I'll have to remember this one. The fact is that some people are confused
and do not feel they are being totally taught correctly on this point. I
have a friend who took the missionary discussions and decided not to
join. Because missionaries are taught not to put down any other churches
the
My churches always taught no sexual union before marriage and no
extramarital affairs either. It's what they didn't teach about the other
doctrines I've come to appreciate.
Stacy.
At 06:12 PM 11/06/2003 -0900, you wrote:
Jim Cobabe wrote:
John W. Redelfs wrote:
---
How can we teach
1) that al
Jim Cobabe wrote:
John W. Redelfs wrote:
---
How can we teach
1) that all the other churches contain some truth, and 2) that we are
the only true church? The two statements are not incompatible, but they
might easily be confused by those of inadequate education.
---
I believe it is being done as w
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:14:18 -0900 "John W. Redelfs"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a concern that I have, probably a futile concern. How can
> we teach 1) that all the other churches contain some truth, and 2)
that we
> are the only true church? The two statements are not incompatibl
John W. Redelfs wrote:
---
How can we teach
1) that all the other churches contain some truth, and 2) that we are
the only true church? The two statements are not incompatible, but they
might easily be confused by those of inadequate education.
---
I believe it is being done as we speak. Do
Stacy Smith wrote:
I understand all of the above, however, I go back to Joseph Smith in which
he was commanded "to join none of them." Helping them on some project may
appear to be wonderful, but doesn't it suggest to some who have gotten
mixed signals that we no longer hold the doctrine of the
I understand all of the above, however, I go back to Joseph Smith in which
he was commanded "to join none of them." Helping them on some project may
appear to be wonderful, but doesn't it suggest to some who have gotten
mixed signals that we no longer hold the doctrine of the restoration of the
John W. Redelfs wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about befriending other churches. It seems to me
> that we should befriend individuals and not false churches. After all,
> false churches teach false doctrine and in doing so they fight against the
> truth. If false churches aren't the church of th
Paul Osborne wrote:
Ok, Tom. I buy your explanation.
How about you JWR, do you buy it too?
Sounds right to me, Paul. Tom is so sensible, so generally right. He must
be one of the Right Brothers. --JWR
//
/// ZION L
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:43:26 + Tom Matkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I note that the
>
> Church is independent of all other churches in terms of doctrine,
> programs, missionary work, ordinances, and other matters of theology
> and
> administration...
Ok, Tom. I buy your explanation.
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:45:22 -0700 George Cobabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>
> Thought you might like to read a short paper I wrote which may have
> some
> application to the question.
>
> George
[Nothing by George follows.]
Wow! That WAS a short paper!
*jeep!
--Chet
PS: The actual pa
George Cobabe wrote:
>
>
> Whoops - No attachments allowed.
>
> Here is the paper:
>
> The Only True Church
>
Nice work George.
I especially like that you included this passage:
.>
> Every serious seeker for the truth needs to ask what a testimony of a
> living
> prophet would do in thei
:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 5: 517.
[12] Spencer J. Palmer, ed., Mormons and Muslims: Spiritual Foundations and
Modern Manifestations [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1983], 208.
[13] Gordon B.Hinckley, Conference Report, October 2002
[14] Vaughn J.
Thought you might like to read a short paper I wrote which may have some
application to the question.
George
- Original Message -
From: "Harold Stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Cat
On Nov 1, 2003, at 8:08 AM, Paul Osborne wrote:
What is going on here? What about the two churches spoken of in the
Book
of Mormon, i.e. the Church of the Lamb and the Church of the Devil? I
guess no one believes it anymore. The Church sure has changed.
Paul, I'm not convinced that much has chang
John W. Redelfs wrote:
>
> I have mixed feelings about befriending other churches. It seems to me
> that we should befriend individuals and not false churches. After all,
> false churches teach false doctrine and in doing so they fight against
> the
> truth. If false churches aren't the ch
JWR:
---
I have mixed feelings about befriending other churches. It seems to me
that we should befriend individuals and not false churches. After all,
false churches teach false doctrine and in doing so they fight against
the truth. If false churches aren't the church of the devil, what is?
Bob Taylor wrote:
the two churches are still here, but I think you are mistaken in stating
that the LDS position has changed. we still hold to the same doctrine that
we always have taught. President Hinckley, from the start has encouraged
all of us, and led out by example, to befriend those not of
Paul-- your posting should certainly liven up things on Zion for a while :)
I am not very articulate, and certainly am not a scriptorian. that said,
here's my take on your comment.
the two churches are still here, but I think you are mistaken in stating
that the LDS position has changed. we still
19 matches
Mail list logo