Epoch changing significance of "Mormon Doctrine"

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

LDS are not a creed based religion, so you will never again see formal declarations of necessary creeds. It is more of a lifestyle commitment than creed-based.

MD is embarrassing because it endeavors to create a creed where we need one not.

Off topic, but this statement by Arch is probably the most inacurrate description of the LDS church I've ever read.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I wouldn't argue that issues of authority are necessarily creed based, but rather I point to the Nicene Creeds, as evidence by our own difficulties is producing consistent interpretations of the nature and character of the Godhead as an example that LDS belief.

One man's "priesthood" is another man's creed.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Off topic, but this statement by Arch is probably the most inacurrate description of the LDS church I've ever read.

We defy canon and creed definitions. We are awash in inconsistencies, and if you but partake of the sacraments, you can become clean.

[Archaea]

A link to a source I normally don't quote, but it has the list of objections and letters critisizing MD in one short span, and it comports with what I understand to be correct. I'm certain Pelagius and SIEQ can correct any obvious errors.

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon193.htm

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Not creed based??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG. LOL. This is so ironic coming from a believer in "great apostasy," "last dispensation," "priesthood keys," "apostles," "temple covenants," "baptism for the dead." So now it's no longer creed based? It's Joseph and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

I don't care what you think about BRM or SU, you guys have to admit that's a pretty good line.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

One important book, two very different conclusions from the book. Of course, outside the US, and even to the majority of members within the US I would guess, the book is totally unknown and insignificant.

I honestly can't remember the last time I heard someone reference this book in church. It has been many, many years.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I honestly can't remember the last time I heard someone reference this book in church. It has been many, many years.

On of our GD instructors refes to it frequently, although never (wihtin my experience) on any of the topics that I think are considered questionable.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A link to a source I normally don't quote, but it has the list of objections and letters critisizing MD in one short span, and it comports with what I understand to be correct. I'm certain Pelagius and SIEQ can correct any obvious errors.

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon193.htm

exmormon.org eh?

That explains A LOT.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

exmormon.org eh?

That explains A LOT.

You failed to notice the disclaimer, eh? I just found this through google, and noticed it neatly compiled most of the information I knew about any way. SIEQ might know of a different site the retains it without the apostate group, but this was the lazy man's way out.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You failed to notice the disclaimer, eh? I just found this through google, and noticed it neatly compiled most of the information I knew about any way. SIEQ might know of a different site the retains it without the apostate group, but this was the lazy man's way out.

Ahh....my bad then. My apologies.