But maybe I could explain.....or one of the others on here can explain to help you understand that their are doctrines ....truths from the beginning of time that are indeed maintained and by which the prophets words are measured. We just don't limit God to the Bible. That is all. The doctrine of the church isn't ever changing. But the counsel that the people receive may change depending on circumstance. For example.....Moses was told when and how to leave Egypt. It was specific counsel and direction for that group at that time. The same if for us now. Our leaders give us counsel and commandments such as avoiding pornography and keeping our finances in order. Counsel that is for our time and our needs. But ......core doctrines don't change. See?

[Guest ceeboo]

But ......core doctrines don't change. See?

Misshalfway,

I am truly sorry to seem to argue with you.:)

Core doctrines???

If the LDS claim of restoration is to restore the Church back to the early biblical days of Christ, then why is there no mention at all of many of the LDS core teachings from any of the early Church writers, apostles or Jesus Christ? ( polygamy, cellestail marriage, potentially becoming a God, God was once mere man, etc)

You just don't limit God to the bible??:confused:

God ( Jesus ) is the entire body of the Bible. Jesus' teachings, parables, warnings, and ultimate sacrifice is not limited, rather it is more complete then anything will ever be.

God bless,

Carl

[candyprpl]

I still don't understand -- if Jesus Christ set up his church with Prophets and Apostles (like Peter), why isn't it necessary for His church to be led TODAY the same way? From the beginning of time (Adam), God has led his people by way of a prophet and each dispensation (it seems to me) has had more inspiration and knowledge added to what they already know. Because times change and people as a whole learn differently -- so the teachings have to be added upon. Not changed, added upon.

[rameumptom]

Hello again Misshalfway,

We obviously disagree to a large extent on this ( that's ok by me):)

The Popes keep and protect the same doctrine ( 2000 years and running )

The Prophets offer a completly new and ever changing doctrine ?? additionaly this new doctrine the prophets offer is not found in the bible or BofM to support it.

They ( popes ) absolutly have weakness and personal opinion. That is precisly why we must follow Jesus' words and Church and NO OTHER HUMAN BEING.

The two processes, respectfully, do not feel similar at all to me.

At ant rate, that is my perspective ( for what it is or is not worth ):)

God bless,

Carl

Let's see: and where in the Bible will you find the Ascension of Mary?

The popes work very similarly to the LDS prophet. New major doctrines are few and far between, but decisions are made via inspiration. Both claim to have access to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Both are replaced by a decision made in its apostolic succession view: LDS via the Quorum of Apostles, and the Pope by the college of cardinals. Perhaps the only difference is that there is no politicking for position in the LDS version.

The prophets keep and protect the ancient doctrines. They continue to testify of the ancient doctrines. What might be slightly different is that we've had a burst of new revelation to correct what LDS perceive as errors that have entered into the church of God over the millennia. Still, we see the Pope doing the same thing. Pope Benedict recently rejected the concept of Limbo, and so now the Vatican is pondering and studying what does happen to small children who die without baptism. They are not to the point of turning them over to hell, as did St Augustine, btw.

[Misshalfway]

Ceeboo.....We aren't arguing. Just working to better understand one another. :) Your "arguing" shows me where perhaps more information might help. And it comes from an honest place.

I am not sure what you mean about "No mention" of christian doctrine. I think perhaps a study of the LDS basics (atonement, faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, tithing, priesthood authority, revelation, gifts of the spirit, obedience, 10 commandments, covenants of israel, sealing power, gathering of israel, etc) may help you understand how to properly view things like polygamy, which btw is a very biblical practice. Abraham and a few others may be able shed some light on that.

With regards to the bible. I know that it is difficult to accept that perhaps the people in Israel were not the only ones to benefit from hearing the word of God and not the only ones who may have recorded it. We believe that God has many on the face of this earth that received his word and who wrote about it.

John 10:16

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

We believe that Jesus himself visited other groups....called leaders and gave revelations and counsel. All in harmony with the teachings in Jeruselem. We know this because of the BofM. They came out from Jerusalem. They wrote their revelations down too. And they wrote of their visit from the Savior after his resurrection. A small group felt the prints in his hands and feet and recorded the event. (3 Nephi 11)

I am going to include a passage of the BofM to help you understand the perspective of the LDS people on this issue of whether or not the Bible is the only record of God's dealings with man. I am not adding it to convince you or to argue with you. Only to help you understand the LDS perspective. Please understand that this passage is bold. Not an intentional message from me to you. Just the actual words of the Lord speaking to a prophet about this latter day issue. I hope you will forgive the length.

2 Nephi 29

1 But behold, there shall be many—at that day when I shall proceed to do a marvelous work among them, that I may remember my covenants which I have made unto the children of men, that I may set my hand again the second time to recover my people, which are of the house of Israel;

2 And also, that I may remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi, and also unto thy father, that I would remember your seed; and that the words of your seed should proceed forth out of my mouth unto your seed; and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel;

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And whatcthank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall bwrite the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the aJews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever.

[rameumptom]

Misshalfway,

I am truly sorry to seem to argue with you.:)

Core doctrines???

If the LDS claim of restoration is to restore the Church back to the early biblical days of Christ, then why is there no mention at all of many of the LDS core teachings from any of the early Church writers, apostles or Jesus Christ? ( polygamy, cellestail marriage, potentially becoming a God, God was once mere man, etc)

You just don't limit God to the bible??:confused:

God ( Jesus ) is the entire body of the Bible. Jesus' teachings, parables, warnings, and ultimate sacrifice is not limited, rather it is more complete then anything will ever be.

God bless,

Carl

Core doctrines are explained at the Church's website: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Some doctrine never change: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Other doctrine do change: we are not required to build an ark, nor live the Law of Moses today.

Core doctrines are the most important doctrines, upon which other doctrines and teachings are built.

Not everything taught by earlier prophets and apostles is doctrine, and of that which is doctrine, even a smaller subset is core doctrine.

Polygamy was practiced by Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. David was told that his wives had been given him by God.

The divinization of mankind is found throughout the Bible, and is actually accepted belief by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, albeit in a slightly different way than LDS teach it. Paul stated that we are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Jesus stated, "ye are gods" to the Jews in clarifying his relationship and our relationship with God.

Jesus is God and yet he was a man at one time. Jesus said that he only did the things his Father did. In the KJV Revelation 1:5-6, we read that Jesus "hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." So, we have Jesus, God the Father, and God the Father's father all listed.

Celestial marriage is not explained in the Bible, as the majority of the Bible is taught to people living the Law of Moses or lesser law, which did not include eternal marriage. However, the Gospel of Phillip mentions that the Holy of Holies includes the everlasting bridal chamber for those who enter therein.

As you can see, these things are mentioned in the Bible, but are not clarified. Or the meanings and understanding has been lost over the centuries. This is exactly the reason for a Restoration and modern Revelation.

[Guest ceeboo]

I still don't understand -- if Jesus Christ set up his church with Prophets and Apostles (like Peter), why isn't it necessary for His church to be led TODAY the same way? From the beginning of time (Adam), God has led his people by way of a prophet and each dispensation (it seems to me) has had more inspiration and knowledge added to what they already know. Because times change and people as a whole learn differently -- so the teachings have to be added upon. Not changed, added upon.

Hi candyprpl,

I am not sure if your comment was directed at me but I will offer a reply in case you were.

Although there is still a belief in "personal revelation ", the Catholic Church does not believe in prophets and havent since the time of the early Church. This, amongst many reasons, is because Jesus himself ( ONE IN THE SAME AS GOD ) came to teach with his own mouth what we needed to know, his coming, teaching, murder and being raised again completly fullfilled all previus prophesy. ALL DONE ( Not sure if it appropriate to suggest links to fully explain this so out of respect I will not )

I would not agree with you that Jesus set up his church with prophets and apostles, I would suggest he set up his Church on the authority given by him ( GOD HIMSELF ) ( keys ) to Peter the chosen apostle that Jesus promised would never fall, in addition, he also promised that his CHURCH ( the only Christain Church on earth for the first 1500 years or so after his ultimate sacrifice)would indeed stand to the very end.

To add upon the very words, teachings,and promise of the creator ( God ) is puzzling to me at best.

I would also suggest that they are indeed not adding on but truly changed.

God bless,

Carl

[Misshalfway]

K ceeboo.....gonna argue with you.....but I assure you, I have a smile on my face and preparing to pass you some chocolate pie, OK???

Although there is still a belief in "personal revelation ", the Catholic Church does not believe in prophets and havent since the time of the early Church. This, amongst many reasons, is because Jesus himself ( ONE IN THE SAME AS GOD ) came to teach with his own mouth what we needed to know, his coming, teaching, murder and being raised again completly fullfilled all previus prophesy. ALL DONE ( Not sure if it appropriate to suggest links to fully explain this so out of respect I will not )

If God doesn't want us to do the prophet thing anymore, wouldn't that be considered a "change".... and where would such a change come from if not from revelation and not from the bible?

Where did the office of Pope come from anyway? If it isn't the same office that peter held....but a kind of new creation.....who created it if not the men of the day? ANd if the heavens were closed, who gave them the permission to change what Jesus so carefully laid out before his death and instructed after his resurrection? Again, I ask you. Where are the twelve? If the church was untouched and if it progressed without the apostasy hitch, why does it look so very different today?

To add upon the very words, teachings,and promise of the creator ( God ) is puzzling to me at best

Would it be puzzling at best if God was doing the speaking according to his will and pleasure?

[candyprpl]

I'll take some of that pie while you and Ceeboo discuss this. I find the conversation interesting.

Ceeboo, I did direct my question toward you, only because you seem to be the one bringing up thoughts that make me question. You explain yourself well and so I ask you. Not to try and trip you up or make you go back on your beliefs. You don't do that to me and I greatly appreciate that.:)

P.S. Just so you don't feel picked on -- there are others (LDS) that also cause me to question and I ask clarification from them also.