Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know

[Dave]

I find the above  the most intriguing of your comments below.  "primary apostasy," and  "inherent authority of the believe" are not terms I understand from your point of view.  Splain, pleeeeze.     And, out of the curiosity,  why am I not considered "anti-Mormorn?     Jd  DAVEH:   I believe that Jesus established his Church while upon the earth, and it was built upon priesthood authority (to act in the Lord's behalf), the apostles and prophets being the foundation, and the other priesthood offices(ers) comprising the rest of the framework.    When the foundation was destroyed after Jesus' death, the Church fell into apostasy, and the resulting structure evolved into the RCC.  Subsequent to that, those who disagreed with RCC theology, evolved away from the doctrines of the RCC in an attempt to Reform theology more to their liking.   In effect, it seems to me to be like taking a branch from a dead tree and trying to bring it back to life.     In order to do that, the Reformers needed some sort of legal recognition from God....in essence, authority.   The RCC folks claimed to have absolute authority from God (in the form of the pope), and it is unlikely that they would have been willing to pass it on to the reformers.   Realizing the dilemma, the Reformers would have had three options available as I see it.  First, they could deny authority is necessary.  Second, they could claim they received it directly from heaven.  Or third, they could claim it is inherently obtained by those who simply believe in Jesus....and, that is the tact they took, as I understand it.     Simply disagreeing with Mormons or failing to accept LDS doctrines does not make one an anti-Mormon, John.  When I've told you what I believe, you seem willing to accept my explanation, if you do not accept it or believe it the same way I do.  You have made no overt attempts to denigrate or disparage my beliefs, nor do you try to publicly humiliate or embarrass me for my beliefs.  Therefore, I do not view you as being an anti-Mormon.     I've copied the below information from WIKIPEDIA...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mormon#Historic_criticism ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Criticism of Mormonism is the criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, especially of the largest and most prominent sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"). In their early years, Mormons encountered frequent conflict, which forced them to move westward, eventually settling in Utah. Even after establishing a community in Utah, criticism to plural marriage and other beliefs prompted the Utah War. Criticism of Mormonism have largely been for theological reasons. Many Christians criticize Mormon doctrines as unorthodox. Mormonism also attracts criticism with its bold claims, such as that it is the only religion with the authority to act in God's name. Criticism of Mormonism is not to be confused with anti-Mormonism. Anti-Mormonism is the criticism of the Mormon religion based on alleged mischaracterizations, stereotypes, and negative prejudices. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [edit] Sensationalized exaggeration Some critics take several points of Mormon doctrine, and then exaggerate and/or extend the doctrine, stating their conclusions using phrasing that is not found in Mormonism, and claiming that "most Mormons" believe this extreme case. In many cases, the "conclusion" they arrive at isn't believed by any Mormons, let alone most Mormons. One variant of this approach is to use modified statements that are similar to, but don't accurately describe Mormon doctrine. Another variant is to use speculative positions that some Mormons believe, but about which the Mormon Church has not issued any formal position. Here is one such claim: "Mormonism teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had sexual intercourse with God." This is a sensationalized extrapolation of statements such as: (1) Mormons believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God; (2) God the Father has a physical body; and (3) Brigham Young stated that Jesus was conceived in the same way as other people. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++     [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Theologically though, the failure to recognize the primary apostasy and subsequent belief in the inherent authority of the believer to be the most primary foundational differences between us.   DH   I find the above  the most intriguing of your comments below.  "primary apostasy," and  "inherent authority of the believe" are not terms I understand from your point of view.  Splain, pleeeeze.     And, out of the curiosity,  why am I not considered "anti-Mormorn?     Jd      ___________________________________________________________         What is at the root of the disagreement between a knowledgeable Mormon and the traditional Christian thinker?   What say ye,   DH. DAVEH:   There are quite a few sticking points with me, John.   I'm not sure I could focus on only one though.  The foremost one that comes to mind most of the time I'm pondering our differences (usually while driving, for some reason) is our different understandings of the nature of hell.  I've covered it quite a bit in times past, so there are probably few TTers who would want to hear my perspective again.     Another distinctly odd difference (from my perspective) is the commonl y held belief by Protestants who can accept the pre-morta l existence of God, Jesus and angels, yet deny that we could have existed there as well.     The Trinity Doctrine is another theory that I find intriguing, as it seems to me to be so obviously contrived.  I suppose there are things about LDS theology that would cause TTers to think similarly.     Theologically though, the failure to recognize the primary apostasy and subsequent belief in the inherent authority of the believer to be the most primary foundational differences between us.     Obviously there are tons of other differences of varying degrees of importance.  But the ones I've mentioned above seem to be the ones that I've found curiously interesting.   Each one seems so readily apparent (to me) that I am quite amazed that it is so difficult for Protestants to view it in simila r light.  I tend to attribute it to the house of car ds theology theory though.  IF a Protestant were to agree with me on any single point above, the rest of the house would flutter to the gutter.  Hence, it might explain why there is such a vehement reluctance by some to agree with any single point a Mormon may make.....or even allow another fellow Christian that latitude.     If you were to ask me what I think a Protestant's disagreement would be with Mormonism, I would suspect that two words would be at the root of his feelings.....Joseph Smith.  But that's just a guess on my part.  How do you see it John? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes  !!!   and this is perhaps more to the point than my thinking.   But the peripheral discussion(s) actually, in a way,  strengthen(s) the "opposition"   (in this case,  DH) in that we allow him to (the opponent)  continue in the single most important concept of his personal theology and upon which all else is based  (for him).    What is at the root of the disagreement between a knowledgeable Mormon and the traditional Christian thinker?   What say ye,   DH.    JD      -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.