One True Church of Christ?
Peter Olcott
and this seems amiss.
It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If doctrine is
not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called truth.
Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible human
beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some least
traces of error.
Therefore the one true church of Christ would seem to
inherently require a living breathing, walking talking
Christ, otherwise the best that can be achieved is a
reasonable facsimile.
Stormin Mormon
might not be living in apartment in Jackson County MO, but
we do believe he's alive.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message
news:dYmdnVNbKpcsFI_T...@giganews.com...
Dr. of LOVE, M.D.
> I have been investigating the church for several years now
> and this seems amiss.
> It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If doctrine is
> not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called truth.
> Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible human
> beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some least
> traces of error.
The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for instance the
necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to be recognized
by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints.
Logan Sacket
How do we know that they are doctrines pertinent to salvation in the
first place?
Dr. of LOVE, M.D.
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 06:36:49 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. of LOVE, M.D."
>
Baptism is the process that removes sin.
Removing sin is essential to be reconciled to GOD.
Thusly, salvation.
� R. L. Measures.
logan....@gmail.com wrote:
� Nobody knows Logan, which is what makes organized religion the slickest
scam ever invented by man.
--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
psst
Here's how to tell. If a doctrine sounds like it was copped
from a previous form of Christianity and wouldn't sound
odd to most Americans, it's pertinent to salvation.
If a doctrine sounds like something someone in the wild
west came up with in eighteen hundred something,
it's not pertinent to salvation. It only matters that a prophet
said it if it's already been determined by the above method
that it's pertinent to salvation. One caveat: "among the saints"
is not as simple an identifier as those who use it would like
"non-saints" to think...
Dr. of LOVE, M.D.
On Jul 6, 11:33 am, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
> In article <4e1976d9.3133...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>
>
>
>
> logan.sac...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 06:36:49 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. of LOVE, M.D."
> ><t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Jul 4, 11:49 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
> >>> I have been investigating the church for several years now
> >>> and this seems amiss.
> >>> It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If doctrine is
> >>> not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called truth.
> >>> Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible human
> >>> beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some least
> >>> traces of error.
>
> >>The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for instance the
> >>necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to be recognized
> >>by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints.
>
> >How do we know that they are doctrines pertinent to salvation in the
> >first place?
>
> • Nobody knows Logan,
I think logan would disagree with you that nobody knows him.
Dr. of LOVE, M.D.
> In article <4e1976d9.3133...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for instance the
> >>necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to be recognized
> >>by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints.
>
> >How do we know that they are doctrines pertinent to salvation in the
> >first place?
>
> • Nobody knows
Which is false since I already posted it in this very thread.
Logan Sacket
You said, " the necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to
be recognized by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints."
The Bible says that Baptism is water used wtih the Word of God, and
faith comes by hearing, and Biblically, infants can believe. It says
nothing about rituals, modes or authority
And why do you believe that baptism is a necessity for eternal life?
The Gospel of Mark says that it is not the absence of baptsim that
condems but the absence of faith.
Logan Sacket
wrote:
>In article <4e1976d9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
I have little trouble with orgainzed religion, but when they stray
from orthodox doctrine, they are better off not existing.
Logan Sacket
You jest...
Logan Sacket
Someone just assumes because someone else made the claim.
I don't see your view of salvation any different than playing the
board game of Life.
Sugar Daddy
It most certainly does and I have quoted some of the relevant passages
in this newsgroup extensively.
And don't ask me to do it again, as we have little time.
>
> And why do you believe that baptism is a necessity for eternal life?
> The Gospel of Mark says that it is not the absence of baptsim that
> condems but the absence of faith.- Hide quoted text -
Do you believe GOD?
Then you will do what he says.
Sugar Daddy
> I don't see your view of salvation any different than playing the
> board game of Life.
Your view of what I think is immaterial to what I actually think.
psst
Many a true word's spoken in jest.
Sugar Daddy
> Many a true word's spoken in jest.- Hide quoted text -
You need to go to hell.
That will cure you.
� R. L. Measures.
<43b26121-7399-4c94...@u30g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, "Dr.
of LOVE, M.D." <quar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 11:33 am, r...@somis.org (=95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>> In article <4e1976d9.3133...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> logan.sac...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 06:36:49 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. of LOVE, M.D."
>> ><t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Jul 4, 11:49 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
>> >>> I have been investigating the church for several years now
>> >>> and this seems amiss.
>> >>> It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If doctrine is
>> >>> not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called truth.
>> >>> Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible human
>> >>> beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some least
>> >>> traces of error.
>>
>> >>The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for instance the
>> >>necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to be recognized
>> >>by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints.
>>
>> >How do we know that they are doctrines pertinent to salvation in the
>> >first place?
>>
>> =95 Nobody knows Logan,
>
>I think logan would disagree with you that nobody knows him.
chortle
� R. L. Measures.
<9fc92888-c056-459f...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, "Dr.
of LOVE, M.D." <quar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 11:33=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>> In article <4e1976d9.3133...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>> >>The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for instance the
>> >>necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to be recognized
>> >>by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints.
>>
>> >How do we know that they are doctrines pertinent to salvation in the
>> >first place?
>>
>> =95 =A0Nobody knows
>
>Which is false since I already posted it in this very thread.
zzzzzzzzz
Sugar Daddy
> of LOVE, M.D." <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 6, 11:33 am, r...@somis.org (=95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
> >> In article <4e1976d9.3133...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> >> logan.sac...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 06:36:49 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. of LOVE, M.D."
> >> ><t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>On Jul 4, 11:49 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
> >> >>> I have been investigating the church for several years now
> >> >>> and this seems amiss.
> >> >>> It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If doctrine is
> >> >>> not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called truth.
> >> >>> Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible human
> >> >>> beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some least
> >> >>> traces of error.
>
> >> >>The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for instance the
> >> >>necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to be recognized
> >> >>by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints.
>
> >> >How do we know that they are doctrines pertinent to salvation in the
> >> >first place?
>
> >> =95 Nobody knows Logan,
>
> >I think logan would disagree with you that nobody knows him.
>
> chortle
� R. L. Measures.
logan....@gmail.com wrote:
� the degree of orthodoxy is in the eyes of the beholder.
Sugar Daddy
> • the degree of orthodoxy is in the eyes of the beholder.
Logan Sacket
If you believe what you claim, then answer the question.
Or dodge the question. The readers will decide.
Logan Sacket
I don't have any idea what you think, you seem to have a difficut time
explaining yourself.
psst
Seriously...find something that a current LDS Authority
has said in public (non-exclusively LDS public venues)
about what they believe concerning salvation and Jesus
and see if it differs significantly from what representatives
of other Christian sects say about salvation and Jesus in
public.
Stormin Mormon
closer to other churches than they want to admit. But, the
Bible readers of the world have argued for centuries.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"psst" <psst_...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:iv5k6...@drn.newsguy.com...
Shift 7 or Ampersand
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:56:08 -0700 (PDT), Sugar Daddy
>
> >On Jul 6, 4:50 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>
> >> I don't see your view of salvation any different than playing the
> >> board game of Life.
>
> >Your view of what I think is immaterial to what I actually think.
>
> I don't have any idea what you think
Then why did you make a comparison involving my worldview.
Do you not even know what you are typing here?
Shift 7 or Ampersand
First rule of a troll is to claim someone hasn't answered a question
when they already have.
Logan Sacket
That's part of the problem. The face that LDS put on in public says
nothing about rituals, endowment, sealed marriage, the person of Jesus
Christ, etc. A Christian can only accept LDS doctrine if they don't
believe in one transcendent God, that Christ is incarnate, the
complete attornment and the Gospel of grace through faith alone.
What current authority says has little relevance. Are LDS taught that
there is a planet Kolob or that Christ lived in America for a while?
Sounds like something from the wild wild West.
Of course current authorities are not going to say this in public. It
is an embarrassment.
Logan Sacket
Who are you I responded to someone else.
Shift 7 or Ampersand
Now you are unaware.
Check out the email.
t2judgment
t2judgment
t2judgment
are you an idiot.
BTW, it is me
quarke=t2judgment also
Now stop evading my post.
• R. L. Measures.
<1c7e7caa-fe5d-421f...@fv14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Sugar Daddy <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 7:46=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>> In article
>> <43b26121-7399-4c94-aba2-6c524d468...@u30g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, "Dr.
>> of LOVE, M.D." <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 6, 11:33 am, r...@somis.org (=3D95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>> >> In article <4e1976d9.3133...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>
>> >> logan.sac...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 06:36:49 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. of LOVE, M.D."
>> >> ><t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>On Jul 4, 11:49 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> I have been investigating the church for several years now
>> >> >>> and this seems amiss.
>> >> >>> It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If doctrine is
>> >> >>> not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called truth.
>> >> >>> Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible human
>> >> >>> beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some least
>> >> >>> traces of error.
>>
>> >> >>The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for instance the
>> >> >>necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to be recognized
>> >> >>by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints.
>>
>> >> >How do we know that they are doctrines pertinent to salvation in the
>> >> >first place?
>>
>> >> =3D95 =A0Nobody knows Logan,
>>
>> >I think logan would disagree with you that nobody knows him.
>>
>> chortle
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DDU_ggFovJNo&feature=3Drelated
"The video you have requested is not available."
Shift 7 or Ampersand
> "The video you have requested is not available."
So?
• R. L. Measures.
<7b9f622c-6e24-4439...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Shift
7 or Ampersand <quar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 8, 11:39=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
>> "The video you have requested is not available."
>
>So?
** Post something that IS.
&
> In article
> <7b9f622c-6e24-4439-a335-b1d2b7de9...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Shift
> 7 or Ampersand <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 8, 11:39=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
> >> "The video you have requested is not available."
>
> >So?
>
> ** Post something that IS.
It was.
And you don't make demands.
Logan Sacket
I can't deal with people who have a dissociative identity disorder
&
I don't have that.
That is just google inposed posting limits.
But you have taken dissociatives.
You have the former MPD.
• R. L. Measures.
<3323224b-cac1-4226...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, "&"
<t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 9, 5:18=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>> In article
>> <7b9f622c-6e24-4439-a335-b1d2b7de9...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Shif=
>t
>> 7 or Ampersand <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 8, 11:39=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>
>> >> "The video you have requested is not available."
>>
>> >So?
>>
>> ** =A0Post something that IS.
>
>It was.
>And you don't make demands.
** So post something else that is not available.
&
>
>
>
>
>
> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 9, 5:18=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <7b9f622c-6e24-4439-a335-b1d2b7de9...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Shif=
> >t
> >> 7 or Ampersand <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 8, 11:39=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
> >> >> "The video you have requested is not available."
>
> >> >So?
>
> >> ** =A0Post something that IS.
>
> >It was.
> >And you don't make demands.
>
> ** So post something else that is not available.
Which part of you don't make demands didn't you understand?
• R. L. Measures.
<e9d459d3-f4a4-44d2...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, "&"
<t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 9, 6:15=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>> In article
>> <3323224b-cac1-4226-afc5-dfa8934f8...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, "&"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 9, 5:18=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95 R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <7b9f622c-6e24-4439-a335-b1d2b7de9...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, S=
>hif=3D
>> >t
>> >> 7 or Ampersand <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jul 8, 11:39=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95 R. L. Measures.) wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >> >> "The video you have requested is not available."
>>
>> >> >So?
>>
>> >> ** =3DA0Post something that IS.
>>
>> >It was.
>> >And you don't make demands.
>>
>> ** =A0So post something else that is not available.
>
>Which part of you don't make demands didn't you understand?
** the sins of the fathers are visited on the children.
Just Wondering
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 08:01:11 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. of LOVE, M.D."
> <quar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 6, 10:53 am, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 06:36:49 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. of LOVE, M.D."
>>>
>>> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 4, 11:49 pm, "Peter Olcott"<NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have been investigating the church for several years now
>>>>> and this seems amiss.
>>>>> It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If doctrine is
>>>>> not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called truth.
>>>>> Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible human
>>>>> beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some least
>>>>> traces of error.
>>>
>>>> The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for instance the
>>>> necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to be recognized
>>>> by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints.
>>>
>>> How do we know that they are doctrines pertinent to salvation in the
>>> first place?
>>
>> Removing sin is essential to be reconciled to GOD.
>> Thusly, salvation.
>
> be recognized by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints."
>
> faith comes by hearing, and Biblically, infants can believe. It says
> nothing about rituals, modes or authority
>
> The Gospel of Mark says that it is not the absence of baptsim that
> condems but the absence of faith.
Read the NT account of Jesus submitting Himself to His cousin, John the
Baptist, to be baptized by him.
Peter Olcott
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:iuuudq$de4$1...@dont-email.me...
> Christ did appear to several people after his death. He
> might not be living in apartment in Jackson County MO, but
> we do believe he's alive.
>
What I am saying is that it may be presumptuous to consider
any words not coming directly from his mouth to be truth.
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
>
> "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message
> news:dYmdnVNbKpcsFI_T...@giganews.com...
> I have been investigating the church for several years now
> and this seems amiss.
> It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If doctrine
> is
> not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called
> truth.
> Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible human
> beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some least
> traces of error.
>
> Therefore the one true church of Christ would seem to
> inherently require a living breathing, walking talking
> Christ, otherwise the best that can be achieved is a
> reasonable facsimile.
>
>
>
Peter Olcott
"Dr. of LOVE, M.D." <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85466f87-39c9-4dba...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 4, 11:49 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com>
wrote:
> I have been investigating the church for several years now
> and this seems amiss.
> It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If doctrine
> is
> not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called
> truth.
> Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible human
> beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some least
> traces of error.
The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for instance
Peter Olcott
"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e15c98c...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:33:54 -0700, r...@somis.org (. R. L.
> Measures.)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <4e1976d9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>logan....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 06:36:49 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. of LOVE,
>>>M.D."
>>><t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 4, 11:49 pm, "Peter Olcott"
>>>><NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have been investigating the church for several years
>>>>> now
>>>>> and this seems amiss.
>>>>> It seems that truth is an all-or-none thing, If
>>>>> doctrine is
>>>>> not infallibly correct, then it can not aptly called
>>>>> truth.
>>>>> Since all doctrine comes through inherently fallible
>>>>> human
>>>>> beings, all doctrine is possibly subject to at some
>>>>> least
>>>>> traces of error.
>>>>
>>>>The doctrines that are pertinent to salvation, for
>>>>instance the
>>>>necessity and mode of baptism with proper authority to
>>>>be recognized
>>>>by Jesus Christ are not in dispute among the saints.
>>>
>>>salvation in the
>>>first place?
>>
>>scam ever invented by man.
>
> I have little trouble with orgainzed religion, but when
> they stray
> from orthodox doctrine, they are better off not existing.
The problem is determining who has the authority to
determine what is "orthodox".
I say that ultimately only Christ himself has this authority
and every other source is less reliable.